jeromio

Huh? I think you'll need to make your question more specific. Some cars have major components isolated from the rest of the frame, such as the rear susp. on a late 90s T-Bird. The whole rear suspension and diff are attached to a sub-frame that is then attached to the rest of the car with rubber isolator bushings. There are other cars that employ a subframe for the engine/trans and/or front suspension. This is primarily done to make assembly line manufacturing easier, although sometimes it is done to isolate road noises and vibration. As to a sub-frame on a ZCar - ??? Maybe you're thinking about back halfing, where you either fab or buy a complete 4 link, solid axle rear with it's own frame that you then weld to the car (after cutting out much of what used ot be the rear susp. and frame)?

http://240z.jeromio.com/images/411rear

http://240z.jeromio.com/images/411rear

Here's a page with some quick photos of the Camaro tank in relation to the ZCar: http://240z.jeromio.com/images/gastank The tank is rather long. The 90 degree bend in the exhaust will have to be very tight and as close to the rear transverse bar as possible. You're right, won't work with an LSD brace. BUT, the height looks good. If the top of the 'maro tank is put up against the floor of the hatch (with the tire well removed), then the tank won't be any lower than the original one. And since it slopes quite a bit, it wil actually be more trim.

Well, my plan is just to turn it 180 degrees. Here's a picture: My plans are not solid as yet - it may not work out. Clearly the spare tire is an issue (well, lack of one). It seems like it would work. If you look at that picture and imagine that you're seeing "inside" the picture of that orange Z in the first post of this thread.

I got tagged in the right rear while I was stopped to make a left - kid on his cellphone was going maybe 30mph. I don't think any bumper on any car would really do much to protect the car beyond minor parking lot stuff. In my case the bumper got bent and it also smooshed into the valence metal. I haven't gotten it fixed yet (previous owner had some awful bodywork done on the right rear panel that needs to be addressed - it all needs doing all at once at huge cost). I agree that it would be key to put some steel, on either side of the valence, between a crash and the fuel tank. I bought this Camaro tank mostly for the electronics (pump, regulator, pressure sender). I was planning to adapt my Z tank to the Camaro dropin hardware. But I am considering cutting up the rear and dropping in the whole tank. It's plastic and has some nice vapor recovery stuff plumbed in (vapor is meant ot get vented to the intake). Plastic is nice in an accident and it also doesn't corrode. Also, by using the whole GM solution, I should get the fuel-shut-off-during-collision stuff for free.

I have no pictures which would probably help explain my question, but here goes anyway. I am going to create a K style crossmember for my car (as discussed previously for installation of my LS1). I am settling on using some DOM tubing (since I already have some) rather than steel box tubing. This is mainly to do with weight issues. My rough guesstimate is that the 1.5 X 2.5 box tubing that I have is about 25% heavier than the 1 3/4 inch DOM round tubing. The wall thickness is about the same. Can anyone offer any informed opinions about this material choice? My second issues is the attachment method for the new "legs" of the crossmember. I can either: A- Weld the new legs to the existing crossmember and bolt the leg ends to the cast, strut rod humps B- Make a a more complete assembly out of the legs that bolts to the existing crossmember as well as the strut rod humps. C- Make the same assembly that bolts to the existing cross member but is welded to the strut rod humps. A or C would be the easiest to fabricate. B would be the most modular, flexible solution. Since the humps are kind of an awkward shape, coming up with a matched surface for bolting would be a challenge. Which makes me lean towards C. The fact that this extra cross member would then be sort of permanent bothers me slightly. I don't necessarily envision having to remove it for any reason, but you never know. On the other hand, it might be pretty hard to bolt/unbolt with the strut rod in the way anyway. And since the motor will effectively be resting on these legs, it probably makes more sense structurally to get a good, welded mating of the legs to the chassis. Anyone have any opinions?

I was told that the unit that I have came from an 85 200SX turbo. I mean, I saw the car and it was obviously a 200sx turbo (I saw the turbo insignia on the outside and actually looked under the hood to see the turbo). I also did the jack up one wheel, mark driveshaft, spin wheel 10 times multiply by 2 trick (well, divide by 5, whichever) to verify that it was in fact a 4.11. I mean, the 2 ratios are really close, but I did the spin 2 times and came up with 20 and some fractional extra turn (1/2 or so) both times. And it's clearly not a R180. I had told Vinh that I would take a bunch of photos of my 4.11 with CVs and I never got around to it.....soon, soon

I paid $125 for mine. I paid extra to have them pull it cuz I didn't have the time.

I've got one and it's very nice. Very convenient. It's alot easier to search for something (although I dont have the PDF searchable version, the sidebar index is plenty easy) with the CD than it is with a paper manual.

You can email them to me and I can post them. Just make up an address (like r230photos) and put @jeromio.com at the end.

I see what you're goin' for there - the Mustang rims on the Z. I do like those rims. Guy at work has a new Gt with those. I think they would look quite nice on a Z. Of course, you'd have to convert to 5 lug hubs and brakes and use coil overs (I'm assuming they're 17X8).

Here's a pic from Bryan Little's page (the link had changed, found the new one on Zdriver): and here's a quote (from this page: http://www.geocities.com/zgarage2001/engine.html): quote This is the page I consulted when I did my swap. I'll jack up my car this weekend and snap some pictures. I can tell you that I had an unrelated suspension issue on the passenger side about 4 months ago. I had to put in a new strut cartridge. This required unbolting the isolator and unbolting the CV from the comp. flange. Rather than leave the shaft hanging while I worked, I had to remove it. It was definately circ-clip locked in place, I had to do the whole dual flat pry bar maneuver to get it out. Re-installation was literally a "snap" (as in, the thing snapped in place when I blarnked it back in there). I did catch a post in the Banter section of zcar.com (not sure why it wasn't in the tech section) about a guy having similar problems with an 86 200sx diff. He was also trying to use the passenger shaft in the driver's side.

There are a whole lotta people running the 3.7 clutch LSD and I haven't heard of any kind of wiedness with the halfshafts on that unit.

Did MikeSCCA have to lower his crossmember? Perhaps you need a different oilpan? I don't think the camber spacers are going to fix this. If you really must lower your crossmember, consider re-drilling the arm mount pivot hole. You can move it both up and out I did this on my car to alleviate bump steer and to give my car some more negative camber. I moved mine up by 15/16th and out by 1/4. My crossmember is in the stock location. That 1/4 inch really boosted the camber. Maybe too much. The car grips the road insanely. Which translates to extremely excellent cornering, but also some darti-ness and it desperately follows any irregularties in the road. In your case, 1/4 inch or slightly more might get you back to a more normal configuration.

Wow. Almost a shame to paint over that pretty, shiny metal. Rust wouldn't be pretty though. As to Tom's question, kinda looks as though you're gonna have to just cut a really big hole in the rad support, no?

I disagree. It's very possible to lower the crossmember. One could actually lower it so much that it drags the ground. But this would have no affect on ride height (unless you put casters on the crossmember ) The car is supported by the wheel which is supported by the strut. The arm merely locates the strut relative to the chassis. In theory, if you had some kind of super strong strut and top mount point (isolator), you wouldn't need the control arm at all (obviously that wouldn't be very workable). But, by lowering the crossmember, as Pete mentioned, you have altered the geometry. Since the arms now angle downward from the strut to the crossmember pivot point, the distance between the strut bottom and the frame is now effectively shorter. That increases positive caster (wheels like this: /). And in a corner, as the strut compresses, the arm will bend up, further reducing the length of the lower part of the triangle which increases the angle of the outside, vertical part of the triangle and substantially increasing positive camber. This will cause your outside tire to scrub the sidewall and reduce it's ability absorb lateral force and to grip the road. IOWs: it's not good.

I have the stock fron swaybar and none in the rear. Maybe it is the shocks that are making it stiff? Maybe it's a consiracy and even though I specified 150/175, the vendor(s) sold me 300? The fronts are Eibach (red) with some various white numbers on them, none of which can be translated into anything like "150". There is a 000175 or 00075 (I forget) which I took to mean the rate or something. Expansion joints are not the friend of my Z. It doesn't warble or bottom out though. In fact, there's a "smooth" bump on my drive home that used to (with the ancient old springs/struts) send the car crashing and jumping and bumping. Now it just zooms right over it. Potholes and freeway joints are murder though. And the car moves imperseptively when you try and bounce it by pressing on the fender or bumper.

I followed the advice of several people on this forum and others and bought the much less expensive Performas. The adjustability of the Illuminas would've been a nice-to-have, but it's just way too expensive to be justifiable. I have 150lb front and 175lb rear springs and my car is stiff. Really stiff. Friend of mine was visiting recently and took the car for a drive. When he got out, he was making complaints of "skateboard car" and holding his kidneys with a grimace. It handles very well. Incredibly well, but, just be aware that the trade-off is comfort. I can see where it would be nice to be able to set the shocks on "soft". But then I don't know exactly how much the shocks are contributing to stiffness vs. the springs. Also, GC products are very nice. But be aware that their price is much higher than resellers such as http://fonebooth.com/auto.html and http://cyberauto.com

It would cost about a tenth the effort and time to just swap in the whole Benz motor/trans if you were so inclined.

As to the exhaust system, I haven't really found a shop around here that I'm impressed with. It's not so much that I'm concerned with increased backpressure due to the crush bends. I just want the pipes to be tucked as close to the car as possible (the car is somewhat low and I've banged the crap out of the system that's on there now) and I want it done right. No exhaust shop dude can possibly care as much about this car as me. Plus, I kind of dig working with tubing. It's like a puzzle. AND, when I'm done, even if I have to pay $25 for each bend, it's gonna be waaaay cheaper than using an exhaust shop.

Thanks for the tip on Auto-Jet. I'll give them a call. Those manual tubing benders like the ones from HarborFreight are very jicky. I bought one for my cage. Good for the occasional massaging of tubing to make it fit, but certainly not up for repeated use or anything beyond 30 degrees. I ended up buying some structural steel DOM elbows to make the thing with. I'll use the bender for the slight bends. I tried using it on some exhaust tubing, just for fun and ended up crushing the crap out of it. Hydraulic crush benders like the exhaust shops use run about $10K. The circumference of the tubing is smooshed with these benders creating a choke point though. Mandrel benders are crazy expensive. My friend who is a production welder looked into buying one to do steel railings and such. Couldn't justify the cost of $20-$40K (price depends on flexibility (tubing diameters, radii of bends, etc.) and durability of the desired machine). [ September 19, 2001: Message edited by: jeromio ]

Are you certain that this diff was from a an 85 200sx turbo? I wish Bryan Little's website was still up, because he had a picture of the 200SX turbo R200. I can tell you that my 2 R200 diffs are identical. The only difference is that the 200sx unit is cleaner and has an aluminum cover (the 3.54 75 R200 cover could be alum. too - hard to tell it's so caked with grime). Also, the pinion flange was round and had a square bolt pattern with special capped studs. And of course the car had CVs which I didn't use. The picker at the yard actually cut the shafts with a torch, rather than bother with unbolting them. I have stuck those in the other, 75 R200 to keep out dirt and moisture. They snapped right in.

When I switched to 280zx front calipers, I also switched to the 280zx rear calipers too, so my experience won't be exactly the same as yours. I only recently switched to the larger M/C. It does sound like you have air. The drums require less fluid movement to actuate, so, that shouldn't be an issue. Check all your connections. Could very well be a bad hose to caliper, or hose to line or something. Did you use the copper washers on the calipers fittings?

It is possible to install the R200 in the less desireable, early R180 position. If you install the mustache bar with the ears (rings, whatever you want to call them) towards the rear of the car, then the diff will be in approximately the same position and the shorter driveshaft can be used. This causes the halfshafts to be at an angle in the horizontal plane however. If you mount the diff with the mustache bar in the later, 72 and up, position, with the rings towards the front of the car, then the diff will be pulled back by an inch and a half or so and the shafts will be straight, that is, you could draw a line between the center of the hubs and the shafts would lie along that line. You have to use the curved rear piece (the straight one would hit the diff cover) and a longer driveshaft in this second configuration. The R200 mustache bar has a bend in it - merely flipping the R180 mustache bar around (rings forward), would move the diff too far back. The JTR manual has illustrative photos on pages 6-4 and 6-5 (seventh edition).