rejracer

The 280zx stub axles are the smaller spline count. They are the same as a 240z. 280zxt companion flanges for CV's will bolt on to the 240z axles. However I believe there are fitment issues with the width, I've heard of reports of binding when used with R200 diffs on one side. I don't know if your 260 has 240z or the later 280z axles. If you have the later axles, the 280zx companion flanges will not fit. I have a 72 240 and am using the modern motorsports adapters with an r200 and no issues so far, except the quality of the work done on the flanges, they were welded on my 280z companion flanges a bit off center. Not bad, but enough to annoy me.

www.rockauto.com They have the bolt on muffler for 100 bucks new. It's hard to beat that.

I am using a 71b in my 240z, and it too makes noise in neutral. I first noticed the noise when I changed to GM synchromesh fluid. It shifts great and makes no noticeable noise in any gear, it's just the bearing noise with that fluid. Previously I was using Lucas gear oil, and it was quite. So it might be the type / weight of gear oil you are using as well. Mine only makes the noise when it's up to temp. It's quiet when it's cold. For a transmission that 250k on it, I'm not really concerned about a bit of bearing noise.

GM synchromesh is an excellent fluid for our old brass synchro transmissions. It helped shifts enough to get rid of a 3rd gear grind in a 79 transmission I had. Search the forums for it and you will find some excellent info on it. Pennzoil makes an equivalent, and it's inexpensive. I use it in all my transmissions now. Swepco is also good, just a bit harder to get a hold of, and more costly. I found the thread: Synchromesh

Don't worry about bottom end damage, test for it! A compression test will be a very good indicator of the health of the engine. If you lose coolant very quickly, it can overheat the engine and not register on the needle as there is no coolant flowing to transfer the engine temp to the sending unit. Get those core plugs back in the engine, properly installed, and do a compression test when it's at full temp. Of course test for coolant flow first by pulling the upper hose and start it up to check to see it pumps fluid out when started. I made an adapter to go from our radiator hoses to 5/8 coolant hose and catch the fluid in a drip pan. Actually I made 2 of them when I was flushing an engine I bought for heavy rust scale. With this setup, it was possible to run the engine with 2 hoses in a bucket, making testing the flow of the coolant very easy. The only other thing I can think to do is to put the plugs back in and pressurize the system to 20 or so PSI. If they pop out, you have plug problems. Also test the flow of the radiator. How they look has little to do with how they flow. Do the flow tests without the thermostat installed. Hope that helps you troubleshoot.

later style water neck up top has 3 bolts instead of 2. It also has more provisions for mounting the senders/switches. I recall their being 2 sensors for the later style, where the earlier only has provisions for the gauge sending unit. Inlet neck is a bit different in that it has a cast in steel portion that the hose connects to vs the S30 style that is all aluminum. You could use the all aluminum version, but I think the later versions are better quality. Of the 2 I think the one referred to it the outlet. I don't know why you would need to change the inlet.

Which L28 are you running? If you have open chamber heads, you can run around 38* total timing. If you have a closed chamber head with flat top pistons, 32* is about right. Closed chamber L28's have P79 head from the factory. Everything else is either an open chamber head, or runs dished pistons.

There are no caveats. It's plain as day someone can use the 71b bearing. There is no argument on this. "acceptable practice" are you serious? Are you on the acceptable mods comittee? Have you read the hybridz rules to which you agreed to abide by? I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth. First off I stated what MY opinion is. You even agreed with my first post concerning the strength of the bearing. I laid it out, use small bearing trans is weak, large bearing trans is strong. I don't understand why you feel the need to tell everyone else it's not an option. True it's a weak option, a bad option from a strength perspective, and it totally defeats the purpose of the swap if you are after strength in first place. Just remember to breath when they don't care about the strength. If they want to use one on a low power L series, more power to them. If I give someone the facts and they make the wrong choice, it's on them, does not concern me. Welcome to Hybridz, feel free to make all the bad decisions you feel like after being spoon fed. We will enjoy reading of your mishaps in the shed. Caring less than I care if someone makes the wrong decision on their car has not yet been invented. Wait... Attempting to care, ohh no, failed, sorry. I strive to give good unbiased and complete information, and I don't care if someone uses it in what I think is the wrong way. And for the record, I'm not trying to sway you either way. Do what you want to your car. Just don't give out opinion as fact as then it becomes misinformation. This is why I've responded so many times to this thread already, is to clairify things when it's implied I am saying things I am not. On the not caring theme... more power to them if they want to use this behind a high power L series. Pics of shattered stuff is entertaining. Ahem, thanks Big-Phil, can't wait for the next vid! Secondly I'm not arguing about the rod. The only argument I see here is you are implying I am saying things I am not. I never said they did it to save weight, I said that was an effect, by virtue of steel being heavier than aluminum. I went on to say that if they did this for weight they put too much thought into it! The main point I was making was ease of service should the need ever arise again. I then went on to postulate they increased the rod size for strength, I used the word bend instead of deflect, but the concept was understood. Changing a shift rod is easy, on these transmission it's 2 roll pins, a detent, and keeping track of the ball that prevents the 2-3 rod from actuating while the 1-2 rod not in the neutral position. So it's easy to change the rod. MY comments on the rod were I would not want to deal with that complexity if I had to do an emergency r&r in less than ideal circumstances. I was not talking about doing the swap on the side of the road, I was talking about emergency R&R. If you get too custom on your parts and you have a failure, you just engineered yourself a truck ride home or to the local garage. Yes, I know, I'm paranoid, i've given it too much thought. But then again, I daily drive my Z, I'm taking it to SoCal tomorrow. Regardless reducing the rod diameter is clever. It's not the way I would do it, but that's me. I guess it depends on if a guy has a lathe or a Bridgeport in his garage which way it's going to go. Lastly, you bring up the option thing again. if it's not an option for you, then state it's not for you, not that it's not an option. Saying it's not an option (as in it's not possible or wont work) is just MISINFORMATION. Knowing that you would not do it that way, well I respect that you agree with me on that. Some people have different priorities than ours. Some have certain transmissions laying around (2 people with RB20 trans in this thread alone), some even have lathes instead of Bridgeport (I fall into this category). Some still even have early drive lines laying around. Based on your comments on how many cars you have, I'm sure you have a spare early drive line laying around. What I'm getting at is not everyone cares about strength. Some need a cheap trans and have the parts, some might do it for the synchro'd reverse, I bet we could find someone that has done this swap because they like the new style shifter because it's thicker and they think it looks cool, Some might do this because Z31's will be in the parts yards for the next 10 years others just for the project. For me I want a stronger trans, one that can be replaced on the cheap, and if in a pinch or out of town, I can get parts for. I drive a real world car, not a garage and trailer queen. I'm not trying to be argumentative or show anyone any disrespect, I'm trying to clarify what was said and the intent of it, as well as point out the "there is no best" HBZ rule. Ray's idea will be a good mod if it work out. It sounds like a simple mod that requires no internal machining and bypasses all the points of discussion we have just had. Ray, Thanks for posting, trying to keep this on track!

Tony, the RB20 trans is just a FS5W71C. Ray's mod is just a means of not having to pic apart a 71b box to be used as a bellhousing doner. Once it's been machined, any compatible Fs571c can be used as a doner for internals. I am aware of the 300zx, 240sx and some 2wd trucks that use this. Granted the Rb20 boxes are not as common, but at least it's another option. I already have a trashed 71b box, so I'm going to modify it, and not attempt the RB20 route. If I had not already picked up a box on the cheap the RB20 path would be a more appealing option. I'm somewhat scratching my head on this on. I'm getting the impression your trying to convince me to use the larger bearing, which is what I've been saying all along, as well as punching out the 1-2 shift rod hole.

Tony, I am not saying the shift rod is a point of failure, nor does it matter if the rod is turned down or the hole enlarged from a reliability standpoint. Yes it is deflection that I was thinking of. I can see why you could get that from my last post as it wasn't clear. When I said: "I guess my logic is to modify the bits that don't break, so when it comes to replacement, there's minimal parts swappage going on. " was in reference to making the case larger to fit the stronger bearing as well as not having to r&r a modified shift rod. I wasn't knocking what you were saying about what they do in Japan. Just explaining what I see as pro's and con's of how this swap is done in the long run from a serviceability standpoint. My comment about roadside is basically if this swap is done, and then the new box fails, how much work is it to get new internals in and it buttoned up. If I were to source a new or used transmission to get the car on the road, while on a trip, then the modified shift rod is just one more custom part to be R&R'd. I would not want to deal with roll pins and detents. And yes I would tear the cases down to swap out the internals on the side of the road if I had to. Granted "on the side of the road" I probably would not attempt it there, but safe place where you can work on it, assuming bare minimum tools are available, parts house, and I could source a trans on the cheap. You know as well as I how easy these boxes are to split apart. Now R&R of the trans is another story. I would not want to do any type of service without my tools and garage, but when broke down out of town, you've got the choice of pay to have it hauled home, to the nearest garage, or fix it there. When I said: "Perhaps I just put too much thought into these things." It's not an understatement. I know I think about the worst case scenario too much considering it's a modified street car, but I still think about long term serviceability when deciding on what to do and how to do it. Going back on topic, Ray's idea has merit. If the bell housing can be modified, it's a one shot deal. If the trans fails, pull the trans, and swap any compatible FS5W71C internals and button it back up. Same concept, just using different method of modifying a bell housing. Lastly the drilling I was referring to is drilling the holes for the new bell housing pattern as Ray had said in the original post, not the shift rod. The only critical holes on the bell housing are where the locating dowels are. The other holes are more of getting them in the neighborhood. For what it's worth there is a machine shop that will do the bell housing mods I described for around 100 bucks after shipping it's closer to 150. I think the mods that Ray is describing would be even simpler and cheaper. If you were to take the 2 bell housings down to any competent machine shop, they could make a pattern fairly easy. Which would make drilling them using a drill press fairly straight forward.

When I do mods I think of serviceability. If the trans were to fail, I want the least to do to get it up back up and running. Splitting a case can be done in a pinch while on the road with minimal tools. Swapping out a shift rod would be a problem. Perhaps I just put too much thought into these things. Although turning down the rod would result in a lighter transmission by about an ounce or so? If the Japanese do that mod for weight, perhaps they put too much thought into this too! Although I would have to ask why did the engineers enlarge the shaft to begin with, I would assume is they have had a number of them bend during hard shifting? I suppose machining it at the end is not going to weaken it as much as if it were reduced diameter in the center. I guess my logic is to modify the bits that don't break, so when it comes to replacement, there's minimal parts swappage going on. What Ray is talking about and what Nigel did only modify the front case. I don't know of an easier way to get an upgraded transmission in for so few dollars. The while your at it also comes into mind because the front case must still be modified by doing a face cut to clear the thicker cluster gear. It makes sense to bore out 2 additional holes. I have 150 invested in the trans, will have ~150 in machine work, 250 on a drive line. So for 600ish out the door it's a pretty good swap in my opinion. If Ray's idea works this mod could be done for 450 or so, and that's assuming you have a new drive line made. Do the drilling yourself and use a early drive line and this thing could be in your car for just the cost of the transmission, which I am estimating to be in the 200 range.

You can use the 71B bearing, it's just weaker, and you need a bearing puller. Considering the countershaft bearing is a very common failure on the 71B boxes, it makes sense to swap it out. If Ray's idea works out, it makes all the mods I described unnecessary.

Ray, The transmission is a FS5W71C. The L series Bell housing is swappable with the KA / V6 (VG?) / RB20 bellhousing as ovenfood indicated. I got the same transmission but from a NA 1987 300zx, and plan on following Nigels writeup when the funds become available. The machine work required on the L series bellhousing is the following: 1. Bore the counter shaft hole to 62mm so it will accept the FS5W71C bearing. (or swap out and use the FSxW71B bearing but that's weaker.) 2. Take about 3mm off the face area around the counter shaft bearing to clear the cluster gear. 3. Enlarge the 1-2 shift rod hole to ~16mm. 4. IF you are using a 4spd bell housing you will need to relocate the reverse switch. Nigel did an excellent writeup on this. Nigels FS5W71C writeup. Edit: Another person doing the same mod. Edit: Nigels writeup can be found here: Clicky Look in his Albums Now if what you are saying is it's as easy as drilling holes, that makes it much simpler. Do the RB20 and RB25 bell housings have the same bolt pattern? Too bad the the bell housings are not swappable between the RB20 (Fs5w71c) and RB25 (Fs5r30a).

Tony, How many VW's have you seen destroy a transaxle, CV or rear wheel bearings due to a missing ground strap, or Chevy's that fried a shifter cable due to the same? You mentioned a supply and return as positive and negative. Technically electrons flow from negative to positive. So grounds are the supply. It makes no difference in the real world but is good for thought. Click here for Conventional vs electron flow notation. Git-y-up, Derek gave you relevant info on how to bypass your ammeter and it's 60 amp limit, and even noted it renders the ammeter useless. It's irrelevant if the high current travels into the cab or not. We still don't know if the problem is a failed component, dirty connections or if you even need to upgrade. I think Tony was pointing out that it's up to you to determine relevance to what you are going to do to fix the problem. I've tried to point out options on upgrades if you choose so, but that might not even be necessary given the info Newzed and Tony posted. Now for a bit of troubleshooting: I start out testing by first giving the system a good visual inspection. If any corrosion or wiring crustyness is found I clean and then test suspected problem by doing a voltage drop test across the circuit while running. If I don't get a satisfactory result I start repairing and replacing needed circuits as needed. Second I check that I have voltage where it's supposed to be, this means you have to know how the system works to test it. Third I test grounds are "groundy". I do this via a voltage drop test with the system under a load. All grounds should be at 0v regardless of load. If they register more than .5v the ground is not groundy enough. Fourth I do a voltage test of the battery under cranking load to determine if the battery is can supply the current needed while cranking. This is the most demanding test of a battery, and determines if it's serviceable or not. Only after doing those basic tests would I consider replacing expensive components such as battery, starter, alternator. A good volt meter can be had for less than 20 bucks and the above tests on a charging system takes less than 20 minutes.

I did alternator tests today and I found the following voltages: RPM Voltage no load. Voltage with 35 amp load. Tested on a stock L28 with L28 Damper, CS144 Alternator with smaller diameter alt pulley, and optima red top battery. 0 12.5 (this is stable state of battery with no load) 600 12.10 11.85 750 13.30 12.2 800 14.20 12.9 (I notice lights dimming here) 1000 14.35 14.15 1500 14.40 14.18 3000 14.44 14.22 I was taught (early 90's automotive electrical systems class) that nominal running voltage is 13.8 to 14.4 volts, and stable state for a fully charged battery is 12.6v. Anything above 14.4v is overcharging and possibly damaging the battery. I consider that reasonable results by today's standards considering the L28 runs a much smaller diameter pulley than on a GM V6 or V8. I did however set out hoping that this alternator would provide 14v at 750 rpm under a 50 amp load. I also finished up the volt/fuel and oil temp guages. I basically refinished them, and fitted them with all stainless fasteners.

Who would want to deal with 22 240z's? I don't think the price is the problem.

Price drop on the tail housing: free, just pay shipping. It's a 1 ear tail housing from an 81-83 280zx. It will work with your transmission, but you will need the 81-83 speedo cog body. The difference between the two tail housings and speedo drive cog bodies is documented here.

I'd never seen Jeffp's writeup, thanks for the link. KTM and I did alternator upgrades both using the GM CS144. My writeup: http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/99528-240z-charging-system-upgrade/page__p__933113__fromsearch__1#entry933113 KTM's writeup: http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/67531-ac-delcogm-alternator-swap-part-2-cs144-installation/page__p__634683__fromsearch__1#entry634683 Both are good upgrades, I'm a bit partial to mine as it requires no machine work, and I think the end result is a wee bit more solid of a mount. I am running a stock dampener and a slightly smaller diameter alternator pully. I have my idle set to 800ish and the lights dim ever so slightly at idle. I have to be paying attention to notice it. At Idle I think it's producing 13.2v, and at 1500 Rpm it's at 14.45v and stays there with higher rpm. If I lower the idle to 700 rpm (where I like it) the voltage drops to more like 12.8v. I'll have to do some more testing to be sure, but that's my recollect of how it works. Overall it's a great upgrade. The really big advantage to going with a CS144 is you can go into any auto parts store and buy one should the need arise. If you get a fleabay custom or one from Z specialties, it's downtime until you can get another custom unit.

You need a tail housing. I have a 81-83 5spd (minus the front case) I'll let go for cheap. I could sell you the 5spd/tail housing for 20 plus shipping or just the tail section for the same price. The 5spd is well worn, so no real prize there. Edit: It is easy to replace, I would pull the transmission and do it on the bench. Once the trans is out, it's 20minutes of work max to get the tail housing off. I'm up near Sacramento if you are interested.

My only hope is that you caught the understated humor in "lacking 6-10 cylinders", and that I at no time attempted to make my car sound like a v12 on startup. I am so ashamed, I shall now go stand in the corner for 10 minutes.

That was clear Leon, no worries here. I alluded to why I was doing the swap in my original post. I just noticed your "Tremendous grasp of the obvious" quote below your avatar. I was writing my comment as you posted, weird. See you at the BBQ next weekend if you can make it. -Robert

1 ear = close ratio 81-83 280zx 2 ear = 280z and early 79-80 280zx 79zx transmissions had the Porsche servo style 5th gear synchro and were wide ratio. 80zx had the borg warner syle 5th gear synchro 81 was the first year of close ratio and higher 5th gear. All transmission are fine, just match the rear end to the gearing of the trans for your application. ratio identifier.

To change out components to change the sound of the vehicle starting never occurred to me. I was going to go with the ZX starter because it was newer and had less wear on it than my 260z starter I put on my 240z in 1995. I have 2 of them, so a spare is a good thing to boot. I swapped out the starters on my 240z and installed the gear reduction starter from an 83 280zx, and well it still sounds like an L6. I'm not surprised considering the lack of 6-10 cylinders. I have a heightened sensed for the obvious, so pay attention . I was surprised to find that the engine cranks over much faster with the zx starter than with the 260z starter I had in it. I was planning on putting the zx starter in anyway, so this thread was the motivation I needed to get it done. So I think the only thing I can get to make it sound more like a V12 is to run the turbo long block for lower compression and the heavier turbo flywheel. I have a 83zx turbo car, and it sounds a bit smoother, but not too much. And the vid: And a reference video for what a BMW V12 sounds like on startup. Since I know nothing about BMW V12's perhaps someone will chime in as to why they sound the way they do. I've just tried to post up what I know changes the sound of a L6 cranking over with bolt on parts.

Kids require your time, and are magnitudes more important than the car. Put your time where it's needed. A project car is not a need. I say sell it if it's competing for time, and don't regret it! The other option is to keep it as a father-child project when the kids are ready, or just chill and store it for when you do have spare time to slowly work on it. Whatever you do, don't let a pile o rust car get in between you and your family. If you can balance your time, keep it, otherwise sell it and focus on what's more important.

Gear reduction starters tend to sound smoother. Pay attention to how different a 280zx sounds compared to a 280z. I think the 280zx runs a gear reduction unit. I swapped out a stock LT1 starter with a gear reduction unit from a corvette on my impala SS and it sounded a bit different. There are a few factors in why this is. With more cylinders of a V12 there is less time between compression strokes for the starter to speed up, so the load is more consistent. Compression ratio also increases the load the starter has to overcome. A gear reduction unit trades off speed for torque, so typically they will spin the engine slightly slower, but they will not slow down as much under load so they sound more consistent. Also changing the flywheel to one of different construction will give off a different sound. Lastly, make sure you are running a battery that exceeds the CCA rating of what your starter will pull, and that the battery cables are a larger that stock diameter. On my 240z I am running an aluminum flywheel (fidanza) stock starter, 2 gauge battery cables, an optima red top battery, and I upgraded the alternator to a GM CS144 200 amp unit. I noticed a difference in how the starter sounded with each component I changed out. The alternator even made a difference as the battery was charged to a slightly higher voltage. Not that I did any of the above for the sound of how the car started, but I did notice it. I have a 280zx that I could swap the starter off of, I'm tempted now to make that swap, not that I really care of the sound, but because I am selling the 280zx in the next few weeks, I intend to run a 280zx starter anyway on my 240z. If I do I will report back, perhaps post up a sound clip.