theBrit

The system is flawless, I also ran larger fuel lines etc, just be carefull aligning the fuel level sender as rotating the unit can make the arm touch the yellow foam baffle

Hi All A long time back I used Modern Motorsports adaptors & 5 lug hubs to connect via CV joint half shafts ( I think 280zx turbo ?) to a R200 with quaife LSD, it works beautifully! However I want to put a rear sway bar on and the car, it is lowered a lot so even though my 73 comes with stock tack welded mounts for a sway bar, I belive I need a rear mounted one to clear the A arms. Armed with that knowledge I bought the ST sway bar that fits behind the diff and a TechnoToy replacement for the hanger with ears that are pre drilled to mount it. Imagine my reaction as I find that what I assumed would be a simple bolt in mod, was going to be not that simple, the ST rear bar fouls the boot at the wheel end, I need to solve the half shaft problem another way, I do love the CV joint set up I have a stock LT1 + T56 from 1995 so it is just under 300 hp I think. I am wondering if I just revert to normal 280z? half shafts, the problem is that I have been out of this for a long time and I am no longer sure what I have todo to revert this although it has been nice just to use the car and not think. I have the 4 bolt flange that has the big nut to the stub axle from the original car still, I can get 280z half shafts online I think, is that the only part I need ? Perhaps as I see the community is well served with aftermarket parts these days, there is something better ? I took some poor photos of the current set up if that helps, and some guidance would help as I start cutting and pasting information from the web to resolve the the half shaft problem, oh and perhaps there will be a very nice half shaft based solution for sale, assuming you dont want a sway bar PS. yes it is filthy under there and again it is in need of paint but it does get used round town in the summer.

Hi all I have the one of the original MM cobra 13" conversions and started to wonder if I could improve the pedal feel with a change of pad material, there are a range of options for this set up based on the 2004 mustang. This is the data that set me thinking http://www.hawkperformance.com/compound-graph it looks like HP+ should just be plain better than OEM, with a downside on dust, noise etc I expect. I'd like to add a little bite when cold / warm - no track time. I have the 240sx rear rotors and all the right proportioning valve, master cylinder modifications etc and I think the pedal feel could be better, its easy to lock the fronts without getting the feed back its about to happen. I spent a lot of time testing and adjusting the proportioning valve until the rears never locked first when I first set this up a few years ago so I assume the bias is about as good as it can be for my set up. But before I start fiddling again - does any one know which pads Ross used to supply, I could not find any details written on the pads themselves so I dont know if I am starting from some generic OEM pad or a performance pad.

I thought you might like to see the install pictures for the phantom kit from aeromotive in a 73 240z LT1 6spd http://aeromotiveinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/18688.jpg The only issue I have had with my LT1 install was the external fuel pumps for the fuel injection, I thought long and hard about cutting out the floor and adding a fuel cell, but in the end decided to modify the tank. It was worth it and it now works PERFECTLY, the cheaper external fuel injection pumps make a terrible racket, the Mallory one was quiet but started to leak after attending the Carlisle car show a year ago so the car just sat whilst I worked on the house. Some basic notes, 10ga wire, -6an feed and return, tank etch primed inside after using rust eater and then painted - very impressed with the product from summit although you need patience sloshing the three stages around. The actual connections to the unit require O rings, not regular AN fittings which is a pain when you don't read that part of the instructions initially and find you can't hook it up for a few more days For me cutting the tank was done outside after it sitting empty for almost a year, I ran the shop vac though it for 20 min prior and during to ensure it was vented, I wore full body armor welding jacket, full face grinding shield, gloves etc but it was a non event with a thin cutting disk and lines marked out with blue painter tape it was easy. Watch out for the top breather when you weld it, that is soldered in so weld very small sections at a time and let it cool or it will come off in your hand. If I were to do it again I would have added another 1/2 " to the height of the cutout to give more clearance to the rails, it works just fine but looks unprofessional becaseu a manufacturer would have given more clearance. I lost a couple of the rubber pads for the top of the tank but McMasterCarr sell rubber strips that can be trimmed as perfect replacements - I use medium hard and it feels just like the original. This works like stock, it is silent, the car starts much more quickly, with the mallory you would hear it spin and then the car would start.

Not that centering was my goal, but when I welded these arches on I had the opportunity so I centered the arch on the wheel http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2939350

The sensation you have in my car is that of exterem care on launch in 1st despite the LSD to avoid wheel spin, I usually start from almost idle, feather it in and then about when I want to floor it and go, its already time for 2nd and I feel cheeted. I feel cheeted because I want that same sense of pull I get if I short shift to second and then give it beans. I notice that Corvettes mange either more than my 47 mph in 1st, the 96 LT1 attaining 51 mph or they have much larger tires and I am sure better suspension to allow a harder hit from the 1st. I dont want to change the Z so much that its not a Z, but I'd like to make 1st more fun I think a rear ratio change may help, the R200 can be 3.36 and I have heard of 3.16, and the Armarda is proably no good as there is no LSD avalable, but it has 2.946, 3.13 I also though of trying to up the RPM limit, but that still leaves the rather close ratios of the T56, and dropping out of 1st at a higher speed will probably now leave 2nd feeling just as brief unless I go back to a short shift. Does anyone have any other sugestions ? Mike

blueovalz It mounts to the floor against the square left right frame, and looks to me like the new mount point ends up next to the stock one, but the bar is not long enough to pick up the stock points. I was hoping some one with a 260 who has one might have pictures. 260DET I dont have a lot of experience setting something like this up. I had a classic mini way back, and that thing was like a go cart, it had a similar set of changes but there was no tire disparity. and no sway bars, it was fantastic, although a little prone to lifting an inside wheel on roundabouts (traffic circles) If I were to change the front, would I use a smaller sway bar ? Could I use a softer rear spring and keep the front as it is ? the front feels like its just right over NJs lumpy roads, the rear a little harsh but not unbearable. Thanks for your thoughts. Mike

I currently have a common issue, with a common hybrid v8 set up, trying to get the power down without to much push. The quick question is does anyone here have a 73 240z with a stock location 260/280 rear bar fitted. The 73 appears to have the same factory mointing points as the later cars, or is the only option to drill holes to fit a rear bar to a 240? Now the details and history. LT1 V8, 2600 lbs Front lowered 185lb 2.5" front springs, using MR2 totiko adjustable struts and 1" sway bar, 245x17 tires Rear lowered 225 2.5" rear springs with front 240 totiko adjustable strut V8, quaiffe LSD, 275x17 tires I feel like the car pushes a little, and out of the options I have read about to dial a little of the push out I thought I would try a light rear sway bar to even up both ends. My car is a 73 which has sway bar attachment points that appear to match those found on 260 and 280 cars. They look like the ones in the Haynes and Chilton manuals that show a rear bar. I was just taking with MSA because I ordered their bars and expected them to fit the factory brackets I have at the rear, which they dont. Talking with them all their 240 bars require drilling holes to fit, and they think 260 and 280 bars will not work. I did some googling and found that others have a 260 bar fitted, but I'd like to get my facts straight before either 1. getting 260 bars and looking for my self 2. drilling holes Thanks Mike

1973 LT1 T56, 17x8 with 245-40, 17x9.5 with 275-40, 13" front rotors, 240sx rear rotors. Weight 2604 lbs with no driver: Corners weights are 647 : 655 622 : 680

I'm glad your re-man rack was better than what you had before. I had a very different experience sending the rack back twice as it was noticeably notchy around center. I erased from my memory where I got the rack, but it was the biggest most reputable vendor I thought I could find at the time. To their credit they happily sent replacements. In the end I got a second hand rack from an automatic (I think they get an easier life) and was stunned - its perfect and I also got rid of a vague feeling at highway speed.

My 2 cents on which ratio. I have 3.54 driven by LT1 T56 and there is no way I would want a lower effective gear (3.9 etc) than that. Of course I cant speak to how the automatic would change things, but I actually chose my tires specifically (as there are few R200 options) to get to a taller gear for it to pull against and allow 1st to reach a sensible speed before second was needed. When I had smaller diameter tires with this set up it incinerated 1st, it was useless as the red line came up before you really got moving without extreme care. I did some investigations and many of the truly fast street cars get to 35+ or almost 50 for the corvette in 1st. I get 45 mph with 275 40 17s And finally, I could not live without a LSD, it makes it easier, its the confidence with which you can pull away with less careful foot work and, your not left wondering if you are going to sit there making smoke and not moving Mike

Even with all the numbers lining up with calculations, I won't believe it until I have a time slip, thats the ultimate proof. But further corroboration is that the same gtech was run 8 times in an Mitsu Evo, and comparing the data, the evo launches harder as you might expect, but then gets comfortably reeled in on each run. Mike