Leon

With the caveat that the above only pertains to transmissions originally from a Z/ZX. You can easily have a one-ear tranny with wide ratios, e.g. if it came from a truck, 200SX, etc. With that said, the question here is why do you need to know which transmission you have in order to replace your clutch? As long as it's a B-type trans, which I assume is what you have, any clutch will fit. The only variable here is the throwout bearing collar height. This is all in the archives. Here's a useful link regarding early Nissan transmissions: http://www.gracieland.org/cars/techtalk/gearing2.html

Do tire pressures influence cross weight? Yes. Is adjusting corner weights via tire pressures a good idea? Definitely not. With that said, many variables affect corner weights so it's a good idea to know what they are. Knowing that tire pressures affect corner weights should lead you to make sure to set tire pressures to spec (whatever that may be). Even wheel alignment can affect corner weights through weight jacking caused by camber changes.

Exactly. Tirerack is a good source to compare different tires of the same size. They publish actual section and tread widths.

Just remember that off-idle stumbles are different than tip-in stumbles. You can test for an off-idle stumble by very slowly and steadily bringing the revs up in neutral from idle to about 2500RPM. If it stumbles doing so, you either have the incorrect idle jet and/or you need to drill a new progression hole. With the F7, you should be able to run leaner idle jets and smaller air jets.

Why not? All VTEC does is switch cam profiles. No big deal, put a big cam in there and you're good. We've got a K20 Civic at the shop that makes 211whp with big cams and no VTEC. That 211 is at 8400RPM and the power curve still climbing as the motor was designed to spin to 9000RPM. This is on a dyno where stock STIs baseline at 225hp. The customer is more interested in it staying together than going for max power, and the sequential box is only rated to 230hp... Anyway, you're doing your due diligence Derek, keep up the hard work!

The F7 seems to be the best solution as far as Weber e-tubes go. It'll be a bit fat at cruise because of its smaller impedance but low-end and midrange throttle response should be way better than any other tube. Just remember to set your float levels to 25mm using the top-down method (unscrew a jet stack and measure from the top down to the fuel - should be 25mm). I never said F11 tubes are "the worst", nor any tube for that matter. Some are just better than others, and while there definitely is a "worst" one, I haven't bothered to find it. Also, it's important to note that the e-tube is not the only part of the carb's metering controls. We're talking about just one piece of the puzzle here, but in order to have a properly tuned engine one has to take a more complete approach. What are your float levels? What ignition system are you using? Are your valves adjusted properly? And it goes on. Keep in mind that using racers for comparison to primarily street-driven cars is invalid. They don't really care about the e-tube very much. If the motor spends most of its time in the main circuit, the e-tube isn't doing anything in terms of tip-in. All it has the ability to do at that point is control how much the mixture leans out at high rpm. I don't think most people really understand this concept and just wing it on e-tube choice usually purely based on he-said, she-said type of information. Why do you think F11s "work" for so many people here? I bet it's because it's the tube that came with the carb. My carbs came with them too. They sucked. It depends on your definition of "work". If "work" means you have to pick a soggy idle jet and live with a flat spot, well then have at it! FWIW, I've never heard of using main jet orifice opening in the e-tube as a tuning tool. Sounds really silly to me. The main jet performs the metering of the main circuit. A typical main jet will have 25 times less cross-sectional area than that 7.5mm orifice you mention!

I actually had some time to work on the Z today! Got the fresh cam installed and timed. When initially putting the motor together, I had installed the distributor 180* out even though I had thought I did everything right. Rookie mistake. Since the cam was out, I decided to fix that by installing the new cam 180* from where it was to get everything all lined up again. Pulled the old ZX distributor out as well so I could put the reman unit in. I also pulled the intake off in preparation for swapping in the TWM. I plan to port-match it to the carbs before tossing it on so that's the next step there. Still need to install the new rockers, check wipe, and finish the fuel system before the engine comes back to life! It's been about a year since I last drove this thing...

Refer to the quote you found. Your issues are caused by a poor choice of e-tube and exactly reflect what I described in the post you quoted. The F2 is not a good choice for the DCOE. It's air bleed holes are too high up with none of them below the fuel level. This makes it an absolutely horrible tube when put in the DCOE. The file of interest here is called F2_e-tube_in_3_wells, it illustrates that the F2 was designed for the Weber IDF and has no business sitting in a DCOE: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sidedraft_central/search/files?query=f2 I found some good lines from Keith on the matter as well:

Same here.

Cannon made lots of manifolds. Are you looking for one that's meant for triple carbs? I have one that has been port matched for 45mm DCOEs and custom-welded heim joint mounts so that the throttle linkage bar doesn't bind up. Send PM if interested.

And I rest my case...

Was your car on the same exact dyno they used in the show? If not, the comparison is completely invalid. There are some great posts in the archives about comparing dynos, if they're not stickied they should be. I've seen as much as 50-60hp swings with the same car running on different dynos.

Looking good Dan!

Am I the only one who thinks the Z looks way better than the Jaaaag?

That's a piece of a snap ring, not a good sign. I'd replace or remove/open up the transmission to see what's going on.

Hi Steve, RIP260Z has already committed to them. I bought them off jpstahle, in that other FS thread. Good Luck, Leon

Best I could do with the way the car is parked: I looked back at the alignment numbers and the rear actually has +0.5deg of camber. That's the reason why I got those camber plates! When I ran the green car, it used the orange car's wheels. I've not actually driven it as it sits now.

Same grind, didn't think to try a different cam. That would've been a good idea... Good find, thanks NZ.

I'll add that I also spoke with Ron about new aftermarket rocker arms. The new ones I bought earlier this year (Sealed Power brand) look essentially identical to Nissan rockers, at least from the manufacturing standpoint (2-piece with hardened inserts). He agreed that they'd work just fine, FWIW.

Had a great conversation with Ron at Isky last week. Got some enlightening information out of it. Ron recommended either using new rocker arms or even reusing used rockers as long as they're in good shape, i.e. you can't feel a ridge at the ends. We discussed rocker arm prepping and regrinding, and how difficult it is to actually get them right. He absolutely did not recommend sanding them which I had done based on a recommendation from a very good source. As far as grinding goes, we discussed the difficulty of properly fixturing rockers in order to regrind them. I mentioned how surprised I was at the cost of Delta's regrinds and Ron said that he would expect it to be at least $6-7 worth of work to properly regrind a used rocker. It's been proven, in my mind, that Delta does not fixture the rockers precisely. I'll try to give Delta a call to discuss their procedures but I'm not expecting them to give me much thought because I don't think they make much money on regrinding these things. In the meantime, Ron was able to actually fix the wiped lobe but since I sent another cam core in, I had him grind that one too as a backup. Finally making some progress here!

Panasports or Wats.

The rears rubbed with the fatter tires on the orange car. I suspect two reasons for this: the tires are wider (duh) and I think the wheel offset is different. I never measured but I believe the orange car's wheel offset is +6 and the green car's is 0. Neither of the tires rubbed on the front. The only time you'll encounter rubbing issues with 225s is running a stock, untrimmed front valence. I've heard 205mm is the max front section width you can run without running into issues there. I've not dealt with it so I can't offer any proven solutions besides trimming the stock valence. If you have an aftermarket air dam like the Xenon, you'll be fine up front. I'll try to take a photo of the rear of the green car on Sunday.

The tires were different enough that the ones on the green car rubbed when put on the orange car. The tires on the orange car NEVER rubbed. The green car is untested, but once I install the camber plates it'll clear just fine. It does have trimmed rear fender lips and front valence. I don't have any good pics from the back and the orange car is no longer in my possession. I can take one of the green car sometime this weekend though, if I can remember...

Here are two examples, both on 16X7 Panasports. Both have 225/50-16 tires mounted, orange car has all-seasons and green car has sticky summer rubber. You can see the difference in size even though the tires are the same size on paper. *Green car has zero rear camber in this photo, orange car has -1.5deg.