JMortensen

The mechanical advance would be inside the distributor, underneath the plate with the slots. Real easy way to check for mechanical advance: with the distributor installed and the belt on, grab the rotor and twist. If it moves at all, then you're moving the advance mechanism. It's sprung so it might be hard to twist. Here's a picture of the centrifugal advance mechanism that's been pulled out of a ZX dizzy: When you pull the cap off and look at the distributor you can't see any of this mechanism since it's under the breaker plate. There is normally no adjustment to set your timing curve on a distributor. Usually it requires changing springs or soldering up the slots inside the distributor. You probably don't have to mess with the curve anyway. I would imagine that anyone who would go through the hassle to set that distributor up already has the curve set. I don't understand what you're doing with the timing at all. I've never had a pulley that was marked all the way around, but I would imagine that if 0º is set at 0, then 35º advance should be 330º, unless the pulley is marked backwards. I think this might be your problem. 35º BEFORE top dead center is what you want, I think you've been going to 35º AFTER TDC. Regardless, I would bet you dollars to donuts that you have mechanical advance on that dizzy, so I wouldn't set it to 330º either, because then it won't want to idle and it will ping like crazy. My suggestion would be to set everything back to 0º and buy a timing light that does have the advance feature. Probably not the most accurate, but here's one for $30: http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40963 If you don't want to do that, I would guess that you could set the timing at idle to something like 357º on your wheel (should be 8º BTDC) and then advance just a little bit at a time until you like what how it feels and it doesn't ping. If I'm right on the timing thing then it should fire up a lot easier. BTW the battery doesn't matter. You could have 1,000,000 CCA, and the starter will only take what it needs from those 1,000,000. You really don't need chokes on Webers. Just give it a good pump on the gas pedal and then turn the key, and it should fire just fine.

Yep. That's my impression too. A ZX distributor with the vacuum advance mechanism disabled has a good timing curve with 17º advance all in at 2500 from the factory. Can't beat the price too, as they usually go for $30-$50 with the module IME. I still think your distributor setup has some serious advantages, and you should make the effort to figure it out. On a couple threads you've said that it has no advance mechanism. I'm not sure I believe that. I would bet it has centrifugal advance, and that's what you want. It should be as easy as getting a timing light with the advance funtion, setting it to 35º, revving the engine to 3000 rpm and lining the timing light up to the 0º mark. That should be it. I don't honestly understand why this is causing so many problems for you.

I think the book was written in the days of bias ply tires, plus the last 25 or 30 years of tire technology isn't taken into consideration. It's a good book and has some useful info but it is dated. BTW there are some wicked fast Pintos out there, and I'm not kidding.

I believe OER is the same thing as SK. I think they've been around a while too. If I'm right they run some Weber and some Mikuni jets, and they were designed to be an improvement on the Webers or Mikunis. I think Dan (255whp) Baldwin runs them. $1700 seems a bit steep, but I haven't priced them lately.

I just remembered this thread. This might help to understand what's going on if you follow this one back to Juan's thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=101565

If you're going to that trouble you should section the strut housing too. If you just lower the spring perch to lower the car then the car will be sitting near the bumpstops just to get the right height. If you section then you can cut the strut tube to the height of a 240Z strut tube, or even to the height of a sectioned 240Z strut tube and get more travel. Then you can use coilovers or just relocate the stock spring perch.

Yeah, you remove the peened nut then drive out the stub axle. The peened nut is kind of a PITA, but we talked about that in this thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=101668. Then you need to push the stub axle out. I drove mine out with an air hammer, but if you don't have one you can use a big lead hammer or a slide hammer (slide hammer is going to be impossible without the strut mounted to the car I think).

You should have the stub, the spacer, maybe a copper washer, the wheel bearings (inner and outer) the seal, the companion flange, a washer, and a nut. The spacer is the big thing. You're not going to find it at the auto parts store. The strut has a letter stamped on it that I think corresponds with the spacer you need. The letter is on the front end of the strut right around the bearing area, on the inside about an inch inside of the backing plate. Every strut I've had has been stamped "B". The spacer will also be stamped "B" as well. Some of the struts used a copper spacer washer when the factory spacer wasn't big enough. What the spacer does is to hold the bearings apart. so that the outer races sit in the strut housing, and the inner races contact the spacer. If it is too short, then there is way too much pressure on the inner races, and I guess you'll know if you need the extra copper washer if you put it back together and the stub axle won't turn. The nut is the peened nut that is a PITA to get off. If you use the 280ZXT nuts you don't have to peen them, so it will be easier to get the nut off again if you ever have to.

I think I am in the same boat you were in. I could brake hard in my Z before, but the problem was always that the fluid would boil within a couple laps time. So I'd be waiting for the tires to warm up for a lap or two, then I'd get one or two laps of good braking, then the fluid would boil and I'd have to back way off. I know my car should be capable of a lot more braking than it had before with the old brakes. Can't wait to flat spot some tires while I'm figuring it out. Thanks for all the help Cary. If you wouldn't mind I'd love to know what size masters your 510 buddy is running. I would prefer a softer pedal effort, but I don't want the pedal hitting the floor, and Tom's spreadsheet doesn't really account for pedal throw, just the ratio between the two. Also, when you say you ran the numbers and came up with 57% and 43%, where are you getting that from? I tried to make all of the specs as close to correct as I could, and I got this for Brake Torque Distribution: Min Nominal Max Front 55% 68% 79% Rear 45% 32% 21% G force .23 .76 1.2 Are those the numbers that you're looking at?

All this talk about Phantom's setup got me thinking about my new brake setup again, and a problem I haven't resolved. I currently have a set of Wilwood Superlite calipers for the front with 1.75" pistons, and I have a set of smaller Dynalite 4 pistons for the back, also 1.75" pistons. Front and back will both be run on 12.2" rotors, 1.2" thick in front and .81" in back. I know that usually people buy 1.75" pistons for the front and 1.38" pistons for the back in Zs, but I already have these, so if they can be made to work that's what I'd prefer to do. I run on 10" slicks, and the suspension is not sorted to full F Prepared level, but it should be capable of some pretty serious braking. I think that stock Z's pull about .9g under braking (that's what I seem to remember from an OLD Car and Driver). I'm guessing maybe 1.4 or 1.5g's for my car. That's a SWAG, so I might be WAY off, I just don't know. I am not entirely sure how I would figure it out without being able to drive it. Any suggestions on how to get an accurate number for this variable? Anyway I'm trying to use Tom's spreadsheet. Here it is for anyone who doesn't have it already: http://sth2.com/Z-car/Brakemath.xls I think that I figured out that if I run .75" master in front and 1.125" in rear, that according to the spreadsheet that gives me 1.2 G's. Then I was planning on running a proportioning valve in the rear line as well because I already have it, and Cary said that he runs both the balance bar and the prop valve on his setup. Since as Tom pointed out they are not linear, I figure that Cary is running it to stay closer to the correct balance over a greater range of braking effort. So I guess the questions are: Do I need to replace the rear calipers? If I use these small and large masters, does that cause any problems since one will move so much further when I step on the brake? How much misalignment can dual masters take? Anyone think I hosed the spreadsheet and should be running other size master cylinders? Right now weight is 50/50, total of 2530 (will probably be significantly less when I'm done with all this crap I'm doing).

Then you wouldn't be able to use your snazzy toe adjuster. Keep the green bar if it makes you feel like it's braced better, I just think that with the rest of the structure being so massive it wouldn't matter.

1970 240Z, L28, 5 speed, R200, 14x6 6 spokes, sway bars, Toy calipers, early (heavy) 280ZX rear disc, full interior with carpet kit that covers all the vinyl, Autopower roll bar, 1/2 tank: 2350

I think what you've got there is way overkill, and I don't think it would hurt to remove the green link. Remember the initial structure was 2 4" wide pieces of 1/8" plate attached by 4 bolts and now you have these massive ribbed aluminum pieces that tie into the mustache bar bolts. The only downside I can see to this design is that it's going to take a lot of material and a lot of milling.

I think the mistake is in the piston size/pressure corellation, not the relief valve. The best analogy I've heard is to compare the master cylinder to the front sprocket on a bicycle and the caliper to the rear sprocket. The smaller the front sprocket the more pressure or torque you can exert, the larger the rear sprocket the more pressure or torque you exert. So if you're climbing a hill and you need lots of torque, you go to a small front sprocket (small master) and the large rear sprocket (caliper with large pistons). If you are going downhill you don't need as much torque so you switch to the larger front sprocket (large master) and smaller rear sprocket (caliper with small pistons).

Since visual is a big part of CA smog, I would say no way in hell is a SR going to pass in a Z.

Being the cheap *** that I am, that is exactly what I wanted to know. Any benefit to your setup over his, other than the fact that a leaky reservoir won't drip on your feet?

Oh, then you can install them as is with regular 240Z struts, but you won't be able to lower the car much beyond where you have it now without hitting the bumpstops. Or if you section you can run the same ride height or as much as about 2" lower than the current ride height and still not ride on the bumpstops.

Sounds right to me. I think that you still might have front bias after gutting the prop valve though, I know I did with my old setup. Then your next step IMO should be larger rear calipers.

So basically you're saying you want another 1.5" drop from where you are now. If that is so then the answer is sectioning the struts would be a good idea. If you don't you'll be pretty close to if not riding on the bumpstops all the time. Search the strut thing. I know the MR2 struts have a larger diameter threaded area at the top, and they don't have a flat section machined into them like the stock struts do. The hole in the stock strut top is too small and has a D shape to it, so I'm not sure if you need to do anything about that other than drill the hole out, but check it out before you buy the struts.

Any idea what the cost will be on those?

It boils down to how far you want to lower the car. If you want to run it really low, then get the shorter struts (88 MR2 rear struts for the front, and 240Z front struts for the rear), shorten the strut tubes and install the coilovers. If you just want it an inch below stock ride height then just get regular 240Z inserts and install them. The trick is like Richard says that once you have the capability to really lower the car a lot with the coilovers, you'll need to resist that temptation. You know yourself. If you're gonna want the car low, section. There are a bunch of other threads on sectioning the struts, I still think sectioning about 2" from the top of the tube is easier and safer.

I think Tim is wrong on the caliper thing. I had the same misconception a few years back about drums (smaller wheel cylinder = more throw = more rear bias = WRONG) and Dan Baldwin and some others I can't remember showed me the light. Same thing for calipers. Bigger pistons = more force. Smaller pistons = more travel. This is true. The problem is that once pads contact rotors or shoes contact drums, then it is the FORCE that matters, not the travel. So you might try a bigger pistoned caliper back there.

I wouldn't put a prop valve in the front brake system. I ALMOST did that on my car when I had Toy front calipers and 280ZX rear disc. I had the same problem of much too much front bias. Now I'm glad I didn't. Here's a quote from Tom Holt on the subject: What I'm getting out of this is the harder you hit the brakes with a prop valve in front, the more REAR brake you'll get, since the prop valve isn't linear. I'm considering going to dual masters as a result of this response. Duals might be the best way for you to go too.

Susp Tech springs are LOW. A friend of mine had them with the old dual exhaust setup. Dual exhaust was quickly crunched going over speed bumps. I'd say its lower than the Tokicos.

Hmmm.... sounds familiar... http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=94933