JMortensen

MSA's twice pipes are very loud and hang low. A friend of mine had them and the lower of the two pipes was about 1/2 way pinched off from hitting speed bumps. Madkaw's is really really nice, but it's all custom... By the way I don't think they make it for 280ZX's, although your post says 79 280Z, so... ????

I checked on the zeddfindings website and didn't see the part, but I did email him so hopefully he does make them. Thanks for the lead.

Well I cut out a little section right where I thought there was rust, and there really wasn't much there. The paint was separating from the seam sealer, which made it look like the paint was bubbling up due to rust. I may cut part of the rear panel out if I can't bang out that dent on the right side, but I think I can patch the hole without having to replace the whole rear panel. Now I have a stupid question. I've looked in my VB and MSA catalogs and also checked Tabco's website, and I can't find who makes the replacement piece for the top area. Can anyone help me out with that?

Is the HEAD warped?

A lot of times in autox you'll have rules that determine the rim width and that is your limiting factor. That's why you'll see so many cantilevered slicks on the Prepared cars. Personally I think aside from cantilevered slicks, you should really stick with a tread width that is equal to the rim width (roughly). Now that I've just said that, I ran a 250 on a 8" wide rim for years, because that's what I could afford at the time. But I think the response from the tire is much better if the tire is not overly wide for the rim, and mine felt really floppy, especially when they were cold. As a case in point I referred to an old post from Tom Holt where he was talking about running 11" tires on his 16x10s, and he piped up to say that he had gone back to 10" tires because the transient response was better. Most of the DOT autox tires are really meant to maximize the tread width anyway, so putting a 245 Kuhmo or Hoosier on an 8" is even worse than putting a street 245 on an 8. My rule of thumb is 6" = 185, 7" = 205, 8" = 225 9" = 245 or 255, 10" = 275. Different tires are different sizes, so that's a general rule of thumb, but that's the way I would look at it first, and then modify based on the specific size of a given tire if necessary.

I know you've already figured out that your rims will be a problem, but I wanted to address this issue anyway because I think it's overlooked a lot. I don't think most people take the time to even check, and probably don't care if it rubs every once in a while. I was pretty shocked when I did the test myself, because it's something you just don't hear about. Mine didn't rub before I sectioned the struts, but afterwards it will definitely be an issue. With your larger wheel diameter I figured you'd be in roughly the same place. A lot of guys want to put the biggest wheel on their Z that they can and I think a LOT of them are having issues and are either oblivious to that fact or don't care. I know Clifton has issues with the tire rubbing the inner fenderwell, but I guess he figures it's not bad enough to worry about. I think maybe Jody said something about his 295's under 3" flares rubbing every once in a while. Based on what I've seen with my own car I think the max tire width with coilovers and non-sectioned struts and a non-flared 240Z is a 245. 280's may be different, I honestly don't know, but I do know that for the 245 to work without rubbing on a properly sized rim (9 inch) everything has to be just right.

Go search over at classiczcars.com. I bet they have tons of info. I saw one in person at Nissan headquarters about 10 years ago. It was a stock Z. It looked nice, but for $25K I was thinking about how fast I could have made my car with the same $$$.

Moved as requested. As the others suggested, I think the P90 is worth maybe $150, and the headwork might be worth another couple hundred. The cam, if it's any of the stock camshafts, wouldn't be a real selling point for me...

I think if you take Dragonfly's advice and jack the suspension up and down with no spring on there you'll quickly realize that you need to start looking for flares. I had trouble with a 23" diameter tire on an 8" rim with 5" of backspace hitting the inner fenderwell at full bump. You've got a lot more diameter which should exacerbate that problem I think. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. Dragonfly's method will let you know for sure.

If you can figure this out for sure, then the rest of your questions will be answered here: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=114798

I'm not saying what the ECU does is crap. I'm saying the ECU is crap. I'm saying the EFI system (mechanical and electrical, in this particular configuration) as used in the Z is crap when a person wants to modify the engine for power. The ECU may be able to be remapped for some crazy camshaft, but that doesn't mean that the stock FI from a 75 Z takes well to a bigger camshaft. Apparently this remapping of the computer isn't very easy compared to changing parameters on a programmable system. Since we are now in the 2000's and not the 1970's, that aspect of the ECU is "crappy". Again (3rd or 4th time now?), if your intent is to use it within its design parameters, then it can be made to function correctly. I have no argument for you there. But this is Hybrid Z, and the intent is almost never to use it within its design parameters. EDIT--I was totally unaware that most FI systems revert to batch over 3000 rpm, but that does make sense in a way since the air is moving so fast that it probably doesn't make as much difference. Still spraying fuel on one closed intake valve and one that is right at the overlap point and another that is on the intake stroke all at the same time doesn't make much sense to me. It makes me think that TBI or even CIS would really be the way to go for top end performance.

Don't be so uptight! We're just arguing. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not taking it personally on my end, I hope nobody else is either. Pete, you're right about the limited adjustability and tunability for carbs. Still when you're adding a cam one would think that the desire is to make more power, and with the limited adjustability of the carburetors it is still possible to make a bunch more power (and in this case a lot more across the entire rpm range) than with the stock FI. Also the maintenance thing is a side track that I probably should have avoided, but Tony was touting the durability of the stock system, which I've always considered not very durable. But you're absolutely right, carbs or FI, it's going to require maintenance.

Thanks for the advice Dragonfly. If it's not that hard to cut it off like you say I might just do that to see what the rust underneath looks like and then either try to reattach the modified panel afterwards.

Zmanco, I tried to find an old thread that had hp numbers at different max timing settings and couldn't find it. It's been a couple years so it just must be buried in the database. My very vague memory says that someone lost upwards of 20 horses with a timing change of something like 5 degrees (might have been Norm???) Your timing setting sounds pretty close to me if you're using a stock distributor though, mid 30's to high 30's is usually what I expect to see for max timing.

Let's see how many Z's there are running 30 years down the road. I'm not espousing MS as THE answer, I'm saying that stock FI and aftermarket cams don't mix. And as to the stock FI's durability, I wonder how many Z's were junked after trying to fix driveability problems that occurred due to broken connectors or bad AFMs. I'm guessing quite a few, there are enough threads about FI driveability issues on the various internet boards... I stand by my previous statement: Then there is this comment: I may be wrong, and I'm way out of my comfort zone talking specifics on FI systems, but isn't the stock FI limited by the restrictive AFM and manifold, batch fire, limited ability to adjust to different engine parameters (different cams, intake systems, etc) and no spark timing capability. Doesn't MS potentially get rid of all of these issues, and aren't there other better aftermarket systems that do an even better job?

I don't think I've ever seen a technical post from Norm that I thought was BS. Maybe overly political (which is why he was banned from here), but I never looked at his methodology and thought "There is no way that happened the way he said it did."

Retard the timing to prevent blowing the head gasket(s)? Not sure what that means. Do you mean you had to retard it to get rid of pinging? Do you actually have more than one headgasket on the engine? I know Norm did that on his motor. I'd suggest that you probably don't know what you're missing out on by running the stock FI, and that the last little bit of timing can make a pretty huge difference in power, so if you've got timing backed down in the 20's or around there you're losing a significant amount of hp. Even if you have it at 30 you're likely losing a bunch.

How about downsizing your images a bit, and then just posting them directly in the thread? I got tired of dealing with it after clicking on about three of your thumbnails...

They're just exactly the wrong shape to allow for suspension travel. There's a practical reason for a bubble flare's shape.

Yep. I know a guy who shaved his head on his go kart the same way. Might not be the most precise way to do it, but it will work if you're careful and cheap. Hard to argue with results...

I think the problem there is the wheel bearing. You need a larger hole in the strut for a larger bearing. JamieT had made his own strut housings to accept a Z32 stub and bearing assy, and it is a 32 spline but it was not easy. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an aftermarket supplier to produce a strut housing that will accommodate a larger wheel bearing and axle. Pics on these threads: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=100758 http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=104649 There was another thread if I recall by Jamie specifically about his struts, but I can't find it.

That sounds like 1 fast z's build where he machined the inside of piston to lighten it, but that is not the same idea as cutting down a dished piston to make it a flat top.

I realize the shutting down the site comment is sarcastic, but in all seriousness there are still plenty of NEW discussions and innovations to be made with the Z, and we really don't need to start rehashing old stuff to keep new posts coming in. I'm all for pursuing theoretical arguments but I didn't realize that's what you were going after. In practical terms though, the issue has already been settled. And although you can undoubtedly install a larger U-joint on the back of the ZX that will survive drag launches with a 406, unless you had a real love for U-joints I think going to the trouble to install them would be a waste of resources. In theoretical terms, the suspension design of the ZX is still going to be harder on U-joints than it will be on CV joints so you'd still need a relatively larger U-joint than CV joint to handle a given power level. Shall we continue the theoretical discussion now?

Why are we arguing over the relative strenth of CVs and U-joints? It's been done previously several times. CV's are better when the angularity is a factor, and ZX suspension has more severe angularity issues than the Z. Relatively speaking the U-joint is the stronger device (size for size) when used without angularity, but that isn't the case in the Datsuns. To put this in perspective, the 68 510 comes with the exact same U-joints and halfshafts that the jnj guys were using. The original app was a 100 bhp sedan. Compare to a 300ZXT CV which was designed for a 3000 lb sports car with 300 bhp. So size for size is not a parameter of our comparison. It's not a mystery which is the stronger unit in practical terms, and in the ZX application upping the size of the U-joint still doesn't address the angularity issues. As an aside, http://www.wolfcreekracing.com makes a CV setup for 510s which have similar (but worse) angularity issues. A 510 picked up 3% whp on a dyno just by installing these CV's simply by eliminating the binding of the U-joint at severe angles.

We can disagree if you like, but I really think the stock FI is crap. If you want to keep your car bone stock like you said, then we could talk about the disintegrating connectors and all that, the restrictive AFM and manifold, etc. If a person doesn't mind dealing with all those issues, then OK, stock can be made to function correctly. That's about the best I can say for stock FI, that it can be made to function correctly but probably isn't now, because of the crappy connectors they came with. If you want to modify the car we can talk about how a cam install will render it basically retarded. To me, that's crappy, since I don't tend to leave things in stock form. Every once in a while someone will say something about how bad carbs suck and that ANY FI (including the crap L series FI) is a step up, carb is a metered fuel leak, old technology, blah blah blah, yadda yadda. I wholeheartedly disagree with this opinion. Carbs in all common cases for the L, even dual Webers or 4 barrel setups, can be tuned to work with a bigger cam. They might not be the best carb setups that you can get for your L, but if you're installing a cam I'd rather have either of those than stock FI. But when you compare properly tuned SU's or triples to stock FI with the intention of making power, there's just no comparison. You can go WAY beyond the limitations of the stock FI and make a lot more power with good carbs. I will grant you that in a turboed application the FI makes more sense and is easier to get and keep running, although again I'd say that for peak performance, turboed carb setups have more potential than the stock FI (think turbo setups with triple Mikunis from the 80s).