BRAAP

That was me that wrote that post. My post was talking bout the Nissan Multi link rear suspension in a very negative light. I deleted on my own as I didn’t feel there was any reason to try and sway peoples opinion on whether or not they should use something that, (in my mind), won’t work any better than what’s in their car already, (from a performance stand point), because if they want it bad enough, they’ll justify the reason why they think it needs to be installed no matter if it helps with any issues that they perceive exists with the existing suspension or not. Any how, it really isn’t my place to make the comments I originally made. I would be more than happy to give my “opinion” and from what little experience I do have with the Nissan Multi link rear suspensions I’ll post here. I was working at Nissan in Riverside CA, (Quaid Auto Expo), in 1988 when the 240 SX hit the showrooms and was also fortunate enough to go to the unveiling of the new 240 SX, Z-32 and Axxess in Anaheim. The Nissan MID-4 was also on hand. (what a cool looking contraption that was.) I have personally removed 2 complete rear multi links including the cradles from S-13’s. They are heavy, not sure if they are heavier than the Chapman set up of the earl Z but they are heavy. I also own a ’96 Infiniti Q-45 that has this suspension design under the rear. The Q is much softer than the Z-32, S-13, and S-14 and as such goes through quite a bit of travel between bump and droop while driving it aggressively, even with the brand new Tokicos installed. The rear end of the car is all over the place, very unpredictable and at any thing past 8-tenths, the car is scary. Like I said, the Q is SOFTER than the Z-32 and S-13/14 so the Z-32 and S-13/14 cars will have a much more “controlled” feel as the suspension doesn’t go thorough as much motion as the Q. When the multi link moves through its travel, it goes through some pretty aggressively camber, caster ,toe, and roll-center changes. I’m sure someone has mapped it out and that info should be readily available. I personally don’t see the multi link as a vastly superior design. Ask any performance sports car chassis designer what he/she thinks about Semi Trailing arm in a truly high performance application? Chances are they would much rather choose an alternative design. The Datsun 510 and 280 ZX utilize the Semi Trailing and are fairly competitive on some race courses. These same cars are also so stiff that the semi trialing doesn’t move much so its inherent geometry woes don’t show up. The down side, is on a rough course or rough road, these same cars are taking a back seat to cars with properly set up double A-arm or equivalent suspension designs that don’t have to be that stiff to “hide” its geometry woes. What I’m getting at here is the Nissan Multi link can be made to handle great like the semi trailing arm, but it has to be made REAL stiff so that it doesn’t go through too much wheel travel. Nissan pushed the Multi link as some engineering marvel and that it was designed on the Cray super computers of the time. Sure, having your suspension designed on the Cray super computer is a engineering marvel and gives you a heads up at the bench racing venue, but it doesn’t make the car handle any where near what the modern BMW’s, Vettes, Vipers, S-2000, NSX, etc. These car are world class handling machines and you can bet they don’t utilize a multi link like the Nissan design. These same cars don’t use the Chapman strut either. My point is, if the design doesn’t TRULY improve your cars handling over its existing design, then why install it, unless it is a show car, cause that multi link does look sweet. Think about this for a moment. This suspension was designed in the late ‘80’s, (high tech bells and whistles was the name of the car game back then whether these bells and whistles did anything to make the car faster or not) and this multi link suspension is to go under mass produced cars for Joe Blow. The demographics, the same guys and gals that might consider the Camaro Z-28, Mustang GT, Dodge Stealth, Mitsu Eclipse, Ford Probe, etc. . Compromises need to be made so that Jane Blow will also feel comfortable behind the wheel. This suspension wasn’t designed for the discerning sports cars racer like Mario Andretti. High performance handling was not on top of the list of design goals, that you can be sure. If it were, then we should see more Multilink suspended cars at the top of national level ranks of most racing events. In Solo II on a national level, the Prepared and mod class cars, you wont find the 240 SX or Z-32 running as fast the Prepared or mod class S-30 cars. I’m not saying the rear suspension s is slowing the cars down, but I am saying it isn’t helping them go scary fast either. The Early Z with its Chapman strut, (and this is my opinion), offers LESS compromise from a performance stand point than the Multi link does. Now if you install stiffer bushings in the Multi link, you will cause the suspension to be in “bind”. Even with the OE Rubber bushings, the suspension has a great deal of rubber friction from the twisting binding motion of the control arms. You try and move the suspension through its travel with the spring/strut removed and OE rubber bushing and you’ll see what I mean. I would bet it takes over 100 lbs to get the suspension from full droop to full bump with OUT the strut/spring combo. This is not good. You want to the suspension to be able to articulate with as little friction as possible so the spring and damper can do their respective jobs without in other influence, say from the bushings. Heim joints might be a different matter all together. The Heim joint might allow the suspension to articulate without binding, but I’m not 100% sure on that. As for the short nose diff. Well it fits the Multi link cradle so no sense swapping it out. Though I’d stay away from the Viscous versions. They are really no better than the open diffs. I’ve driven quite a few Nissans with the Viscous LSD, my Q included, and it really doesn’t offer much of any appreciable or even noticeable advantage over the open diffs. Save your dollars and purchase the open diff and install a Quaife or NISMO clutch pack center section and that issue is solved. Now as for reasons why I think that suspension “should” be installed in an early Z car? It looks VERY trick especially with the A/M tubular arms etc. Great for a show car and just to be different. It already has the 5 lug hub and disc brakes. For a race car or high performance street car, I feel the Multi link is a step backward or at best, is no better than what is currently under the car even after made the huge financial investment and after how much time and labor spent modifying the car to accept this really cool suspension? That is my $.02

Silent, The MN-47 has a cylinder head temp sensor port on the pass side of the head near the block to head interface, directly behind and below the #5 spark plug, (just like the P-79 and P-90 heads, but don’t think for second, Mack, that this feature in of itself makes it a P47 head.. LOL). The Z car N-47 does not have this provision as that particular EFI sensor is in the thermostat housing on the Z car variants. I agree. The ¼ mile MPH is a much better indicator of power being produced, not ET, (knowing the vehicle weight as well, one can get a ball park HP calculation), and ET is primarily an indication of traction “and” the drivers ability to shift at the correct times etc, (it is amazing at how bad you can botch a run with a missed shift, etc, but yet your MPH will still be really close to your good run MPH). 60’ ft times are an indication of the vehicles traction out of the hole. I’ll be keeping on eye on my PM box here at Hybrid and my E-mail for your post…

Have any of you Turbo guys tried using the ARP Head stud kits on your boosted L-series engines? The ARP stud kits will clamp the head down tighter thereby “squishing” the head gasket the much tighter and as such should hold up a little better under the boosted abuse that seems to bellowing your gaskets now. This isn’t “cure all” or a “fix all”, but it might be just enough to allow the gasket to live a longer life than with the OE head bolts you guys are currently using. The only down side I have issues with regards to the ARP head studs is during any time you have to remove the head and one or more of the studs won’t thread out of the block, then removing the head can be “very” tedious.

Mack, You are not interpreting your feelings correctly. Your feelings were correct in calling the Maxima N-47 what it TRULY is, the MN-47. With its same valve length as the Z N-47, same exact intake and exhaust port as the Z N-47, etc. “Da Nile” is not just river in Egypt you know, LOL.. On a serious note, the E-31 chamber is slightly different from the MN-47 head. The MN-47 head has a much more efficient design from the standpoint of the burn process. For example, just look at the late model VORTEC heads from GM with the spark plug way close to the middle of the combustion chamber, a nice SMALL high squish combustion chamber etc. This is not a direct exact comparison, but was used to illustrate how the newer cylinder head, (aka “the new kid on the block”), has brought more power potential to the table vs the old technology. The Maxima N-47 head has leaps and bound more technological design in the combustion chamber and port design and especially shape, than the E-31 ever thought of having. “Mack” Daddy, (LMAO), you’ve come along way baby in realizing that the MN-47 head is “DA” head of choice for nice N/A warm-mild-semi wild street/mild race L-series 6 cylinder heads…. BOOYAaaa… The MN-47…. (In my best Darth Vader impersonation...) Mack… Come over to the dark side… Young Jedi… ...The Dark side is more powerful than you can ever imagine….. LOL

Sorry I don’t have any info on this particular car. I found it online one day while surfing, forgot what school. You may find the FSAE home page and find a list of entrants and be able to find the info that way. Good luck PS, and a pair of turbos would be WAY FRIGGIN COOL!!!!

FWIW, Nissan dropped the VVT in ’96, (my assumption is OBD-II?). Any how, the VVT was only offered ’90-’95. My ’96 Q-45 does not have the VVT. As for the non VVT ’96 powerband, I did run my Q on the Dyno at “Torque Freaks” 2 years back, there is a distinct power band, comes on around 4000 RPM and pulls like mad. Below that it is a bit soft. I’m not sure if I still have the dyno sheet but if memory serves, my bone stock ’96 Q put 234 HP to the wheels. If I find that dyno sheet, I’ll post it for ya guys…

Cary, How you been? You gonna make Ice Breaker this year? Jon mentioned that you sold an FP car? So what are your plans this for racing this season? Thanks for the heads up on the anti dive in the T/C rod thread. As for the J-county sports park. You are hitting the sweeper flat out in 3rd?!?! and hanging on to it? DANG BOUY!!! That is nuts. AND you are 3 seconds FASTER than Kotzian? I’ve beaten Kotzian myself in my old V-8 Z but it was “barely”. A 3 second time spread is an eternity and against a national champ driver to boot… Kudos on the times. SO I may as well just leave my car on the trailer then….. LOL Out of curiosity, Cary, what induction are running on your race car/s?

Jon, No the car isn’t McAlisters car. Last I heard he was still working on “Tube80Z”, hmmm. If he sold it I wonder which of his many other projects he’s working on? SOOooo… you know Cary huh? He’s a great guy, EXTREMELY knowledgeable on chassis design and set up. We’ve known each other since about 1989-1990 or so. Kelvin Dietz introduced us back then. We don’t get a chance to talk to often but when we do get together the topics are “interesting” to say the least. Last time we spoke, (late this last summer), he heard about our new race car acquisition and was looking forward to competing this coming season. Any how, my car belonged to Vern Littrell out of Medford and it USED to have a single little bitty round brake light for the track days, (see pic below). I removed the brake light as it is now a SOLO-II car. When I removed the brake light, I also finished the taillight panel as you see in the previous rear view pic. Maybe we’ll see you down here this season? I’ll post the Eugene event schedule when I get it. Cary McAlister and Ron Tyler should also be there throughout the season. Here’s a pic of yours truly (wearing the hat), standing with Vern Littrel the day we picked the car up and I had JUST found out it was mine! (note the big smile)

I bought the car with those crazy wide tires. Short history… The car was built by a good friend that had me build him “my” ideal track engine that had to be somewhat civilized, i.e. not hyper-strung. I built the engine back in ’98, bottom is just a stout Flat top L-28 with ARP rod bolts, one of my lightened flywheels, and balanced. ARP head studs used as well. The head is a Maxima N-47 treated to copious amounts of valve unshrouding, 4 and 5 angle valve work on the seats, (I use Sunnen VSC Seat cutters on my Bridgeport mill for cutting valve seats), and a very mild cam, I think lift is around only .480”, I’d have to dig through the paperwork to know for sure. He put maybe 4 hours on the car since, got hung up on street rods and mentioned to my wife that he was selling the Z car so she secretly purchased the car from him without me knowing around Dec last year and surprised me with it on Memorial day this year. I have since removed the Super-Trapp, sold the Triple Webers and currently installing EFI and will campaign the car in F-prepared. The car was originally set up for track days only, and as such, the wide tires were an attempt to get AS MUCH rubber on the ground as possible. The car has seen time at Laguna Seca, PIR, Thunderhill, and few other courses. The car does STICK like freaken crazy, in fact, laterally, it sticks better than ANY car I have ever been in, and this includes Tom Kotzians national SOLO-II winning Vette, Brian Coles SOLO-II Dodge Viper running 14” wide slicks on all 4 corners with $1000 Penske double adjuables, (race car only, no street duty). I’ve seen This Z car “bicycle” with these crazy wide tires while Vern was hammering it around one of the tight courses used by the Southern Oregon sport cars club, (fun Go Kart track). Power wise, sure enough, it doesn’t need “that” much tire, handling wise on the road courses, I think these large tires do help keep it stuck to the pavement in the corners. For Solo-II, these tires might be a bit TOO Much. Like I said in the previous post, within a couple seasons, I may go to a narrower tire. We’ll see how she does this season before I make up my mind.

Here is a better perspective of those big a$$ meats. BTW, that Cheesy SuperTrapp is LONG GONE!!!! BRAAAP…BRAAAAAAAAP……BRAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaa…….

Jon, I couldn’t agree with you more when it comes to caster on the front of the Z, especially for transitional handling situations such as slalom racing and SOLO-II. Adding caster allows the car to “turn-in” MUCH harder and with more authority. I have to eat some crow and agree with you that even if you do give up a little anti-dive to gain MORE caster with those pretty T/C rods, for someone building an Auto-X/street car, that is a compromise worth making. To modify the T/C mount to retain the pivot location does require quite a bit of involvement and most guys, justifiably, aren’t willing to hack on their cars to that degree. BTW, Jon, do you ever make the trip south to compete in SOLO-II much? Portland or even Eugene?

Yes, you are correct in that those Ball joints would move the pivot outwards “if” they were just bolted in to the stock T/C mount location, but these particular T/C rods, in their current application actually do pivot in the EXACT same location as the OE Datsun Z car T/C pivot. These rods were installed on a Datsun 510 that myself and Ron Tyler installed a complete 240 Z front suspension under the front, and we retained the 240 Z rear facing T/C rod arrangement so that we could utilize the 240 Z front-steer rack set-up, we custom fabbed the T/C mount a little further back and inboard so that the ball joints do pivot in the same location as stock. You are also right in that by raising the T/C rod pickup location, this will induce some anti-dive geometry. As for “how moving the T/C rod pick up outboard affects dive”, the easiest way for me to describe this is just picture how a semi trailing arm works. Depending on how the arm is angled, (and to what degree the semi trailing arm is from parallel), dramatically affects the anti squat/dive characteristics. Now by moving the T/C pivot point outboard, the front suspension now becomes a semi trailing arm, i.e. the imaginary line that runs through chassis pickup points are no longer parallel to each other, (technically the front then becomes a “semi leading arm” as the wheel is forward of the pick up points) To look at this in a different way, picture the semi trailing arm suspension on the 510, 280-ZX, or Z-31 300-ZX. (Picture either of those setups for the following examples). If you jack the car up, (chassis pick points being higher than the wheel hub itself), acceleration forces will help “cam” the tire under the car thereby helping to dig the tire into the pavement as the control arm lifts the rear of the car even higher in the air, there by helping with traction, (anti squat), but if the car is lowered, (the chassis pickup points now being lower than the wheel hub assembly) the tire will try and “cam” over the top and thus will loose traction. The opposite holds true for braking forces. I know that probably confused few of you and if one of you Chassis Gurus caught what I was trying to convey, could you please rewrite it in a format that is little easier to understand? Any how, hope this helps…

Hands down Terry wins for the most beautiful and exotic lip, but I just may have you all beat as far as overall lip. My F-prepared SOLO-II 240-Z is shod with 13”x13” Diamond racing wheels on the rear. You read that right 13” WIDE rims shod with Good year road racing slicks. The fronts are 13”x10”. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t really need that much meat and sometime in the next couple seasons I may put smaller tires on it. For now, I really enjoy everyone’s first comment when they approach the car… “HOLY $H!T those are HUGE A$$ tires!!!” So did I hear that right, the winner gets $300?!?!LOL

Bang for the buck the Vortec CAN’T be beat!!! Port shape and size is excellent as cast to support in excess of a realistic 350-375 HP especially with the raised port floor and generous short side radius on the Intake. The chambers are, well, a work of art with the spark bolts closer to the center of the chamber, than any other SBC head I have seen. Below, this is the casting identification on the end of the Vortec heads. I just took these pics yesterday. I bought these for my father as he plans to use them on a very mild 383. He wanted me to massage them so I just performed a mild clean up in the bowls only. The chamber on the left is untouched as cast, the chamber on the right has the mild massaging done, below… Below, note that GM is shipping the new Vortec heads with high quality Viton Stem seals and also putting a 30 degree back cut on both the intake and exhaust valves. I perform a 30 degree back on the valves of EVERY cylinder head I do. GM saved me that step this time around FWIW, I also weighed the Vortec heads as a pair, fully assembled, without rockers, 90.4 lbs for the pair. I also weighed my Trick Flow Signature heads fully assembled without rockers, 58.6 lbs for the pair.

Yes, from a competition standpoint, the front end of the Z can stand a bit more caster, helps band aid its steep king pin angle, no argument there. In this example, those T/C rods will allow a changing caster curve through out the travel of that front wheel which, as you mentioned, is something you don’t want, but for argument sake, a competition car isn’t going to go through enough travel from bump to full droop during action for that to be problem, so, the caster arc curve is really a mute point and as you stated, the added caster you can dial in will more than make up for that. A pronounced negative side affect of those T/C rods having the outboard pivot more outboard is it induces more dive under hard braking, depending on the control arm angles of course. Generally speaking, most Z’s set up for performance handling are lowered and as such, making the “side swinging” control arm more of a “trailing arm”, (technically a leading arm), style control arm by moving the T/C rod pivot outboard, allows the front end to dive more under hard braking. In short, the stock front suspension is only “OK”, but in my honest opinion any alterations to the geometry of the front end should do so with as little compromise as possible to the rest of the geometry, unless it enhances the geometry of course, as the front end can use all the help it can get. You don’t want to induce other negative attributes to gain another characteristic unless that is the only option to gain that specific characteristic for that particular application. Those particular T/C rods do allow for caster adjustment, but there are other ways to get this added caster without altering the other geometry characteristics of the front suspension. An example would be a set of T/C rods I built back in the late ‘90’s. I used Volvo Rack and Pinion ball joints in place of the OE Datsun T/C rod pivot location, this allows articulation without binding and keeps this “control arm” pivot point in the same location, (after some modest T/C mount alteration, but in the car we used it in, we started from scratch, so no problem), and then we welded on a threaded sleeve to the T/C rod itself. For caster adjustment, just loosen the Jam nut and twist the T/C rod without even jacking up the car. (When Ron Tyler and myself built Dave Lums VG30DETT powered 510 we installed a complete 240 Z front end complete with 240 rack and rear facing T/C rods and we used this Ball joint set up. Here are a couple of pics of those T/C rods.) In short, I still feel those particular T/C rods are for show cars, not competition cars. Not to mention, some class rules prohibit suspension pick up points from being altered and those T/C rods do technically alter the suspension pick up point.

To reiterate what John said, if you are serious about performance handling, then do NOT use that T/C rod set up. The pivot is moved further outboard which drastically alters the geometry. The only real purpose for that style of T/C rod is for show cars, i.e. “BLING BLING baby…”

I couldn’t help myself when I saw this thread so I had to add a few more pics of this particular Bike V-8 project. It is a Formula SAE project, and if this one is the same as the rest of the Formula SAE field, it is limited to 600 CC, and a very small single throttle valve! This team scratch built the entire car “cept” for the heads, cylinders and pistons and tires. The Crank, rods, case, transaxle, chassis, etc are all SCRATCH built!!! Formula SAE is a Solo-II class open to colleges and the cars are built around defined limitations such as engine displacement, throttle bore size, wheelbase dimensions, etc. More info on this SOLO-II class can be found at… http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/ These things are BLOODY quick around the autocross track when in capable hands. Time wise they are capable of competing with A-mod cars as well as the Formula 125 shifter KARTS!!! We have one that competes at the Eugene Oregon events, though this particular one isn’t very quick, YET, (most likely an in experienced driver as it should take “top time of day every event”), as I have beaten him in my 13.08 HP Briggs and Stratton powered Kart every time he showed up. He should be KILLING my kart!!!! For those who lust after designing your own competition 4 wheeled vehicle, Formula SAE is a great place to be…. Here is an EXPLODED view of the entire powertrain… (note the single plane crank)… Here it is on the run-in stand… The transaxle housing in various stages of machining… The engine in the car it propels… And the car itself.. YEE HAAA!!!! Yours truly at opposite lock in my SOLO-II KART!!!

Just a quick post. I’m selling a few more L-series parts. An Early “NISSAN 2400-OHC” valve cover, a TURBO valve cover and a pair of, get this, “chrome” headlight buckets. The headlight buckets came with a car I acquired and being as I’m BLING allergic, they must GO!!! They are ideal for that one of kind show car or for that Z car that needs another chrome bobble to stand out from every other Z car in town…. Early valve cover… http://classifieds.hybridz.org/showproduct.php?product=1667 Turbo Valve cover… http://classifieds.hybridz.org/showproduct.php?product=1668 Chromed headlight buckets, BLING!… http://classifieds.hybridz.org/showproduct.php?product=1669

With the 305 balancer, the 350 should produce at least 1 meeeeeeelion Horsepower. The 454 should only produce 850,000 HP, unless you have an Edelbrock sticker on the rear window, then it will produce at least 1 meeelion horse power as well....

Yes you could. The flat tops and your P-90 head is a fantastic mild street combination. Your engine should still be able to run above 4800 RPM even with the low compression which tells me something else is amiss, ie. Ignition timing, fuel mixture, or cylinder sealing, (head gasket, rings, or valves not sealing). At any rate, Flat tops or the slightly domed pistons discussed here would be ideal for your naturally aspirated set up. Good luck,

Eric, I apologize for mudding the waters. What I meant to say is that those pistons won’t work for your 1977 N-47 L-28 cylinder head. DAW post clarified what I was saying with little more detail, (thanks DAW). To repeat what DAW already has posted, the P-79 and P-90 heads share the same combustion chambers. The Naturally aspirated Z cars, 1981-1983 ran the P-79 head from the factory with flat top pistons. The turbo cars ran the P-90 head with dished pistons to lower the comp-ratio even further, but the combustion chamber of the Turbos P-90 is the same as the no turbo P-79 head. These pistons that you mentioned have a slight dome to raise the compression a little more than stock in this application. One of my customers, (now a great family friend, Mike Hintz) is running those exact pistons in his L-28 and his old engine builder though the earlier N-47 would be ideal with these domed pistons and with 92 octane super unleaded and a mild Crane cam, he had detonation issues that could be heard at higher RPMS outside of the car when he passed by at WOT and also showed up very clearly on the dyno. I convinced him to let me build him a P-79 head and go back to a stock cam and after putting it all together and re-tuning the EFI and ign advance for this combo, (OE L-jet EFI and ign), he couldn’t be more happy. The engine ran WAY smoother, pulled harder everywhere in the RPM band, (on the dyno showed a 10 ft lbs increase over the previous set up across most of the rpm range with solid 15 HP increase at peak), and best of all, no more detonation. He is wanting to switch over to standalone EFI and at that point we may put the Crane cam back in as we then can tune around the new VE curve the Crane cam delivers, (can’t really tune the OE EFI around different cams other than OE cams). That is whole other topic. Sorry for going off on a tangent. In short, those domed pistons are a direct replacement for the 1981-1983 280-ZX L-28E flat top pistons for the naturally aspirated engines. If you put those pistons in an earlier L-28 you also need to find yourself a P-79 or P-90 head as either of these will compliment the domed pistons very nicely. Just don’t use those domed pistons with your 1977 N-47 head or any of the other earlier heads unless you plan to run Race or Av gas in the vehicle. Also, AK-Z made some good points as well in regard to help curbing pre-ignition and detonation. Carbs offer the ability to make several other mods rather easy, (as does “stand alone EFI” like SDS, Megasquirt, Electromotive, etc). A richer fuel mixture runs cooler which helps keep detonation at bay if you on the edge, but in the case of my friends car, richer wasn’t enough. He just lost power and the detonation was still there. Even if you don’t understand the physics behind “why” you need to certain heads with certain pistons, just trust us that do understand the “why” and you’ll do just fine. 90% of the guys posting here on topics as in depth as these do know what they are talking about from experience, not just hearsay or theory and it is rather easy to weed out the posts from those that are just guessing or applying only theory to their posts. If anyone else sees any holes in what I was trying to convey to Eric, please feel free to jump in and fill in those holes…

NO, those pistons wouldn’t do you any good with your ’77 head, and also of note, none of the OE L-series engines came from Nissan with 10:1 compression. There is a FANTASTIC thread 3 pages long about heads, compression ratios, all with different L-series heads. Your best bet is to read this thread first… http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=104420&highlight=Big+Nasty Good luck,

Good find. Looks like a great foundation for a fun hybrid project. Keep us posted on your progress....

As for the electro to mechanical Speedo thing with the world class T-5, yes you can just remove the elctro doohickey by removing the bolt that holds the clamp, then just pull the elctro drive straight out then go down to your local Chevy dealer parts counter and they will sell you a mechanical drive for your speedo for dirt cheap. My world class T-5 also came with the electro goodie. All you have to do is go down to any Chevy dealership and they will sell you the mechanical drive for the Speedo cable, then all you need is either the JTR speedo cable or to have a local speedo shop make you a GM-Datsun speedo cable. Back in ‘97/’98 this little adapter, over the GM parts counter, only cost me like $13. I originally used the JTR Speedo cable, but after only a few hundred miles the cable broke so I had a local speedo shop make me another one for the same price as the JTR and it lasted until I sold the power train, over 15,000 miles. Also, I used the JTR 90 degree speedo cable adaptor doohickey which has .66 ratio, and with my 3.9 ratio diff and 195 60 HR 14” tires, my speedo was DEAD NUTS on.

Patzky, What FAA certs do you hold? All I hold is my Private, Single Engine Land.