Six_Shooter
-
Posts
1471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Six_Shooter
-
-
Re-read the relevant section it does not state not to connect the coil directly to the coil, well it does, but only under a certain condition, which you have not stated that you have, and I don't know why anyone would want to make that connection with the type of product in question, especially if the instructions for that type of product were followed.
-
Usually when swapping away from a points ignition, you also need to swap the tach. The 240Z uses a current triggered tach, where as the 260Z+ uses a points triggered tach.
You can swap just the circuit board from a 280Z tach into your 240Z tach to retain the original look.
Other causes of the problem you describe can be too low of a dwell time at higher RPM, which is common with newer electronic ignitions. -
A couple years ago...
-
A cheaper option would be making some spacers to fit between the calipers and the ears... the only downside would be the caliper sticking out towards the wheel more.
Is this fancy machined thing so necessary ?
The caliper ears fit behind the hub's caliper mounting points, so I don't think that is possible. The idea of the spacer is to push the rotor back,which means that it would sit farther forward without the spacer and the calipers would need to be moved from behind the hub mounting points to in-front of them(and possible have spacers to move them even further forward if needed). I don't know if this would work...
Then again, I'm not looking at anything right now. Just kinda typing while thinking.
On a side note, does anyone know where I can get new bolts to use? I'm guessing the stock bolts won't be long enough anymore with the spacer.
@Miles : Did you reuse your stock bolts for mounting the rotor to the hub with the spacer?
Just in reply to the ideas above...
Yes, there's more than one way to skin a cat... or upgrade brakes.
When most people go to 5 lug using the Z31 hubs, they add a spacer very similar to what is being discussed here, and use the Toyota Caliper. Which works, because with the spacer it's all a bolt on affair.
When I did my swap, I went a different way. I didn't really care for the rotor spacer. There's just something about moving the rotor farther away from the hub and applying a shearing force to the bolts holding it all together I don't care for, with the added leverage of the spacer and longer bolts. Don't get me wrong, I know lots of people have used the spacer set-up with zero issue, I just don't feel good about it. So Instead I used the Z31 caliper as well, and made an adapter plate to get everything to work together.
Initial bracket, it got some additional machining after this:
Just another way that something similar can be done. However, it would likely cost more because of the custom machine work for the caliper bracket than going the typical route. The benefits of going this way are debatable. I've been running this for about 3 years now I believe and not an issue with it.
Something similar could be done with the 4 lug set-up, but a caliper that has no piston on theh front side would likely need to be used.
-
I told Joe this as well when talking to him on the phone. I will be finding a way to take new measurements when I get home. (Any Ideas?)
When my verniers won't fit to measure in an instance similar to this, I use calipers:
Set them so that they just slide past the widest part, and then measure them with the vernier's.
Alternatively you can get long reach verniers:
-
Not one specific side/edge, just whatever edge/side you want to start with.
-
Leak down test, worst cylinders were less than 4%, best were less than 1%.
-
With enough re-work any seat can be comfortable. IMO the stock original seats are typical of '70s seats. Just something to sit on while the car is in motion, but not really set up for great comfort.
I plan to keep my original seat frames and such and re-work the foam and eventually the make new covers that have better bolsters and better comfort.The sad truth is economy cars of the last decade (or more) have far more comfortable seats than the S30 ever had.
So it depends on where you want to put the work into, re-working the original seats, or fitting new seats to the car for improved comfort.
-
Ok, I think we need to back up here.
I thought originally you were trying to remove the boost gauge and install a clock.
Are you trying to install the boost gauge?
If so, what I see in the pictures is normal. There's a technique to getting the gauge rings to fit into the holes of the dash. They don't just fall into the holes, even on the 240 dashes.
You need to start on one side and kinda hook it into the hole, and then by pushing at that hooked side and kinda oscillating the gauge, you get the rest of the lip to fit through. Kinda hard to explain in text. But simply put, the gauges I have installed have (almost) never just fallen into the dash hole, they take a bit of moving and twisting and manipulation of the gauge to get it to slide in.
-
You can get it in fibreglass from MSA.
-
Post some pictures, and we help identify the parts you have.
The fit is snug for each dash with the correct gauges, but with the right motion they fit.
-
You sure about that? As far as I know they're installed from the back.
This, all S30s have the OEM gauges mounted from behind, other than the Speedo and tach, which mount from the front.
To the OP:
You didn't specify what car you are trying to install the clock into.
The 240 uses a different mounting cup/ring than the 260/280Z, so if you're trying to use the wrong mounting cup/ring in the wrong dash it won't fit.
-
I was looking through a flyer for a local performance store tonight and there was some nice loom that had a cloth type look to it from either Painless Wiring or Taylor.
-
Stock (with a wrap I believe):
If the foam on this wheel was better I would have used it, small but felt nice in the car. I actually got it with a '73 parts car:
The wheel I am currently running: -
It sounds like to want some type of wire loom. The term "shielding" generally refers to some type electrically isolating covering.
Most commonly used is convoluted tubing, which is a plastic based covering. I know there are some companies that offer a braided covering, but it is difficult to install at best.
There are companies that have machines that will actually braid a covering directly onto a wire harness, but I don't know of any places that will do that for one off harnesses.
Look up "Mil-spec" or "mil-spec type" coverings to find what you want, there will be something. -
I know this is old, but I got thinking about this car the other day, has this project moved forward, if so, any updates?
-
I had the Flush mount Mirrors (Nigel's old set to be exact) and a couple years ago switched to the ZZAP style mirror, which yours may be BLOZ UP, since they are styled the same way as the MSA ones you linked to. I have not had any issues with the mirrors being loose or moving around.
I did notice the flush mount mirrors had more viewing area, but don't mind the smaller ZZAP style mirrors, since I think they look better on the car and still have enough viewing area for my driving style. I do shoulder checks if I'm going to move over a lane anyway.
I have a set of APR GT3 style universal mirrors stashed away that I might install on my car this year, but the carbon fibre look has kept me from putting them on. I also have them stashed to use on my bike, if I ever get that project running and my licence... -
I support this. I had a similar idea to keep the 280ZX trans in my car (240Z), but decided to go with a Z32 trans behind my LX9. I made an adapter plate to use between the engine and trans instead of cutting off the bellhousing.
-
I think just about any 9-inch or 8.8 would need to be narrowed. If I understand correctly, there aren't many ratios available for the 8.8, whereas the 9 has a lot more options (?). I guess it depends on what you want to do with the car. When/if I do a conversion, it will be a 9 inch in order to be able to drop the whole center section and swap it without having to reset the R&P spacing. I dunno, perhaps you don't have to do that with a gear change in the 8.8 (?)
Yep, I don't know of any stock 9" or 8.8" that would fit directly under an S30 car, width wise. It's said to be easier to narrow a 9" than an 8.8, due to the way the actual axles are made, tapered vs straight. Aftermarket axles can be bought in just about any length needed for either rear end though, so unless you're trying to do it on a budget and use modified OEM parts, this point is almost moot.
Also while there may be a wider range in gear selection for the 9", that's not always a benefit. IIRC, the additional ratios of the 9" that the 8.8 doesn't (or didn't) have, would be ratios that I don't believe anybody with an S30 would ever truly use, like 4.88 and up, meant more for off road rigs, to turn the 36"+ tall tires.
In the more common ranges I believe the 9" and 8.8 have the same available ratios, at least they used to have them available to both, I haven't kept up on the comparison game for gear sets in a long time. I know the 8.8 has ratios I would and can use. -
Two popular ways: ladder bars and 4-link. Ladder bars require the least amount of fabrication, but usually leave the car with significantly reduced ground clearance (from the cars I have seen). The 4-link is a much better suspension plan in terms of adjustability and being able to control traction. The ladder bars sometimes promote wheelies, which while spectacular usually result in losing the race and often breaking the car if you come down too hard. I have not done a 9-inch conversion, but likely will in the future. To get educated answers, snoop the forums to look for drag racers and send them PMs (private messages). Otherwise you will get a bunch of bench racing and debate instead of specific answers and good advice. The biggest issue is that there isn't much to weld to in the unibody and some sort of bracing and subframing needs to happen-that's significant fabrication.
This has pretty much nailed it.
Look up terms like "back-halfing" (because people sometimes spell it this way :/ ), "back-halving", "tubbing", "solid axle conversion", and similar.
As far as whether to go through with it or not, it really depends on what you plan to do with the car. If I was building a drag car, or a car mainly used for straight line racing of some sort, then I would do a solid axle conversion. If it's mainly a street car with the occasional straight line sprint, I'd keep it IRS (Which is actually my plan, though the IRS will be quite different than the OEM design).
So figure out what you will really be doing with the car, and weigh the benefits of each type of suspension and how they will affect that use.
-
You mean the three of us; me, dpuma8, and danigirlz? Or everybody on Hybridz? Just wondering if you're above just us three, or everyone.
Why are you going to two pumps if one has been working so great?
And the only difference between your ingenuity and stock is the point of fuel pickup? An exposed fuel pickup doesn't seem like an improvement over the protected stock point. Looks like you've gone backward. And then another idea, untried. I don't see any true value at all in your post besides an attempt to pump up your self-image.
*sigh*
Two pumps for more flow to provide more fuel when I turn up the boost, in a parallel system, not because there's anything wrong with what I'm running now, it supports the power level I'm at just fine and has worked great for 6 years, as I already said. I'd go one larger pump, but that means more cash outlay, I have at least two Walbro pumps in my possession, so I'll use what I have, and then if I have to I'll buy a single pump, if I don't like the dual pump system.
My pick up is no more exposed than many other systems I see on many cars. I have never had any issues, with ANYTHING coming in contact with it, so your attempt at making my pick up seem less than it is or a problem is nullified right there. BTW I drive my car DAILY, so if an issue was to ever come up it would have come up by now.
The other idea, untried? Really? Really? You think no one has done that? Try all OEM vehicles are like that, I've also personally done it on a friend's S30, and it is working great for him. I know of many other vehicles that have also been retrofitted in similar ways. There are drop in fuel pump modules that provide a similar result in the aftermarket, Aeromotive is one brand that provides such a module, if you feel like looking proven systems that work.
The lesser used system of having a sump tank inside the tank has also been proven, where you take this external system and move it inside the tank. At that point most people opt for the basic sump, that holds fuel and is fed by fuel movement rather than a second redundant fuel pump.
I'm trying to provide insight into ways that I as well as other have provided fuel to their engines, being baffled how over engineered these systems are that people are using simply because one or a few people think that you need to over-complicate it because it was said long ago that one or a few people might have had fuel starvation issues under certain circumstances.
You just might want to look at other options that will not only save time, but money and keep serviceability easier, before trying to beat your chest.
Many times simple is better. I've learned the hard way over many years that simple has always proven more reliable and in many cases works better. It's also easier to troubleshoot. -
I've seen a few side exit exhaust done in that way. It seems to work better on '72 and earlier cars that don't have the seat belt pockets in the floor.
-
I don't know why you guys complicate fuel delivery so much.
I run a single Walbro pump (currently, planning on going to a dual pump system), fed from the drain plug in the bottom of my 240Z tank. The fuel pump is mounted about where the original electric pump would be in a 240Z (Just inboard of the right rear wheel, and several inches above the tank bottom). I've been doing so for 6 years without issue. The only time I notice that anything might be a little bit different is when fuel level is below 1/8 of a tank, which just about any fuel system set-up will show signs of warm fuel or lack of fuel pick up at that point.
If you really want a surge type system, cut the fuel tank open and have a surge tank or baffle installed. It takes no extra space, doesn't really effect fuel capacity, and will keep the fuel pump(s) submerged in fuel, and there's no fuel in the cabin. This is also on my list of plans, to move from the external pump to an internal, but I haven't found a good reason to do it yet, with my current system working fine.
-
RB... because I don't care for V8s...
Also Of the RB swaps I've driven, or had a ride in, it seems to have a smooth power band, though I haven't driven an RB25DET NEO, I can imagine it's also pretty smooth in power delivery.
The only plus I see of the V8 is that the weight will be farther back.
In the more common ranges I believe the 9" and 8.8 have the same available ratios, at least they used to have them available to both, I haven't kept up on the comparison game for gear sets in a long time. I know the 8.8 has ratios I would and can use.
Midnight Madness 560z...
in S30 Series - 240z, 260z, 280z
Posted
You should be able to move that engine WAY back, and should be able to side step any (or most) oil pan modifications that way.
I have my engine (a GM V6) about 3" from the firewall and the entire engine is behind the front crossmember . I'd imagine with a similar placement of your V8, you should be able to get it nearly behind the crossmember and reduce the oil pan modifications greatly, if not completely.
Just a pic for reference of where my engine sits. I could have actually moved it back more if I wanted to mildly modify the trans tunnel for the Z32 trans I'm using.