blueovalz

I'm not a welder by trade, but those look like TIG welds instead of MIG welds. I that correct?

Thanks a heap. Any weight on the lower valance panel and turn signals?

Bearings and seals will all be the same. With any spacers you will need to take into consideration the placement of the caliper, which will be the same on all Z struts. Fortunately in your case, a 1/4" spacer seems to be a good fix to place the rotor back into alignment with the calipers. And if you are good at fabrication, I'd attempt to make a couple of rings made out of 1/4" sheet (be it aluminum or steel) to be placed between the rotor and the hub. But before you do this I'd consider all parts houses first, and try to get the matching rotor for those already on the car.

Excellent work, and design.

Yeah, currently I am using a "cresent moon" piece of schedule 40 1-1/4" pvc pipe 1" wide to push the bushing over the correct amount (the bushing was shaved on the opposite side to allow the "push". Unfortunately, when I removed the crossmember the other day, the PVC had broken up and fallen out onto the floor. That's when I decided to try this option. If testing it works to my expectations, I may attempt a repeat on the front bushing change too that will thus allow camber adjustments too.

This was one major skew-up (IMHO) that Datsun did to ruin standardization. The important thing in the differnent rotor/hub combos was that when bolted together, the TOTAL ASSEMBLED offset of the rotor to the wheel mounting flange is the same for all years. For some reason Datsun changed the hub flange thicknesses throughout the production run of the Z, and in order to make the total "assembled offset" the same for all years, they had to change the rotor offset to match the change in the hub offset. Makes for some fustrating situations.

I thought I'd share this with Katman. It's my experimental version (not quite finished) with an adjustable toe-in rear arm. The threaded tube portion of the rear arm was removed (on the rear only), A grade 8, 3/4" fine thread bolt (with head removed) was pressed into the tube (perfect fit) and then spot welded into place at two places. Then the female Heim joint (which is not the one shown here) in screwed onto another 3/4" bolt attached to the plate (via a block that allows the bolt to turn for adjusment of the toe-in) that originally held the OEM bushings. That block piece required some machining which is being done at this time.

When you added the copper washers, did you still leave the nylon ones on with them, or did you remove them completely?

My sentiments exactly. If I'd known this in the first place I'd done it last month as a safety measure while I had the assembly out in the first place.

Set a straight-edge (next to the calipers) across the wheel mounting flange on the hub. From the edge that lies against the hub, measure the amount that the calipers overlap the straight-edge. If for example it's about 1", then thats roughly the amount of spacing you will need. I believe my old turbo wheels had about 1/8" clearance between the hub surface and the inside surface of the "spokes", which would then lessen this hypothetical amount down to 7/8" minium.

I'll show you my times if you show me your's

For sale on ebay http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1836609689

Here is my solid mounting system currently on the car

I'm not sure any thickness is appropriate with a "rear only" solid set-up. IMveryHO, if you use a very rigid rear only solid mount, then you have forced the weak link to go elsewhere (perhaps the aluminum diff cover?). And this goes for a solid front only mount too. My thoughts on this is either they both be solid or both be flexible, but not mixed. If one side is allowed to flex (poly or otherwise), then movement allowed by the flex mount is passed to the solid mount. With enough movement, frequency, and time, the solid mount will fail (327 knows) or the material around it will (sheet metal). Is there a material that will not fatique under repeated stesses and flexing that can be used as a solid mount? Perhaps part of the wing of a B52?.

Could be several things. If your concern is the two stud nuts that hold the differential to the mustache bar, then I can only offer a good guess at about 50-55 ft/lbs of torque (remember, the studs are set in aluminum). I assume from your statement of a welded rear mount that this means the bar is welded where the bushings normally go. Did you insure that the bar was fully flat against the differntial before welding it in place (with the differential in it's correct location)? If not, then some movement may be taking place, metal-to-metal, causing the squeeking noise. Worst case: Bar has cracked and you are hearing the metal rubbing at the crack.

If the issue is spinning speed of the alternator, I would also investigate a smaller pulley for it. I went to an alternator rebuild shop (armature rebuilder) and he had a whole box of used pulleys to choose from. I finally chose a 2:1 ratio, which is still low as I've seen many in the 3 and 4:1 ratios on stock motors. If you do have a 1:1 ratio, then that's SLOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW.

Sorry, the 2nd gen RX7 rack was the other mentioned rack I believe. Mounting modifications using the Ford rack ranged from a nice set-up using the existing OEM Datsun crossmember rack brackets (which appeared to do the job very well) to a full custom fabricated crossmember. Rack modifications were limited to simply shortening the threaded rods on each end to desired length (just a few inches total) depending on what your rod end application will be.

For the few of us that have done this, I think the Ford Mustang/T-bird are the rack of choice. Recently though, it was mentioned that the (2nd gen??) rack appeared to be a good match for fitment. In my case, I used Heim joints on the ends instead of the traditional OEM rod ends.

And to muddy the waters a bit more, are there more losses (less efficientcy) in the mechanical-electrical coversion than the more direct mechanical coversion of the energy? Also, I've never had an electrical pump, but I assume they are a constant speed and do not vary with engine speed?

I've always been skeptical about the HP numbers "saved" with an electric pump. Whether it be mechanical or electrical, it takes the same amount of power to turn the same pump the same rpm??? So the only way I see a savings is if the pump is turned slower (average speed). With the marginal cooling that some of us appear to be having, this is not what I need. I used the underdrive (REALLY small crank pulley) approach before to slow down the ancillaries, but I feel some of my high temp problems during the summer were because of this. The bigger crank pulley cured that.

I'm making an educated guess here but I think the "turn on" speed of something that large is going to be around 1300-1500 rpm.

Are you sure it's charging at all?

Once the alternator "turns on" the charge will continue even below the "turn on" speed. Usually, the higher the capacity of the alternator, the higher the "turn on" rpm.

It's been a while since I've had the 6 cylinder motor, but could you not remove the sender from the block and replace it with an oil pressure gauge (may have to use a 1" or 2" nipple to extend it away from the block) to verify if you oil pressure is indeed low.

The one and only "new" car I ever bought was a '79 810 (traded an really trashed 510 in on it). It had a lot more in common with the 280ZX than with the Z. In fact, I go out on a limb and say it was a ZX chassis with a 4 door body. If memory serves me correctly brake pads, suspension and steering were all the same parts. I believe it used the R180 instead of the R200 though. I was my first Datsun, and I never looked back after that with my 2 Zs, a 240SX, and a Pathfinder.