jeromio

I believe he's gonna use the Scottie-Style adapter with the 280 stubs - the bonus is that the standard 280 seal will work. Pretty cool that you found a seal that works with the ZXt flanges. Maybe I'll switch out my klooged seal when I swap in the 3.54 rear.

I'm not aware of the SS having any extra power. I do know that the ECU is completely different. Also, there was a problem with alternators on the '98s. For parts (such as the ls6 intake), I recommend valvegod@aol.com. Dealt with him a couple of times with very good results.

Huh? If the bypass valve routes the excess boost to the intake pipe, then what's being bypassed. Confused equals me. Do you mean that it routes pressurized air meant for the combustion chamber into the turbo's intake (which normally gets its air from the exhaust)? That would make sense, I guess. Oh, and as to what Idaho mentions, re: handling - in that recent "SuperCar Shootout" Car and Driver article, they did say that the Ligenfelter TT vette was impossible to handle. It had road course times that were worse than the other cars because they just couldn't effectively manage the power curve thru the corners. It's standing mile time was by far the quickest though. So, yeah, especially in a light little Z car with definate limits on tread width (unless you flare it), there is such a thing as too much power, especially if it's peaky. Personally, my Z is a daily driver and I can't forsee a need for more than the 300rwhp I ought to see from the NA LS1...

Norm-the-12sec-dual-SU-dude is running, what 11.2:1 compression right now, on 93 octane? So, it's possible. Risky though. You'd definately wanna drop the dollars to have larger valves stuck in that head though. Or, you could sell it - people will pay alot for one of those e31s. They have this folklore-ish, highly desirable mythic quality to the I6 crowd.

LS1 does not have a pump driven fan. You have to use an electric unit. Turbo HAS to go up in front between engine and radiator - no other place to put it. This will not create extra lag, most especially if the custom manifold dumps to the front. If you get the motor with the stock ECU, you can use it - no need to buy an (expensive) aftermarket system. The turbo kits that are available use the stock ECU and mostly don't even reprogram it. You only need to get the ECU reprogrammed (costs $150-250 depending on the shop), if you go extreme. The ECU can respond to variations, such as increased manifold pressure, and compensate. It may throw a few codes, but it'll run merrily along. This PCM is really very nice. Also, the turbo kits that are available use stock internals - 6psi of boost at 10:1 compression! Makes around 450rwhp! Obviously if you have the bucks, you can get new pistons and up the boost. http://www.ls1.com has a a Forced Induction board - lots of experienced people there. You might be able to use the stock ex manifolds. I've taken mine off - if I remember, I'll see if it bolts on flipped around. It'd sure make the install easier with the manifolds exiting forward, away from steering shafts and such. Also, if you want to install the motor the way I'm doing mine, I should have some pics and measurements of the crossmember mods after T-Giving break.

Nice bracket. This is the same setup I have on my car, except that I had to wrestle with 1/2 inch steel plate to make my own brackets. Be aware that the calipers have a piston-within-piston design to allow for "automagical" adjustment of the parking brake mechanism. This is prone to failure (sticking). I had rebuilt my calipers, but to no avail. Ended up having to buy rebuilt units. Fortunately, AdvanceAuto has them for like $60/each (plus core). WHOA - hold up. I just looked more closely at your photos. It looks like you may have put the Right caliper on the Right side - which would make sense except that with this swap, you have to swap the calipers - Left on Passenger side, Right on Driver's side. Otherwise your bleeder valve points down. You need it to point up so the air can escape. Also, those calipers look quite a bit different than mine. Mine are Tokico's pulled off the same 280ZX turbo that I got my CV shafts from. Those look like Pin style, vs. mine which are Floater style. (I can't believe I never put pics of my rear brake swap on my site ) I suspect (I could be wrong), that these are the NA 280ZX rear calipers. I'm pretty sure the rotors are the same either way. Turbo calipers have slightly larger pistons and pads. Also, I'm pretty sure that rebuilt units are less expensive. Or, you might get away with using the NA units as cores for Turbo units .

I hadn't heard of any reliability issues with the PowerStroke. I've been planning (well, long term planning, those suckers are crazy expensive) to put one in my Travelall. They're actually made by International (Navistar). Nasser's problem was that he was too enamored of "the deal". He wanted to spend lots of money buying up other companies. The bard approved many of his deals (Volvo for instance), but balked at others (Nissan and that one Korean company, Daewoo?). He had what my grandmother calls "short people syndrome" - you know, like Napolean. An intense need to make up for a lack of height with a big ego and over-aggressiveness. He didn't appoint a COO, for instance - wanted to do everything himself. I don't have too much confidence in Bill Clay (Ford). I mean, I don't think he's gonna necessarily screw things up, I just don't think he has a passion for either cars or business. Ford was doing beautifully before last year. Huge profit margins thanks to trucks and SUVs. They don't make any money on the Taurus and they basically lose money on the smaller cars. Took alot of screwing up this past year to get them to where they are now which is pretty much in the red.

Hey - I'm kinda curious about that turbo Maxima. Got a link?

Do a search. Mustache bar is mounted rings forward (bar is behind the uprights).

EFI would make for a much nicer daily driver. But, it will be much harder to setup. You'd need to wire in the ECU and all the sensors. You'd small auxilary surge tank. If the engine sat for while you may have a few injectors to replace ($$). The alternative is to just bolt up your carbs. Thankfully, Nissan made all the L28 heads backwards compatible with the older intakes. You will need an electric fuel pump since the Head on the 80 engine won't have the hole for the mechanical one. Other than that, you're left with the standard fiddling with the carbs...

JE pistons are gonna cost crazy amounts of dollars. You'd be much better off getting the complete turbo motor including the ECU. Otherwise, you're gonna spend alot of money on various things (P90 head, exhaust manifold, pistons, C-rods, etc).

Worst case: use a hacksaw to cut the timing chain. That way you can at least get the head back home.

Wow. Nice wheels. Gigantic. What are those tires, like one inch tall? Very extreme. I presume that since they're Honda rims, they're 7 or 7.5 inch wide? Still, I doubt they'll fit without coilovers.

Just to be sure: you do realize that the LS1 swap will not work with the JTR kit, right?

True, the suspension travel measured at the wheel will be different than that measured at the strut (in a complex trigonometric ratio). BUT, it doesn't matter. The wheel is what counts. No one is talking here in terms of lowering the suspension. I agree that if you lower the spring perch by 2 inches, you're not necessarily going to lower the car by 2 inches (although it's really close). We're talking about lowering the CAR. So, when you do that you are ONLY talking about the relationship of the wheel to the car. And so 2 inches of lowering the car is 2 inches of reduced effective (bump) suspension travel at the wheel. We don't need to consider what the actual strut travel is because it isn't relavent. And yes, you don't usually put the spacer on the top of the cart, as I stated in my post ("My little scenario, un-obviously (oops) is assuming the unusual, top spacer."). My spacers, for instance, are underneath the cart. Even as I type this I see that this is all become just too silly. Originally I was only trying to illustrate the complexity of the whole strut shortening, cartridge substituting thing so that Havok and others would have a better appreciation of the non-linearity of the relationship: ie, 2 inches shorter struts does not gain you back 2 inches of travel from a 2 inch lowered car. Then I made an oddball reference in order to further make the point. And now, here we are. My picture looks pretty though, don't it? Camber plates, if you can afford them, will be much easier and straight-forward.

Well, the dunce hat corner sitting does me no good unless you post a picture as evidence . And I know this side discussion that Ross, JohnC and I are having has nothing to do with your original question, but I'm going to egg it along even further here (so perhaps I should wear the cap). I made a little diagram to illustrate my point (I just don't know when to stop, do I?): This is an oversimplification, but hopefully you'll get the idea of what I'm trying to state. I think the key is "Frame of reference is still top of strut tube to top of strut housing" My little scenario, un-obviously (oops) is assuming the unusual, top spacer. ALSO, it is assuming that there's enough "extra" shaft length to poke up over the spacer. Not all that real world I must say. All in all, I started out trying to clarify that there is a general lack of straight forwardness in regaining lost travel via cart/tube length alterations. The very complexity of this discussion more than backs that up. To answer that final question, I've been very happy with the performance of the GTI carts. BUT, not only have I not raced the car, this is with the stock L28 motor. Had I to do it over, I would've chosen the MR2 carts.

Jermino? Ouch. Yes, I cut 1.5 inches out of the strut, but the carts I used (85 Rabbit GTI fronts) have bodies that are actually about 2 3/4 inches shorter than the stock 240 front carts. So, I had to make up some room with a spacer - 1.25 inches of 1 1/4 inch ID pipe. But, just to reiterate my earlier point: I sectioned my struts because I have more time than money. I think you'd be better off going with coilovers and camber plates. As to the possibility of gaining back travel on a lowered car by using uncut strut tubes and a shorter cartridge: If you lower the car 2 inches, and find a cart whose fully extended length is 2 inches less than the standard one, then you've only lost 1 inch in travel vs. 2 with the standard unit (assuming 1 inch shorter body plus 1 inch shorter rod). So, you lose "droop" (overall) travel but gain "bump" (effective) travel. That's in theory, anyway. In practice, even if you found that magic cartridge, you probably don't get that exact ratio due to the placement of the internal bump stop, the amount of susp. compression at static ride height, etc., etc. But you're sure to gain back some fraction of bump travel vs. using the standard cart. [ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: jeromio ]

Well, okay, Suspension Travel is the distance the wheel can move up or down. But what we're really concerned with is the UP part. If you take into account the full range of travel, then lowering the car with spring doesn't affect suspension travel at all! But, if you lower the car 3 inches, try explaining that to your kidneys. So, when you lower the car with springs (by which I mean to include shortened springs or coilovers with the perch adjusted) you are lowering the car by effectively removing travel. It's the exact same process as when the car hits a bump. Except that it's permanent. One inch lower = 1 inch less effective (bump) travel. As you crest a hill at speed, with say a 2inch "all spring" lowered car vs. my 2inch sectioned strut car, my tires may leave the ground because I have less over all travel, while the other car's tires may stay on the ground (although unloaded). But after that, my car would most likely be able to smoothly absorb the impact, while the other car would hit the stops and give its driver a nice headache. If you leave the springs alone and "shorten" things by either cutting down the isolator or switching to camber plates (which are shorter), then travel is unchanged. But, the whole issue of regaining travel on a lowered car by altering the strut (either the car or the tube and cart) brings in all kinds of strange ratios. For instance, you could gain back some travel by only changing the cart and not cutting the strut tube at all!

I would think that lowering the car (with springs) results in a 1:1 ratio in loss of suspension travel. If you have 5 inches of travel, lower the car by 2 inches, then there's only 3 inches of travel left. However, strut sectioning will not necessarily yield a 1:1 gain in lost travel. It depends on the amount sectioned and the cart. For instance, I have removed 1.5 inches from my strut tubes, but I used a Rabbit cart that was ~2.75 inches shorter than the stock cart (extra space taken up by section of pipe, see http://240z.jeromio.com/frontsusp2.html). BUT, since the rod is shorter too, it gets complicated. I haven't lost the 1.25 inches due to the whole cart being shorter, I've only lost about half that (but not exactly half because the rod to car ratio is not 1:1) because the shorter rod will allow not be compressed as much at the lower ride height. I think I'm even confusing myself after re-reading that. IOWs, if I jack up my car to "normal" height, my carts will be almost maxed out, that is, "topped". Maximum travel. It's all very confusing. But I have not hit the bump stops on my car. If you have the bucks, I would go the camber plate route. It avoids the labor and hassle of the sectioning, gives you back your travel, AND gives you the camber (and sometimes caster, depending on the design of the plates) adjustment. And Mikelly is selling a set too (if he still has them).

Well, crap. Maybe I just remembered it wrong. Here's the thread that I was referring to (took forever to find it): http://www.hybridz.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000590 All the links are broken (which is really unfortunate), but no one says anything like "Holy cow! The wheels are off the ground!" or anything. I remember following those links when they were active and I have this image in my mind of the wheels just barely leaving pavement. But that could just be an exageration of the reality. Anyway, it is definately possible, and as I said, I agree not really likely considering the implementation of most IRSs including that of the Z.

I have actually experienced that attitude at a local trans shop here about 12 years ago. Greasy kid, me, "You guys got a part like this here, 'cept not broke?". It was for the $25 C6 that I got for my truck. Busy guy working, stops, leans over, opens drawer, fishes around, hands over part - "Here." Me, "Cool! Thanks! How much do I -" Him, "Look, I'm busy, catch you next time." Very cool. Sadly, that place is out of business now. I called around to the one and only driveshaft shop and he could get me one for $75 plus shipping. Parts stores couldn't get it. Trans shops "don't order parts". So I called JTR....

Cool. Thanks for all those measurements - very helpful. I need to crawl around under the car to see where the trans hits the sheetmetal, pull the motor and then sledge-ify things a bit. I have a 280z heat/AC unit. It's gonna make things tougher for me.

Okay, I went and looked at the car again this AM. You've got me confused on rider's/driver's side exhaust. Did you leave the passenger side flange alone? Perhaps I have the back of my motor too low, because one corner of my passenger side flange is directly over the frame, which would make it impossible to bolt another flange to it (for the exhaust pipe). Perhaps this dovetails into your discussion of beating the hell out of the trans tunnel. Currently, the motor is sitting where it is (which I'm guessing is lower than yours?) because the trans is out of room. I'd kind of like to move things forward a bit. But, from the pic of your car on this site, using your strut tower brace as a reference, it looks like my LS1 is about 1/2 to 1 inch forward of where yours is already. In the pic above (and another pic here http://240z.jeromio.com/motorswap/sHeaterInletInterference.JPG - my DSL is slow lately), you can see that I have another problem with heater inlet clearance. That and my problem with the low mount alternator interfering with the steering gear of the rack would be solved nicely by moving the motor forward a skonch. But then, that would only exascerbate the steering interference. Ugh. Oh, and for the steering shaft mod: I unbolted that column flange thingy and tried to move it over - no budge. What's keeping it from moving? Also, does moving this not create some bind in the steering? Or did you also relocate the mounting of the column under the dash? I really wish I had a lift. I can't see up in the tunnel where the trans is actually interfering with the tunnel. Need one of those fiber-optic scope thingies.

Personally, I don't think equal length is critical. Especially considering how crappy the stock manifold is. I would think that it would be key to try for a header that looks alot like James's, except that the 3s would then Y together. It'd be fairly simple and compact. You could use slightly larger ID tubes for the short runs on the number 2 and number 4 ports to even out the flow.

Someone posted pics and an mpeg of I think a 260Z with a reportedly stock IRS lifting the fronts off the ground. This was in response to someone posting something about how the IRS was "no good for dragracing". I think it was about 4-5 months ago? Car was like white or silver and had some stock looking (6 spoke 280ZX?) rims. I agree that the the typical reaction of an IRS car would be to squat. Perhaps this guy's setup (pretty sure he's a member here) uses stiff springs and shocks in back? It wasn't exactly doing a wheelstand - more like the fronts were just barely lifted.