blueovalz

Jeez. My 315s look miniscule. I feel like I've got some kind of male "envy" psychological issue. Thanks Van. Now I can trudge back into the garage and try to feel adequate again (I just won't look at my tires)

I am not familar with the front eccentrics, but from what you've provided, I'll add: Yes, the camber will change with adjustments made using these bushings (which is one reason for their design) I don't recall any issues with the T/C rods using these types of bushings (Most likely because they allow the rod to pivot easily). I've read that these types of bushings do increase ride harshness over the rubber though.

My 240Z struts have a 1.75" ID. With the 8610's, this gives me only a few thousanths clearance between the strut tube and the insert. In this example, the sleeve would not be an option. I'd measure the insert OD, and then determine what you could use if this method is your choice. Remember, the gland nut is only containing the insert on rebound. Do you feel you need 80% of threaded area, or could you use 40% instead.

To expand on Mark's reply, the strut housing will have a letter A, B, or C stamped on the cast end that must match the letter stamped on the spacer that is used for that specific strut housing. The different letters are related to differences (very small) in the spacer's length, which matches the differences in the strut housing's machining for the bearing spacing.

Very nice! Good overall look as everything ties together very well. Good job!

Thanks Tech!

There is a member (David K) on this site that has a Y40, but it needs rebuilding and I don't think he has the parts to do it (he wants one to put in his z). I will attempt to email and PM him on this and perhaps he will show some interest. How much? One other thing, I've yet to figure out how to navigate (or even find the "photo gallery") is this the "garage" link. Anyway, could you link me to your photos? Thanks

These would be much two small. The OEM piston area is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.25" (it's been a while since I've measured one). Your query of using 1.125" pistons (dual per side) would provide a total square area of 1.98^ inches. This compares to the OEM area of around 3.97^ inches. Your goal would be to stay somewhere in the 4" range. These would be good candidates for the rear though. Perhaps on the small side, but usable.

I have similar reservations about using a turnbuckle as the sole support for the rear arms. I would rather rely upon good nuts on ether side of the threaded portion of the spherical rod ends. My proposal would be to allow the rod end to slip into a hole in the side of the square tubing, and then nut it on both sides of the tubing wall. This way, the rod end adjustment could be done without removing the end from the spindle.

Sounds like one of these cars ought to be painted "PINK"

I remember seeing some kind of issue with the rear differential mount on this IRS set-up. Something about the failure in the aluminum cover (on the back) breaking when a lot of torque is applied. I did see a fix for it in that the new part (aftermarket) used a bracket the distributes the torque load over the many bolts that hold the cover on rather than just the two that are positioned in the middle of the cover. This may be my imagination, but I'm pretty sure I saw this.

And if a full turn is too much, then loosen the hose-to-line fitting and re-clock the hose end so that the hose is lightly twisted out of the way. Yes, you'll need to bleed the brakes when you do this, but it will prevent the hose from being twisted too much. This is on the assumption that you've got a non-OEM setup?

"You can do it!" Seriously, youv'e got the motor and the chassis at your disposal. I'd start taking measurements (engine width with and without the exhaust manifolds, front to back, and crank centerline to top of carb) and go from there. You'll need to go over this in your mind repeatedly in order to ensure you've covered all bases before starting. There's nothing worse than a great idea and concept that later becomes impossible because of the lack of proper planning.

Gotcha on that, but I think I did find an answer to my main concern, and that was body length. Shox.com tech informs me the 8611 series has 4 different body lenths from 11.42" up to 15+" (1256, 1259,...) and the 8610 series has 2 body lenths - 11.42" and 13.07" (1436 and 1437). It sounded like the 8611 offers more flexibility in spring rate being this strut performance window overlaps (high and low) the 8610's non-adjustable compression portion setting. Am I understanding this correctly?

Gotcha on that, but I think I did find an answer to my main concern, and that was body length. Shox.com tech informs me the 8611 series has 4 different body lenths from 11.42" up to 15+" (1256, 1259,...) and the 8610 series has 2 body lenths - 11.42" and 13.07" (1436 and 1437). It sounded like the 8611 offers more flexibility in spring rate being this strut performance window overlaps (high and low) the 8610's non-adjustable compression portion setting. Am I understanding this correctly?

I've read this all finally, and still have a question. What is the difference between the 8610 and the 8611? EDIT: I found the answer on the Koni site. It appears that the 10 is single, and the 11 is double adjustable (but it appeared from this string that this was the difference between the 8611-1257 and the 8611-1437. So now I am confused. I was hoping one had a shorter body than th other, but that does not appear to be the case.

I've read this all finally, and still have a question. What is the difference between the 8610 and the 8611? EDIT: I found the answer on the Koni site. It appears that the 10 is single, and the 11 is double adjustable (but it appeared from this string that this was the difference between the 8611-1257 and the 8611-1437. So now I am confused. I was hoping one had a shorter body than th other, but that does not appear to be the case.

It's hard to be definitive from the photo, but it appears the entire arm has experienced a large degree of rusting. But to reiterate, I've never seen this problem before, even with unusually large sway bars.

Using the front arms as an example, notice that the spacers (roll center) are above the ball joint (pivot point). This lowers the connecting, (pivot) point in regards to the axle. In effect, it legthens the strut without moving the axle. Looking at it another way, if I were to add a 1" spacer in between the arm and the ball joint mounting surface (the four bolts), I have lowered the outside end of the arm itself, but not the pivot point. The ball joint (pivot) remains in the same exact position it was in prior to the spacer being inserted). In this example the pivot point remains the same regardless of how thick a spacer you add between the ball joint and the control arm. If you don't move the pivot point on the strut, or inboard at the inner bushing, you won't change the roll center or bump steer.

Jon, I do not know what the relationship of the rod ends are as compared to the OEM bushing centerlines, but my thoughts on this are to take a piece of 1/8" thick (or thicker) steel strap (long enough to span both cut ends and wide enough to completely cover the square holes) that will be welded to the arm. The lengthy bead would distribute the load over a large area. BEFORE you do this though, you would take a hole saw and cut two holes in this strap for the threaded tube ends. These ends then could be inserted into these holes up to the stepped portion, and then welded in place completely around the tube (as it appears to be designed for). After the threaded tubes are welded onto the strap (or perhaps some modified angle would be even better), then weld the strap onto the cut ends of the control arm. A lot of welding, but you would have a definite idea of how well it would be welded this way. The roll center will not be affected by the positon of the sperical bearings in the ends of the control arm. The only way you'll be able to change the roll center back there is to lengthen the 2 bosses between the axle bearings and the arm bushings.

I am using a World Class T-5, and with the Ford bellhousing/motor plane 1" forward of the firewall, the shifter ends up within the OEM Datsun hole. It did require a minor bit of messaging on the OEM hole. Here is a photo of the tranny/motor combo as a comparison to your tranny And a long shot of the interior and how the shifter sits relative to the transmission tunnel

Put the FE in it and run it! I'm also getting into that age range where I'd like to experiment more on the Z, but I want to use what available (which is what you're doing). This is HybridZ, right (big V8 in little car?). BTW, I'm adding 70 pounds to the Blueoval with a new 383 (the smallest stroker for the 351W). Why the smallest? The really short rod length/stroke ratio scared me on the larger displacement combinations. The only change needed in getting this 100 extra cubes is new headers and a new intake manifold. Another advantage: "Honey, I've decided to go ahead and replace the worn out engine in my 240SX, and it just so happens I've got a line on a really cheap motor to put in it." The ol' 289 has a home waiting for it. One of the scariest rides I ever took was in a comet with a 460 using the 429 SCJ heads on them (forget the golf ball, a tennis ball would fit through these intake ports).

Any photos of the front of the engine (between the radiator and the water pump (or whatever is available to photograph)?

Thanks Ernie. RacerX probably has more bodywork experience that the entire membership put together. His comments and suggestions are of great value here.

You'll get gobs of information on a search for the R200. I believe most 280ZXs had an R200. Some had the R180 (automatic?), and the Turbo ZX had the R200, but had the more robust CV jointed halfshafts instead of the usual U-Jointed shafts. The R200 is plenty strong for even a well built SBF, but the R180 will be questionable.