blueovalz

This could fit in the same situation as the 944 flare kits. Close enough to consider, but little experience with anybody that actually did it.

It's hard to tell from your question. If you're referring to the sculptured crease 2/3rds up the door, I say leave it in place. The horizontal lines on the Z visually stretch the car out. To my eye, this works to the advantage when the Z is lowered, and especially if lower skirts have been added. I've always thought the S30 was less than ideal in a height/length/width aspect, and any horizontal sculpturing helps improve these ratios visually. Paint choice also has a lot to do with the end result of these shapes in that a metallic will emphasize these changes more than solid colors will.

If the body is only dropped by 1" with your current plans, you will be fine with the 245 tires on the rear. The camber will increase, but not so much with only a 1" drop that you'd have wear issues (unless you boil the tires at every green light). You can always keep a small amount of inside wear equal throughout the thread width by periodically putting some nice side loading through the clover-leaf as well

I read an article (old) comparing the Holley Commander 950 (EFI) with a 750 holley carb, on the same motor. Out of the box, the 750 out performed the EFI, but only JUST barely. In the test they replace the injectors with larger ones to squeak out an advantage, but failed to give the carb an equal chance with an increase the jet size, or carb size for a comparison. http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/hardcore/0305em_holley/

Have you used the shorter steering arms? They work well, and after I put the power steering on, I ran (for a short time) a steering arm that was 10mm shorter than than the short ones. It really quickened the steering as well as the angle (tires began rubbing the T/C rods at full lock).

Check Pete's site. I believe it has a detailed analysis of pinion angles and relationship to the transmission output shaft. Until you understand these basics, I wouldn't cut anything. Specifically, this link: http://drivetrain.com/driveline_angle_problem.html http://alteredz.com/drivelinemods.htm

Even though the ZX and Z have differences, they are also similar in shape, and will provide you an idea of differnent configurations and shapes for tail lights. I would look at as many possibilities as you can, and not limit your choice only to what someone else did on a 280ZX. Perhaps with very few exceptions, any change will require some degree of modification to the rear panel, Z or ZX.

Thank you. People look at me like I'm crazy when I tell them this: I run roughly 19 initial and just over 40 (mechanical advance) total on my 289. I've checkad TDC with a piston stop, as well as visually, with a viscous harmonic balancer (so it is not "slipped"), and these numbers are correct and actual. If I were to try and run at "factory" specs, I'd barely get down the street. Oddest thing in that this situation only happened one other time, and it was on a 302.

This is close to, if not the longest string on this site:

Fascinating, especially in light of a string a couple of weeks back (cannot remember the name) included a brief discussion on modified OEM arms verses fabricated arms.

I was noticing this as well. In order for the 180º design to work as intended, ALL tubes must be the same length. In mid-engine cars, this is much easier to do than front engined cars because of the engine configuration. In the photo above, the tubes that are passed over to the opposite header bank appear to be longer than the rest of the tubes for that bank, which then changes the timing of the exhaust pulse relative to the other tubes in that bank. I am attempting to attack the pulse timing issue using header tube length differences on my next set of headers, while keeping all left and right bank tubes grouped in a conventional sense. In other words, vary the tube lengths so that the pulses arrive at the collector in a more equally spaced timing rather than use the "equal length" method. It wont be perfect, but it should be an improvement.

Perhaps this will help. In the simplest terms, the low pressure pump flow should be = to, or > than the high pressure pump flow. In practice though, your low pressure pump will be happily pumping away at pretty much optimum (maximum) flow due the the return line back to the tank, whereas the high pressure pump, even though it is also happily pumping away, depending upon engine loading, will be returning some of the fuel NOT back to the tank, but instead, back into the reservoir. When this happens, some of the fuel being removed from the reservoir is being returned back to the reservoir (again, the amount depends upon engine loading). So in reality, depending on actual fuel usage, you could find that in practice, the low pressure pump could be rated at a lower flow value than your high pressure pump, and still provide uninterrupted fuel supply to the high pressure pump. You could even go so far as to be "marginal" in that under high load conditions, the high pressure pump pulls the fuel level of the reservoir down a certain amount that will be immediately recovered by the low pressure pump once the engine loading is reduced (for example, at idle or light cruising mode). So to answer the question, you should have a low pressure pump flow capability that is = to, or > than the fuel usage at the motor's highest power output. If the high pressue pump rated flow is excessively greater than what could be used by the motor, than you will skew your requirements for the low pressure flow IF you are only comparing pump to pump, and not pump to fuel usage.

I believe they will (dual separate reservoirs).

The location of the crossmember itself is not as important as the location of those parts that are attached. I fabricated my own mount, and moved it forward, but that was after taking into consideration where the control arms, steering rack, and motor mounts were going to be located. I would start at the control arm mounting location so that the control arm has a perpendicular exit from the frame rails (if the frame rails are parallel to each other). It does not need to be exactly 90º, but it helps the installation because the rubber OEM bushing will be aligned. If you are using rod ends, then this is not as important. The length of the T/C rod will have more to do with the caster setting than the position of the inner control arm location (provided the upper strut mount location has not been changed in your framing project). This doesn't mean the the inner control arm location has no effect on caster, but if it is close to the above mentioned position, then your front suspension setting should be pretty close to OEM (caster and camber). Lastly, the fore/aft position of the rack has an effect on the Ackerman angle of the steering arm, so you'll want to keep its relative positioning to the steering arms as close as possible to the OEM relationship (which I'm guessing is aligned with an imaginary line connecting the tapered holes in each steering arm while the suspension is fully loaded.

Using the factory arms as the base for your suspension has its advantages. First, you've got a base design that's already time tested. If proper modifications are made, the arm has lost none of it's original attributes, and in the case of the arms Jon (and I) modified for outer spherical rod-end use, the arm actually became stronger in torsional strength. Secondly, what is the quality in the over-the-counter arms? Has anybody taken these arms and actually measured for any lateral preloading of the spherical bearings? From my experience, even a few thousanths off on the bearing spacing results in the bearing being preloaded in a bad way. So in reference to welding and fabricating this stuff instead of buying it outright, you gain a 360º experience in design, fabrication, and application, rather than the 180º experience of "remove and replace".

One more note. On the site you linked to, the mention of the OEM proportioning valve ahead of the new valve makes me wonder if the writer is thinking of the fluid warning switch on the firewall, and not a proportioning valve. I always thought the proportioning valve was in the rear of the car, and not up front (except for those built into the master cylinder on the really late model ZXs). Can someone clarify this for me (for us)?

If I am reading this correctly, you are using an adjustable proportioning valve, the purpose of which is to replace the OEM valve with an adjustable valve. I believe the general thought is that using two proportioning valves in series is NOT recommended. Personally, I think it is unwise to recommend a line lock to replace the emergency brake. Even the slightest of leak will result in a very rapid pressure loss (incompressible fluids), resulting in no "emergency brake".

When this was happening to me, it was due to too much oil in the differential case (my determination). Even though I was only filling the case to the oil hole, the rear of the car was jacked up so high that in reality I was over-filling the case. So, one day I unscrewed the filler screw, set the car down on level ground, and let the oil dribble out until it quit on its own. It was not very much oil, but I never had the oil blow out the breather ever again after that.

Valve springs would be the first issue I would think, but a .500 lift should be within the realm of just about any spring these days. Pressure and rate must also be considered based upon the cam profile. Lastly, you can always change the rocker ratio if you're looking to keep the same cam, but increase the lift (and duration ever so slightly).

I'd say that was pretty good considering all you've told.

Yeah, that is what I planned on, but wanted to see if there was a dissenting opinion. The ARP washer is 1.94" and just barely sits on the second step. So it's to the grinder I go.

I'm using an ARP damper bolt and washer to hold my Romac damper in place. The issue is the size of the washer. As supplied by ARP (orange washer size), it is too large to fit into what would appear to be the correct (red) location. I am contemplating reducing the OD so that it will fit in the radiused step as shown in the attached diagram verses using as is in the orange location. Any of you guys come across a similar situation?

Good job, and whatever works...works.

Very nice Mke. Best looking wing I've seen (and I usually don't like wings, but this one has a business look to it).

31 oh, that's cool 41 damn 51 I can't remember if my "finger wave" appointment is tomorrow or not. 61 Thank goodness that's out. Now no more "finger waves" 71 Where did all my good friends go? 81 I made it over 80 91 haha this effn rocks (never thought I'd make it)