blueovalz

I've got a fairly descent 302 (or had a descent 302) in my Z. With the old Ford "LeMans" cam, SVO J302 heads, and other nicities, it worked quite well. It's light, and with the set-up I had, created it's peak torque high enough up the rpm range that I didn't have to drive it out of a dead stop. You'll be happy with the 302. Currently I'm installing a 289 with a solid roller set-up. There's something about those high strung motors that I just love.

I had 8 degrees of caster in mine, and it noticeably tried to correct itself with more pressure than before, but it was barely noticeable. The ONLY reason I went to power steering was because of the 10" slicks WITH 14MM shorter steering arms WITH a small diameter aftermarket steering wheel, AND I was needing quickness through the slaloms. Other than that the increase in caster really did not appreciably effect the steering. If indeed the caster is to blame, then after grunting the wheel to one side or the other, you will feel it pull back harder. If it is a bind somewhere in the linkage, then after you grunt the wheel to one side or the other, then the force to hold it in place should return to normal. In other works, is the increased resistance you are talking about only while turning the wheel, or is it still there after the wheel is turned in a constant radius turn?

I've had some pretty wacky specs on my alignments (grossly out of specs) and it never caused the problem you are listing. My thinking is the extra U-joint. I've not seen any pics of your configuration, but if the rack is extended or lowered as a result of tightening the clamps, then would this change in geometry cause a bind in the steering rod instead? This would only be true if you were somehow supporting the steering rod midway somewhere due to the extra U-joint. Just a thought. (send a pic)

The nut at the top is tight enough (from past experience) when it all is spinning around (nut and strut rod together). Have you checked that the large nut (gland nut?) holding the insert into the strut tube is tight? This can cause a lot of racket if it's loose also (even a little bit).

Thanks for my daily fix.

This sounds like a general Diff question. Have you checked for leaks (low oil) around the diff. And don't go by the appearance. My 240SX diff looks like it's got fresh oil on it, but in reality it's the hard undercoating (slight sheen to it) that's been oversprayed from the factory. Check the backlash (forward and backward). Doing this with the driveshaft will show about 10 degrees of driveshaft play to be about normal. The howl can be a result of excessive or incorrect gear mess. If the carrier bearings are shot (or pinion), then this could be the result. If they are the problem, then the sooner they are replace, the greater the chance of being able to salvage the gear set without permanent damage.

I would even suggest the use of a small filter element on the end of a hose in the bottom of the can. The the lid is sealed with a vacuum hose on the lid going to the vaccum port. The oil mist will be caught in the small filter element, accumulate, and then drip off the filter into the can.

When I bought my 810 brand new, I believe it was in '79, and I think it was the first year it came out.

If I remember correctly, Shelby experimented with an IRS GT350 and found no substantial gains on (as mentioned above) a prepared course. I had ALL the Shelby stuff on it too (I used the Detroit Locker). One thing I found very helpfull was the over-ride traction bars. So with all this stuff on it, and very happy with the results, I played with a modified Z car one day. I got dusted in the corners. That day a plan was set in motion to take the motor out of my '66 fastback Mustang, and put it in a Z car. The rest is history. Now, the corners AND the straights work nicely.

Thats a new twist. An Anti-hybridz. Just make sure the two (hybridz & anti-hybridz) don't occupy the same space and time. Have you considered instead a T-bird or Couger IRS rear. And if you want a Nissan, then perhaps the 240SX or 300ZX rear. All of these options listed have complete subframes in which the mounting can be simplified. Strut (shock) tube attachment on top will be the next problem. As far as pictures, any aftermarket repair manual should show a drawing of the complete rear end assembly.

Just press the pin out, reverse the piston, and press it back in. Offset, even with the symetrical relief pistons will still call for all of the pistons to be installed alike. When you do press the pin out, make sure the pin still slides into the piston freely before pressing it back in. Sometimes when this is done, the pin holes in the piston need to be lightly honed (very lightly) to free up the pin again.

I'm just a Ford guy, but cannot the question be answered by opening a cover to look at the gears? Was not the reason this tranny was called the "rock crusher" due to it's straight cut gears (rather noisy) verses the helical cut gears which are the norm?

There is little that is common on these two diffs other than the general shape.

For the most part, 245 is about as wide as is possible with no modifications made to the chassis. Once modifications begin (coilovers, flares, tubs, etc) just about any width is possible.

NO

Ross makes a good point. Also, with the vacuum hose disconnected (opened up), a slightly lean condition may have previously been the case. Yes, the vaccum hose is very small, so perhaps on top end it would not matter. Glad to here it's working better now.

Yeah, we had a string on this "item" last month I think.

I'm not using the OEM Z wiring, but only because it's been major gutted, and only the wire that is absolutely needed was added back in. Regardless, if this is a carbed engine, the job should be extremely easy. Basically, a switched 12+ for the ignition, a starter 12+ source for the solenoid is the basics. Then a tach, and other instrumentation wiring can be added. These basic wires can be easily found using a wiring diagram, or if you know what wires were used for these same functions on the OEM engine, then verify their useability for the new application.

The T-5 will fit just as it does with a 302 (provided it's not the OLD 5 bolt 289 blocks of the pre-64? era). Just make sure you use a 157 tooth flywheel, and it's attendant starter. The 164 tooth flywheels will be too large to fit inside the bellhousing.

attach it temporarily, then see if it still opens. BTW, I am surprised that the pressure of the struts used on the hatch to not warp or distort the front cap. Even the rigid steel hatch had a little give where the struts attached.

Very few 240sx are LSD carriers. It has to be out of the super hicas (rear steer) option. In all the times I've looked for one, I've never seen one. I've been looking for a while to put one in my 240sx, but to no avail.

I prefer to say the 302 is a stroked version of the 289 (and bla bla bla). Anyway, I used to run a 289 years (decades) ago, and then when I lost one of my rods (289 rods are not easy to come by any more), I just opted for the 302 instead (much more ubiquitous). Anyway, when I did have my old 289, I many times went to 8 grand with cast pistons and the old SPS rod bolts (finally, years later I broke the ring lands). I have no imperical evidence to prove this, but I always felt the 289 reved and worked better than the 302. It may just be sentimental memories, but regardless, I have just finished balancing a 289 assembly, and am putting the motor together as I speak. I took the 12.5 pistons (.400" dome) and milled it to .100". In a 289 block it will yield about 10.1 compression ratio. In a late 60s early 70s 302 block it would be about 10.6 (less deck height)

Get to work on it, and keep us posted on the Ford "plate" install as I'm sure there are others wanting this info too. I'm sure the car will be every bit as nice as the others here.

This was not a balanced motor when it was still in the car (well, I should say it was the "factory" balance, which is a good guess at best) and the vibration problem was not bad. Personally, I felt the noise and resonance from the exhaust was much more objectionable. I going back in with a balanced 289 set-up, and am looking foward to compare the difference.

The advantages of plates are room for headers where the mounts would normally be, the front plate rests on top of the OEM engine mount pedestals, and if you used both front & rear plates, and tranny solid mounts, then the drivetrain becomes a stressed member. The disadvantages are that slight modifications to front of motor if plate is between the cover and the block and some increased vibration inside of car. I was looking for a strenght and rigidity increase in my chassis, and this was the deciding factor in the method I chose.