Six_Shooter

I think that might be part of my problem as well, my injectors sit quite low in the intake, and that moves the fuel rail quite close to the T-stat housing. I know I can space it up just a bit using O-rings under the body of the injector to space it up just a bit, but still won't be enough to enough to clear the T-stat housing. KTM, I figured that just about any ZX would have the "later" housing, but I hate to assume all of them do, just because they are ZXes. "ass-u-me"

Thanks for the idea Braap (and for the reply to my PM). I had though about plumbing the fuel system by either feeding the inlet farther down the fuel rail, or pulling the return from father down the rail. Not quite like your "semi-returnless" system. My only worry would then be the #1 injector possibly not getting enough fuel supply. I have seen system plumbed similar though and don't seem to have issues. KTM; it was actually that picture that lead to me look farther into the thermostat housing and possible differences. Does anyone know the year that they started with this "later" 3 bolt thermostat housing? Thanks for the replies.

You mean -8 on the feed and -6 on the return? Or are you using a surge tank?

I agree with how annoying that heater control panel is to remove. I've wanted to change the colour of my vac/boost gauge ever since I put it in a month ago. But I also want to change from the gauges that I installed, it turns out I don't really care for how small thay all are. Now I need to find places for the other gauges, that I'll be moving..... All in fun though, right?

So in my EFI swap, I am making (maching fuel rail stock to be exact), and have used an Accel 2' fuel rail stock. In a 1973 240Z Originally had Weber DGVs. I have an N42 EGR intake, modified to fit O-ring injectors. F54/P90 (came already installed in car). My problem is the fittings in the end of the fuel rail hit the thermostat housing. Now I still have a bit that I can cut off to move the fittings towards the rear of the car, but I can't remove enough to completly clear the thermostat housing. In looking through some posts on here, it seems there is a difference between the "early" L6 and the "later" L6, I have not been able to find the information that says when this switchover too place. When did that happen? It looks as though the "later" thermostat housing would clear my fuel rail and fittings, due to the bolt pattern being different, I've read that there are 3 bolts, instead of just two that I have, and it looks like the one bolt is moved. It is one of the bolts that is giving me the most problem right now. I have thought about cutting the fuel rail on an angle and welding an aluminium bing to it, to clear the T-stat housing, but would rather not have to do that. Can anybody shed some difinitive light on this for me? I can't seem to find any close up pictures of this area on the L6, what I see is wider shots. If this is what I need, does anybody have a T-stat housing they can spare (upper and lower)? Thanks

To use the 240 hubs you also need 240 rotors. There was a change in the rotor "hat hight" (I'm sure there's a better term), and because of this the hub thickness changed.

Yeah there's a special puller for it. There is a pin puller "Loan-A-Tool" program for this. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=114142

Boost controller on a supercharger? The only difference I've seen is between 240 and 280 fenders, and only where the bumper bolts to the fender/valence. I have a 280 driver side fender on my 240 and the holes there are just slightly different. I don't know about the 260 fender and 280 fender differences if there is any.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! Far too many people believe that equal length maximizes power potential of an engine. It can when the length is a matched length for the diameter to the RPM range that max power is being made of the actual engine the header is mounted on. That power band also becomes narrow. On a street car, unequal length headers are more desairable. The power band becomes wider, and at the cost of usually only a few HP, literally, like 5 or 10 HP in most applications it seems. If you just arbitrarily make a header a random equal length, the tuning of that length may not match the power/torque peak of the engine it's bolted to and can make overall performance suffer, or at least not have the full potential that the builder believes it has. In short, forget about headers needing to be equal length on anything other than a max effort, pull all power you can possibly sqeeze build, where you'll end up making several sets of headers and dynoing each set to find the best match. For 99% of people that build a car to drive, this will not be the case and the non-equal length headers would likely perform as well, or better than some equal length headers.

My solution is to replace the latches with some from a different car, a 2nd gen Cavalier to be exact. No, they don't bolt in, there will be plenty of cutting and welding along the way, but I'm already sick of these damn Datsun latches, and I've only been driving the car for a few months.

x2! It sometimes takes me a few tries of the closing the door and the trade mark "hip check" to get the mechanism in a position where I can lock it. In my case I still can't use the lock cylinders, I need to reach in through the hatch to lock or unlock the car.

Looks to me like the grease caps are exposed in that picture. (Compare the shiney rear cap to the rusty/discoloured front center.)

I have seen no mention of the model number of this "800W 4 Ch" amp. I doubt that it is an 800W amp, or more specifically 200W per channel. It is likely a 50W per channel amp, and with the old technique of rating max power of the amp, bridged and add all bridged pairings together for "max power", is what I would expect. I would agree that using the 4Ch amp to run the front and rear highs and get a dedicated sub amp would be ideal. If it was my car (and this is how I have ran all of my cars), I would nix the rear speakers, run just fronts and sub. How I have amplified them has differed over the years. My prefered amplification route is a dedicated amp for the highs and dedicated amp to the sub(s). The reason I prefer to use a dedicated sub amp is becaue the power supplies will be sperated from each other (sub and highs), and when you're jammin' that latest great tune, with the sub(s) just pumping away, the demand of the power needed to drive the sub will not pull needed power away from the front channels as it would in a 4ch amp, where two channels are driving the highs and two channels are driving the sub(s). Makes for a cleaner sound at higher listening levels. Currently I am running a 4ch amp, driving my 5.25" mids and seperate tweeters, along with my 12" sub. This isn't in my Z, I haven't started on the audio in it yet. This amplifier set-up is only until I can get my sub amp repaired, and then will be moving the sub over to it's own dedicated amplifier, and each mid will end up on it's own channel along with each tweet on it's own channel, for a fully actively crossed over system, my very favorite way to set up the amplification. In my Z, I plan to use a 4ch amp, with a set of front speakers, likely 5.25" components mounted in the kick panels via custom kick panels, and a single sub, likely molded into one of the rear sides of the car. The Z for me is meant to be a fast toy, the audio is basically a secondary item, even for someone like me, who's occupation is car audio and electronic accessory installation. I haven't decided on where I will mount the mount, I may go with a false floor in the rear to help keep the audio hidden, mostly. In this idea of design I may nix the spare and build a spare tire well enclosure that I could very easy combine an amp/processor rack into. Sorry got into a bit of a ramble there. In short, yes run the front speakers off the amp. If you really want to keep the rears, run them off the deck. The rears should really be used to add ambiance to the system, to help make the car sound a bit larger or more spacious than it is and NOT take away from the front soundstage and definatly should not create a rear sound stage. In most vehciles that I install rear speakers in, or leave in, that are connected to the deck, I will actually fade the controls forward to the point where you just don't hear the rear speakers, but shut them off and you will notice that they are not on.

There were quite a few GM vehicles to have this. Most Caddys, F-bodies, some mid/late '80s RWD vehciles from Oldsmobile and Buick. I've seen them on some newer cars but don't recall which ones off hand. The door lock solenoid will not have enough force to release the hatch, I don't understand why people use door lock solenoids to pop doors or trunks and hatches. The force required to open the latch is MUCH higher than it takes to lock or unlock the latch. Go to your local Car Audio specialist and get a "trunk release solenoid kit". These in thier most common offering have a 15# pull. You can get heavier ones that pull at 30#, but you should have more than enough force with the basic 15# pull solenoid. I use these for door poppers in shaved handle cars, trunk/hatch releases, never have a problem with the truck or hatch release, but sometimes if the car is parked at a wierd angle the door popers sometimes don't always release, but a little push on the door is all that it takes in those cases. Here is a picture of the solenoid and kit I am talking about:

I guess it would depend on how someone was to make the filler panels. I've seen filler panels in similar applications look very good, to the point where they weren't noticed.

That could easily be taken care of with a filler panel or two.

Sweet. Any pictures of the conversion? I'm having trouble deciding where to place the main hoop for the cage, and that will effect rear end placement. I almost think I should of bought a 2+2, just so that main hoop placement wouldn't be an issue.

LOLz!

I honestly hope you didn't pay much for that. I see a LOT of little issues with the covers and especially with the door covering. The layout looks pretty good though, the grey and black work well together in the design you have chosen.

I don't have the exact measurment off hand, but I know that with opening the "flat spots" and cutting out the divider, an Auto Meter 2 1/16" gauge will fit right in there.

Looks like a Turbo Tom kit. Definatly check over the chassis for rust. Check out http://zhome.com/ for a diagram and listing of common areas these cars rust. In short the common areas, are between the front and rear bumper. There are other areas that seem to be more suspectible though and should be checked with a little more than just visual. I was VERY lucky when I bought mine since it's SOLID, I should really be restoring it, instead of cutting it up, but I would rather have the car I want and started solid than to try and find another S30 is almost as good condition to cut up.

Man, with the luck you're having lately, you almost need to just park it. :-? I can't stand when people just go whenever or whereever they please, I bet the other driver looked at you like it was your fault too, didn't she?

I found out recenty about PS, it's not HP, I don't recall the exact conversion but it was something like 1 PS = .95 HP or something close to that. Sweet looking car. The fuel system in the hatch is interesting, actually the entire fuel system looks interesting.

That cry was made within the hour of the crash. There are several threads on yellowbullet.com, discussing this incedent, and many related issues, along with ideas on how to try to keep this from happening again. In the very thread that announced his crash, probably within minutes of the thread being posted someone cryed foul on the 1/4 mile format. Just an FYI, yellowbullet has many top name racers in many drag racing formats and classes, including the Gliddens, and a few other top names in drag racing, though I haven't seen Bob Glidden post too much, mostly Billy Glidden. I don't see shortening to the 1/8 mile format doing what people think it will. All I see happening is that instead of the fuel cars blowing up at 1000', they will start to blow up at 600', since the crew cheifs will just start to run them MORE on the edge than they are now. The speeds will only be limited for a short period of time, I'd say maybe a year, before we see 300 MPH 1/8 mile speeds, the fuel cars are already running 270 MPH in the 1/8 mile as it is. If NHRA shorten the program to 1/8, it's only a temporary solution, that will make a new learning curve, that will eventurally again be called "too fast", then what? shorten to 1/16 mile, might as well go right to 60' dash, and be done with it. Racing is competitive, and because of this, the tuners and chassis builders and crew cheifs, will only find a way to be faster is a shorter distance.

This si what I was going to suggest. The trend lately seems to be get the weight just in front of the rear wheels, so that when weight transfer happens the weight is eaxctly where it needs to be. Mounting behind the passenger seat would be better than centered, since it will help offset driver weight (you), yes there's a large difference in weight between a person and battery, I didn't say it would balance, I said help offset. Also mounting the battery in front of the rear end will help keep the nose of the car down, with weight mounted behind the rear axle center line, the cars tend to want to lift the front wheels more.