zigzag240

Solved my T5 issue. Despite the shaft splines looking too large the gear pressed right off. Even with a strong light it didn't look possible, the gear splines look 1/4 the height...an odd optical illusion. Looks like the Nissan T5 is identical to the other NWC T5s after all.

I'm rebuilding a Borg Warner T5 from a 1983 280ZX turbo. I have a full rebuild kit and have spent the last couple of weeks reading and memorizing everything there is about the process. But I'm stuck at the step of removing the tapered bearing from the REAR of the output shaft. The Ford T5/Nissan/AMC shop manuals all state that you simply press off the 5th gear and slide the bearing off. But on mine the splines on the output shaft have a step that prevents it from being pressed off the rear. And since the 1st/reverse hub on the front is not supposed to be removed because its set precisely at the factory there's no way to change the brass blocking ring either. Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but this has stumped me. Has anyone here replaced their rear output shaft bearing. How did you do it?

Check out the Webcamshafts 94a. Ground on a new billet it has stock base circles and uses stock lash pads and springs.I've been running one for 6 years with no issues.

Just got the turbo oil pump in the mail. Black Dragon sent me an ITM brand 057-1057 which is nicely machined aluminum and appears physically identical to the Nissan pump. I opened the case up and it does have a 40mm rotor, so this is the high volume model. The ITM website lists the 057-1057 for the cars below. Interestingly, they list three other models for the 280ZX NA, turbo manual trans, and turbo auto trans. I didn't realize this pump was so universal, maybe it supercedes the turbo pumps. 1990 Nissan 240SX • 2.4L L4 2389cc • SOHC • KA24E Desig. 1990 Nissan D21 • 2.4L L4 2389cc • SOHC • KA24E Desig. 1994-1990 Nissan Frontier • 2.4L L4 2389cc 1998 Nissan Frontier • 2.4L L4 2389cc • Base • Sold in United States 2003-2002 Nissan Frontier • 2.4L L4 2389cc • SE • Sold in United States 1999 Nissan Frontier • 2.4L L4 2389cc • Sold in United States 1998 Nissan Frontier • 2.4L L4 2389cc • XE • Sold in United States 2004-1999 Nissan Pickup • 2.4L L4 2389cc • SOHC • KA24E Desig. 1997-1995 Nissan Xterra • 2.4L L4 2389cc • SE • Sold in United States 2003-2000 Nissan Xterra • 2.4L L4 2389cc • XE • Sold in United States

I went ahead and ordered the Black Dragon. I have the internal gasket, so when I get it I'm going to open it up to make sure it has the 40mm rotor..I'll post the results.

Thanks, read that weeks ago but it doesn't mention the Black Dragon Auto oil pump, only the MSA.

My old 280ZX turbo oil pump is really worn so I plan on replacing it with a new turbo pump. The correct high-volume Nissan pump #15010-S8000 is $145 from my dealer and $223 from MSA. Black Dragon has the "1981-83 280ZX turbo" pump listed for $69 however. Does anyone know if the Black Dragon model is a Nissan part, or have they located a generic replacement somewhere? I would hate to order one just to find out it's a cast iron Melling.

You may have the motormount brackets swapped to the wrong sides....

I have a '70 240 with L28 and replaced the 5-speed with a BW T5 a while back. I want to make sure the output shaft of the trans is indexed with the flange on the differential...to cut down on vibration, etc. But I don't trust my measurements using a straightedge or laser. Can I ask a big favor from anyone who has their 1970-78 (stock manual transmission) on jackstands...to go under and measure the distance from the centerline of the trans output shaft to the floor above it? This one of the few measurements I can't find in years of archives. Thanks anyone....

I took a 2nd look and agree with you. The drag isn't really that much, both side feel equal and smooth. I can turn it with three fingers, I suspect a few miles and heat/cool cycles loosen the seal slightly. Makes sense that the shrunken 40 year old seal didn't drag as much. I was just being paranoid and hoped to have the hub 'freewheel' the way the front does when spun. Thanks......

I just finished replacing the rear wheel bearings on my '70 240 and I'm tightening everything back up. The stub axles now spin freely with one finger, but when I insert the rear flange into the rear seal, the metal lip going into the seal adds a fair amount of drag which is odd. With everything torqued down the axle is harder to rotate (take one hand) but it's not from the bearings (I checked), it's the grease seal holding the flange lip. The seal is the correct Beck Arnley seal (factory is unavailable). Has anyone else noticed the seal adding appreciable drag when rebuilding the stub axles? Thanks anyone...

The rockers may be matched, but the valve seat heights on the head you got it from, and the one you're putting it in are going to be off by minor amounts. Since it's a junkyard cam you may want to risk it, but getting the rockers reground by Delta cams is a good idea. Noting worse than having a lobe grind down after 2000 miles. -Bryan

The Cranes were good cams, I used to run this one which is their stage 2. The lobe base circles allow you to use the stock lash pads and spring, all you need are new rocker arms. Running it on a stock compression ratio will loose some bottom end torque though, the 10:1 minimum recommendation is accurate. This is probably the spec sheet you have.... Part Number: 168-0012 Grind Number:DA-272-2-10 Engine Identification: Start Yr.End Yr. Make Cyl Description 1970 1984 DATSUN-NISSAN 6 GOOD IDLE, DAILY PERFORMANCE USAGE, GOOD LOW AND MID-RANGE HP, AUTOCROSS, RALLYING, 10.0 TO 11.5 COMPRESSION RATIO ADVISED. BASIC RPM 2200-5600 Engine Size 2393-2753 C.C. Valve Setting: Intake 0.15 MM Exhaust 0.20 MM HOT Lift: Intake @Cam 7.41 MM @Valve 11.43MM All Lifts are based on zero lash and theoretical rocker arm ratios. Exhaust @ Cam 7.41 MM @Valve 11.43MM Rocker Arm Ratio 1.541 Cam Timing: VALVE @.254 MM Lift: Opens Closes ADV Duration Intake 27 BTDC 65 ABDC 272 ° Exhaust 72 BBDC 30 ATDC 282 ° Spring Requirements: Triple Dual Outer Inner Part Number 99884 Loads Closed 90 LBS @ 42.1MM or 1 21/32 Open 180 LBS @ 31.4MM Recommended RPM range with matching components Minimum RPM 2200 Maximum RPM 5600 Valve Float -- Cam Timing: VALVE @1.0 MM Lift: Opens Closes Max Lift Duration Intake 11 BTDC 41 ABDC 105 232 ° Exhaust 56 BBDC 6 ATDC 115 242 °

I have a triple set of new Weber 40DCOE's on my L28 that I'm readying for first startup this week(!) The only spec I can't find anywhere is the correct float height. The Weber book by Pat Braden shows a 15mm height for the older model DCOEs with round floats. But my 40DCOes are the newer models 151's with rectangular plastic floats. I measure a 12.5mm height from the bottom end to the lid on mine. - I'd like to set this properly the first time, does anyone know the correct float height for 40DCOEs with the rectangular floats...on a L28? Bryan Little Datsunzgarage.com

Maybe they were just telling me what I wanted to hear, see if you can see any opening in the runners.

Appreciate all the tips. Thinking I had would rather have a version with balance tube, I just called Top End Performance who I bought the carbs from. The guy who answered went out and checked one of their Cannons and said the brace wasn't a balance tube and could see no openings in the runners...oh well. So I just doubled up the anti-vibration spacers on each carb throat so there were two on each...perfect clearance. No need for a block off plate now. Thanks guys..you put me on the right track. This is gonna work...heh-heh. Scroll to the bottom for the photo of the fix: http://datsunzgarage.com/index2.htm -Bryan

My winter project this year is to install a set of new 40 DCOEs on my L28 240. Rather than buy the whole assembly prebuilt, I decided to buy the carbs seperately as well as the manifold and linkage. The manifold I have is made by TWM but its design doesn't take into account the starter circuit and lever on the rear of the DCOE for some reason...the linkage standoff gets in the way. A workaround is to remove the starter circuit cover and lever and put a block off plate on it since I don't plan on using the starter circuit anyway. But after years of Z mods I'm pretty much a Weber newbie....my questions: - When I remove the starter lever is a matter of simply blocking off the opening with a plate? Do I need to remove any jets or block anything else off internally? - Does Weber make a block off plate or should I get out my dremel tool and a piece of sheet aluminum and fabricate one? See the photos below: http://datsunzgarage.com/index2.htm Bryan Little New Haven, Connecticut

I thought I had done everything possible on my '70 240, but this has stumped me. The forums have conflicting advice.....help is very welcome. My car has an L28 and 4-screw SU's. I have no idea what actual year the carbs are. They may not have the original float bowl tops. - The float "ears" in both bowls are the same length but I don't know if they are the "long" or "short" ones in a grainy photo at Z Therapy. '70s are supposed to have two long ears while the '71-72 a long/short. - So I bought a pair of carb rebuild kits from Motorsport Auto, each kit comes with a long and short brass float valve. Motorsport had no idea which which length should be used. My question: Do you use the long float valve with a "long ear" float cover? Or do you use the short one?

I decided that I didn't want to worry about the different resistance values between the tank sensors. So I simply unbolted the fuel gauge from the 240 housing and swapped it into the 280 gauge rear housing. This gives me a 280 housing with a 280 voltmeter on the top and 240 fuel gauge on the bottom....easy.

I searched but not found a definitive answer on this one. On my '70 240 I'd just replaced the stock ammeter/fuel gauge with the voltmeter/fuel gauge from a 75-78 280z. Both had a three wire connector for the fuel gauge portion. The voltmeter part works great. But I'm not getting any fuel level reading at all. Might be a wiring issue, but before I spend a day on it I have to ask the question: Does anyone know if the 240 fuel tank sensor will work properly with a 280Z fuel gauge?

Thanks for the info guys. What confused me is that compressor manufacturers rate at 40 psi, while the Devilbiss rated their guns at 30psi. It would be nice of they all standarddized on the same spec. Derek's link is the first air gun I've seen that rates their gun for the type of compressor needed...that info is what needs to be more transparent from the sprayer companies. Time to spray............

I'm really confused over how to match HVLP paint gun specs to the specs of a compressor. The Devilbiss HVLP guns sold by Eastwood requires 13cfm @30psi. This means that the compressor needs to be able to supply a least 13cfm@30psi, right? http://www.eastwoodco.com/jump.jsp?itemID=12296&itemType=PRODUCT But unless I spend upwards of $800, I can't find a single compressor that gets anywhere near these specs. Craftsman compressors all max out at 6.3 cfm@40 and Husky at 6.5 cfm@40. I can't believe that Home Depot would sell a "budget" $50 HVLP and expect you to buy a $1000 compressor to use it. Am I crazy to think that you can use a HLVP gun with a lower cfm compressor? What the limit of allowed "mismatch" if the compressor is rated lower than the gun? Comments?

Thanks, that makes perfect sense (!)....I was getting hung up on the FSM ritual for some reason...too much brake cleaner over the years I think.

But the needle hole "is" the bottom of the piston...you can't get any lower. It isn't helped by the fact that the FSM drawing is hazy.

OK, There are two camps on setting the height of a 1970-72 SU carb needle: flush with bottom of piston and flush with bottom of the groove. The British method is to use the bottom of the piston, but I don’t think they have the extra groove in the bottom of the piston that Z carbs have. It would seem to me that with the needle sitting lower, its shoulder would disrupt air flow at idle through the bottom piston groove, and require that the nozzle be adjusted too low. All the junkyard ZCAR carbs I’ve opened up had the needle shoulder flush with the bottom of the groove. Does this mean everyone's had had it wrong for 37 years? Can anyone provide a legit reason why one method is the "correct" one...with technical reasons?