blueovalz

No beating of the firewall, and yes, the engine is custom mounted (front and rear engine plates bolted to the crossmember/frame rails. The bottom of the pan is about 7" below the bottom of the frame rail, which is a about 1" more than I am comfortable with, so I may lift it up a tad.

good observation. Yes, the wood simulates the frame rail so that I can weld up the headers and know that they will fit the chassis. The engine has the same ground clearnance that the previous engine has, but it is a "wet" system. It provides a 4" ground clearance on the oil pan, BUT, the sump of the pan is just behind the axle. This position allows the sump to move pretty much as the wheels do, which makes speed bumps a non-issue. I had thought about a rear sump, but the sump would drag more often because the sump is far enough behind the axle that the sump would be on top of the speed bumpsonce the front wheels had cleared the bump.

The tubes are welded together at the ends of the tubes prior to the "weld on" collectors being positioned. This then seals this area which would not be easily accessible for welding after the collector is fitted.

I would consider this (the omission of the locking pin) a bad idea. The fact that you have two steel surfaces constantly moving against each other may be ideal in the very short term, but within time (months, years...who knows) you will have ruined a good strut with no means of repair other than replace, or sleeve. The 5/8" bolt has been discussed previously, and I believe the experience with them has been favorable. With that said, my concern with them is that they are not tight in the pin-boss bore (about .010" clearance), and IMHO, not an ideal replacement when viewed from an engineering reference.

I finally got the passenger side only header fabricated. I had to change my planned 4-into-1 arrangement to a 4-to-2-to-1 (Tri-Y basically) due to the large road pan which has a large kickout, the larger motor, and the low ride height. With all that said, this arrangement put the squeeze on my options.

These were originally polished aluminum with no paint. I painted the center section (sans the hub cap) a gunmetal grey. Before the paint:

AWG 24 is pretty small, but if all you want is sensor signals, you should be fine. I would think it questionable for picking up relays, but that depends on the relay coil resistance. I believe about 3 amps is the recommended max for this size, which means any coil would need to be more than 4 ohms.

Horsepower is money, and I think it is true that all of us pretty much put as much horsepower into the car as we can afford...no news there. The typical manuals and books on handling will provide you with 90% of the info you need to steer you in the right direction for this. Most of us stay in this "aftermarket" support category, and that looks like a good place for you to start as well. Take some time and read the forums that deal with the handling, braking, and suspension issues and you'll eventually form an pretty good idea of what you want or need, and any gaps in this information (the main issues are covered well with the stickies) can be addressed as you decide on the direction you wish to take. Lastly, make the modifications that make sense, and not for the "gee whiz" factor, which can be pretty simple, but effective. You need to know exactly what you want before you get started. This will save you money in the long run.

So far it doesn't appear so, but I'd love to see some photos of this project when possible.

I stand corrected on the stroke (and edited the previous posting). All the information I've researched points to even the later model (351W) blocks capable of handling mid 500 HP/torque figures without issue. The focal weakness was high revs with the stroker kits, and this was the primary reason for my use of a girdle (I couldn't tell if it was emperical evidence, or voodoo, but I installed one anyway). The kit itself was (I don't have the receipt in front of me) I believe about $1400 (Forged pistons, rings, H-beam rods, bearings, and steel crank.

I always measure with a mic, mark it with chaulk, and cut it with an ax.

71' with a little bit of Datsun, Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Porsche, Acura, Pontiac, and myself.

Nice work. You'll be glad you added the side venting on the hood in that I've observed a lot (A LOT) of heat leaves out the side vents (and obviously, the main radiator as well). Glad it all came together. Paint?

I don't know of any reason why is true, as the conversion does not require, recommend, or suggest this (from what I know about this conversion) Horsepower and wheels size (as just as importantly, the tire size) can be considered in a brake set-up, but your braking needs (driving style and application) should determine the set-up, and not how much HP you have. You can end up with the same tire diameter and using either wheel (a 14" or a 17" wheel). The advantage the 17" wheel offers is a larger diameter rotor for the same size tire diameter. Swapping from one size to the other (I assume for track days, etc) and designing the brakes around the smaller (street?) diameter is quite a compromise in my opinion. In regards to the 240SX rear disc conversion, I assisted a friend of mine in putting this kit onto his S30 using the old 14" slotted alloy wheels. The OD of the rotor had to be turned down 1/2" (1/4" radius), and the brackets had to be modified (filled and redrilled with some grinding) to get it all to fit under the wheels. Below is a comparison of the after and before (left and right) of the modifications to make the rear disc conversion work on the 14" wheels, and clear the stick-on lead balancing weights. This photo shows the cut-down rotor and the 240SX caliper in the wheel itself. These rotors have enough material for this cut-down to still allow the full face of the pad/rotor to be used. I think the brake shop charged $25 to have both rotors turned down, and I spent a couple of hours modifying the MM bracket to work with the new rotor diameter. In this photo, you can see the type of wheel he was using in the background behind the car.

. I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Was it mentioned that this is true only for U-jointed shafts and did not apply to CV-jointed shafts? Just fishing now.

Since this string started, I've finally assembled the 383 (stroked Windsor) bottom end, and am fabricating the headers at this time. I chose the 383 as a compromise between torque and reliability. It had the longest rod (6.250), which made me feel more comfortable with the RL/stroke ratio. Yeah, I could have gone with the bigger 427 kits, but I didn't like the ratio of those combinations. And going from a 289 CID to a 383 CID (2.87" to 3.75" stroke) in terms of torque increase will be more than this street car will ever be able to use. Studies and comparable parts on a dyno indicate a low 500 point for HP, and a very broad torque curve in excess of 500 lb/ft with no add-ons. I did have to place the pistons in a lathe to reduce the flat-top compression ratio to a more usable 10.3 to one. AFR stipulates fly-cutting the valve reliefs for their 2.08 valves (AFR 205 heads), but I found that the Probe pistons did not require this (they are cut for adaquate clearance out to a 2.15 valve). EDIT: changed the 2.75" stroke to 3.75" stroke

There was a string a short time ago dealing with putting the Mustang (Cobra) wheels on a Z. The vendor listed had a lot of spacers and adapters to work with. Here is the link: http://www.ezaccessory.com/Wheel_Adapter_4_Lug_4_5_To_4_Lug_4_5_p/4450-4450.htm I'd recommend a search of "wheel spacers". It will turn up this string: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=122507&highlight=wheel+spacers

I've taken apart several racks, so I am confused which had what, but have you verified that there is no pin staked through the nut and rack bar which prevents it from being unscrewed?

How did you weld the mount without destroying the rubber on the backside of the steel you were welding on? I am visualizing smoke, toxic fumes, and a ruined mount in my mind.

Interesting being this was the focus of the original query. I couldn't see a threaded junction in the middle of the strut as not needing some kind of special attention when considering high lateral forces.

I was wondering the same thing. This is is quite a bit of diviation from the site directions. Any comment on why you cut the OEM tube down this low? Was it because you needed ride height was very low, and if so, what is your expected height (ground to bottom of rocker panel)? If you would do this "differently", then help with my understanding. On the site AZ claims 4" of ID threading on the adapter tube. I will then ASSUME that there is an additional 2" of non-threaded tube that is used to overlay over the cut-down OEM tube stub for welding, for a total length of the adapter tube of 6"?. This indicates to me that if the adapter overlays the original tube stub by anything less than 2" (3/4" in your case, or 1 1/2" in the directions), then you will not gain any additional adjustability (you'd have a gap between the top of the cut-down tube stub and the bottom of the ID threading). So, would you also cut down the non-threaded portion of the adapter tube so that the lower end of the ID threaded portion was now closer to the top of the cut-down strut tube end?

Has this product (adjustable strut casing) been out long for any acurate reviews or comments that reflect some reasonable amount of useage time or mileage? I've got a buddy considering these in a purchase, and asked for my opinion. I think it's a great concept, but in actual practice...who knows. So, has anybody got any feedback to provide. My main concern is possible play between the upper and lower part of the strut where the strut screws into the threaded adapter tube. Arizona Z recommends a minimum of 1" thread engagement, which is only 1/2 of the width of the tube, and this seems a little thin for my comfort zone. If he uses a full 2" to 2 1/2" engagement (my recommendation), he should have about 1 1/2" to 2" of adjustability, which should be fine. I understand the jam nut should keep the threads fully preloaded, but again, who has acutally used these?

Very nice review. Thanks from all of us. This is very typical (and I hate saying that about anything) of the chinese parts or tools that I've bought. Obviously the machining is superior with the Quaife, and it appears is may be somewhat stronger as well, and have a more consistant break-away characteristic. Thanks again.

Did you Jet-Hot (or similar process) the header flange and stubs then before adding the rest of the headers?

This is what I've had to do several times. What I did was determine the outer circumference (not area) of the tube, and then match that to the sum of the square port's inside dimensions. Then I take the end of the tube that must now be made square and place it in a vise and start to flatten it out slightly. BUT before it do this I place a large C-clamp onto the same end of the pipe, except that it this is oriented 90º to the vise jaws. This way, as I squeeze the tube with the vise, the C-clamp prevents the tube from being squeezed outward and becoming ovate. This then causes the tubing to take a square shape. Do this a small amount, then remove, turn 90º in the vise and C-clamp, and repeat by squeezing and deforming the tube end a little more. You may need to repeat these "cycles" several times, each time rotating the tubing another 90º to keep it forming the way you want. Depending on the port configuration you may need to open (or close) the C-clamp between cycles to perfect the shape. The size of the tubing is important. If the circumference of the tube is larger than the sum of the square port's inside dimensions, no amount of squaring up will allow the tube to fit. In my case my exhaust port header flange had 1.4" X 1.4" ports, thus the sum of these sides are 5.6". The tubing I'm using is 1.6", which has a circumference of 5.0". This is slightly smaller than the port's size and once the tubing is squared up a bit, will fit nicely. The more round the corners are, the smaller the tubing diameter you'll want to use (as it compares to the square port's dimensions). Be sure to get a few test pieces of pipe to verify what will fit before commiting to purchasing a lot of tubing. Lastly the square part usually transitions to the fully round portion within about 1.7". If there is a bend immediately out of the port, the square portion will have a shorter transition, and will be more difficult to square up (will require smaller and more numerous cycles of "squeeze-and-turn".