blueovalz

To answer that question, we need some more info. What is wrong with the idle? Too rich? Lean? Unstable? What kind of cam, transmission (in gear or out of gear), and idle speed do you have? Do you have a good vacuum signal? Are the plates nearly closed, or are they adjusted to a partially open open position just to get it to idle? Sorry for all the questions, but the answer needs this.

Ray-Bans, where's my Ray-Bans?

you are not alone in that assumption but yes, some ZXs did have the smaller rear end in them.

Bio; the rear plate is attached about 3/4" forward of the firewall, and the other plate is attached to the (on my first design) engine mount pedestals that L24 bolted to. I double bolt all the mounting locations with two bolts spaced about 3" apart at each of the 4 connections (on both plates) to prevent any twisting of the plate/frame joint. With only one bolt at each location, there would be nothing preventing the two from rotating relative to each other, and hence, ineffective in stiffening the chassis. The block then keeps the rails parallel. Then with the tranny down solid, the rails are prevented from flexing up and down relative to the rest of the body. With a balanced engine (especially the SBC) the vibrations are not bad, but that is a very subjective opinion that I'm sure is not shared by others wanting a more domesticated ride. Here's the picture of the plates only on the frame.

Bio; the rear plate is attached about 3/4" forward of the firewall, and the other plate is attached to the (on my first design) engine mount pedestals that L24 bolted to. I double bolt all the mounting locations with two bolts spaced about 3" apart at each of the 4 connections (on both plates) to prevent any twisting of the plate/frame joint. With only one bolt at each location, there would be nothing preventing the two from rotating relative to each other, and hence, ineffective in stiffening the chassis. The block then keeps the rails parallel. Then with the tranny down solid, the rails are prevented from flexing up and down relative to the rest of the body. With a balanced engine (especially the SBC) the vibrations are not bad, but that is a very subjective opinion that I'm sure is not shared by others wanting a more domesticated ride.

The main reason I used the plates was to stiffen the chassis. A 289 is not a torque monster, but in road racing the chassis does wierd things. I wanted the engine and tranny to be the back-bone of the chassis. With the front and rear plates and the tranny solidly mounted (multiple bolt spacing at each connection), it stiffens against any pitching movement. The plates also help any twisting of the frame rails as they extend out from the firewall. I even tied the strut towers bracing to the block too. Technically it's not considered a "stressed member", but it comes real close. Before I did this, the door gap would change whenever I jacked the car up on the jack tubes (on both sides simultaneously) which split the wheel base in half. Now there is absolutely no deviation from when it's sitting on the ground. I was concerned about what the stresses where doing to the block and aluminum tranny case, but after 10 years I've not seen any problems with that aspect.

According to the factory service manual, about 20 lb/ft of torque, AND THEN loosen the nut by 60 degrees (which is the next point or flat spot on the 6 point nut). A slight amount of preload is recommended, but not much.

Well, it's about time.

The R200 will not come with a LSD in this model from the factory. Not sure about the gear ratio though. Keep in mind that if the owner has already done all this other work to the car, you may even get lucky and find a pleasant surprise in the differential too. Who knows.

My signature photo is where the car project is at present. I had #ell with the new solid roller motor, but those problems have been worked out and now I'm about ready to get the paint job back in my sites again.

I cut mine out completely and filled it with a battery, fuel cell, fuel pump, and filter.

When you see Dan, tell him everybody is thinking about him and hope things are working out.

Racin_Jason. Kind of an enigma. Never saw his ride, but I knew it was faster than SuperDan's (LOL). Now I've finally got a picture for my dart board. How's Dan? Don't hear much from him.

For the most part, The R200 differential used in the 280Z/280ZX is strong enough for just about any reasonable V8 application. This is a very simple swap, but a more important consideration is the half-shafts. A common swap here is to use the 280ZX turbo CV-jointed halfshafts instead of the U-jointed shafts (the CV jointed shafts handle the mis-alignment angles better than the U-joints under extreme torque). There have been two main approaches to the CV-jointed halfshaft install if you decide this is the set-up you want to use. Once you get into a blower, and very wide and sticky tires, you may want to consider other options like the R230, the vette rear end (at least one of our members has done a good job with this) or a live axle set-up. Once you make the step up beyond a N/A SB, then the fabrication and complexity go up exponentially. As far as your second project with the 280ZX, I am unfamilar with the emmisions laws in AZ are. Perhaps one of the AZ members can chime in here.

I'll take a first stab here and hope someone else jumps in. I believe you can take a jumper wire from the ignition circuit to your "ash tray", through a switch, and then ground it directly to the tray. This way with the switch closed, you then ground the ignition circuit and prevent it from operating. My concern would be to make sure there is enough impedence to prevent a high current short during the time the ignition switch is turned on while this switch is closed (i.e. if a ballast resistor is already in the circuit or not). Otherwise, just install jumpers in-line with the ignition circuit so that the 12 vdc "switched" is open (which requires two wires instead of one).

wheel/tire balance being out of whack is one cause, and I've heard that looseness in the steering components (rod ends in particular) can be another cause.

To add to what Dan said, When I finally got around to upgrading the front brakes to the 300ZX 4 lug and the 280ZX front caliper, then I had to eventually gut the proportioning valve to get the balance back again. It seemed the front conversion added more bias than did the rear conversion, but the two together balanced out very well.

I had the same problem, so I went to an .023 wire (smaller) and it helped a lot.

I know on the typical cracker box type, inductance is the means of changing the output current. This way, the voltage stays the same but the current is adjusted. If this was the case, a variac would be something to consider, but a 2kva to 3kva variac is not cheap, even used or on ebay. Have you got the option of thinner gauge wire to run in your machine, or perhaps increase the flow of the shielding gas to carry away the heat faster?

When I built all this brake stuff originally, I was strickly "salvage only" due to very limited funds. Two approaches I took were 1) using the later model 280ZX rear rotors and calipers (switching to the turbo caliper mid way), and 2) A more performance oriented set-up was the front Maxima rotors with the '82 Cressida front calipers, both on the rear (No E-brake mind you). Cost; $35/wheel for parts, then add turning and any hardware kits needed to rebuild the calipers if they needed it. I think it ended up costing about $55 per wheel. I welded a homemade 1/4" steel caliper bracket onto the bearing carrier on the non-vented application. The steel is good quality and takes a weld very well. It was cheap, not fancy, and had no WOW appeal, but it worked great.

The 240SX indeed has an R200 differential. Unfortunately, it is the same casing design as the R230 differential (shorter and fatter instead of longer and skinner), and not the same design as the early version R200 used in the Z generations, thus not only will it not be a direct replacement bolt-in situation like the earlier R200s were (as far as mounting goes), but the half-shaft splines are different too.

I guess a $500 investment in a high frequency converter for my crackerbox is looking more viable everytime I read these posts. Oh, by the way: "punk in a pickle patch, and "pigeon $#it welder"? Some day I'm gonna meet Lone and most likely enjoy the colorful conversation.

It kinda takes the wind out of your sail when the fiberglass treatment is only a 20% weight savings. But, the fiberglass can be made much lighter, but the sacraficed strenght is not an option. When it gets right down too it, the aesthetic potential of fiberglass parts is the primary motivation toward such, and not necessarily the weight savings.

I prefer the "modified driving style" approach to fixing uneven tire wear due to excessive camber. On a weekly basis, find a cloverleaf early Sunday morning when traffic is nill, attempt a new top speed through all four turns (total of six consequetive) and then head to early service at church. Tire wear is nice and even again.

RacerX, also weigh the vent panel under the windshield if you can too. Then I can make a comparison for my entire front clip (which weighs 85 lbls)