JMortensen

I think the clutch manufacturer would be fairly incompetent to put a clutch disk in that is so thick that it can't disengage. I still think you're looking at a fluid leak, broken fork, or bad synchros. I agree with Richard that lube can make a big difference. I assume you're using a T5. If it were a Nissan transmission I'd recommend SWEPCO 201, but I think some of the T5s take ATF???

I'd suggest a clutch LSD, especially if you want to autox. Seen a few people put in Quaifes then take them back out again because they spin the inside rear at autox. I think some would say that you're fine with the regular old R200, and that would certainly be the easy way to get it done. The R230 or shortnose R200 is going require a bunch of fabrication. Hopefully this give you some things to consider anyway...

I think you're taking him too literally John. I don't think he means the pp or the clutch disk weighs 20 lbs, I think he means that it has a lot of clamping force. The clamping force shouldn't change the way the transmission shifts, assuming the clutch linkage and hydraulics are working correctly. If the disk were heavier, yes, it would shift slower for the reasons you stated above.

I'd be interested to hear how a heavy pp can influence high rpm shifting John. Seems to me the only way it could is if the shift fork were BENDING. Otherwise regardless of the size of the master and slave, as long as the seals in both held the fluid is not compressable, so it should still completely disengage the clutch. If the clutch is completely disengaged then the trans should shift smoothly, and if it doesn't then the problem is synchros in the transmission. Again, unless something else is giving, either the fork or the master or slave seals. By the way, is that YOUR vintage Z that's getting the T5? That puts you in CP3M, correct?

Search for S&W and Autopower and you'll find more info. General consensus is that the S&W doesn't fit very well and uses heavier than necessary tubing. Autopower is pretty common in the road racing world. I think there was a thread making fun of the Cusco cage fairly recently. I think you can do better by having a local shop make your cage for you. Read the rules for the type of racing you'll be doing and search for katman's ITS cage info and you'll find a lot of info to help you understand the differences and what makes one cage better than the other for improving the structure of the Z.

That's a pretty good deal at $498. I'm surprised they have the R190! Although I do believe it is the same as the H190, so they might sell 1 or 2 a year for older Nissan trucks...

No it doesn't really matter. You will occasionally come across a real anal engineer type who will tell you that your wheels are going to fall off if you don't have a hubcentric mount. Having worked on a Porsche race car that did 160+ and had 1" lugcentric wheel spacers on it with 315/35/18s in back and never seen a failure, I know where I stand on this one.

Oh yeah, R180. Well that would be a problem if it was a 2 pinion. I suspect that it is the 4 pinion, just because the Nissan Comp catalog doesn't even offer the 2 pin anymore: http://www.courtesyparts.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=CP&Category_Code=s30_nismo_r180ls They should be able to open up the box and tell you if it has one crosspin or two. 2 minutes and you'd know for sure, that's not asking too much.

Lug centric means the wheel centers on the lug studs. Hub centric means that there is a cone shaped part of the hub that centers the wheel. As was pointed out already, there is no hub in the rear of a Z for the wheel to center on. So Z's are hub centric in front and lug centric in back from the factory.

Did they happen to tell you WHY it wasn't recommended?

That's retarded. It's the same thing Nismo sells.

http://www.differentials.com and marketed under the name "Power Brute".

Wheel spacers usually aren't hub centric. Mine aren't and I've never had a problem. The problem is there isn't much surface area for the wheel to sit on.

I don't know if they sonic tested it or offset bored it or what. He was a student at UTI at the time, and it was his roommate's project in his "performance engine building" class or something like that. They built it together, and it failed almost immediately. He always thought that if they had used the F54 it would have been OK since the bow in the cylinder was right in the middle, but I don't think that motor ever got fixed. I imagine if it was offset bored he would have said as much, and I don't remember him mentioning that at all, so I'm guessing they just did a straight .120 overbore. Not sure on the sonic testing either.

The obvious (and rude) question: How much?

Count the splines. I thought all the ZX's had 25 spline axles. The 280Z has 27. More info on the 240/280ZX CV conversion on Pete's page here: http://alteredz.com/240ZCVHalfshaftConversion.htm

When I put my ACT pp on I lost the slave cylinder within 3 days. If the master or slave was even remotely weak your new heavier pp will sent it to an early grave. Replace both master and slave and you should be good to go. You might also want to take a quick look at the shift fork. They tend to split where the pivot ball is with really heavy pp's.

That's almost 1.9 rod ratio for Mack's setup. Not bad. I suppose the easier thing to do is run L24 crank and rods with L28 flat top pistons and P90. That gets 1.8 rod ratio with no fuss and all "normal" components. IIRC the pin height and all that is the same on the L24/26/28. Wonder how low the compression would be that way though... EDIT--According to Lengine.exe that would get you 8.05:1, with a .080 overbore you get 8.32:1. .080 over with a 1mm gasket gets 8.52:1.

Pull a freeze plug on an F54 and shine a light DOWN in the block and you can see the siamesed web. F54 vs N42 has been dealt with here before, and apparently Sunbelt likes the N42. I have a friend who built a 3.2 liter stroker with an N42 and it started blowing smoke within 1000 miles. He mic'ed the bores and they were definitely stretched in the middle causing the rings not to seal. If I were doing a huge bore I'd go F54. Otherwise I don't think it really makes too much difference either way, but that's just MO.

1 front 1 rear thank you.

Yeah, the white 88 has the VLSD, and the shafts are particular to that diff.

Still, you can buy a NEW carrier for ~$500. Definitely overpriced.

87 should be a standard clutch LSD, so any output shaft out of a 280Z would work.

I see that one the opposite way, maybe because I autox and do track days. On a long sweeper that accumulator only has a finite amount of oil. Baffled pan will continue to try and trap whatever oil is in the pan where it needs to be. Look at this thread here: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=103316. It shows a graph of the Accusump activation on a road course. The thing is open a lot. I question the ability of the oil system to fill it back up without a baffled pan in a sustained high g turn. I guess running both would be a good way to protect yourself. Or dry sump it. Then you'd have no worries at all...