ktm

There is going to be a lot of work to repair the damage around that sunroof.

Thanks again Ron. I am looking into some mounting options myself with the LS1 coils. The Suburban coils definitely offer a cleaner install option, but the configuration I have in mind should work as well for the LS1 coil. My earlier inquiry about removing the tabs should be disregarded.

To those that have used the LS1 coil packs in their L28, what did you do with the mounting bracket on the coil? I just want to make sure I can safely remove the bracket shown in the following picture (you can see the two eyelets/tabs): If I can remove it, how on earth did you do it? It feels like metal and looks SECURELY affixed to the coil.

Thanks Tony.

Tony, I was looking to plumb the line while providing, as you mentioned, motive force, but without impacting the thermostat. If the T-stat is not open, you will not move water. Attaching the inlet/oulet to the lower t-stat housing makes it dependent on the operation of the t-stat. Secondly, wouldn't the additional heat from the turbo affect your temperature readings, and subsequently electric fan operation. By placing the connection at the hose from the upper T-stat housing, by-passing the t-stat, you can supply coolant to the turbo. You mentioned lower coolant hose. I was not mentioning the lower coolant hose, rather the upper hose. The turbo inlet would be fed after the pump. I saw in another thread where you mentioned the return is the lower radiator hose....why? You are completely by-passing the radiator at that point, are you not?

1/8 BSPT. The following threads provide great information on the oil feed line. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=120784 http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=104828&highlight=oil+restrictor See post #2 on this link. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=94245&highlight=oil+restrictor As for the cooling, you can run it to where ever you like. Ideally, you would tap into the hose leading from the radiator to the t-stat upper housing, by-passing the thermostat. The feed line would come from a source before the coolant enters the block. That way you are not feeding the turbo heated coolant.

In the very first photo, what wheels were those?

Actually, you contradicated yourself, because you said "I guess I left out that I have an 82 280zx 5speed, so it's not the borg-warner t5..." You need to be more clear in the future. If you have a 1982 280zx turbo 5-speed donor car, you have a T-5 transmission. The T-5 transmission will require that you shorten the driveshaft the 240z driveshaft and modify the transmission mount in a 240z, assuming you keep the 240z differential.

Now you are saying you have a turbo 5-speed. Which is it? Do you or do you not have a turbo 5-speed?

That does make a difference. The T-5 would require modifying the tranny mount and shortening the driveshaft, the N/A 280zx 5-speed does not.

Thanks all.

Did you not read the entire auction, he clearly states that the picture is of a ZX: "THE COVER PICTURE IS OF A ZX HEADLIGHT COVER, IT IS TO SHOW YOU HOW THE Z HEADLIGHT COVER WILL FIT ON YOUR Z CAR"

http://www.jgstools.com/turbo/index2.html It looks to have all the right pieces. My only concern is the 1/8" BSPT adapter. Anyone use this kit?

The cost for the -6 AN fittings is ~$9 each. You'll need a washer kit (they sell them for ~$1) for the install, since the threads are straight and not NPT. Their website www.fuel-pumps.net shows a myriad of different fittings available for the GSL392 pump, and they do just sell the fittings by themselves. I know many folks have (historically) been looking for fittings for the Walbro pumps.

1/8" BSPT. However, I recommend doing a search on Oil Restrictor and reading a few threads there. In one of them, a poster references a setup that uses a 1/8" BSPT to 1/8" NPT adapter, then a 3 port 1/8" NPT block. From the block you can run the oil pressure sender, a 1/8" NPT to -4 AN or -3 AN fitting, and an oil restrictor (if you so choose). The oil inlet feed is M12x1.5.

Great pictures. I was wondering where the rear parts of the rail attached besides the rear crossmember. I now know how much of the @#($&@# Ziebart coating I need to remove.

Look, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it. I view everything as a learning exercise. However, you have yet to back up your statements. You have not said anything. You say that elevation is important otherwise fuel will flow backwards from the pump to the tank. You are correct....unless your pump is operating. You are thinking of static conditions, but a pumping system is dynamic. You can place your pump inlet around 25 feet (33 theoretically, but you have losses and pump inefficiencies) above the water level, but you will need to prime your pump. You may be thinking of a self priming setup, using the principle of a siphon. Once the pump is operating and pushing the liquid, you do not need a siphon. The pump is doing its job. Here is a great resource regarding pumps and how they work: http://www.pacificliquid.com/pumpintro.pdf Edit: If I am coming across too strong or like an ass, let me know. If I am wrong, please let me know and show me why.

I did not mean to imply that 8 mm (~5/16") was insufficient for your purposes. Most people, who do not modify their tanks, run the stock 5/16-in. old feed line as their new return. I only asked since you are having a shop modify your tank. There is nothing wrong with a 5/16-in. return line. I personally opted for 3/8-in. feed and return. I am also running all new 3/8-in. hoses for both my feed and return. I am assuming that you are going to use your old 5/16-in. feed line from the engine bay to the tank as your new return. The return inlet will not be your restriction, it will be your hardlines. However, you will be fine.

You're being nitpicky again and taking me out of context. In the context of 24OZ's original statement about BOSCH pumps not liking to 'suck', the difference in elevation regarding reducing the 'suction' required is inconsequential compared to reducing the length of piping/hose required. Or are you saying that pipe diameter and pipe length have no bearing on head loss? Elevation is important if you want to take advantage of the siphon effect. If the inlet is too high, then as you (and I) mentioned, you lose the siphon effect. However, the siphon effect is only an issue if you do not have a pump. If you have a pump, you have a mechanical means of lifting/moving/pumping the fuel. Edit: I read the thread about TonyC's problem. I do not think it was an elevation problem. He even states "I thought about the pump height too but it does it with a full tank also." It was either a restriction (he mentioned that some crap was knocked loose) or maybe something to do with the vent lines.

You are forgetting frictional losses, which are significant in small diameter pipes/hoses/tubes. The 10 foot loop will hurt you when fuel is flowing. You can not talk about static conditions. By your logic, you could put the pump in the engine bay at the same elevation as the fittings (10 foot loop just straightened). Friction loss is proportional to the square of the velocity. Admittedly, I forgot about the siphon effect. If the inlet is too high, then you lose the benefits of the siphon once the fuel level drops below the inlet of the pump. The single most important pre-requisite is that the discharge be lower than the liquid level. I was basing my earlier post without thinking about the siphon effect, which is significant. Let's just say that we both know what we are talking about, but I am a poor communicator. My point about (theoretically) reducing the suction stands though. At some point the fuel level will drop below the inlet of the pump, at which time it must overcome that elevation difference. By placing the outlet at the bottom of the tank and the inlet slightly below that, you have reduced the required 'suction'. Edit: We are being nitpicky. Simply placing the fuel pump close to the tank will accomplish what you want to do 24OZ. The difference in elevation is inconsequential. The reason people were saying that the pump does not like to suck were referring to placing it in the engine bay as opposed to close to the tank.

Just a quick question, if you are going to use the stock FPR, why dead head it? You are still using the return, just relocating it from the rail to the T (so its not a true dead head setup). Is this to clean up the engine bay a bit?

The fuel pump is going to 'suck' no matter where you put it. What you want to do, though, is limit the head (head is the cumulative losses, friction, elevation, fittings, etc., that the pump must overcome to move the fluid) against which the pump has to suck. I believe this is what people are referring to when they say that the Bosche pumps do not like to 'suck'. Placing the pump all the way to the ground is not going to help you, as your fittings are not changing location. The lower you put your pump, the greater the suction head (miniscule difference given the lengths we are talking about). As a matter of fact, to reduce the head, you would want your pump inlet as close (vertically) to the tank outlet fitting as possible. Given the location of the fittings, the pump has to rely on the siphon effect to supply the fuel (not a bad thing). The only way you could possible further reduce the suction head would be to relocate your fittings to the bottom of the tank and then move your pump inlet to a position slightly lower. In this way the pump feed would be assisted by gravity. Edit: Why not have the shop make the return and supply the same size? I recently had a shop modify my tank as well and had them install 3/8" SS feed and return lines fitted with -6 AN SS fittings.

Looks very nice and as another has said, they compliment your car nicely. I am sorta kicking myself for not opting for these wheels, but I really, really like the 15-spoke Turbines I picked up. I just wish they were 15-in.

Your TPS is disconnected? Why on earth is it disconnected? The ECU uses the TPS to determine the engine mode such as idling and make fuel and timing adjustments accordingly. A disconnected TPS can cause your symptoms.

The only thing that I can think of offhand is that the driveshaft may be too short. When swapping in a T5 into a 240, 260 or 280z or zx, the driveshaft needs to be shortened by about 2 inches. However, I would assume that doing the reverse (swapping in a N/A 5-speed) would mean that the 280zxt driveshaft is 2-inches too short. This is purely speculation based on the reverse swap.