blueovalz

Just watch, I'll break one this weekend and be totally

I may be hard headed here, but I resist the notion that the 280 axles are significantly stronger than the 240 axles. The examples of failures I've seen are split between the failure being on the threaded end of the splines (which then makes no difference on which axle it is), and on on the axle flange. The shaft (and bearing) sizes are the same dimension, so basically, the spline is the only part that is larger. So...what have I missed on this discussion over the years. 15 years of hard V8 use on the 240 axles and still going.

Does an "old school" spoiler work on the back of a Z? Here is what I experienced carrying some pipe home one day

At high speed, I've had the pressure inside the radiator vent at a level that would push the floor of the vent down onto the water pump pulley (1/2" gap). At 120mph, the feedback to the driver is as good as it is at 60mph.

Correct!

Opinion only, but the ease with which cast steel taps, I'd be very leery of using such threaded material for suspension pickup points. Can anyone provide some metallurgical information to support or refute this?

Your R200 should work fine. The main point will be your stub axles at each wheel. If they are the 240 axles (25 spline), this will all work. If they are 27 spline, the you'll need to purchase other outboard parts.

New life in this old thread. I was looking at these wheels for a second set of wheels, and noticed the wheels are not hub-centric, and cannot be balance on the type balancing machine that centers on the hub hole. My question is, how did you guys get the wheel/tire combination balanced?

As soon as I went to the 280ZXT CV axles, I never broke another halfshaft. You'll need the companion flanges that go with it, and new wheel bearing seals (72mm X 40mm X 10mm). You must have the 240Z axles (25 spline) for all of this to work. I don't know when the switch was made to the 27 spline axles, but I think it was during the 260Z production. Otherwise, you may want to reconsider you options as it will become much more expensive (Ross' axles or adapters).

Great write-up, and good title. These past few summations are great, but useless if key words are not used in the title for future serches. Thanks Jon.

Pascal, yes, Bernoulli...hmm, I'm not sure how I could use that in my explanation (but my formal education could be refreshed). Anyway, I wanted kill the fly with a fly-swatter instead of a cannon.

Rarely is Jon confused, but I'm going to accuse him of such anyway :wink: NOD. With the bicycle analogy (which is a very good one), a smaller front sprocket would indeed result in less pedal pressure, but would also require MORE throw (yes, less distance traveled, but the crank throw is increased). The cyclist would be pedaling more revolutions at the crank to go the same distance than if he used a larger front sprocket. Large stroke X small pressure = small stroke X large pressure. In hydraulic systems between two pistons connected through a single line (just as a brake or clutch system is), the MC/SC bore size ratio (Master Cylinder to Slave Cylinder bore ratio) is what determines stroke and pressure between the two end pistons. The SC piston stroke is directly proportional to this ratio, and the SC piston pressure inversely proportional to this ratio. Thus you cannot get more stroke (more modulation) and more pressure at the same time by solely changine bore sizes. Changing the pedal geometry could have the same effect. Increasing the stroke by changing the pedal's folcum point would provide more or less pressure, but less or more stroke.

EDIT: Pedal movement and pedal pressure do not move together (both do not increase together, nor decrease together). It's like using a cheater pipe. You may be making the pushing force (or pressure on the pipe) smaller with a longer pipe, but the throw will increase (get bigger). Going to a smaller (bore size) slave cylinder will make the pedal stiffer, but much more sensitive as well (less modulation) because the piston in the slave cylinder has more travel than one of larger bore (provided the master cylinder has not changed) The pedal will be stiffer, but the throw will be shortened as well. To get both, you need a stiffer (higher pressure) pressure plate, and then go to a larger slave cylinder, but you'd need to know a lot of other information about specific bores sizes and pressue plate info for this to end up just as you wish.

Not official, but I compress mine until the OD of the bushing is almost (but not larger) the same as the cup-washer OD. You don't want to squash them down to where the bushings become wider than these washers, but you also want sufficient preloading as well. If possible, set the car down on ramps (blocks, etc) so that the suspension is at its normal ride height before tightening the bushings in place. This will help insure the bushings are properly aligned with the holes in the swaybar ends.

In summary, this is good. The cost and the torque on the axle nut differences are the two things I think we could all agree on (I spent easily $100 for the last set of bearings, and I torqued it to 180 lb/ft of torque. Some sets have a copper washer between the bearing's inner race and the companion flange, and some do not. The copper washer has not been shown, in past threads, to be a significant part from what I've seen. Lastly, if you do foul up the threads on the axle, a 20mm X 1.5 die will allow a new nut to start correctly.

It sort of makes sense (I think?). Any Z hub will fit onto any Z spindle, but you'll need the rotors to go with the hubs because the later Z hubs pushed the rotors inboard a few millimeters (not sure how many), and consequently, the matching rotors had less offset by the same amount. This way the proper hub/rotor combination would always fit onto any Z spindle (strut) and still keep the caliper lined up correctly with the rotor.

Thanks for the photos!

Here is the 930 axle use for my Z. It uses all Datsun components except the parts between the companion flange and the R200 axle (the halfshaft basically). But, the adapter plates must be machined, and the axles must have new grooves cut in them, and then shortened.

I've not measured it, but my pins are indeed .627, and the seller said the sleeves were .630, but the sleeve is a TIGHT fit onto the pins, which is exactly what I wanted.

One disadvantage I see with the use of rod ends is that during back and forth turning used for adjusting to a final setting, the rod ends will pivot until they reach their angle limit, at which point the actual pull or push of the bushing retainers takes place, which can get a bit tiresome with the amount of "backlash" (for lack of a better term) rod ends have. On a side note, once you know the thread pitch, you can set a predicted amount of toe change by a simple conversion of turns per xxx amount of toe movement. Thus if I wish to add 1/8" of toe in or out, you can predictably do this with a specific number of degrees that the turnbuckle is turned (60º per flat, for a hex turnbuckle).

I purchased another set of rear bushings last month (after I asked the seller for the inside dimension of the outer sleeves to verify they were correct) and to my delight, the sleeves are a tight fit over the pins. Now I can finish installing these bushings. On a side note, ES never returned my email about the slop in the first set though.

Looks great! Did you cut up a curved (the later model) transverse link for this modification?

Where would you direct me to learn more about the individual throttle body application and source of parts? I've always thought this would be great for the V8, but never have had luck finding data on what is needed to build a system like this.

There is way too much information to post in a message back. An excellent start would be to search the forums for "frame", "reinforcement", "stiffening", etc. There have been a lot of threads about these subjects, and more that will help you out a lot.

I know they are rare (but I believe someone is still casting them somewhere) but I used to have a "B-A" intake manifold on my 302 Mustang (the manifold was manufactured in Fort Smith, AR back in the '80s) that let me use of the 2 barrel Cleveland heads (which IMHO were much better heads for this size motor than the 4 barrel/Boss heads) on the SBF block. It required welding up/opening new water passages on the heads themselves, but it worked surprisingly well. I saw one of these intakes go on ebay a while back for close to $400.