seattlejester

Thank you guys for the response, I must have missed them. I'll grab a wide angle shot this weekend. That is where the wastegate is mounted. That is unfortunately how the wastegate dump merges back with the exhaust, it is probably one of the worst ways of merging to be honest. I tried to tilt it so it is not perpendicular, but I couldn't get it very far from what I recall. There just is not very much room unless I try to do a full 90* turn and follow the exhaust for a little bit, but then I run into interference with the heater bypass hose if memory serves. I might believe that the wastegate was opening plus or minus 3lbs of the rated spring, but I've been told precision gate springs are pretty solid. Swapping the springs doesn't cost me anything though, so I will give that a try. Edit: found another picture. Looking at that seems to have jogged my memory. I seem to recall that the 90* bend actually hit the turbo dump pipe when it was turned to follow along with it. So short of resorting to pie cuts for a really sharp 90*, this was the only option I had. I can try a screamer pipe setup, but I fear that the only way to do so would be to go up through the hood because of the previously stated interference. I'll go and take some measurements this weekend.

Wow, congrats!

@NewZed My point was an ease of inspection and later on adding in ease of maintenance being a reason to swap to discs. My fright was centered around how they failed and how the failure is kept hidden. If I truly feared blowouts of the wheel cylinder I would have a panic attack anytime a car with drums pulls up next to me or I am offered a ride in one, and that is not the case. I think it was a fair counter point, but you are allowed to disagree. You brought up the fact they are being used dependably today by reputable manufacturers, my counter point was the only reason they still are being used is financially motivated. While I am not disputing the fact they are dependable enough to be used today, I am disputing the fact the reason they still are. There are also some whisperings by some sources as to alternative reasons why they still are, dependability and performance have nothing to do with it according to them. Regardless in the face of data, my few anecdotal experiences truly are insignificant. While the experience left enough of an impression on me to change my mind, I'm sure an analysis of the data on how many systems are in use even in older cars with no malady to report would counter my views easily, therefore irrational could be applied. Bummer when that is the case for the person who holds the view, but I concede on that front. @PrincePaul jdmjunkies.ch is actually on this board I think, I believe the two becomes one build thread is his. Having the stock bias values to compare with would be a real treat as we could compare how far off the values for popular swaps can be. I think Miles has been answering your question from the beginning. Keep the stock system, but upgrade pads and lines, maybe add better fluid. If you have to do an upgrade what you outline should be sufficient with a bigger bore master to compensate for additional fluid required. The vented differing piston caliper setup seems to be on I4 4-Runner (also vented rotor): 43mm/34mm according to the thread above. Not sure if anyone supplies a kit, but I'm sure silvermine would be able to make a custom kit if that is what you really want, it would just be a matter of grabbing different calipers from the parts supplier. To get a specific answer to your question I might suggest classiczcar, I was only slightly familiar with the Mk63 setup before this week, looking it up I see a lot more hits over there, so someone might actually be running this setup to give you a positive real world "feel" answer rather than numbers.

Kudos, can't wait to see the contrast!

This took a while to wrap my head around. My concern wasn't between the front comparisons, but more so your front to rear to end up at the bias ratio you have the 80/20 you arrived at. We were having some discussion on how to accurately determine the moment arm of a drum brake as well as the leverages involved on the shoes so looking at your math was a bit startling as that just removed the moment arm, but since you are comparing the same moment arms between two setups and looking for the difference between the same setups (moment arms wise) the moment arms cancel out and you are left with a force ratio, which you could compare using your method. Speaking of factors given you are multiplying both the fronts and rear by two to get total pistons you can remove those and work with some smaller numbers. You are increasing the fronts somewhat by 43mm vs the FIA 41.3mm so using the bigger 7/8 vs the 13/16 of the FIA rear cylinder would raise the force in the rear enough to maintain the ratio between the forces, in theory you should be able to run the stock proportioning valve given the very minor difference. You could use a manual one and dial in some more rear brake to improve performance somewhat, but the bottomline is compared to the FIA setup running the S12W setup would be somewhat comparable with the 7/8 rear cylinder math wise.

Fair point, I don't see a point in getting unreasonable in a discussion. Counterpoint to the fact they are being made used today, the motivation isn't anything impressive. It is because a drum setup is cheaper. Manufacturers don't like to say as much for obvious reasons, but if it is cheaper and performs adequately for most consumers of the vehicle while providing them a savings, then in business sense it would be foolish not to do so. If a disc brake option was available that added no cost to the manufacturer, I can't imagine they would choose the drum. Given some newer cars have a disc and a drum in the back (drum for parking purposes), then using a wheel cylinder, forgoing the rotors, caliper bracket, and caliper is a considerable savings on say an economy car. Oops S12+8 is for the non vented right? That would be their stage 3 kit. I'm not sure that is the correct way to calculate bias is it? That just determines area the force is acting on, things like leverage aren't included which plays a factor. http://www.tceperformanceproducts.com/bias-calculator/ I mean following your assumption if you factor out leverage, pad compound, pad shape,pad size, etc than just force remains, but really they are different at least fairly drastically in leverage if recollection calls. Link to a thread where we hashed out some numbers, still not perfect since that is more or less strictly from a moment perspective (leverage x force)

http://www.silverminemotors.com/datsun/datsun-240z/brake-upgrades They have the S12+8 kit under their stage 4 brake upgrade heading. @NewZed True, given enough time calipers would probably go as well, although the ones on my car and my friend's 280z were still holding before I swapped and he replaced, where as his wheel cylinder blew out, and mine disintegrated. I'm not sure if the concern is irrational. Hmm, maybe a bit alarmist in retrospect, but being able to inspect for leaks quickly as part of routine service seems to be fairly rational. I will also add, swapping out pads is quite a bit easier than changing out shoes.

^Right, I imagine if they are taking note of casting seeing a shiny rebuilt caliper where drums are supposed to be would be a red flag. Period correct, and tire width restrictions have been noted, that would also be a limitation if you can't put on bigger wheels as some conversion kits run bigger rotors. Honestly the drums kind of scare the piss out of me which is why I would go for an "upgrade." A friend said his brakes suddenly went out, when we got the drums off the o-ring for the wheel cylinder had gone and fluid was just gushing out. Being behind the drum you wouldn't notice until it filled the cavity to leak past the inspection port. At least with calipers if the brakes don't feel right you can poke your head under the car and see all the components. Technically the calipers could do the same, but the piston would never dislodge like that since the pad would keep it in place. Just kind of a scary realization. @walkerbk is there a calculator somewhere for the drums and other common swaps? Mind sharing a link?

Wouldn't be a bad idea, but that looks like angle iron that has cross bars welded to it. Those are naturally a bit gusseted, granted the CD009 is a heavy transmission.

Wow, I can't believe it lines up so nicely. Thank you for the measurement of the bell housing past the firewall as well that will tell me how far I have to shift my setup for the awesome fitment.

Headlight_Relay_Diagram.jpg I think that is pretty decent. Very minimal amperage through the combo and high beam selector. 30 is going to be your main power, this is going to be a thick wire (fused) from the battery, split to power both relays, one for high beam one for low beam. 87 is going to be your output power, this is going to also a thick wire going to the positive on the headlight, one relay will be the positive for low beam, the other will be the positive for high beam. 86 should be positive voltage I'm not sure if they just used a generic relay diagram and didn't want to flip it, I've heard some do not care the voltage direction, but I believe most want 86 to be positive. This is going to be power from the headlight switch (so put the positive signal wire to 86 on both relays) 85 is going to be the ground for the coil one would go to the ground signal for the low beam and one should go to the ground signal for the high beam. The stalk for the blinker should be a ground selector as people have said. So when the headlights are turned on by twisting the combo switch that sends power to 86 (the combo switch is powered through the big wire going to the steering column). The blinker stalk should grounding the low beams normally which would actuate the low beam relay sending power from terminal 30 through 87 and completing the circuit for the low beam which is always grounded near the headlight. Pulling the blinker stalk should terminate the low beam ground for the coil and actuate the high beam ground which would complete the high beam relay coil circuit sending power from pin 30 through to pin 87 of the high beam assembly. If you wanted both the low and high beams on with the high beam (usually not on a stockish setup, modern cars with separate bulbs do keep both on, or cars with LED headlights will kick on additional lights), you could run a wire from the 85 of the high beam to the 85 of the low beam, but you would have to employ a diode to make sure the circuit would only be completed when high beam was on.

So it is official, I have uncontrollable boost. Setup is 2jzge NA-T, 2mm head gasket to bring compression to 8.5ish to 1 Treadstone T4 cast stainless manifold Preision 39mm wastegate with a 9.4lb spring BW S257sx-e with AGP 0.7A/R hotside Backstory: My friend with a smaller hotside on a T3 manifold holds 10lbs with a poor priority on a 40mm wastegate on his 2.7L single cam motor. I decided since I wanted to run a bit more boost at around 15lbs or so I should be ok with the 38mm wastegate flange. I even got the precision 39mm which boasts a 1mm oversize. After help from Chickenman to finally figure out my boost control situation, I set my manual boost controller to 0 and went out for a drive. In first and second gear it is holding 10lbs of boost. Once I get into 3rd if I go more than 30% throttle or so it starts creeping all the way to my boost cut which I have set at 17lbs. So now I'm kind of stuck. My cast stainless manifold has a 38mm wastegate two bolt flange cast into it. They do make a 38mm to 44mm adapter, but logically to me that would not work since the restriction of the 38mm wastegate flange would still be there. What should I do? I know I need to upsize my wastegate, will a 44mm be sufficient? Or do I just go big now? I imagine I can shave down the flange and bore out to the waste gate v-band size and just weld a stainless v band directly onto the the manifold, but I know stainless is going to be terrible to work on. I don't even know if tradition style bits would work if they even made one big enough in the first place.

Those aren't the stock mounting points on the trans tunnel are they?

I thought with two circuits of left and right it lowered the amperage a bit and let them use thinner wires to handle the load or something. Maybe my memory is failing me already.

The left and right was an older attempt at trying to keep the amperage a bit lower going through the steering column. I would take the time to convert to relays with your new kit. You can just steal the signal from either the left or the right wiring. Or in your case I guess just desolder one of the contacts on the particle board depending on how clean you wanted your harness to be.

Welcome to the forum! Please note, you have posted to the FAQ section which is reserved for informative posts and does not allow responses. I've moved your thread to the fabrication section of the forum. The Z steering wheels are pretty close to begin with. You can run a flat face wheel to gain a couple inches. I'll leave shortening of the shaft to others to answer.

Oh goodness.

Having to cut the ears on the early Z would be a bit of a bummer. Part of me likes the thought of being able to go back to stock. Yes please if you have any shots of how the transmission sits in the tunnel, or how you ended up mounting the cross member. I think I have a 3.7 or a 3.545 ring and pinion it was from a non LSD 300zx turbo. Looks like a 3.545 is stock. I will say the gearing feels pretty right right now with the R154, but the thrust washer is something on my mind. Not sure if the CD009 will feel the same way a bit too high until I go even lower.

Those wheels look real nice! Per our conversation, and since this thread is becoming quite useful. Do you have any additional photos of the CD009 transmission fitment? I think my engine is a little bit further back then yours, but it would be nice to know if you have to bash out the trans tunnel or anything to fit it. My R154 is kind of floating with pretty minimal room to spare, wondering how the seemingly bigger CD009 fairs.

Those pictures don't tell too much like to an almost funny point, but it looks like it has rust in the rear slam panel, the door and possibly the fender. Looks like a later 240z with a 280zx turbo (at least valve cover and injector cooler fan) motor. 280z hood or at least vents. It was painted later, quite poorly given they didn't take 2 seconds to cover up the courtesy light or bag it up. The mirror and stuff chipping like that shows low prep, unfortunately that also means it is going to hide a lot of imperfections. I would definitely take a body magnet and look for bondo Evidence of rust in the slam panel, doors, and what looks to be fenders. I feel like you should be able to do better in california. That is not the best condition car, so I'm with neverdone, how bad is your car that this looks like a good idea?

Also of note in your previous goals, I believe an LS with a T56 will do 30mpg. The gearing makes it a double overdrive if I recall correctly, barely above idle at freeway speeds. Like wheel alignment or flare alignment? There isn't any adjustment in the rear for wheel alignment from factory, so if the alignment is out of wack and it is not due to a bent wheel or stub axle (verified via checking flatness during rotation), then most likely someone bent the control arms or the control arms are loose/missing parts of the bushing. If nothing seems bent and it it is still out of alignment you can either take the chassis to get aligned on a rack, or you can buy some adjustable rear control arms to compensate if it is minor. With a turbo 2j the Z is more than fast enough. Nothing is too hard to work on or order replacement parts which is why I went this route. Car handles pretty nicely, but it is on coilovers and adjustable tubular control arms with heim joints and poly bushings all around.

Welcome to the forums. I have moved your post from the FAQ section to allow responses. To answer your question, yes. Your stock axles should work with the correct OBX differential. Please take a moment to read the rules of the forum. Also note our search is not the best, try using google while limiting your search results to hybridz.org may yield easier to visualize results.

To echo cgsheen 1. Usually you want 1.5 x diameter for thread engagement as a general rule, for something as large a bore as this you probably can do 1 x diameter. 2. Track width and alignment won't necessarily affect your ride height unless you lengthen the LCA a significant amount to lower the angle of the shock in effect lowering the car. You could in theory do the same with enough camber, but not enough significantly with most coilovers to adjust ride height unless you are on a very aggressive wheel. 3. For the rear you can have it cut and a spacer welded in. For the fronts you are kind of in an odd spot, if you were positive you were never going to go that low you could have it cut near the bottom and add material as well, but that will be in the threaded portion so you wouldn't have your full adjustment. You could do a top hot spacer, but then your pivot point for the shock changes. Not sure how that would affect geometry, but you would be shortening one leg of the triangle. Easiest would be to up the tire size if it is concerning. I think a 2 inch drop looks pretty good on a Z.

Clutch pedal is fairly light depending on your pressure plate of course, even with an uprated one I don't feel too much resistance. I'm not sure there is supposed to be that much movement in a well bled clutch slave. If I recall you did the KA transmission? Is there something with that, like maybe you are supposed to use the KA fork or slave?

Hmm that is a bummer. If you want the parts to sell it may be best to post in the classifieds with a more descriptive title.