Michael

This thread: "https://forums.hybridz.org/topic/59086-enginetrans-weights-definitive/" has some excellent information, but also leaves me a bit stumped. It gives 363 lbs for the long-block L24 dressed with intake/exhaust bits. A later post in the same thread gives 589 pounds for a complete L28, transmission and clutch/flywheel parts. Maybe I’m compareing apples to oranges, but are the flywheel/clutch transmission 200+ pounds? A later posting gives 291 pounds for the Datsun L16. Again, maybe apples to oranges, but if a 4-cyliner is 291 pounds, would it be reasonable for a six-cylinder from the same family (50 % larger?) to be only a few pounds more? And finally, in the same thread, the S52 (American version of E36 M3, after the stroke was increased for the 1996 model-year) is reported as weighing 406 pounds for the long-block. Not to impute any of the participants in the above-cited thread, but the spread in weights is, to me, counterintuitive. The inline-6s should (I think) be heavier. Having another data point, now for the S54, would be very welcome comparison with the S52!

Just out of curiosity, have you had a chance to weigh that S54?

Nevertheless, the question remains topical. Of the three links in this thread, two are dead; only the Longchamp link still works. Writing in 2019, it is parlously difficult to find wheels in 114.3 mm 4-lug pattern, with the appropriate backspacing, to fit an S30 Z. Coilovers help, owing to reduce spring-diameter, but only so much... assuming removal/relocation of the spring perch. In other words, the search today, is harder than the search 8 years ago, which in turn, is harder than the search 19 years ago, when this site started. The only popular 4-lug RWD car for wheel-fitment, with good aftermarket support, is the Mazda Miata. It enjoys good aftermarket wheel choices, for light wheels at reasonable prices. But the bolt-pattern is 100mm, not 114.3. In today's market, the "best" option would be something custom, or perhaps with a blank center custom-drilled to accommodate the S30... or alternatively, a 5-lug conversion. And that observation, I humbly submit, merits an update of a 8-year-old thread.

"https://forums.hybridz.org/topic/60536-alignment-settings/" The camber numbers are similar to JohnC's "race" setup. The "street" setup has about half of the camber-angle. Regarding the rear toe... it is not inconceivable that there is a manufacturing-flaw in the McPherson strut housings... that is, in how the hole for the spindle-pin was drilling into the casting. It's a defect on the parts themselves, and not a function of how the suspension is set up. The remedy would be to find another McPherson strut assembly. This problem is, I think, more common on the front-end; I had to go through several junkyard parts to find a matched-pair that was symmetric

Very nice! That's precisely the sort of build-philosophy, of which I'd like to see more. What does it weigh? How far back did you set the firewall? What did you use as a guide, to design the front suspension geometry?

It's a generational thing. Persons who are sufficiently old as to remember when the 240Z first came out, would likely feel more visceral comfort with carbs. Those who weren't yet born when the last OEM carburated car left the assembly-line, would presumably have the opposite proclivity. This reminds me of the adage, that most fuel-flow problems are actually ignition (or other electrical) problems. Jon... not to hijack the thread, or to cause offense, but when did you change your philosophy, to favor the V8? Were you not, for many years, in the inline-6 camp?

I'm confused... on all of your various iterations, the alternator is outboard of the driver's side cylinder head. Why can't the alternator be placed in front of the cylinder head, if necessary with "long"-style water pump, and thereby more tucked-in?

I absolutely detest Facebook. It's an awkward format, evidently aimed at housewives vying to impress each other with the most fluffy cake-batter mix. There's no ready means for an extended discussion that's not sullied with inane comments and sprinkles with graphical objective that are ostensibly decorative, but really are only distracting. And then there's the ads. The idea of combining a camera with a portable telephone remains lost on me. Yes, I have a "smartphone", but it takes putrid-quality pictures. Anything presentable requires a proper SLR, and subsequent editing in Photoshop, on a computer. As a person who sits in front of a computer all day, I find its keyboard and user-interface to be far superior to those of a phone. Thus, it is forums, and not some other medium, that are easiest to use, whether as a mere reader or a contributor.

On the contrary, your initiative forms a sensible and useful basis for updating our perceptions as the ensuing months and years roll by. Of course this site isn't completely "dead", but its volume of activity is a paltry fraction of what it was in 2000-2005. Now a comment on the topic of Facebook supplanting forums for automotive discussions. Recently I relented and joined Facebook, via a placeholder account (not my real name, no personal information). The sole objective was to join automotive discussion groups. While occasionally there's an informative or amusing post, the predominant trend is daft and episodic journalizing of recent events... I went here, I saw that, hey neat, let's collect digital affirmations. The technical questions tend toward the elementary (why won't my car start?). The user-interface seems to be aimed at being colorful and pleasing to the eye, rather than conducive to searching for information, for archiving it, for having any sort of stewardship. In other words, it's a pale and pathetic facsimile of forums.

It sounds like a good strategy would be to first make a list of proposals, from the very mild to the egregiously aggressive, and submit them to a TÜV inspector. That would ultimately bracket the possibilities. Is there some option where you first run your freshly-built car on race-tracks only, then obtain some endorsement of safety and reliability from the track officials, and use that endorsement to solicit approval for usage on public roads? If, as seems to often be the case, it is unlikely to source an S30 Z in decent condition in Germany, and your project becomes part swap/grafting, part rust-abatement, part reconstitution of the interior and the supporting mechanical/electrical systems, and part welding of a new chassis-frame, then perhaps there’s merit in reconsidering your options entirely. One possibility, again depending on what the TÜV people say, is to start with a complete wrecked Tesla, harvesting the front and rear clips, a portion of the battery and the battery control system. You would then build a custom sports-car from scratch, but would register it as a “Tesla”… except that it would be considerably lighter, more compact and therefore sportier. You could also do the opposite, of calling your new creation a “Z”, registering it as a Z, but using only a smattering of Z-sourced components, such as maybe the windshield and windshield frame, the roof, A and C pillars… and making everything else custom. Lastly, you could do the aforementioned for some other car, that’s also a 2-seater sports car, but is more common in Europe, for which components are easier to source. One possibility is an even older car – maybe something from the 1950s? – which might be subjected to less stringent requirements on safety and so forth, and would therefore be easier to register?

Considering how much engineering went into the suspension geometry, the structural design and so forth, it seems to be sensible to swap the entire subframe into the Z, without redoing anything "inside" of the subframe itself... even if this means incongruously-looking wide rear track. BTW, what actually is the difference in rear track width? For a "straight" rear subframe swap, you'd "only" need to engineer hard-points that receive the rear subframe, and connect them to the stock unibody. While it is intellectually satisfying to do this in CAD, then maybe CNC-cut the resulting parts, this seems like a misallocation of resources. Maybe it is better to employ the shadetree method, of first bracing the inner fenders and so forth with temporarily welded-in members, then taking a sawz-all to the stock structure, leaving a gaping hole into which to trial-fit the Tesla components? Also, considering that you're in Germany, how will you get this through your TUEV inspection and so forth? And what is your strategy for mounting the battery packs?

Nicely done! Not to quibble, but race against the Corvette was relatively close. You had, one supposes, an advantage of something like 600 pounds and (unless the Vette was a Z06?) at least 50 hp?

Seriously? THE David Vizard? He's still alive?

That's an ongoing debate, with lots of anecdote but no definitive data. That said, "anecdote" points to ~100 pounds difference in weight between the totally stripped metal tub of an early 240 and a 77-78 280. Perhaps BoulderCharles will have occasion to weigh the stripped-down tub, if he embarks on an ambitious restoration/modification. Back to the topic, this looks like a solid purchase. The Z market has changed over the life of this forum. Back in the year 2000, a good (but not spectacular) condition 280Z could be found for $1500 or so. It would have blemishes, but in many cases only "minimal" rust. Today, from what I've seen, that price-point has risen by a factor of 3 or 4. So, this particular purchase is an excellent deal! I look forward to seeing the progress of the build.

Nice build! Granted that it's too late to presently matter, but have you considered setting the firewall back, to create more room in the engine-bay, and to set the engine even further back? Given the plethora of fabrication-skills that we see on the Forum, I'm surprised that this modification isn't more common.

As tube80z pointed out, technology incessantly advances. Parts that were formerly experimental and custom become mainstream, and eventually available for sharp discount on the used-market. Donor-cars that were formerly prized and expensive, become junkyard finds. When some of us first dabbled in this whole V8 Datsun thing, the LS-series was brand new, and the aftermarket was first getting around to supply aluminum heads for the first-generation Chevy V8. The first decision to make, is whether the car is even worth keeping. Rust? General condition? Does it drive well? Imagine the same car, but with tighter suspension and maybe twice the horsepower. Would that make a huge difference? If so, proceed. If not, not. What sort of bodywork is required? Is it only cosmetic, or is structural remediation necessary? Assuming that the body is in good shape, I'd proceed with suspension and brakes. Avoid the temptation for ambitious upgrades... keep things mild. The FAQ on this Forum is invaluable! Make small, incremental changes... and keep driving the car. Minimize time spent on jackstands! That way, if anything goes awry, or not to your liking, it could be reversed... or the car could be sold, at minimal loss. Oh, and please post photographs. We want to see what this thing looks like!

Post a photograph of the engine compartment. From this we can discern whether the original swap was the "JTR method" or the less advantageous non-setback one. If there's rust in the floorboards, almost certainly there is rust elsewhere, in nontrivial amounts. This may or may not require immediate attention, but it does merit jacking up the car (suitably supporting it!) and a thorough examination. Some rust, while annoying, is only cosmetic. This particular car evidently has a 5-lug rear conversion. Does it also have a solid rear-axle conversion? Such a conversion remains controversial even to this day... but properly done, it has its own appeal. What is the rear-axle ratio? If the transmission is a TH350, it won't have an overdrive gear, which is annoying on the highway. Lack of overdrive is, in my opinion, the main reason for why a "race car" is unpalatable on the street.... something to consider. Otherwise the standard routine is to examine and possibly refresh the engine. Do you have specs on the cam? The heads? The compression ratio? Have you done a compression-test? The standard tuning-approach applies, whether it's a Datsun or a Chevelle... lots of literature on that. BTW congratulations on the purchase! Aesthetically it looks aggressive, without being outright garish. Those fender-flairs nicely split the difference between too-much and not-enough. But I do wonder about the rear axle... the rear wheels aren't particularly wide, yet they protrude considerably outboard. Perhaps the axle is too wide? Could it be narrowed? 4-link or ladder-bar or something else?

There is, if memory serves, a JTR book for the S10, just as there is for the Datsun Z. It presumably has the relevant information.

Another issue is the primacy of class-rules. Some very intuitively appealing things - by my reckoning - may run afoul of class rules. One example is the business with the total included-angles in the main hoop. Must be < 180 deg? Consult the rule book. And on a similar subject: can the hoop be welded to the surrounding sheet-metal? If so, this ought to be of particular value in alleviating the aforementioned C-pillar stress concentration. We should probably move this thread to the brakes/suspension/chassis sub-forum.... mods???

Welcome "back", Katman! For many of us, the problem is ostensibly a simple one.... after many years of hibernation or at most sporadic use, the Z finally gets a chance to stretch its legs. The engine runs, more or less. Things creak in the suspension, but it suspends, more or less. Even the headlights work. And the brakes? They worked in the driveway. Finally getting the car up to speed on the local rural road, I press the brakes, and... mush. I pump them, and yes, they sort-of work... but the car pulls hard to the left. One can feel a set of brakes (front left? rear right?) lock up and smoke... while another set feels like somebody greased the pad with bacon-fat. Then comes the question: what should I do? Those pads, remember, haven't been changed since the 1990s. Maybe even the 1980s. Do the calipers even work? The brake fluid is older than some of the members on this forum. So... should get refurbished stock parts from Autozone, bleed the brakes, and call it good? Maybe I should. That would be the economical thing to do. But for many people, it feels deficient, inadequate, simplistic. Technology has moved on! Progress!! And I should install parts that were already so-so almost 50 years ago??? Thus, the quandary. It's not about racetrack performance. It's about personal psychology.

The thread cited in CalZ's post is indeed immensely helpful. Unfortunately, the principal link with photographs, http://s160.beta.photobucket.com/user/psanders240/library/BSR-260Z-IMSA, is now broken. The thread hasn't been updated in 3 years, since its main contributor (JohnC) died. The original thread is from 9 years ago. My own subjective belief is that the attempt to structurally strengthen the Z, while admirable and maybe eventually necessary, tends to derail (no pun intended) swap projects. Do the swap first, and get it running, even if the chassis is floppy and inappropriate for the aggressive amount of power. Also be mindful, as JohnC used to frequently observe, that suspension-loads are higher than drivetrain-loads. That is, chassis flex is a greater problem for a stock-powered Z driven in a racing situation, with stiff springs and aggressive turns, than in a Z with quadruple the power driven on the street (or in drag racing) with unmodified suspension. Also, if doing an aggressive engine/transmission/differential upgrade, almost invariably there will be metal cut, new metal welded and so forth. This means new points through which loads are passed. It also may mean that "conventional" approaches at strengthening the chassis can interfere with the swap-related mods. An example is the venerable "Ron Tyler differential mount", which was for the R200. Would it work for the R230? Probably not in "stock" form. So... fit the engine, do the swap, get it running, and THEN worry about alleviating chassis-flex. I speak from experience, because I did this backwards, worrying about the structure first. Yeah, it's rigid etc. And?... project has taken 20 years.

If the objective is to reduce noise without introducing undue restrictions, a dual-exhaust (with proper crossover) is the better solution, provided that there's enough room to accommodate mufflers of sufficient capacity. The venerable David Vizzard has an excellent discussion on the topic, in his "how to build horsepower" books. One pitfall that's affected many of us, is that mufflers from the muscle-car-oriented aftermarket exhaust purveyors tend to be loud. One gathers that this is more for style than outright performance. Google-search reveals some options. One example is http://myshinycar.com/quietest-mufflers-market-v8-3inch-mufflers/ . This is more of a puff-piece than an objective article, but even so, its various links are worthy of consideration. There is on this site a plethora of threads journalizing member's cars' exhaust layout, but to my knowledge there has not been any systematic acoustic test.

With a ZZ4 crate-engine (in the "JTR" position, or the "Scarab" position???) it is unlikely that the swap itself introduced a significant departure from stock weight distribution... some weight gain, yes,... but this should result in a more even settling of the car on its springs. If the back-end is significantly lower than the front, the likely culprits are (1) aftermarket tinkering, or (2) something really worn/damaged in the suspension. If the car is cosmetically pretty, structurally sound and gets fantastic acceleration, there's ample reason to tear into the suspension, to give the car the vitality of suspension that it deserves! So, the suggestion is to pull the rear (and eventually the front) struts, and perform the standard regimen of refreshment... new springs, new bushings, new shocks. This would also be a good time consider the intended use of the car... street driving, drag racing, road-racing, etc. The principal use would inform the choices for suspension-parts... lots of suggestions over in the suspension forum. And congratulations on a good-looking, hard-accelerating car!

One gathers, at least anecdotally, that for a well-flowing modern aluminum radiator, fan-requirements (CFM across a given pressure-drop) are surprisingly low. The above-cited fan supposedly flows 3000 CFM, but across what pressure-drop? And at what oncoming flow speed (basically the driving-speed of the car)? The reason for my skepticism is that the label purports that the fan only draws 80 Watts. That's not even 7 amps. But if it works, it works. Back in the proverbial good-old-days, the default solution was the "universal fit" Flex-a-Lite "Black Magic" fan; something like this: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/flx-168?seid=srese1&cm_mmc=pla-google-_-shopping-_-srese1-_-flex-a-lite&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7YblBRDFARIsAKkK-dIQeVohN8W2bXWd_eUn3Zd_7oQ4kn7sadbhZGekgV3KwmX1bVOABAgaAgnPEALw_wcB . It has about the same CFM and similar physical size, but is listed as drawing 19.5 amps (234 Watts). I can report good results with that fan, on a large-ish Griffin two-row aluminum radiator.

Let me try with another analogy. Toyota has in recent years been campaigning a NASCAR "Camry". It's a beautiful machine! As with all NASCAR entrants, it has tube-chassis and RWD and a big pushrod V8. And so forth. I'd love to buy one, and yes, drive it on the street - registered as an, ahem, Camry. That's the direction that I'd like to go with a Z. Why then even tangle with a Z at all? Emotional connection, decades spent on it, personal feels of one or another kind, and the opportunity to register a maximum-effort track-only race car as a supposed street car. My locale in principle allows that - well, maybe not, but it may still be possible without outright committing a crime. At the very least there is no smog-check or equipment-inspection.