Michael

Personally I’m worse off than I was four years ago. My stock investments plummeted, and my house has declined in value over the years. Do I blame Bush? No. Do I credit Clinton for the 1990’s economic boom? No. As others have already pointed out, the impact that politicians have on the economy is severely overstated. However, I give Clinton credit for doing one thing very, very well: he sat back and allowed the country to run on autopilot. Instead of offering “new dealsâ€, or “great societiesâ€, or “contracts with Americaâ€, he just screwed his intern and smoked cigars. Which, in my view, makes him an excellent chief executive. What disappoints me most about Bush is his lack of conservatism in some regards, and his social-conservative zeal in others. The medicare prescription drug “benefitâ€, the increased farm subsidies, the social engineering programs such as “promotion of marriage†– these are fiscally irresponsible measures that benefit neither the investor class nor the middle class, nor in most cases the poor. Bush has used taxation and government subsidies neither to advance the greater good nor to help the needy, but to redistribute wealth in accordance with his social agenda and his political strategy. It is neither conservative nor compassionate. But most of all I blame Bush for refusing to admit making mistakes. Even staunch supporters of the Iraq war would agree that the occupation was mismanaged, the manpower was inadequate and the basic philosophy of dealing with the “Arab street†was flawed. Simply admitting that mistakes were made, even in the glancing sense of Reagan after the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980’s, would go a great distance toward blunting criticism and building consensus. Instead, Bush regards himself as infallible and his decisions as immutable. Everything that he did was right, everything that his advisors recommended was correct, and any dissent or argument is flawed, if not outright seditious. BTW, after I broke my leg this past August, and the county ambulance came to fetch me, I indeed received a bill. My health insurance paid part (but not all) of it. But the curious thing is that the health insurance company negotiated with the emergency room, greatly lowering my eventual bill. I pity the fellow without health insurance, who got shafted paying the “retail†bill. See, we ALREADY have socialized medicine in this country! It’s just that the socialization is done very deviously.

Returning to the original theme of this thread…. … I disagree. I think that there SHOULD be room for non-automotive discussions on this site, be it about politics, religion, dating, whatever. Why? Because we’re a community. We’re more than just a discussion group on modified Z’s. Why? Because finding technical information on V8 swaps was only part of the reason that this forum was started in the first place. The other part was in reaction to the bashing and denigration on the more “traditional†Z forums, directed towards persons interested in engine swaps. Reaction to such discrimination produced a collection of concerns – philosophical concerns – far beyond merely technical issues. True, it’s critical that our discussions maintain a level of deference and politeness; and emotional, ranting posts that disregard such criteria will lead to trouble. But by and large, most folks have observed the “rules†when posting about even the most sensitive political and cultural topics. So, I would opine that so long as the tone and language of the posts adheres to the overarching Hybridz guidelines, any subject is fare game. Even the most controversial. Otherwise, we’re just another automotive discussion group!

In this and previous threads on roll cages, the main reasons cited for installing a cage have been, in no particular order: 1. safety (real or perceived) on the street (principal interest seems to be side impact protection) 2. safety on the track (here the principal interest tends to be rollover protection) 3. just passing tech inspection in order to be allowed to race on the track 4. stiffening the chassis to reduce body flex in turns, thus improving handling 5. stiffening the chassis to reliably accept high horsepower/torque 6. “while I’m at it†chassis improvement when making extensive rust repairs 7. appearance/fashion/self-esteem Well, the perspective of most of the experienced roll cage builders on this site is rooted in #2 and #4. And just to reiterate the obvious, success in objective #2 does not necessarily imply success in #1, nor does a cage built to conform to objective #3 necessarily perform well in any of the others. Meanwhile, many (if not most) off the shelf kit-type roll cages fall in #7. Fine. But I would say that it’s perfectly OK to build a cage for objective #5 (often comes along with #6), and not in the least meeting objectives #1, #2 or #3. Provided that you’re aware of the risks and you (or the cage builder) know what you’re doing. With that in mind, I think there’s plenty of wisdom in a “cage†which dispenses with the roll bar, but includes X-bars in the doors, a dash bar, connections between the rocker panels and the rear struts, and between the rear struts and the sheet metal supporting the rear hatch hinges. Ain’t no way would this “cage†meet objective #3 in any venue where a roll cage is required. But sometimes that’s not the point. The design can fail in many of the above objectives, without necessarily being relegated to category #7.

America is a socially conservative country. It would take a considerable disaster for the more socially conservative candidate to lose, especially if that candidate is the incumbent. So, I agree that the race isn’t as close as most media outlets have been reporting it to be. Bush will win handily. My own reasons for opposing Bush include the following: * Bush has inexorably been shifting more power to the executive branch, at the expense of the other two branches of government. It’s a trend that began with Roosevelt, continued with Nixon, and accelerated with Bush. Ultimately this destabilizes our form of government. * Even more so than Reagan, Bush has allowed himself to be swayed (some would say manipulated) by a select cadre of appointees and staffers, who have become an unelected de facto government. * While claiming (if only by implication) to be a fiscal conservative, Bush has actually expanded the welfare state. Examples include expansion of Medicare, handouts to farmers, and funding of social initiatives such as “promoting marriageâ€. Again, comparing with Reagan: Reagan’s deficit spending mostly went into defense, which ultimately meant more jobs and more corporate investment, at least in the short term. Bush’s deficit spending is going primarily into entitlements. * Bush seeks to pollute the Constitution with amendments to please his socially-conservative core constituency: banning flag burning and banning gay marriage, for example. This is offensive not only to social liberals and moderates, but also to constitutional conservatives. * Bush’s “faith-based initiatives†erode the separation between church and state. As for the Iraq war – well, Congress gave Bush the go-ahead, so it would be difficult to argue that the war is unconstitutional (for an example of unconstitutional war, consider Reagan’s covert assistance to the Nicaraguan contras in the mid 1980’s). That still leaves the question of whether the war was a good idea; that is, whether it’s justifiable, rather than merely “legalâ€. I think that among most of those Americans who still support the war, there is a perception that somehow Iraq was connected to 9/11 and Al Qaida. If there were strong evidence for such a connection, then the war WOULD be justifiable, regardless of the presence of WMD – as a prophylactic measure, as a security measure, and as just plain good old revenge – even if, as has turned out to be the case, the resulting occupation would be bloody, frustrating and divisive. But I would opine that no such connection exists.

Here’s my long-lost reply to Tannji’s post, from somewhere in the middle of this series; I suppose that much of this has been rendered obsolete by a half dozen pages of posts, but anyway, here goes… I would claim that the relationship between those in power, and those over whom that power is exercised, is necessarily adversarial. Sure, the situation is more benign when those who are in power are responsible, “compassionate†and driven by some sense of interest in the public good. But these are only idealizations! The only true limitation on those in power is friction with other concentrations of power. I suppose that in high school civics class, this is referred to as “checks and balancesâ€. If the three branches of government are fighting it out amongst themselves, they’ll be too preoccupied to bully the public. The Patriot Act, and recent political currents in general, is part of a shift in power towards the executive branch, at the expense of the legislature and the judiciary. We can not reasonably expect the executive branch to “be accountable and to make amends†unless it’s forced to do so. The PA weakens that forcing. And the more power vested in one branch of government, the greater the overall influence of government in our lives. I agree that magic abolition of government would only result in a power vacuum that would give rise to yet another, and probably worse iteration of government. It’s contrary to human nature to be able to organize into a group without vesting power in a central leadership. Yet, we should remember that setting limitations on that leadership is our number one priority. Most of us would agree that the abridgements of liberties to which Americans have been subjected in recent times are not extreme. It’s easy to point to much more onerous restrictions of liberty in prior cycles of national security threat and consequent government reaction. But we should assess the present situation, moderate as it may be, in terms of which direction it leads, if taken to a hypothetical extreme. Clearly, shutting down the FBI, summarily opening our borders, abolishing government power to wiretap in any circumstance whatsoever, and removing all security from our airports will lead to a situation where the risk of terrorist violence will be far greater. OTOH, implanting a radio ID tag in the neck of every American, installing closed-circuit television in every bedroom, and routing all e-mail through a government-monitored server would reduce the odds of a the terrorist attack, not to mention also reducing crime in general. I ask this: which of these two hypothetical extremes is the greater evil? My belief is that the latter is the greater evil. Why? Because life by its very nature is rife with risk, uncertainty and misfortune. It’s true that the cornerstone purpose of government is to facilitate a system where people can live together in some modicum of cooperation, and that this requires that the individual surrender some portion of self-determination in order to allow this cooperation. But risk reduction through government intervention rapidly degenerates into folly. I’d rather take the risk, recognizing the very real possibility of harm – than to accept the remedies to eradicate that risk! Terrorism is a risk. It may or may not happen. That shady character sitting next to you in a crowded flight – he may or may not be wishing to harm you, he may or may not be about to attempt to harm you, he may or may not be able to actually cause you harm – these are all possibilities, and unpleasant possibilities indeed. But government power is altogether a different animal. It is not limited by lack of ability, or lack of means, or inauspicious circumstance. Suffer government to grab enough power, and it WILL harm you. It’s not a question of risk; it is a certainty. Tannji wrote: “You have a choice. Let a terrorist violate your rights, or let the government.†Exactly! And here is my choice: I’ll let the terrorist violate my rights. Why? Because if he tries, he may or may not succeed. But the government is guaranteed to succeed. Consider that a common thread amongst most terrorists who hate America is hatred of pluralism; in particular, hatred of the idea that there should be limits on the extent to which society can oversee an individual’s actions. These “fundamentalists†advocate a paternalistic, intrusive state where the individual does strictly what is “taught†by the leaders – by the central organ of power – which conveniently places itself beyond the pale of questioning. The premise is that “good people†who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear from such state intrusions; it is only the miscreants who need fear the state’s wrath. Sound familiar? So what do we do about the threat of growing government power, especially executive power? Do we take to the streets, signing songs and carrying banners? Do we support radical candidates for public office? Do we stock up on ammo and canned food, and head for mountain hideaways? Well, these are all options, I suppose. But I think that it is precisely by bitching and moaning that we do the most PRACTICAL good! Why? Because by raising awareness, if necessary by erring on the side of radicalism, we can cajole the great majority of moderates to be more weary of potential government abuses. A couple of salient quotes, somewhat paraphrased: “If you agree to surrender some of your liberties as a sacrifice necessary to obtain more security, the result will be a loss of BOTH liberty AND securityâ€. (Ben Franklin) “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.†(James Madison)

So far this discussion of Democrat vs. Republican has been dominated by economics; raising or lowering taxes, abolishing or increasing entitlements. And this makes sense, if one subscribes to the idea that most people vote according to what’s best for their own wallet. But in this election, especially, my choice is confounded by the social issues. As a stockholder and relatively “affluent†person, at least according to the tax codes, my preference would have been Republican. But it seems to me that if you’re not an evangelical Christian, there’s no room for you in the modern Republican party. I support abortion, physician-assisted suicide and gay marriage. I oppose the display of the 10 commandments in public places, oppose amendments banning flag burning, and oppose “faith-based†initiatives. Socially, that pretty much makes me a lefty, right? But, I support gun rights, oppose affirmative action, and support the death penalty. Which makes it difficult to be a Democrat, either. But one has to choose; and for me, the rejection of adherence to a “moral blueprint†makes it impossible to vote Republican. Then there are the issues of foreign intervention. I thought that it was the Democrats who traditionally want to use American taxpayer money and risk American soldiers’ lives to “make the world safe for democracyâ€. And as I recall, it was W., back in the 2000 election cycle, who derided the concept of “nation buildingâ€. But how does that jive with the reality of the past 4 years? Following Cyrus’s original statement, I’d like to pose the following question: Why is it that in modern times we’re seeing such a close alliance of pro-business, free-market interests – with socially conservative interests? This year, I’m voting Libertarian.

Don’t sell! Set the whole project aside for awhile; maybe a couple of months. Then return to it, once your nerves are rested. If you sell everything, under a burden of disgust and frustration, you’ll only come to regret the sale, since you’re guaranteed to lose money on the sale, AND will find yourself without a sports car to tinker with. Seller’s remorse can be worse than buyer’s remorse.

Tannji (and others) – The price of being safe – that is, of having one’s safety maintained by an organization wielding authority – is obedience to that authority. This is the crux of the debate on this thread. There are some who resent the latter, but still desire the former. Others point out the inconsistency, and state that they’d gladly accept the authority if that’s the price of protecting life and limb. But I say: dispense with the authority, accepting loss of protection. It’s not the case that I would not be afraid of fanatics with AK-47’s. But rather, that I recognize that the price of dismantling the paternalism of authority is exposure to the dangers from which that paternalism is purported to protect. Hey, I don’t want to get blown up in a hijacked airliner either. But I’d actually rather have that happen to me, than to a heart-to-heart basement chat. My belief is that much as 9/11 was a horror and a tragedy, the steps that would have been necessary for completely foolproof proof protection from such an event would have been too onerous an assault on our liberties. This is the logic behind statement #3 in my prior post. Now, to answer Mike’s question – “what could I actually DO about the government, to make it better?†Well, for us government employees, there’s an insidious little law called the Hatch Act, which largely bans political (partisan) activity. I suppose I could donate to the Libertarian party, but that’s about it.

Pete, I didn’t want to identify folks by name, but yes, in my previous post I was thinking of you and others of my friends in the D.C. area. You make a critically important point, which has much to do with the psychology of the differences in our positions. You actually feel safer surrounded by a barbed wire fence and armed guards. Whereas I feel threatened! The barbed wire makes me think of Dachau. In your perspective, evidently, the guards are there to protect you, too. Protecting the “secrets†going on at the military base, and protecting the men and women who work on them, are intimately related. As a law-abiding citizen just doing his job, protecting the secrets means protecting you, too – hence, the guards are on your side. Whereas in my view, the interests of the government and of the individual are invariably at odds. The government which is “best†is that government that’s mired in confrontation with other concentrations of power, such a corporations, unions, PACs, churches, whatever. Then, the individual can “relax†while the various organs of power battle it out. Those teens in uniform toting M16s are there to protect the interests of the government. I do NOT see those interests as my interests. But I swallow my pride and stomach the situation, because I’d rather work in my relatively cushy job than pump gas or dig ditches, even if it means being surrounded by barbed wire. There indeed crumbles the courage of my convictions. The conservative newspaper columnist George Will put it quite deftly, when he wrote that a quintessential feature of government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence. I agree. But that is precisely what scares me. No terrorist, no matter how brutal, how cunning or how amoral, can exercise violence with “legitimacyâ€. And in that sense, terrorists can be fought. But government is special. Government can exercise violence legitimately – that is its prerogative. One can not hope to confront the government with violence, and entertain the hope – even in the abstract – of winning. If I may put forth some rather curt and perhaps inflammatory statements: 1. I personally feel far more threatened by soldiers with M16s than by turban-clad lunatics with Ak-47s. 2. Most emphatically, I do not believe that the U.S. should be at war, or that the “war on terrorism†is a war at all. War, by definition, is between nation-states; between governments. 3. And, to be entirely forthright, I would rather risk being blown up by terrorists than being interrogated in a basement cell of some federal building. I don’t say this in some benighted effort to appear heroic, in the “give me liberty or give me death†sense. But I’ve heard enough from first-hand sources about what it means to be “protected†by one’s government.

Several members on this board, including yours truly, are or were civil servants or government contractors, and in that capacity voluntarily submitted to intrusions into our privacy and abridgement of personal liberties in order to perform the jobs that we voluntarily undertook. Sure, it stands to reason that if you’re going to hold a clearance, you dutifully fill out your SF86 every 5 or 10 years. And if your office handles such and such information, that every envelope that hits your mailbox at work gets opened before it ever reaches you. But we need to remember that the rest of America isn’t run by the DoD. At least, not yet. It’s silly to expect that the average citizen should surrender his rights with as much alacrity as do civil servants. I work in a place surrounded by barbed wire and guards with M16s. Does that bother me? Yes, to considerable extent it does. But ultimately, that’s the life that I chose. I deal with it. But WHY should we expect that all Americans should have to just deal with it? It’s one thing to “have nothing to hideâ€, and therefore to cheerfully accept surveillance because the sensitivity of one’s occupation requires it. But the argument breaks down when we attempt to extend it to the general public. In the outside world, it is strictly upon suspicion of wrongdoing that surveillance is ever justifiable.

I think that even though one might be innocent of the criminal activity that some surveillance/search & seizure law is intended to thwart, one’s dignity as an individual is nevertheless diminished whenever police powers are enhanced. Here is a simple example: Red-light cameras might ticket only those drivers who run red lights, and arguably make the streets safer, while raising revenue for the city (which might otherwise had to have come from taxes). And if you don’t run red lights, you won’t get ticketed, so the cameras should not bother law-abiding citizens, right? Wrong. You are under surveillance, guilty or innocent. I would argue that this is an example of government intrusion; it assaults our dignity and affronts our rights. The issue is NOT whether law enforcement officials are irresponsible, corrupt, or flippant with their powers. Or even, whether some unfortunate mistakes might cause innocent people to be inconvenienced. The issue is the abstract principle: does the government possess such-and-such powers, or does it not? How do we, as a society, balance the need to be safe – whether from criminals within our midst, or foreign enemies – with the need to be free from paternalistic intervention by our government? I would argue (with some oversimplification) that all politicians, all persons in power, would seek to augment their power. Party affiliation, social class, economic background – it doesn’t matter. To use a national tragedy as an excuse to curtail individual liberties and to enhance government power, is the dream of any administration. The Bush administration was just lucky. A tragedy happened on their watch. A horrified, cowed public would gladly accept restrictive laws, if those laws were sold as being “necessary†to “protect†the public. Whenever America has been at war, or even undeclared perception of war, civil liberties have been curbed. It's been that way since the 18th century (Alien and Sedition acts), and the 20th century is rife with such examples. True, in many cases the excesses of government power have been temporary, when a backlash comes to sweep them away. Which indeed suggests, as Mikelly says, that the Patriot Act will be temporary too. But the mere fact that it’s temporary does not prove that it is presently useful, justifiable or sensible.

If money were truly no object, then the amount of customization would be so large that the choice of baseline car would be almost irrelevant. That said, starting with a Z, I would consider designing front and rear suspensions (probably unequal A-arm) from scratch. For the engine, I’d build an all-aftermarket big block Chevy – aluminum block (Rodeck or Merlin, for example), 4.5†bore and 4.0†stroke (comes out to about 510 cubic inches) – and go twin-turbo. I’d use one of the new aftermarket 6-speed gearboxes, and an aftermarket version of the Ford 9†rear (for example, Mark Williams) in a custom center section suitable for independent rear suspension. The engine would mount far enough back that the driveshaft would be maybe 8†long. The I’d build a chromoly tube frame to connect the various parts together. Composite (perhaps carbon fiber) panels would bolt to the tube frame to form the body. The outer mold lines (that is, the body shape) would go through several iterations of wind tunnel testing, aiming towards minimum drag and suitable downforce. Finally, I’d rivet the original VIN plate to the door jamb, and call the car a “Zâ€. My guess is that the engine alone might be pushing $70K, by the time the turbo plumbing, the oil system (dry sump, of course!) and the electronics were sorted out. The frame, welded professionally, would probably be another $50K, not including the custom design work and the stress analysis. If all the design, testing, fabrication and assembly work is done by professionals charging retail prices and labor rates commensurate with their expertise, I’d expect this car to be pushing $1M.

In the competition between safety and personal liberty, I prefer the latter. A big thank-you to the person who posted the link to the Libertarian party.

What about a Toyota 22R-E? It’s a SOHC 2.4L, found in the 1980’s RWD Celicas, and in Toyota trucks through the 1990’s. Not exactly a hot-rod motor, but plenty of torque, good fuel economy, easy to work on, and reliable.

Returning to the health care issue for a moment… I spent the first “formative†years of my life in the former USSR – socialized medicine in the extreme. For the past 24 years I’ve been an “adopted†American. I vaguely remember getting my shots in a government clinic in Leningrad, back in the 1970’s. And I remember all too well breaking my leg this August, the ensuing operation and my sojourn through the private medical system in the U.S. Observations…. If you are seriously, catastrophically ill, there is no better medical system than in the U.S.! When money is no object, when you need the best doctors and the most high-tech medicine, it’s right here. BUT, if you are basically healthy and require only minor, occasional care – such as vaccinations, tooth fillings and blood pressure medicine, you’re better off under socialized medicine. Why? Because when cost and convenience matter more than quality and sophistication, the socialist system of distribution has an advantage. The additional advantage is that in socialized medicine, doctors are employees – civil servants – and not private businessmen. Taking the profit motive out of medicine will hurt innovation and will lower the quality of high-end treatment, but by decimating the prestige of doctors and the medical profession, it makes medical service a commodity. If you have good health insurance, it’s the best of both worlds – at least, for your immediate purposes (high quality care for low out-of-pocket price). But in the long term, this situation is unstable. If you get a heart attack that requires a $70,000 operation, and your out-of-pocket cost is $400, some one still has to pay. In my one case – getting metal plates to reconnect broken bones in my leg – the quality of care probably would have been the same in either system. It’s a relatively low-tech procedure – it probably hasn’t changed in 50 years. But I actually would have preferred to deal with doctors who were salaried employees, not private businessmen. They would have been less arrogant and more accommodating.

I recently bought a Lincoln Weld Pak 100. I have zero experience welding. My original intention was to get a Hobart 135 or 175, but the deal on the Weld Pak 100 was too good to forego (it was a returned item at Home Depot). At this point my plan is to purchase a good, auto-darkening helmet, the appropriate diameter and material wire spool, and to commence my attempts at welding sheet metal. The immediate application of interest is the 280Z hood – which unfortunately is light-gauge, and thus probably challenging. I’ve observed in other threads some skepticism about the suitability of a wire welding (no gas shielding, at least not yet) on light-gauge mild steel. However, these are non-structural parts, and I don’t particularly care about aesthetics (splatter and burned holes are OK – this is not a show car). Am I setting myself up for trouble?

Gen II (1970-1982?) Chevrolet Camaro front rotor assemblies (they're one-piece, just like the Z) fit the 280Z spindles. I confirmed this in a junkyard: removed a rotor from a mid-70's Camaro, installed it on a Z, tightened the bearing retainer nut, then backed off slightly. The wheel spins freely and there is no rocking perpendicular to the spindle axis. There are two ambiguities. First, the what to do about the brakes? Obviously you can get aftermarket calipers that fit the Chevy rotors, but how to mount them? This would require some sort of custom adaptor. I highly doubt (but am not sure) that a Chevy caliper or its aftermarket replacements would bolt to the stock Datsun strut casting. The second problem is the bearing grease seal; the fillet radius of the Datsun spindle is actually larger than the Chevy spindle. A proper fit would require a grease seal with an inner race conforming to the Datsun spindle geometry, and an outer surface that fits the Chevy rotor assembly. Somewhere I heard that there are standard dimensions for grease seals - only a half dozen or so, which cover all passenger cars. If that's true, it might not be difficult to find a match. So, I think that if the two problems mentioned above were solved, we'd have a cheap bolt-in solution (junkyard Chevy parts) for both better brakes and more common 5-lug wheel pattern for the front wheels. And probably the Wilwood etc. aftermarket parts would be cheaper for the Chevy components than for Datsun components.

5foot2, The mount locations and bellhousing pattern for the Mark IV BBC are the same as for the Gen I SBC. This makes it possible, in many cases, to swap in the one for the other. As a BBC-Z owner whose car is a perennial garage queen, I would recommend that you build a fairly conventional small-block-powered car first, then worry about structural reinforcement, then worry about rear-end upgrades, and only then consider switching to a big block. Unless, of course, you have extensive experience building big blocks, in which case the cautionary advice is probably misplaced. The consensus on this board is that an R200 differential and stock 280Z rear end components will reliable handle power levels in the 400-hp range, and possibly higher. Variables include tire stickiness, 60'-times, transmission types, etc. Halfshafts are the most common failure item - several vendors on this board offer CV-jointed alternatives, which are often combined with brake upgrades. There are many bolt-in alternatives which would improve rear-end grip and durability, before having to resort to complete suspension surgery. My own car has rather elaborate structural modifications, a 461 cubic inch BBC set 6" further back than the JTR SBC-location (the ultimate limitation is the distributor running into the windshield), a Doug Nash 5-speed gearbox, but completely stock suspension and brakes. Why? Because I plan to phase-in the suspension mods gradually, as the car matures and my needs evolve. The structural reinforcements are insurance for future growth. Bolt-in items can easily be added later. This, I think, justifies postponing the decision to switch from an independent rear suspension to a 4-link.

Guys, please pardon my ignorance, but this is very confusing - 14 psi turbo boost, $12,000, and 13.5 @ 103 in the quarter mile? With that much boost, and for that much money, it seems to me that one ought to expect just a little bit better acceleration???

Karl, Getting a 240Z to be as safe and reliable as a modern car would be a considerable challenge, depending of course on what we mean by “safe and reliableâ€. Equipping the 240Z with airbags, antilock brakes and traction control is out of the question. In that sense, it won’t be as safe as your Saturn. But relatively modest upgrades in brakes and suspension will bring your Z’s handling and stopping ability on par with the average late-model car. With a more generous investment in parts and labor, the Z will stop faster and outcorner the majority of new cars, including many labeled as sports cars. Reliability is in the eye of the beholder. Old parts break more often than new parts. You can’t expect the 240Z to be as trouble-free a cross-country touring car as what we find in the showroom in 2004. On a cold winter day, it won’t start as readily as a new car. On a midnight drive down a country road, a blown fuse taking out the headlights is far more likely than in a new car. The dome light amy stop working for no reason, the heater core may leak and the lock on the rear hatch could jam – all on the same trip. On the other hand, if and when parts do break, they’re easier to fix on a Z. A burnt clutch in the Saturn almost guarantees a trip to a mechanic, and a >$1000 repair bill (this exact thing happened in my mother’s 1995 Saturn SL). A burnt clutch in a Z can be fixed in your garage, at one third the price. I would recommend that you keep driving your Saturn for a few years, but look for a decent 240Z in the meanwhile. What’s wrong with having two cars at once? Tinkering with the Z is far more practical when you have a reliable beater for daily transportation. Start by replacing suspension bushings, bleeding the brakes, replacing front wheel bearings, tuning the carbs. These might not be glamorous items, but they’ll give you valuable experience, improve your driving enjoyment of the Z, and have the side benefit of improving your stature as a mechanic in your father’s eyes. Which improves the odds of an ambitious father-son automotive project down the road, by which time you might be ready to build your own engine, instead of supporting Edelbrock’s profit margin.

Datsun327, can you contact the previous owner of your car to ascertain whether the 396 was a small block or a big block? Depending on overbore, a 396 small block is possible, but it would be very unusual. On the other hand, a big block in a Datsun would be even more unusual. BTW the mounting pattern and distance from bellhousing flange to motor mount for the BBC and SBC is identical. The only issue is width (distance between the two mounts) – not sure about that. In any case, where a BBC used to sit, a SBC can easily be adapted to sit, if necessary with spacers. Can you measure the distance between mounting pads in your car? I’ll compare it with mine (set up for big block).

The above post is probably the most detailed discussion of 240Z vs. 280Z weight that I’ve seen, but it still leaves open the question: “what is the weight difference between the 240Z tub and the 280Z tub� By that I mean, the “unibody†that remains after literally every bolt and bolt-on part is removed, including all glass, trim, sound deadening, etc. The tub is reputed to weigh around 300 lbs – for a 240Z. A friend and I were able to lift one by hand – it was unpleasantly heavy, but not backbreaking. But does anyone have a more accurate estimate? If the 240Z tub indeed weighs 300 lbs (say), and the 280Z tub is 100 lbs heavier, that’s a 33% difference – definitely significant, with profound implications for increase in stiffness (not to claim that extra weight necessarily means extra stiffness, but presumably the tub weight increased largely because more metal was added in an effort to improve stiffness). The point is that whereas a minor error (say, 20 lbs) in estimate of the tub weight is insignificant in estimating the total weight of the car, it’s definitely significant in trying to compare the unibody structure of the 240 vs. the 280.

Much depends on how “cheap†a person really is. Recently I bought a 1992 BMW 325is – nothing special, just a decent used car – for what amounts to a few weeks’ worth of wages. But I’m not driving it – it sits in my garage, while I drive my beater Toyota. The BMW is bone-stock, and not even in all that great of a condition. But being cheap, it’s too nice of a car to use with any regularity, when I have a cheaper car at my disposal. My Z – if and when it ever sees pavement again – will end up costing about $15K up through its current iteration. And it will probably get single-digit gas mileage. Those two factors alone virtually ensure that I won’t drive the car for more than a few hundred miles per year. It’s not that I can’t afford it – but that I’m cheap. We often separate “street car†from “race car†based on creature comforts, ride quality, ease of operation, etc. But the flip side is just pure money! I’d gladly drive a noisy, gutted tube-chassis car on the street, if it weren’t for the cost of fuel and wear and tear on the car. Surely a Z06 or an M3 are “streetable†cars – quiet, comfortable, even relatively efficient. But if I bought one, I’d just park it in my garage. So why not just buy a stock Z, and drive that? Well, I drove a 280Z daily, for a little over a year, through all the challenges of a Midwestern climate – with no heat, let alone A/C. I bought it back when I lived in Los Angeles – for $900 – and drove it clear across the country, when I moved to Ohio. Eventually it died. But after nearly 3 years and 63,000 miles in my 1991 Toyota Corolla, I must admit that the Corolla’s performance is actually superior, especially the acceleration. That, compared with the sordid condition of the Z’s body, renders pointless the argument in favor of having kept on driving the Z. My point: ain’t no way that an old, owner-modified, labor-of-love car is going to be a daily driver, at least for me. It’s guaranteed to be a garage queen, whether it’s a simple 350 V8 swap or an 8-second dragster. So it might as well be the latter.

This is probably too conservative for your purposes, but the most straightforward swap would be a 22RE engine, found in 1982-1985 Celicas (the last generation of the RWD Celicas) and 80’s/early 90’s trucks. It’s only a 4-cylinder and definitely not a high-rpm engine, but the torque output is good and it’s 2.4L. First-generation fuel injection, actually pretty logical and straightforward to work on.

There was a very similar problem with my car (78 280Z); the camber of the left front tire was different than on the right front. Similarly in the rear. And indeed the gap between the spring perch and the tire rim was different on the left vs. the right. In the rear, asymmetry in camber can also LOOK like asymmetry in tow, when visually trying to follow the shape of the tire in the wheel well; the tire with more negative camber appears to “plunge†more into the fender (tow-in). After chasing some dead ends, such as looking for bent control arms or crash damage in the unibody, I removed the strut assemblies from all four corners. And behold, the included-angle between the spindle axis and the strut housing centerline was off by about 2 degrees on the front-passenger and rear-driver corners! This was obvious after unbolting everything from the front strut assemblies, and standing them side by side on a workbench. So I started a thread on heating and bending the strut housings in a hydraulic press, to bring the spindle angles back into spec – and whether that might crack the castings, or the strut housings, or cause some metal to lose temper. The upshot was – bending a little is OK, but don’t heat it. But the best solution is to find new strut housing assemblies. The following year I scoured junkyards for 280Z strut housings. Many were bent, and the quest seemed doomed Then, last winter Mike Kelly kindly donated a spare set of housings. Standing the front and rear strut assembly pairs side by side, they looked absolutely symmetric. When I installed the front assemblies, my asymmetry problem magically disappeared – the gap between spring perch and tire rim was equal on both sides. Installation in rear wasn’t possible because I couldn’t remove the infamous spindle pin from one of the rear strut assemblies. So the point is, (1) remove the strut housings and measure them, and (2) either get new strut housing assemblies or bend – very carefully – the ones that you have.