Six_Shooter

Did the cat come with it? Looks like a good start. Some commonly rusted areas are, well, rusty, but overall looks fairly solid. It's going to take some time to clean everything up, but should work well as a foundation.

Yeah, from what I've read the pattern doesn't seem to be an issue, but, I haven't found any difinitive information on the bolts themselves.

I'll have to disagree with this, at least a little bit, and here's why: There is a very much talked about and even proven swap for the Ford 2.3L. That is to get a Volvo DOHC head (the designation eludes me right now), that is nearly a bolt on to the 2.3, except for some welding of an aluminium block, some machine work, some added plumbing for the oiling, and some work to the timing system. Yet there are many Ford 2.3 enthusiasts that are unsure about doing it, even with all the documentation. Would cost less than a grand, and makes a whole bunch more power than a wildly ported Ford 2.3 head. Another example of this is the GM 660 crowd, that is very much a simple bolt together of newer 660 heads onto the older blocks. In the FWD scene guys are doing it, since it's quite literally a bolt together, but the RWD guys are so skeptical about it, since using the older RWD block, a custom crank trigger has to be made, that it seems to scare them off, even though, I have proven it works. There are all of 3 running hybrid RWD 660s that I know of, or at least used to be running, mine is no longer together, and there is another that will be running soon. My point here is that it's even easier than the Ford 2.3/Volvo swap and there are even less guys doing it, and it could cost these guys under the $1K mark. My final point to this is even a swap that could be considered easy by some or cheap that will make more power may not be done multiple times. That being said, I don't know if an RB head is close enough to bolt to an L series, but if there is a head out there that is DOHC and 4 valves per cylinder that even with a fair amount of work would work on the L-series, I might consider building the L-series instead of just playing with it for a bit for now, until I swap another engine in. I'm sure that if an RB head was close enough, 1_fast_z would have used that isntead of mating parts of 3 KA heads. The kinda humerous part about this is I'm looking for a high flowing head that even with some modification fit on the engine I want to build, but have not found one, yet. I've been close a couple times now, but there's always one area that would take far too much to modify to work on the block. For those in this thread that are discounting the area of deveolping a head, you have to remember that the power is made in the head, more air in and more air out, also carries (or has the ability to) more fuel, which we all know has more power potential. So this DOHC/high flowing head is a great venture. I would take a slightly different avenue and just explore the possibility of an existing I6 head that is close enough to fit on the L-series, as you may find that a completly new casting may not be needed. Just out of curiosity, 1_fast_z, what did you end up using for cams in your head? (Is it right to say that as a singular? )

As I was working on getting my left headlight and marker light working today (280Z fender and lights on a 240, PO didn't know how to change the connectors), I noticed that in the parking light only position, the parking lights would turn off after a few seconds, but with the headlights on, the parking lights stayed on. I think I'll open up the switch soon and see if I notice anything like you have. Eventually I plan on replacing the column with something late model, probably from a GM, but for now I'd like to make this work at least mostly proper.

I haven't seen a yes or no answer to this question: Is there a difference in the bolts between an automatic (flexplate) and manual (flywheel) on the Datsun/Nissan L6? If there is, what is the difference (in length)? For reference the engine is an L28 from an '81 or '82 280ZX, installed in a 1973 240z, that has, as far as I know, the original automatic tranny. I'm used to GM engines and trannies that use a different length bolt between automatic and manual, and is why I ask. Since I have most of the manual conversion parts and some on the way, this is one of the last things that I need proper before I tear into the conversion.

Awesome.

I was working in the front (fixed some lighting issues), and noticed that there were two bolt holes on either side of the grill opening, below the hood hinges that looks to line up with the bumper. I am assuming that the early bumper bracket bolted into these holes. Is that a correct assumption? I may just make a new bracket to mount the bumper. Still would like to see some pictures of the OEM parts if at all possible.

Yeah I figured the earlier brackets wouldn't have that round tube, and I know that the early 240s also did not use that ugly rubber filler piece. I' have removed mine, and will NOT be going back in. I really prefer the early 240 pushed in bumper look, so even if I have to cut and weld, I'm doing it before I start driving it. Pictures would be great!

Looks like all of them failed geometry.

HOLY _______!!!!!one!!! It broke ALL of the glass, not just the doors. That's going to be an expensive repair bill....

Man, I'm going to have to come out and see the car again. Looks like you've made a lot of progress.

Wow, that's pretty high to have the fuel enable come back in. In the ECMs that I'm used to seeing the parameters for the fuel enable is much lower, and the throttle position doesn't have to be 0%, though I imaging that the Nissan ECM needs to see a closed throttle because of the TPS switch, instead of a sensor, at least the early Nissan TPS is this way, not sure about the ZX or ZXT TPS, as I haven't really found any information on that. Most of the aftermarket systems go to a vent to atmoshpere, even the Factory authorized BOV from Mopar performance for the SRT4 is a vent to atmosphere, so I wouldn't necessairly say one way is right and one is wrong, they just do things a little differently. One reason I can see the OEM BOVs being a recirculating type is for emissions, in that most emmisions laws state that there can be no "open elements filters" or any "emmissions control system vented to atmosphere", and anything after the air filter would be considered part of the emmissions control system. The "need" to recirculate would also depend on where the MAF is located, I have only seen flapper door AFMs used on early Nissans so that would need to be before the turbo, on later model MAF systems, the MAF can be placed post compressor housing, and then the BOV, as long as it's pre-MAF can be open to atmospher without effecting any reading of the MAF.

That's definatly not new. Diesels have been using that technology for a few years now. In fact a valve similar but of better flowing design was built right into the turbine housing on some of the diesel turbos. I don't remember the manufacturer for sure, but I want to say KKK, or BW as being the ones to do it. So no, that is not a new advancement or "innovative" as the OP of that thread woul like to believe. The old Mitsu turbos used on the Daytonas in the late '80s and 'early '90s with the VNT (Variable Nozzle Technology) is a more evolved version of something like this used on single scroll turbine housings.

Looks like I'm going to have to stop by and see what is different in the front bumper and brackets, yeah that's it, no other reason. I should have just looked at your sig. I seem to foget to look there for information on people's cars. Let me know about the other parts in the PM.

Is there any information on the '73 carbs as far as adjusting or possible re-building? I've adjusted mine a tad and it's running better, but still not as nice as I'd like it to.

As long as the BOV remains closed in high vacuum conditions, as in idle, it doesn't need to be a recirculating type. This is because the onlytime it needs to open, and should open is when the throttle is closed after being in boost. At this point the fuel delivery should be cut off or severly reduced, sice an engine in decel (I'm speaking engine only here), doesn't need ANY fuel to slow down. So venting the excess presurized air to atmosphere will not effect the fueling, or cause it to go excessivly rich as it was once believed to do. The engine will go rich at this point anyway, since it takes time between letting off the throttle, to the fuel that was being injected that second to make it way through the engine, and out the exhaust past the O2 sensor. This is of course if the fuel decel tables are set up this way in the Nissan ECU, my experiance is with GM ECMs, and very limited exposure to a few others, most seem to cut fuel in very similar ways though. In driving where there is a lot of on and off the throttle transitions, such as auto-x as mentioned, a recirulating type might work better, but it doesn't seem to be a definate thing as there are people that use both styles in all forms of racing or driving styles, and have benefits to both and draw backs to both.

Global warmer. Took me about 5 seconds.

Oh gawd.... That's the lower part of a 2000+ Cavalier front air dam.

I don't know about anyone here, but I know a lot of Super Street and Outlaw 10.5 cars have the seats mounted this way. How you would go about maiing the actual mounts depends on the seat itself and how it's mounting pads are designed. In most cases there will be bars running between a rear crossmember, and a front crossmember or front frame rail. There will also be rocker bars. Between these bars side to side, there will be more bars added, usually of a smaller diameter, that have plates welded to them for mounting points of the seat(s). Another variation on this is to build or bend bars rather that run from door bar to door bar, down from one side under the seat up over the tranny tunnel, down again on the other side under the other seat and then back up to the other side's lower door bar. I'm not a fan of this design, because all the bends in the bars make for weak points, and requires large diameter bars to have the same strength. I also haven't seen this very often, probably due to difficulty of building (bending) such a support, and would also think safety concerns keep this one from being used more often. Another variation is to use a bar that is a hoop attached to the lower door or rocker bar, and runs around the perimeter of the seat, with smaller bars used to attach plates under the seat mounting points. Usually there will be crossmembers attached to the hoop to help strengthen the mounting scheme, by tieing both sides of the car together. A variation I've seen of this is one that is not a hoop, but attaches to a lower door bar or rocker bar and then attaches to a rear crossmember. All the rest is the same though, smaller bars and plates, and crossmembers. Done right and with proper planning this is a safer way to attach the seat, since the floor pan can easily buckle in a roll over or side impact, heck even in a front or rear impact the floor could buckle. This would mean the seat moves, where as the seat belt attachment points don't, bad situation no matter how you look at it. I dealy the seat would stay in the same location relative to the cage and more importantly the seat belt attachment points so that the occupant is held where they were pre-impact. Also depending on the type of seat being used an upper attachment point will be used, usually attached to the seat belt bar, and has a flat plate that is then bolted to the back of the seat. I see this on aluminium seats.

I didn't mean to get you worried about your actual welds, since well I can't really inspect them and pictures can be misleading when trying to evaluate the look of a weld. I also thought you would have cut the rear bars, the ones that run from the main hoop to the rear floor and have them notched to fit around the strut brace. What you have is better than nothing, but would tie the chassis together better for it to be fitted with the bars intersecting on the same plane. At this point, it would take a bit of work to change, and unless you start building 4 digit HP and running deep single digits, or serious road racing/auto-x, I would just leave it as is. Add a bar accross the bottom of the X brace, in the rear bars. This will triangulate the bracing much better. If you had made the connection pint of the bottom of the X at or very near the floor, then the extra bar would not be needed. I also think it's time to start concentrating more on the front than the rear. You sit in the front, not the rear.

I will have to remember this when the GF won't let me add more space to the garage, because it will take up yard space..... Oh yeah? Try this. I think I would want to use it for more garage or workshop space over living quarters. Great idea and excution though.

That would be awesome! Let me know what you have, and we'll make arrangments. If you happen to have an L-series 5-speed I'd be interested in that too, since it looks like the one I bought with the car is a 4-speed. I was thinking about making a post on the OZC site to see what people may have. Right now I only need a few items to get it going. I'm going to be checking the brakes next week, to see what I need there. I know the rear brakes need a lot of work, since well, they don't.

That's AWESOME!! It was said that that tuning the engine engine at a different alitude in relation to where you are will have an effect on AFR, which is completly true, but I think Grumpyvette is wanting to discuss cylinder to cylinder tuning here, which once the engine is tuned accross the cylinders to get them even, they generally stay that way, regardless of barometric pressure. That being said, if there is a very problematic cylinder, this will usually be exagerated with a change in barametric pressure, and could cause even more problems. This is where the IR temp gun that Grumpyvette is suggesting to use comes in handy again. I don't own one currently, but I will as soon as I get my truck together or get the turbo in my car, as it is a very good tol to use to tune with, it doesn't replace other tools, just adds to the ability to read what the engine is doing quickly. Little story, where an IR temp gun saved me loads of diagnostic time. I had an '85 Buick Skyhawk (I miss that car ), that I swapped a V6 into, and had a lot of fun with. Well one day a friend of mine and I decided that we would wash under the hoods of our cars because we were going to a J-body bash a few days later and while hers was a show car, mine was just a daily driver, with some spunk to it. Anyway, we sprayed the engine bay down, used the pressure gun at the local car wash, and cleaned the engine bay off, nice a shiney once it was all done. The only problem afterwards was that it wasn't running quite right, I had a dancing lights guage hooked up to my NBO2 (Autometer), and it pegged rich, it NEVER pegged rich, and even if I held the RPMs high it would barely come off pegged. So I drove it to work and pulled out the IR temp gun and started gong over the cylinders, I found a pair of cylinders that were colder than the rest, and this corresponded to a single coil. Swapped it out and done. Without the IR temp gun I would have been pulling my hair out trying to figure it out. There could have been a multitude of problems that would indicate the same thing on the dancing lights guage. I think it's important to be able to read both AFR and temp of the exhaust, to tune with. Tune to get all cylinders as even as possible first, then using an average you can monitor what the engine is doing and see if any problems arrise, at which point you go back to finding out if it's an engine wide issue, or a cylinder specific issue.

I agree, part of the reason I really tried to and found a 240. Jerry, what year is yours? If it's a '70 to '72 I may have to stop by and see what difference they would be in the bumber and brackets. Besides I want to see your car in person anyway, it's very clean from teh pictures I've seen.

I would remove that bar beteen the main hoop "X" and the rear floor. It doesn't really go anywhere, what I mean by that is there is no corresponding cage member on the other side of the X to transer load through the chassis. It also looks a lot like a spear, in the event of a crash. Yes the rest of the cage should transfer the impact through the car, but where it is attached at the floor is really pretty weak, yes it strong under normal circumstances, such as what you want to do with the car, like driving, cornerering, braking, etc, but under forces where other objects are making contact with the car, can force that area to move in ways it's not intended to. A roll cage can sometimes make a crash more dangerous for the occupants than not having one. This has been seen over the years, where a cage that was built without a plan from the beginning and seemingly random bars were added, caused inuries or fatalities, because they were positioned poorly, or welded poorly (even a well planned cage with poor weldingis dangerous). If you're planning to add another bar from that X to the front of the cage, such as the dash bar, or on a diaginal to the base of the passenger side door bar/windsheild hoop, then that would help transfer the load from the bar in question, and has been done on many cars. I've even seen two bars ran from that point to the dash crossbar in a triangular shape. I will make one more suggestion about that bar, and a bar for the other side if you plan to add one there, and that is attach the bar directly to the other bars, not to the plate welded to the bars. The reason I say this is to get maximum strength. The plate is most likely not able to completly transfer the force from that rear diagonal link to the X in the main hoop, due to there being a little space between the plate and the X. Even just a very little space less than 1/16" is far too much space and will compress under impact curcumstances, or worse yet, pull apart making those links useless, and now becoming dangerous, as they can move in thier own pathes, possibly becoming objects that will come in contact with the occupant(s). If you still want a plate there, you can cut a hole in the middle, slide it over the tube, weld the tube to the other tubes in the X, then slide the plate back up to the X and weld around the rear diagonal link, and then to the other bars. This is a very strong joint, much like a miter joint in wood working, where there are 2 or 3 planes to the joint, instead of just 1. I'm also not sure you're really gaining any strength with the plates such as they are, I would think properly fitted gussets between the bars would be just as strong, if not stronger.