BRAAP

The P-90 has the SAME chambers and valves as the P-79. The difference between the two are the exhaust ports. The exhaust ports on the P-90 are square like the N-42 head where as the P-79‘s exhaust ports are the Round exhaust ports with liners like the N-47. For a turbo engine, the liners are NOT desirable as they will come apart in short order and as those small parts of broken metal try to pass through the exhaust turbine it will cause problems, at best those broken chunks of exhaust liner will just block the turbo from spinning, or they could end up damaging the turbine… Either way, not good. For a Turbo application, use the P-90.

Okie dokie guys… I finally got my VR sensor just how want it for the time being and took some pics of the final “mock” assy. All that is left now is to machine some lightening holes in the brackets for cosmetic reasons, stamp in degree marks on the VR bracket for the VR sensor timing adjustment slots, paint the brackets, and assemble. The damper that is on the engine in these pics is ONLY my EDIS “mock up” damper, not a useable part. I still have to machine down my brand new Nissan Damper, (blue damper in the fore ground of the full package pic), to accept the 36-1 Wheel. Any how, due to my current Radiator set up, I was forced to relocate the Alternator to the driver side of the engine. That went really well. After that modification, that left the original Alt mounting pad available for my EDIS-6 VR sensor mounting. After some serious head scratching on how I was going to tackle this, I settled on a two piece bracket assy. That allows for fine tuning of the VR timing adjustment and VR to 36-1 wheel clearance adjustments. I slotted the timing adjustment slots on the rotary table on the mill to the proper radius, then slotted the clearance adjustment slots enough to allow MORE than enough clearance adjustment. Here are the pics thus far. Below is what the entire package looks like as seen through the radiator core support. You can see the VR sensor covering up the Oil Pump. In the photo below you can see both brackets that make up my VR sensor mount. The two 8mm bolts are in slotted holes for clearance adjustment. Also, I used 8x1.25mm Heli-Coils in the VR bracket itself for that little added insurance so that I can torque the bolts down just a little tighter… The photo below shoes the VR bracket and the radiused slots for fine tuning the timing adjustments to make up for any installation error when I finally mount the 36-1 wheel on my new Damper. I will use approx a .008” interference fit between the damper and 36-1 wheel. 36-1 wheel fitment to the damper will be placing the machined damper in the freezer over night, and then when ready, heating the Escort 36-1 wheel in the oven to some where around 200-300 deg F, then hopefully the two parts will go together without too much fuss, (fingers crossed…) The photo below shows a top down view of the VR sensor and 36-1 wheel. BTW, I will be fabbing up another VR sensor bracket to fit a friends really nice 79 ZX that runs a power rack and A/C, i.e. all THREE pulleys are being utilized. In the next few weeks I will be machining a hub for the Escort 36-1 wheel to fit in front of those pulleys for his car. More on that later….

I looked LONG and hard at trying to mount the 36-1 as close the front cover as possible but my minds eye couldn’t see anyway of realistically doing that and having it attached to the crank hub itself other than using a different balancer such as a Fluid Damper etc. Mounting the 36-1 wheel to the inertia ring on the damper would not be good for several reasons. My long term goals are to use the Flywheel as my 36-1, but for now, the front of the crank should work fine. I also looked the aluminum A/C mounting bracket from the ZX and the iron version from the early Z as a mounting bracket, but because of my new radiator, I had to mount my Alternator on the drivers side of the engine using 3 of the 4 mounting bosses for that bracket, and used the old Alternator mount as my VR sensor mount. I should have pics up hopefully by the end of today of the installed finished set up. The Alternator has already been relocated and the VR bracket is 75% complete as of this morning. Do you have any pictures of your set up? We would love to see them. So did you mount your 36-1 on the rear pulley/inertia ring of the damper?

Jeff, I have no issues with the majority of your post, in fact, it was very enlightening, thank you. Though I do disagree with your interpretation of the friction developed in the top end of the Nissan L-series head. Please don’t take this as I’m flaming or slamming you, my intent here is merely to educate so others are also aware of what is mechanically taking place in the top end, this is not a slam or flame. What you described as “friction” was mostly the resistance to opening the valves against the valve springs AND the fact that the hydrodynamic oil wedge that is ever present on a “running” engine, isn’t “entirely” present when the engine is not running, and you are trying to hand crank the cam without that oil wedge. If it were just “friction”, then those cam lobes and rockers would be completely wiped out in only a few hundred to a thousand revolutions of the cam itself. Also, if roller rockers were installed in this same scenario, you would feel essentially the same amount of resistance to turning the cam, (this is assuming the roller rocker cam was ground to match the same valve lift/duration curve as the flat tappet variety). There is a very small oil film between the rocker and cam lobe on a running engine, hydraulic wedge, therefore on a running engine, the cam lobe never actually touches the rocker surface. In essence, that wedge of oil, (to quote a famous commercial), is like liquid ball bearings. The only friction present at the intersection between the cam lobe and the rocker is that of the oil, and that friction is very minute. Being as there is a great deal of pressure on the oil that is directly between the cam lobe and the rocker face, (resistance to overcoming the spring pressure and also the weight of the valve itself from being accelerated off the valve seat, inertia), the oil gets hot, from the pressure, NOT the friction. The roller rocker also has the same oil wedge between the roller and the cam lobe as well, though the amount of surface are that oil wedge takes up is smaller. If you could pressurize the oil system and perform this hand cranking of the top end only, using a flat tappet cam and then with the roller rockers and matched cam, the difference in resistance felt to turning the cams would be so minuscule, it isn’t worth measuring or even claiming as a benefit from a horse power stand point. In short, the only REAL benefit to the roller rockers is the reduced wear, (almost all the cam and rocker wear is on start up before the oil get a chance to build up), AND the ability to grind a much more aggressive opening and closing ramp therefore giving more “lift under the curve” as compared to comparable flat tappet cam. I hope this helps and doesn’t muddy the waters too much more….

The optimal, or even just an adequate, camshaft lobe profile is WAY different for those roller rockers than it would be for the typical wiper variety rocker we are used to on our beloved L-series. The reason for this is radius of the surface on which the cam lobe itself must act upon. Just look at the diameter of the roller itself of those lifters. That roller has a pretty small radius, especially compared to the radius of the wiping surface of the standard Datsun L-series rockers. If you use those roller rockers on a standard Datsun cam designed for our OE wiper type rockers, the actual valve timing events WILL end up MUCH different AND the lift under the curve will be drastically different. Basic geometry here folks. If you used those rockers on a standard Datsun L-series cam not profiled for those rockers, you would loose performance due to the valve motion not being optimal any more. The cam profile needs to be ground to match that of the smaller radius roller. Granted, a roller rocker has some benefits, mostly in reduced wear, and also very small reduction in friction vs the wiper style. You probably could get Comp Cams, or Lunati, to grind you a cam with the profile you desire but for use with those rockers and then you would reap the benefits that rollers offer. For those not fully understanding why the cam lobes need to be profiled, or shaped differently for Rollers vs Flat style, take a look at any V-8 flat tappet and roller cam side by side. If you look at comparable profiles, roller to flat tappet, (Yes, I realize there are NO exact comparisons between the two, this is just to make general point), These two cams are VERY radically different from each other. They are SO much different that even your wife/girlfriend who wouldn’t know the difference between a crank shaft and a lug nut, could tell the difference. This drastic visual difference is because of the profile the cam lobe needs to match the radius of the roller vs the very large radius that is ground on the bottom of the flat tappet. Yes, “flat” tappets are actually radiused on the bottom ever so slightly, even though they are called “flat” tappet. Any how, I hope this helps shed some light on the rollers. Yes they are GREAT, but only if you can get a cam manufactured to match the radius of the roller…

Uh, that link is NOT an N-47 head. That is an N-42 head, came on the ’75 and ’76 280 Z. Note the square exhaust ports and spray bar cam oiling. Only very few N-47 head had the spray bar, (early ’77 models), and the N-47 is round exhaust port with the liner, not square. If you guys want pictures of heads, just ask. I have a few assorted examples of the following castings in my inventory, late E-88, N-42, a couple ZN-47, at least one of not three MN-47 heads, and at least one if not two P-90 heads.

Pete, Hmm. Sounds like it might be a good idea. I know very little about welding so help me out here. Is powdered metal weld-able?

My 36-1 wheel is also a bit rough on the ID, though it looks more like scuffing from being pressed on at the factory and my removing it from the Escort damper. My damper in those pics is just a junk mock up damper, I plan to throw it away and as such I machined the interference fit to only approx .0005”-.001”. My race car has a brand new Nissan damper that I’ll machine down once I’m ready, but with a .006”-.007” interference fit. I don’t plan on welding mine as the damper and ring fit was .006”-.007” interference fit on the Ford Damper, (fingers crossed mine doesn’t come loose…). As for the belts and ancillaries, Z-YA hit a very important part of fabricating… This is for ANYONE wanting to fabricate new additions to current configurations… ALWAYS take into account EACH and EVERY possible ancillary, bracket, hose, belt, pulley, protruding bolt, etc, before you build a new bracket for something such as the VR sensor. If you leave even just one bolt out while mocking up, Inevitably you’ll put it your shiny new part right in the path of a belt, or a radiator hose, water pump pulley, etc. As for mounting the VR, I’ll definitely take a look at he 3:00 position based on your recommendation for the standard Z set up. I would like to offer “36-1 trigger wheel and VR mount kits” in the future for those wanting to go DIS. My Race car is having the alternator relocated to the driver side so I can retain one of my Ron Davis Radiators, so I’ll likely mount this VR on the pass side and will try and utilize the original alternator mounts on the block for the bracket to hold the VR. I’ll dig more into that today, not sure how far I’ll get though. I’ll be sure to keep you posted and I’ll take lots of pics along the way. Keep us posted on your progress, pics are always help…

If you take Jeff Hartmans advice about taper, (which is what 2802NR is following), from the valve seat using the L-28 valve and seat, the opening of the port where the manifold meets the head ends up being around 1.7”, quit a bit more than 1.5” We are also in the process of building a 4 cylinder intake for an L-20-B using Hartmans book. We plan to use the 1.5 degree taper from the valve seat out, or at least the best we can.

Ok guys. I’m starting my MSnS-E install utilizing the ford EDIS-6 distributor less ignition parts on my “F” prepared SOLO-II auto cross Z car. I have been researching this EDIS ign for quite awhile and purchased two complete EDIS 6 systems, one for my race car, the other for a friends ZX project. I also purchased a complete EDIS-8 for my V-8 Z, and a complete EDIS-4 system for my good friends Datsun 510. Prices for all the EDIS parts, used, from the local “U-pull-it” wrecking yard ranged from $40 to $75 depending on who was manning the counter when I payed for it all. That included the Coil pack, EDIS Ignition module, VR sensor, 36-1 wheel, electrical connectors with approx 12”-24” of harness attached and even the plug wires. I commend Ford for locating all the EDIS ign parts in such a way all within the engine bay, that it now only takes me no longer than 15 minutes to pull the entire EDIS system for 6 cylinder set up, (even faster for the 4 cylinder) I pull the coil-pack from a 4.0L Exploder AND the damper and VR from a 1.9L Escort, and that includes the time to walk over to the Escort to pull those respective parts. To easy. To make a long story short, I purchased several VR sensors, from the Escort, Ford Exploder, and also several ABS sensors as well from BMW, GM, Ford, and few others to experiment with different VR mounting ideas. At this moment, I currently have my mock up Datsun 280Z damper machined down with a Ford Escort 36-1 trigger wheel pressed on. Almost looks factory. This set up renders the forward pulley of the 280-Z damper useless. For a race car or street car without A/C, no biggee. These pics show current progress as of this afternoon including three of the VR sensors that I’m leaning towards, though not sure which I’ll utilize at this point. Long term plans are to locate the VR sensor in the bell housing or steel backing plate between the engine and flywheel, and machine the 36-1 teeth into the flywheel itself. Ford had been doing for the European EDIS equipped cars for years apparently. I see it as way to clean up the front of the engine a bit. I’ll update as I progress and will also show the progress for the 3 pulley ZX crank trigger and VR mount as well. It most likely wont be till mid to late summer before I look into the Flywheel crank trigger. Might do that on the V-8… Hmmm…

Phil, Sounds great. Looking forward to seeing those pics.

Silicone boy, We have 3 brand new “Ron Davis Racing” Radiators in stock. These are the aluminum cross flow radiators, brand new still in the boxes. Tanks are 3” wide, core is 2 ¼” thick. For the late 260 and all 280 applications, we sell the 26”x19” with the Chevy in/out and they fit snuggly between the late 260 and the 280 Frame Rails. They even fit the 280 ZX nicely as well. We also offer a Ron Davis that fits the early 240 and early 260 with those cars respective shorter core support and ever so slightly narrower frame rails. In regards to keeping the engine cool, these radiators are among the best, are priced very reasonable and have a nice custom look, “not” like the Griffins. For my personal V-8 Z used the JTR lower radiator support and scratch built cradle arms to capture the sides of the tanks so that the radiator was “free floating” in my V-8 car. The radiators I have in stock are what's pictured, they have no special features or options. If you need special mounting brackets, custom in/out locations or angles, or even integral tranny cooler, we can special order those. For more info, just ask at the address below. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it has also been our experience with cooling the V-8 Z cars, air flow through the radiator is one of the biggest keys. The cheapo slim electric fans are maybe only adequate for stock V-8’s even with the big radiators. The Ford 2 speed fans and some of the higher end aftermarket electric cooling fans are a worthy investment. Paul and Krystin Ruschman Rusch Motorsports ruschmotorsports@hotmail.com

Phil, Any chance you would be willing to share more info on this dry sump set up, i.e. pan, pump, pump drive, etc. Pics would be nice as well. BTW, your head is coming along nicely. Will be starting the final seat work, 4-5 angle, etc the week after New Years. Barring any unforeseen issues that arise, end of Jan is looking pretty good.

Head/deck locating dowels. Yes, you do need those head/deck dowels, this not only helps align the gasket properly i.e. fire rings to the chambers, water passages and the two oil feed passages, but they also help align the head to the block for those same reasons and for timing chain alignment, etc. If you can’t locate some yourself, I’m sure that there is someone here that can donate a pair. Hmmm. All metal head gaskets… Those are a whole different animal. Depending on material compositions and design, can be very tough, also the softer gaskets, i.e. copper, are maintenance intensive requiring semi frequent retorqueing, etc, and some can also be very finicky to surface prep especially if they are of the thin stamped sheet metal variety. To be honest, I typically don’t deal much with mega boosted turbo L-series engines and as such haven’t used or seen this HKS 2mm gasket. I’ve only dealt with the FelPro Lok-Wire gaskets on twin turbo Big Block chevy’s. Sure would be nice if it came with some instructions though. I’m sure there are others on this forum that do have first hand experience with those HKS gaskets. You might try starting a new thread in regards to “proper installation of the HKS 2 MM gasket”? Sorry I couldn't be of more help... Good luck and keep us posted on your progress,

First off, I’m sorry to see this happen to you. Set backs like this can be discouraging, but don’t let it get you down. I’m sure you’ll get to the bottom of this failure an get it fixed. Back to the details of this situation. Very interesting. In looking at cylinder #3 and the way the gasket just pushed out, it didn’t just blow out the combustion ring, but pushed that ENTIRE portion of the gasket out from between the head and block deck surface, indicating the head lost its clamping pressure allowing the gasket to just “push out” at the most convenient location. Hmmm… Head studs and it still just pushed out. I honestly don’t think ANY head gasket, no matter what brand, would’ve remained in tact if the head looses its clamping pressure. Also of note, at the 10:00 position of cahmber#3 the gasket was letting go as well. Looking at #4, at the 2:00 position was also squishing itself out. #5 also at 10:00. #6 has the classic signs of plain old fashioned detonation, the deformed fire ring, the “burned” out portion where it actually did let go, etc, not so much of the head losing it’s clamping force. In my best guess looking that evidence presented, you definitely had detonation going on and also the head lost its clamping pressure for one reason or another, (maybe due to the detonation and excessive cylinder pressure? Rod bearings for those cylinders “might” show signs of being squished out if the cause was extremely severe cylinder pressures lifting the head). Other causes could be deck surface and head surface not being truly flat. Also, the Fel-Pro head gaskets prefer to be installed COMPLETELY dry! First off, the Detonation needs to be dealt with and secondly, you need to find out why the head either lifted or just plain lost its clamping force and allowed the gasket to “push out”. Have you thought about “O”-ringing your block/head? This doesn’t fix the detonation problem or the head lifting problem, but it does allow the gasket to have a better chance of surviving the harsh pressures and heat environment of a radically boosted engine. As an aside, here is a good primer to installing head gaskets. I typically stay out of these discussions here on this forum as there are some guys with all the “theoretical” and book based knowledge in the world, and also those old timers that can’t seem let go of the methods used for those old gaskets made in the 1950’s and trying to talk to them about why their modern head gaskets continuously fail is like beating your head against a brick wall. Not only does the wall remaining standing, but it HURTS! Any how, those times and 1950’s gaskets are gone. All the books in the world don’t make up for first hand experience. Put a wrench in Einstein’s hands and I’ll bet his cars would fall apart. ’73Turbo240z, None of my comments or accusations printed here are intended toward you in any way shape or form. It just so happened that your thread is the thread that I decided to let loose my inner feelings on the subject of head gasket installation. My opinions stated here are merely for educational purposes for others that may be reading this thread. Gaskets really aren’t MAGIC and don’t need any KY jellies, paints, “tacks”, glues, Lubes, Voo-Doo dolls, magic potions, Psychics blessings, etc to install and to keep, not only the chambers, but the water and oil transfer ports “sealed”. For Felpro Printo-seal gaskets and the Graphite faced gaskets, use 99% rubbing alcohol, or something equivalent, to get rid of ANY and ALL oils, etc, from the head surface and the block deck surface and these gaskets will hold up just fine, unless you are abusing them with detonation or warped or uneven surfaces from using those abrasive buffing discs, (that is a whole nother thread in itself… Don’t get me started…LOL). You want NO oils, water, dirt, contaminates, whatsoever on the head and block surfaces. No SILVER paint, no antisieze etc. I have seen lots of these ludicrous methods used. If the gasket is going to let go, none of those “super-whiz-bang” “tacks” and glues are going to help squat, and the lubes only allow the gasket to move around between the head and block surface from the varying heat cycling and will eventually fail due the gasket being “rubbed” down. If the gasket has a factory type lube already on it, i.e. Graphite style gaskets, then they were designed that way, so don’t try and make that design better by adding your own special “trick”, “guck” or “magic”. It WON’T help. The dry gaskets such as the Fel Pro, are engineered for just that, DRY! In theory, the DRY head gaskets should work better on head block materials that are the same, i.e. both being Aluminum, or both being Iron as the head and block will grow at equal rates and amounts. Graphite gaskets came about in an effort to allow the aluminum head and iron blocks a chance to grow and expand at their respective differing rates and amounts. The jury is still OUT on whether it really works or not, as no matter what manufacturer uses this combo, those graphite gaskets still fail the same and just as often as the dry gaskets. Half dozen one, 6 the other. For my N/A engine build ups I’ll stick with Fel-pro, unless of course, the customer specifies something else. If you prefer a particular head gasket and it works great for you, then by all means, keep using it. The Fel-Pro head gaskets sure get a bad rap on this forum and I’m not so sure it the installer fault or other issues that are causing, but Fel-Pro gets blamed for it. I won’t condone their usage, but for all the N/A engine I have ever built using them, they are all doing great.

Very very cool. Nice to see soemone adding the taper as well. Are you startgin your taper from behind the valve seat or the port entrance from the manifold?

Thanks for the info Cary. I hope you don't mind that I gave up your name as being fluent in performance chassis design. Thanks again, Merry Christmas an Happy New year to you and yours,

As for the OE Datsun R-200, U-joint half shafts, and the Chapman strut rear suspensions toughness, I offer you this crazy nuts Z car in the links below. The first link below links to videos of this S-30 Z car doing WHEELY’s that would make street bikes jealous, and it does it over and over all with the original greasy grimy R-200, U-joint half shafts and OE Chapman strut rear suspension. Even a 1000 HP RB won’t deliver those kind of “shock” loads to the drive train as the boost as to build first at the drop of the clutch or release of the trans brake. This car has ALL of its 700+ HP available IMMEDIATLEY at launch! That is “shock” loading on a grand scale. This is just one of many RADICALLY powered Z cars that are testament to the durability and survivability of OE rear ends, half shafts, and suspension under extreme abuse. The OE parts are in essence BULLET proof for pretty much any “street application” we mere mortals would ever afford to build within the Datsun S-30 shell. Here is the link with the video footage… http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=105587 Here is a thread with pictures of the OE rear suspension, half shafts, control arms, etc under this crazy nuts wheel standing Z car. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=104179 Hope this puts to rest the notion that the OE parts are weak or not up to the task of street abuse…

Very cool. I commend you on your efforts. For a stock to stock comparison, I think the multilink set up is a nice improvement for the Z-31. I bet the launch squat is GONE! Did you have to do much cutting, fabricating and/or welding to get the cradle under the car? So what other mods have you done to your Z-31?

John, I agree with you on Street prepared class change. It is about due. For that level of competition, the Z is becoming out classed. You don’t see to many Z in the top ranks at the national level in BSP any more. Back when the Z was pulled from ASP and put into BSP, there was one guy, I forget his name, any how, he would dominate the class at nats in his Street prepared 240 Z. If memory serves, he was also doing pretty well when he was running it in ASP. Hmmm… Putting the Z in DSP sure would shake things up, that’s for sure. In doing I’m sure there will be other DSP drivers that will argue for a more thorough class restructuring. BTW, Have you heard any rumors about possibly reclassifying the Z out of FP? FP, on the national level, seems to be “Z” Prepared, i.e. the Z ‘s pretty much dominate. Thanks for your insight John, much appreciated.

Yes, you all have hit on the S-30’s weak link, the front end. Adding caster helps to BAND-AID some of its turn in issues, but it still pretty much blows. The rear suspension on the other hand, isn’t great, but it does work fairly well on many levels. For lack of a better description, the rear suspension on the early Z car is a good Jack of all trades, master of none. I would also agree that he 240 SX is competitive, “in its respective class”. Now compare the 240 SX times to comparably set up early Z cars around the same track and there really is no comparison. I would like to believe this comparison would help shed some light on which car might have a better suspension for all out handling. These are the current 2006 SOLO-II classifications as per the 2006 SCCA Rule Book. In the street prepared category, for those not familiar with SOLO-II, the cars are typically very nicely set up street legal cars with full interior, street tires, and only limited mods allowed. The 240 SX falls into “D” street prepared class and the early Z falls into “B” street prepared, (DSP and BSP respectively). In the “Prepared” category, the 240SX falls into “E” prepared and the early Z falls into “F” prepared. The prepared categories are WAY more lax and allow monster slicks, full roll cages, gutted interiors, but the car must retain similar engine config, etc. Now the SCCA has gone to great lengths to class cars within a certain class so as not to bias the class to a particular car in order to keep the competition stiff and fun. They adjust these classes every year to make up for any nuances that arise and to make space for the new cars that come available. Any how, I’ll let you the readers decide which car you think makes a better or at least has the potential to be a faster car based on the SCCA’s classification and what other cars surround these cars in their respective classes. DSP; Acura Integra, BMW 2002, Geo Storm, GM J, L, N, and X body, Dodge Neon, Dodge Colt, Ford Contour, Mercury cougar, Ford Probe, Hnda civic, Hyundai Tiburon, Mitsu Galant, Nissan 200 SX, 240 SX, Maxima, Sentra, Pontiac Vibe, Saturn, Toyota Camry, Toyota Supra 82-85, Volvo 240 series. BSP; Corvette up to ’96 incl ZR-1, Pantera, Honda S-2000, RX-7, Datsun 240, 260, 280 Z, Supra Turbo 93+, Sun Beam Tiger, Subaru WRX STi, Saleen S281E Based on the mildly modified “Street prepared category, the S-13/14 is in pretty sedate company compared the group of cars in the Z car class… Now lets look at the race only versions and see what their respective competition is… EP; Datsun/Nissan, B210, 210, 310 510, 610, 710, 810, Pulsar, Sentra, 240-SX, Chevy Vega, Dodge Colt, Dodge Shadow, Ford Escort, Mustang II, Mazda 323, 626, Toyota Paseo, Corolla, VW Jetta, Scirocco. FP; BMW 3 series, Datsun/Nissan 240, 260, 280 Z and ZX, Ferrari, Honda S-2000, Lotus Elise, Mazda RX-7, Mitsu Eclipse AWD Turbo, Porsche 911, ALL, 914-6, 924-S, Toyota Supra 93-98, MR-2 Super charged. At the national level, BSP cars are substantially quicker than the DSP cars and the FP cars are substantially quicker than the EP cars. From this point of view, the Z cars Chapman strut rear suspension doesn’t look to bad, now does it, even if it does have EXCESSIVE camber gain? Something else to keep in mind. When Nissan campaigned the 240 SX in GTU, and the 300 ZX in GTO, Nissan didn’t retain the multilink on either end of either car. It was double wish bone on all four corners, and they did that for a reason and it wasn’t because rules said they couldn’t use the multi link. I probably should bow out of this one at this juncture before someone launches an RPG at my shop, LOL Merry Christmas and a wonderful new year to All of you…