blueovalz

Dang, I need to finish this project, drive up to Rogers (or are you not living there any more) and "run em". Sounds neck and neck (on motor only!)

Correct. Just don't interchange an early hub with a later rotor (or visa versa).

I'm going to ride the coat tails of this string (please forgive me). My 383 is a Ford motor, but the fuel won't be able to differentiate between the two. Perhaps a two-for-one from Gumpy's much respected knowledge. Same Eagle crank specs Probe forged pistons (I believe it is the same or a comparable piston, but I had a shallow 3" dish cut in them to reduce the CR to 10.3) 6.25" Eagle H-beam rods of same material and bolts ARP main studs Canton Main girdle (not sure it this was needed, but...) ARP head studs 9 quart pan with HV oil pump AFR 205cc heads, 1 3/4" tubular headers, Solid roller cam 265º (should be edited to 246/256) at .050" and 110º separation, and .640 lift (hope that's right being it's from memory), 780 DP on Victor JR intake. This intake is also set up for EFI, so my plan is to get it running first with the carb, then install 40 lb injectors with a simple EFI set-up (SDS or MS, and most likely Alpha-N) 4:11 gearing, WC-T5 (2.98......080 ratio first and last). G-force enhancements will most likely be required, but they are not ordered as yet. I thought about the TKO, but there would be too many changes required.

I believe the bolt pattern will allow the swap, IF the diameter does not interfer with the clutch master cylinder. That was where my problem came in. I believe (it's been a LONG time) the 280 will fit, but it will be within a 1/4" of the clutch master cylinder.

I've like the look of this a lot. Putting on a more balanced hat though makes me wonder what some of the older folks will think. For example, what would come to mind if you saw a BMW with a swastika on the side of it. Even though it looks good, the idea may be a lightning rod for criticism not found on this site.

My Victor Jr intake on the 289 is exactly 1 7/16" shorter than the Hurricane (copy of the 351W Victor Jr intake) intake on the 351W block. The 351w Torker II intake is quite a bit shorter and angled downward at the front. Overall, it (Torker II) is allows the 351W to be mounted with no net gain in height. I am going to weigh the two this fall when I do the swap.

Nice car, and the set-up on the motor looks great. Have you considered the stoked 351W options? It's strong enough for what you're looking for, and you can use the same heads, transmission, and front ancillary pieces. I'll bet you could build an easy 500+ hp motor with less money than you've alloted for the stroked 302 block. I've spent probably close to 3K on mine that I'm building (shortblock & machine work, balancing, and the stroker kit was about 2K, header materials for new headers was about six hundred, and then other misc stuff), but will still need another 500 or so to finish it up and I expect a low 500 HP motor when finished.

Nice solution. Expanded upon with some photos would make this a nice sticky.

Sounds like the OEM block held up fine, but something inside may be going bad. It was a 289 block, but what was the actual displacement? What RPM do you shift at. Some specs or details and photos would be nice. I've had close to the same experience in the initial pull, but given enough time (with my 289), they will catch up.

I see. Yep, it's all or nothing on mounting any drivetrain component. All mounts need to be of the same material. All rubber, or all poly, or all solid.

What is the ITB size you plan on using with this application? Are your 50mm bores available? Anything larger than the 50mm in the works?

What set-up are you using (OEM, aftermarket, what size, etc?)

A note here on the wear. When I was using this assembly, I found these CV jonts installed on my S30 were compressed more than in the normal OEM application. This then placed these bearings in a location closer to the base of the tulip, where little to no previous wear had taken place, and as a result tightened them up a tad (which is a good thing).

Can I use an aftermarket "flying magnet" trigger wheel rather than attach the magnets myself?

So was your mount solid on the front, or did it just break or tear away the OEM rubber mount from the crossmember?

This is not an absurd thought. It would increase the "kingpin?" angle enough to where a higher spring rate may be needed to provide the same effect that a weaker one would on an OEM set-up. Lastly, many strut inserts are a very close fit inside the tubes. Performing the operation shown in the diagram/photo would need to be done carefully (as low as is possible, and the ID straightened to make the ID consistent from bottom to top - unless you use a really short strut and insert a spacer at the bottom of the tube independent of the insert/tube diameter. Lastly, the tower mounting would need the same treatment if the rubber isolator couldn't handle the increased angle. One could assume a coil-over setup with long slots at the top could handle most of this camber/angle issue, but if the car is lowered any appreciable amount, then the strut will be toward the outer ends of the slots anyway.

Your drawing/photo indicates a 50mm move outboard for one side. Just to be clear, are you wishing to increase track by 50mm (25mm on each side), or by 100mm (50mm each side)? A 50mm move outboard on one side only, using an arbitrary 20" static ride height strut length, will give you almost 6º of camber change on that one side (if you make no moves at the strut tower connection point)

because you thought they would rebuild them rather that what has happened to the rest of us, and end up getting two driver's side axles. We're still rooting for you though!

If it is speed related, have you ruled out the wheel/tire balancing? As I see it, the only factor the flange should have is if the driveshaft is not centered perfectly on the flange, or that the driveshaft has a loose fit prior to final torquing down (which introduces some possible offset). If it is perfectly centered (and it is a tight fit that cannot change if R&R), then you should be able to balance the shaft without the flange and be good to go.

Very colorful and functional (don't see that very often)!

The flywheel symptoms do NOT sound good. Not closely related, but the exact same symptoms on my daughter's Dodge turned out to be a flexplate that had cracked all the way around the crank bolts so that it could also be turned about 3/8" either direction at the ring gear with no resistance. And NOISE, jeez, at idle it was loud, but as soon as any load was put on it (put in gear and driven), it quieted down.

One thing I've found different visually is that the 240Z hubs are scalloped on the hub's outer circumference. In other words, the hub is not round like the later hubs, but instead squared off in the material around the studs by the lack of material between the studs.

Not an SDS user, but I'm seriously looking at an SDS set-up for the V8 next year. I've already purchased an intake manifold set up for both carb and EFI, and am now trying to figure out what I need to set it up. I've looked at various web pages to determine what I need in terms of fuel control inputs (crank trigger or sensor off my UniLite). As it sits now, I am seriously considering some kind of Alpha-N arrange using theTPS input, and whatever else will be needed. Completely new to the EFI stuff at this point. I am also looking at Megasquirt, but my current level of knowledge on these systems steers me more toward the SDS. A little more expensive, but it appears to be a little simpler in set-up and operation.

Yeah, I was waiting for that. It seems no matter how promising it appears to be, we're always getting the passenger side shaft instead of the driver's side, but it looks like you'll actually get what you need (hopefully).

Karl, I sent you an email in regards to the straight 240 transverse link that you swapped out.