seattlejester

That is a whole search criteria for finding deals on craigslist. Just mis-spell everything. 300z, 240zx, 280z posi, dotson, nisan, trubo, etc etc etc. Surprising what you can find sometimes. I once found a no reserve bid for a part I wanted a long time ago that was listed under RXS instead of RSX. Got it for 5 cents or something.

That makes sense. Not sure how many people would be comfortable with welding in new suspension attachment points. Thanks for clarifying!

Apparently a good way to remember it! 1. Not sure how you expect to identify the transmission without being able to look at it. I think NewZed answered that one. Slide your phone or camera under there and take a picture. Looks like you can identify off of the pan shape and bolt count: http://www.monstertransmission.com/Identify-Your-Transmission_ep_106-1.html 2. Kind of being contradictory, hard to get around amateur built, but cleanly done. A picture would help a lot. Based off your assessment one would guess you don't have access to a welder or have built mounts before. That does put you in a bit of a pickle. Either you order a premade kit (which doesn't just have to be JTR, there are other companies that charge much less like CX racing even our own member Hoke seems to have them), OR make or have someone make you a custom setup. Not terribly difficult. Usually you buy a replacement motor mount and adapt or buy straight steel sheet stock and drill the holes and such yourself. Addressing number one here would probably help kind of narrow down your off the shelf choices if you plan on staying with that transmission. 3. Hard to say. I don't think I've seen any 240z's with hood vents so that may be the case, but I haven't seen any 260z or 280z with them either. Perhaps because of the wet climate people don't option them or install them here. Combined with the interchangeability of the parts not sure, but it will bolt up.

Hahahahaha, goodness. Looks like a good starting place!

Hmm interesting. I guess the leaning back of the strut is just used to achieve anti-dive characteristics or a different motion ratio in E30's? Quite interesting is there* a reason people don't make this type of arm? Even the drifters I am familiar with tend to run just the typical box section extended LCA and longer adjustable TC arms, a one piece like that would give some fairly large amount of room to pocket the wheel for steering angle.

Ah, I was thinking the CX ones that came out. JM: would it not matter that the strut is offset towards the front like it is?

Pretty cool! Good luck next Sunday!

I think he's asking for a 280zx Edit: Did a bit of research, looks like GC does offer a kit for the rear of the 280zx which makes me think it should be doable. Not sure how you are suppose to attach the adjustable spring perch to the shock though unless they want you to weld directly to the body. If so then that would be fairly easy potentially. Just grind off the spring perch as supplied and install new spring perch hoping that you don't blow the oil or pressure seal with the welding. The one picture I found showed the spring perch just sitting on top of the stock perch. If that is the case then it would be even easier, just install the adjustable spring perch on top of the existing spring perch.

Managed to get some work done this weekend. Jacked up the car and installed the clutch fork along with the slave and covers. Also installed the 5 additional bolts for the bell housing to the engine. Done under there for the time being. Once the car moves I'll have to go back to torque some of them as trying to torque under a car is always awkward. Threw on the new front timing cover along with the water pump pulley. Kind of stopped myself from going further as I am tempted to count the teeth to make 100% sure I didn't skip a tooth. The belt is awfully tight, but I've been told these gates belts are kind of tough and not as compliant and additionally I added 2.4mm to the head so that makes sense. Still haven't heard back from the guy I wanted to do my crank pulley. So going ahead with some guidance from dexter72. Used a 21/64 bit to drill out the two blank holes in the crank pulley. Then used red loctite to hold the coils in place. Had to cut off two coils off of the standard helicoil kit to make sure threads weren't protruding too much. Cut down my shaved studs I used for the 7m. Kind of interesting the 7m was still old school and used a 3 row crank pulley. The 2jz is modern and employs a serpentine tract so only is one row. I digress, then I loctited those in place as well. I drilled out my trigger wheel to either 7/8 or 1 inch (step drill is HF not all listed...) to clear the crank pulley bolt head as I didn't want to shave it down while wanting to keep the circle of metal to prevent it from just flopping. As it sits the trigger wheel is in perfect alignment. Doesn't rotate or move radially. Dexter72 made a pedestal with some loctited nuts, I think I'm going to employ some large washers and some nyloc nuts. Valve covers are going to be blasted and painted hopefully in the next week or two. The guy I had lined up to weld my intake manifold is injured so there may be a delay there, but once the crank pulley is mounted I get to mess around with fitting the crank trigger sensor and the rest of the front dress, then move onto fitting the exhaust components.

I'm not sure I would trust the $190 LCA's.

^Temporary host, lol Does depend on your market. If you have the parts laying around or you can source, acquire them very cheaply, you could put them on in hopes of enticing a different crowd. Downfall is I don't think it would sell for any more really, just attract more of the swap group who are weighing several donor cars.

Makes sense. So is the arc achievable due to the rubber bushing on the TC bucket allowing it to kind of compress to reach out as the TC rod is stretched at certain points in the arc? Or does it require both the compression from that bushing and the deflection of the rubber bushing in the FLCA? Neverdone: Probably not? The strut is fairly inline with the FLCA from what I recall. If you used the TC bucket and the FLCA mounting points for two of your pivot points the strut would be really quite offset. You could lean it back, but that would require cutting the shock tower. You could fabricate new mounts for an A-arm, but given the C-channel type construction of the frame rail I'm not sure how happy they would be taking that rearward load. I think the only person that I recall that did such a mod on this forum is mark who grafted a C4 corvette front suspension package if memory serves

Water pump: There are three water pumps you will encounter from what I have found. One is the JDM spec 2jzgte water pump. This has some additional bits I believe to drive a little radiator fan that is offset from the main fan. It is advised to swap this for a USDM model. In the USDM spec you will find the VVTI and non-VVTI pump. The VVTI pump has a smaller diameter for the center of the pulley and M6 size studs, non-VVTI has a a larger diameter for the center of the pulley and M8 size studs. VVTI on top, Non VVTI on bottom The pumps are composed of two main sections the front which contains the pulley and the impeller, and the back which contains the thermostat and bolts to the block. When replacing the front pump make sure you are buying for the correct pump body, the bolt holes will not line up for the most part. When replacing the water pump there are 5 replacement pieces that should be replaced. The thermostat, two o-rings on the water pipe, one o-ring for the flange to the head, and one o-ring for the pump body to the engine block. Using hand soap for the o-rings is a nice trick to get them to slip in without ripping or smashing the o-rings on the thermostat and water pipe. Image of thermostat, water pipe o-ring (second one is in the connecting neck not visible), and the connecting neck o-ring on the flange.

http://www.thezstore.com/page/TZS/PROD/23-4170 ?

I think I sold mine with upgraded valves and aftermarket needles with rebuild kits for 150-200.

There will be air flow, but from the injection path it basically has to make a hard 180 to flow towards the intake which would probably negatively affect the atomized cloud and possibly pull fuel out of the air. I imagine directly at the nozzle face and along that inside edge would be a trail of fuel. This would be targeted towards the N/A crowd I imagine? The boosted crowd would either not make enough power to really benefit, or would be fully on the custom route with custom intakes got the bigger hp builds. Not sure if there really is a reasonable market, the trend seems to be to go with carbs, go ITB, or keep stock manifold and go turbo.

^Agreed, I feel to have a chance at keeping the fuel atomized you would have to have the injectors angled and installed on the opposite side so they spray more towards the intake tract. That also seems quite massive. What would be the benefit over a stock intake with a pallnet fuel rail?

I've been running megasquirt. I plan on using the same injectors/coils/trigger wheel/throttle body so I'll still be using it on the 2jz.

Or if you live some where cold you can do this with just the hammer lol. I used an air chisel and freezing weather. Took maybe an hour or two to get most of it off.

We're having pretty atypical weather here. Plan was to button up the block, but only made limited progress as I really didn't want to roll around on the ground in the cold. Put on the gates racing timing belt. With the timing belt on I installed the timing belt tensioner pulley tensioner. Waiting to pull the pin until I am 100% sure I don't need to come back to this. Also installed the missing timing belt guide. I ordered and received a NOS lower timing belt cover. Mine had a crack and the paint on the lettering was gone. Also ordered a clear cam gear cover so I can spot any imminent failure of the belt. Couldn't help myself and opened the turbo. The efficiency thing is crazy. My upgraded 57 trim CT26 looks almost bigger and maxes out at 65% efficiency at ~49CFM at a pressure ratio of 2.5, but the borg warner flows something like 53CFM at 65% at a pressure ratio of 2.5, but the crazy thing is that it continues to be efficient at the 65% mark all the way up to a pressure ratio of 4 flowing over 58CFM. That means while the upgraded CT will max out say 22psi flowing 49CFM (compared to the stock one which maxed out at 35CFM at 16psi or so) the BW will still be efficient at 45psi. Given the small impellar size it won't make much power as the boost climbs, but as long as your system can handle the increase in boost that should mean this turbo should be able to do about 480whp without breaking a sweat, maybe 550 at a bit of a stretch, where as the 57 trim CT turbo would be sweating bullets just to stay above 400whp. I have one more hole to tap on my intake manifold before I drop it off at the welders. I drilled out the valve covers and tapped them to a 1/2 inch NPT to fit some barbs for the positive crank case vent. Turbo manifold needs a bit of work cleaning up some burs left behind after the PO opened up the holes to make it better mount the engine. Haven't heard back from the tuner about mounting the trigger wheel, so I may just do the same that Dexter72 did to get the car up and running.

Heh, I was looking to trade my 240z for an FD with an LS motor a while back. Datsun with a newer inline 6 motor and the FD with the LS are probably my two favorite swapped cars. I'll let someone more familiar with the laws down there answer. I do know we have quite a few californian members so my assumption would be that it wouldn't be a problem.

That looks like a beta motor sports 2jz mount, given I think the actual one had the L brackets upside down as to how you have them to prevent the engine from pulling the frame rails from the fenders. And ok. I read that completely wrong. I read it as moving up an inch not forward by an inch. Moving the mount forward is possible although keep in mind the angle the bucket is welded on will change slightly if you are trying to hit the same point on the LCA. On a lower control arm like the GTX-2 unit it probably won't be as big a concern since the tension arm locates on a pivot so the angle of approach will be more or less indifferent. The problem will be the force vector under breaking. Moving it forward an inch shouldn't disrupt it too much I imagine especially if you go with a LCA with a pivot point attachment rather then an L type attachment. The problem will be your overall angle would change. Example if you make a straight knife hand to represent the wheel and use your other hand to poke the center of your palm at ~45* and apply force backwards toward your body with your knife hand you are recreating the force the tension arm sees. Now tilt your poking hand to a more perpindicular angle and you will find the your wheel hand will try and pivot backwards easier while your poking hand is going to want to buckle. The concern would be more stress on the tension arm. Newzed's remark does beg the question though. Is the reason you can't put the bucket in a factory style location is because the slope on your new frame rail starts too soon preventing you from going further back? If so I would be tempted to just notch the new frame rail and put it where it is factory. Most control arms seem to hit further forward for more caster, rarely that much shorter.

Have a picture of why it can't be located in the same spot? I might understand moving it down an inch, but moving it up an inch seems odd as that would put it in the frame rail. They are designed to take the braking load so as designed they should be in the same plane as the wheel during braking. If you move it up an inch, it would no long be on the correct plane for the stock suspension geometry, but given that this was designed in regards to stock suspension a lot of cars are not at that height anyway. You could probably calculate the exact ideal location and make your own mount. Keep in mind though that moving the pivot may prove problematic if your suspension still moves through the entire arc of travel as it may the tension arm may cause the control arm to bind or try and move forward/backward during the full sweep of the travel.

Oh I agree the benefit is minimal, and once you get past a certain RPM I imagine we become sloppy. Not much for power if I remember, but the benefit was fuel economy for timed sequential injection at very low load and engine speed (highway cruise at low engine speeds). I was trying to work this out with math. I think I got it, took me a couple hours and some reference finding. So the formula in long form is 1 / (Engine speed (R/M) * (1Min/60s) * (1000ms/s) * (2 revolutions / 4 stroke cycle) * (Angle valve is open/720 degrees) * (80/100 duty cycle limit) = ms injectors can fire (Volume of engine / number of cylinders) / (22.4L/Mol) * (28.966g/mol of air) / (14.7 air / fuel) * (cc of fuel / gram) = cc of fuel required cc of fuel / ms injectors can fire * (1000ms/s) * (60s/min) = injector size needed in cc/min At 6000 Rotations (of the crank) per Minute you get 100 Rotations per second. Or 10ms a rev. for 4 stroke cycle that gives you 20ms a 2 rev cycle. Using Timz's number of 40% (closer to 33% on stock cams 240*) valve open time you get 8ms of injection when the valve is open at 6000rpm. With that you get 16ms at 3000rpm, 32ms at 1500rpm and so on. Given you don't want to run a given injector more then 80% duty cycle you get. 5.5ms at 7000rpm 6.4ms at 6000rpm 12.8ms at 3000rpm 25.6ms at 1500rpm 51.2ms at 750rpm Using a 3L motor one cylinder in question pulls in and uses 0.5L per combustion cycle in one cylinder Using avogadro's law we get Volume of gas/(22.4L/Mole of gas) * (grams/mole of gas) = grams of gas Air has a g/mol of 28.966g/mol 0.5L/22.4l/mol * 28.966g/mol = 0.64656grams of o2. Using AFR 14.7 the fuel we would want would be 0.043984 grams of gasoline Density of gasoline is 737.22kg/m3 and 1kg/m3 is 0.001g/cm3 = 0.73722 g/cm3 0.043984 g / 0.73722g/cm3 = 0.0596618cc of gasoline 0.0596618cc of gasoline in 6.4 ms = 0.00932215cc/ms * 1000ms/s * 60s/min = 559.329cc/min Using that last line the required injector size using the following assumptions (3L, perfect volumetric efficiency, AFR 14.7, 40% valve open time, and a plethora of other assumptions) 7000RPM requires 651cc/min injectors at 80% duty cycle 6000RPM requires 560cc/min injectors at 80% duty cycle 3000RPM requires 280cc/min injectors at 80* duty cycle 1500RPM requires 140cc/min injectors at 80* duty cycle 750RPM requires 70cc/min injectors at 80* duty cycle Note fairly massive injectors that would be absolutely overkill unless you were running boost at which point the calculation has another factor that the volume of air increases at a factor of (absolute kpa/100) or ((psi of boost/14.7) + 1)

Bummer finding a turbo with a manual isn't the easiest thing. Let the search continue!