260DET

Sorry Jon, I thought you were talking about running out of thread for the stock tie rod ends. Which can happen when, by whatever means, the suspension arm outer pivot point (ball joint) is moved out a lot to gain more negative camber. Clear as mud now?

On the stock insulators, I can see no gain in replacing them with something else unless you you want a full race suspension or the space they take up is a problem. Consider the degree of compliance they offer which helps protect the body from vibration and jarring.

MY FJ20DET engine had a Wolf ECU originally but it proved to be entirely inadequate and impossible to tune properly. Changed to a MoTec, no problems, no comparison. Mind you that was about five years ago, Wolfs are probably a lot better now. I would check with your local dyno tuners to see what they recommend though and then go with the one you trust to see the job through.

There are a couple of different stock radiators I believe, anyway the one with the most core rows would obviously be the best. For fans I used two, side by side. They (singly) came off a Camira or a Laser, can't remember which, and had their own metal shrouds. Cooling may only be a potential issue, if using twin electric fans, on a hot day when constantly using a lot of power eg around a race track.

Jon's head trauma bars point is one reason why my Z does not have a roll cage. Doors without intrusion bars can be reinforced internally without encroaching on interior space which is at a premium in a Z. All small cars are at risk from impact by a larger vehicle, figures in Australia show that SUV's are particularly dangerous to others in this regard and are much more likely to roll over than ordinary cars.

My guess is that they are made from spring steel, so maybe a leaf spring maker could do you one although that is far from certain. But it would cost heaps. Also they appear to be designed and made from spring steel for a reason, to allow some fore/aft flex.

Is there a particular weak point that may be reinforced to improve torsional rigidity? The 'member through the firewall area' has been reinforced which has improved things but it appears that there is another weak area towards the back. Perhaps in the area where the stock rear sway bay goes through from side to side underneath through an open channel? For various reasons I don't want a roll cage. And the body has already been strengthened eg by running tubes attached under each sill section from front to rear and tied into front structural members. My guess is that such tubes should have been extended rearwards past the sway bar channel. Or the body could be reinforced from the inside where the passenger area compartment meets the hatch area compartment? I seem to recall that convertible conversions do that.

On cracking the rear hatch pillars, way back when I originally built the car two supports were welded into the body so as to support the rear roof arch, the part where the interior light is located. They go straight down (viewed from the side) from there to the hatch floor at an angle (viewed from the rear). With the present 300 springs at the rear the body actually creaks when driving over a low kerb diagonally so the body is far from rigid torsionally. Yet the pillars show no sign of cracking.

Some further observations and revisions. I clamped the 27mm bar in a vice and tried to twist one leg using a long piece of pipe over the end, it would not move. Conclusion: a bar anywhere near 27mm essentially converts the independant front suspension to a beam axle. Not good. So I'm going to use a stock 22mm bar on the front. Then I have been offered a 16mm bar to try on the back so that will be given a go as well. As far as springs go, I have been offered a pair of 275 springs to try as well. So they will be used with the 300's I already have. Which springs will go where has not been decided yet but, given the swaybar sizes, the 300's will probably be tried on the front first. Mainly because the bloke lending me the bits wants to see how that setup works.

Thanks all for your responses and input. So it looks like 275 front springs, 300 at the rear, is worth a go. Which is good because presently they are 250 front, 300 rear on my car. And maybe then if the above seems right try a 25mm (1") adjustable front bar in place of the 27mm (1.1/16") which is the cause, I think, of some low speed front end skip/bounce and heavy outside front tyre wear on slow sharp corners. Then, stage three, consider the present 22mm (7/8") adjustable rear bar. How does all that sound? Incidentially, shocks are adjustable rebound Koni yellows, wheels 15x7 with 205x55 Dunlop DO1J soft compound road legal grooved slick type tyres, and yes, they should be bigger. BTW, great video John, the Z looked more composed than the chaser sounded.

A couple of us locally have been trying some various spring rates and sway bar sizes which will still make the car reasonably comfortable to drive on the road yet will perform well on circuit race tracks. We have no defintive answers yet and probably never will due to some variations in body stiffness, overall weight, etc between various cars. But it is looking as if there is is some merit in having slightly heavier springs up front compared with the rear. For example, 300 front, 275 rear. In conjunction with relatively light anti sway bars, for example 24mm front, 16mm rear. This for a fairly heavy car, not a stripped out racer, and not as yet conclusive. The theory behind the 'heavier front springs than rear' idea is that it reduces nose dive under braking and enhances weight transfer to the rear under acceleration. Incidentially I tried the no rear sway bar idea on my car but found that, while there were some advantages in some situations with this setup, overall for the use outlined it was not the best way to go. So, has anyone experimented along the direction we are heading in? I'm aware of what setups the competition people on this forum presently use but am wondering how they were arrived at and what their thoughts are on the above.

Yes, it is a problem if the body is in such a state that it may sag or otherwise self misalign. For our DIY purposes I guess that the best we could do is support it as best we can, using braces as Jim suggested and as many levelled supports as possible. And then tack weld all the bits in first, then do the final welds without overheating any partricular part.

Tricky. My theory is that the body should be supported to best replicate the loads it will be subject to when sitting on its wheels. The other day when doing some structural work on the front I figured the best way to do that was to put stands under both front suspension arms near the balljoints, plus another stand under the diff. At least by doing it that way I figured that on a reasonably level surface the load to both front suspension spring towers would be fairly even. A low tech way of levelling the body irrespective of where it is supported could be attained using a carpenters spirit level and suitable lengths of absolutely straight pieces of tubing or wood, sitting against two common body reference points

IIRC there is an oil seal in the speedo drive pinion. The pinion itself is located in a small aluminium housing which slides into the gearbox housing and is located by a small cap bolt and tongue. Remove the cap bolt and tongue and carefully lever the pinion housing out of the gearbox. The pinion itself can then be removed out of the pinion housing revealing the oil seal. A fiddly job which needs care but is not that difficult.

On levelling a car before doing structural body work, good point BTW, the last time I did that I jacked the car up and then placed a stand under each front suspension arm near the ball joint and one under the diff. So the car was held up by three stands. Seemed to be the only practical way to level it. Is there a better way?

Looks nice, neat and strong. Particularly like the two bars forward to the dash area which should improve body rigidity considerably. 8)

Mine were replaced with a set of vertical louvers fabricated from sheet metal. The shape of the louver frame was designed to fit in with the existing lines and looks quite good. Sorry, no pic.

Could have been another uni joint starting to go. With that much power............. Bout time you looked at CV's, eh?

If you don't mind JT, I'll email you about buying your pro.5.5 shifter. When/if I get a T5 of course.

A lot of FJs were imported into Australia but there are probably not many for sale now. Try a search, someone may have one. Incidentially, the FJ20DET has stronger con rods and crank plus a larger oil pump than the na version.

So JT, you would recommend the pro-5.0 shifter? Who makes them? I'll have to get something like that, Ebay I guess, if my T5 source comes good.

JT, were you putting 360 rwhp 380 ft lb through it for a while, before it broke?

Thanks all for your responses. Anyone else?

How strong are these gearboxes? Anyone broken one? What are the ratios? What is good and not so good about them? My turbo engine is getting a bit much for the Nissan gearbox and we cannot readily get the world class box here in Ozland. So is the Z T5 a big step up from the Nissan Z box?