blueovalz

Good thinking. Here in Arkansas we no longer (knock on wood) have ANY inspection. This is the ONLY reason I've got plates on my Hybridz at this time.

The "droop" of the differential is really inconsequential in comparison to the angle difference between the tailshaft and the pinion gear. For example, if in this case the motor was tilted downward at the transmission end by 2.15* and the front of the differential was tilted upward by the same angle, then they would be "aligned" with no angular difference. So the droop from tranny-to-diff will not really be a problem. The big concern is getting the two "pointing" toward each other. Also (to split hairs here) is the lateral angular difference due to the pinion gear being displaced sidways, which I believe will account for a greater angular displacement than your example of the vertical displacement. Then you need to combine the two together (vertical and horizontal axis displacement to end up with a good number). Unfortunately, little to nothing can be done (in a pratical sense) to correct the sideways displacement (aside from moving the entire differential a couple of inches toward the drivers side). Just something to MUCK up the conversation here.

Rotor diameter or size is just one of many factors used in designing brake systems. The same end result can be had with a reversed scenario, by re-designing the other parameters of the car such as caliper design, weight distribution, etc. The rotor size is only one of many things that make up the characteristics of the entire system. The larger rear discs have smaller caliper pistons, which means less clamping force, which means less effectiveness compared to the front rotors which do most of the cars braking. So with more braking being done, vents are added to dissipate the extra heat, and a larger piston is used in the caliper for more clamping force. Then I'm sure there were other reasons the diameter was not 2" larger to begin with, but then you get into the strut and/or wheel design, and economics of car building too I assume. On my car, the front rotors larger than the rears, but I'm using a different set-up with the calipers.

The SX (later models) came with 5 lug without any other changes to the spindle, which made this swap easy.

I can't remember, but that's a BIG carb for a small motor. Have you thought about perhaps a 390 cfm carb (I used one on my 2.3L Pinto when I was a kid and even this was a bit too big)? Holley's 350 two barrel is a good carb too.

The biggest issue I found with a locked differential (Detroit Locker in my experience) was wet weather issues. Rather than having one tire spinning, I had both tires spinning on the back, and the rear came around on me much easier. Not to say this is bad for someone experienced in this or knows it will happen, but it took me by surprise (much younger then and much less experienced with a good LSD). Once I adapted to the LSD, I enjoyed it immensely.

Mike, that was very nice information there. I cannot verify it's validity, but it appears to be very complete and finally a single-source text about this brake upgrade. I have a question about lumping all the Z hubs together (port B?). This is because the Z hubs had differing thicknesses on the flange that spaces the rotor in relationship to the caliper between different years or models. The early Z (240) had a 17mm flange, which set the rotor "x" distance from the caliper centerline. The later model Z had a thicker flange of 25mm (I believe). This then moves the rotor (rotor only) inboard 8mm more than if the earlier hubs were used (this new offset was countered by the factory by now making the Z rotors with 8mm less offset than the earlier rotors). This "x-8mm" distance now sets the rotor in a different location in relationship to the caliper centerline. Please correct me if I have misread your information, and again, thanks for compiling this data.

I always felt form followed function. Make it functional, and the "look" will be good (for the most part). Decide what you want to do mechanically or functionally, and then design the hood around that. Once you get away from that, it's anybody's guess as to what "looks good".

Not unless you're Superman. Even a light duty clutch takes significant force to release the clutch (in terms of human strength). Basically, you're leveraging 1/8" (or even less) of PP movement with 4" of leg movement. I'm just guessing that with a pedal pressure of 20lbs (which is really nothing) X the leverage (32), thats 640lbs pressure on the bearing (sounds too small because I've used pressure plates with 2000 lbs pressure on them). Anyway, to get to the point of all this rambling, NO, you will not be able to compress the PP with your own strength. When you said you took the SC off, does that mean all the way off (i.e. break the hydraulic lines to it so that it was removed completely)?

"can you hear me now!"

Dang, Reminds me of when I was a kid (they called me "shrimpâ€) and weighed a total of 110 lbs at 14. Went Pheasant hunting with my dad, and raised that big ol' 12 gage to my shoulder and BOOM!! Never saw if I hit the bird, but when I did finally open my eyes, all I could see was 3 grown men (laughing grown men) standing around me as I lay in the milo brush pile. Left a bruse on me for a week.

Welcome......to the Twilight Zone

I never thought the 200lb spring was too stiff for the street. Of course, this has a lot to do with correct dampening too. I got lucky in that the dampening provided by my Tokico inserts was perfect. After 10 years on the 200s, I installed 260s in the rear, and I would have to say that to go any higher than this (260) would be too stiff for the street. Just my opinion.

Pete, I'd like to step in here on the last point made about the rear springs. My 200lb springs compressed at static ride height, just under 2" (this was with a total car weight of 2160 lbs). The unsprung weight on these cars is not ideal, and I found that I indeed had less than 400lbs resting on the spring itself (in race trim). My 315/35ZR17 tires and matching street wheels weigh about 60lbs per side. I think the struts (complete with rotors, calipers, half the arm weight, half the half-shaft weight, and other stuff will add another 70lbs to that. So that's 130lbs that is unsprung (per wheel). Unfortunately, even in a quasi-street legal weight of 2350 lbs, I still only compress the springs about 2" (this is after the suspension has been "set"). Yes, a stock bodied Z will be heavier with the interior in it, but I only wanted to emphasize that unsprung weight (in the case of the Z and a 200lb spring) will reduce the compression of the spring by about 1"

racerxlite, let us know what your experiences are with the Torsen type differential. I know that in a straight line, my "open" carrier was very good in that it left two equal length tire marks nearly every time. In the corners though is where my focus is.

$1100 - $1200 is what I've seen.

Makes me wonder if it had an R200 in it. People say their "bulletproof"

I'm guessing no. The reason I say that is my HTP 140 has provisions for aluminum welding, but even at the highest setting, 14 ga aluminum sheet is a stretch (it welds steel up to 3/16" great). It takes a lot of heat to work with aluminum and it sounds like the work you are using is going to be a good bit thicker. Also, I believe the Lincoln WeldPack100 is a flux core welder, which means to me you have no provision for a shielding gas? Even if this could be overcome, I'm guessing that the 100 will have less heat available than would be needed to do the job. The aluminum wire liner will need to be something that will not gall, such as teflon or such also. Most welders that are designed for a ferrite metal wire are steel lined, which does not work very well on aluminum wire. Not an expert here, just sharing my experience.

2500 for a 240, especially with some added weight of the turbo will be close to actual weight. The 240 is usually around 2400 and they progessively get heavier to where the 280 can weigh as much as 2700

If the piston is free to turn (screw in and out) without feeling like it's "locked" into place, then I'd so go for it. The biggest problem I had with these calipers was this piston (acutally, the part under the piston that has the self-adjusting screw going through it) would sieze on this part, and thus not get adjusted by using the emergency brake. Even after a throrough cleaning, then another with a scotchbrite pad to free it up, and then another to polish these internal pieces, I finally bought another caliper that worked correctly, and all was fine after that. Yes, I could get the bad caliper piston to free up and work correctly, but only after using channel locks to break the piston loose, and even then, it would only work a week or so before locking up again, thus losing any means of adjusting correctly. And with time, you then lose just about all of your rear brakes due to this problem. When it worked, it worked great.

That number that I used of 4.5" of BS is for any width of rim at 16" (actually, a 16" wheel is really 17.5" in diameter). Remember, this is back spacing (inboard rim edge plane to the wheel mounting surface plane distance). With larger diameter wheels, the BS will increase slightly due to the kingpin angle of the strut, but that is too small to be of real consequence.

Fairly good odds. I had a custom set of wheels made (16" X 8") that had a 4.5" BS on a stock 280Z. This allowed a fingers width (pinky) to fit between the widest part of the tire's section width (245/45ZR16) and the stock spring).

The difference is made up in the stub portion that is inserted into the differential (the splines are extended further into the carrier on one side verses the other). From that point outward, the shafts are identical.

I agree too. You don't want to move it too far away though, so no more than one full turn. I'm assuming that a 3/4" MC is being used?

keep your chin up Al, this is just a little speed bump here.