blueovalz

Thank you. I thought I was the only one with sleeves that were too large (.010" to be exact). Which is why I chose to leave the OEM rubber in. Got a number or name real quick?

We've had the Corvette and the 240SX rear-end swaps, but not the 8.8.

True, and that is why is think this may be inconsequential. zlalomz: It was mentioned earlier about the angles needed for full articulation with the "flattened" bearings. Normal movement on a race-preped car would most likely stay within the restrictive field of acceptable misalignment angles (14º to 24º for most rod ends) for the ball. 24º = ~6" of axle movement. When jacking up the car, you'd want to ensure the misalignment angle never was exceeded, or you'll risk damaging the bearing. I know that on my steering rod ends (1/2"), that this limit does get bumped at full droop, which in a worst case scenario, could cause the threaded rod or the bearing to fail, which would not be good.

Yeah. It may be inconsequential, but here is what I was trying to say in a nutshell:

Looks like it would work. What kind of stress increases are we looking at with the spherical bearings (rod ends) moved closer together? Lever action against the inboard pivots will increase with the decreased length between the bearings. I'm not looking for holes in a good idea, just considering all implications. Wasn't JT's car powered by the L6?

Wow! Very impressive. The reason I sought to adjust the RC from the outside was because the inside bushings would be nearly impossible to raise, or at least much harder to raise, than to instead lower the outboard bushings.

Roll center adjustment at the rear: My take on changing the rear roll center would be a more permanent change by cutting the two cast extensions under the strut that connects the strut tube to the spindle pin boss, and then weld in a spacer of some sort. My thoughts were using 1/4" steel to extend this part of the strut assembly by whatever is needed (about 1" in my case). For the more adventuresome, weld up plates between the two severed pieces and fabricate something that allows some kind of adjustability (but this would seem to be a bit of overkill if you have a "set" suspension height and know what you want in regards to roll center). The extensions are not simple in that it is basically an short "H" beam with a large hole in the middle, but crossbracing, and proper design would make the longer extension as strong as is needed. In essence, this would be the same method of roll center change as is used with the "bump steer" spacers commonly used up front. Simply an extension of the strut below the axle.

Ditto; Sorry Matt

I've had the same blue pump since the creation of my hybridZ in '89 with only one problem (other than the immense noise), and that was heat. When I had it under the car next to the exhaust, the pump would occasionally shut off in slower or stopped traffic. After a short wait, it would turn back on. At that point I assumed it had a thermal cut-off switch built into the pump, but have never verified this. I corrected this problem by moving the pump up and as far as possible from any heat sources. That was 2 years ago, and it has never quit on me since then.

A thorough search will net a ton of information and discussion about the R200 (later model Z rear end assembly), as well as the typical modifications using Nissan parts (or others) that are stronger than the OEM set-up. Key words: R200 R230 axle There is just too much to explain even in a long paragraph, but suffice it to say the R200 assembly has held up well behind many HybridsZs, and not as well behind a few others.

No doubt about it, this one's meant for business!

Where's Flounder?

The 4.6 will be more of a challange than a 5.0 conversion due to the size and wieght of the 4.6. We (this site) would be very interested in seeing a 4.6 conversion, but at this writing, no one has completed (or even started) one, I personally feel you should do this just to see if it can be done Some of us on this site have the SBF (mostly 302, but some have the 351W, and I have a 289). It's fairly easy, but the pitfalls are oil pan to crossmember clearance, and the exhaust manifold to steering rod clearance, and lastly, the fabrication of the motor mounts (no kits for this). If you've got any fabrication skills, then these are not significant issues, and placing the motor close to the firewall works best. Lastly, spend some time in a thorough search and you'll find a ton of information. With aluminum heads, pump, manifold, and flywheel, my 302 was about 40lbs lighter than the L24

2 for me on the second patch! Again, great work here, and a great benefit to this site. Thank you.

Yeah, but a soda straw is very strong (for its weight) in compression up to the point that any bending occurs, and that is the idea of the T/C rod. Failure of the rods are extremely rare, and if I correctly interpret the few posting of failures, they may be more related to the polyurethane bushing use, and not of their design. As long as the rod can pivot freely to stay aligned with the compressive forces, it will work.

My understanding of diffusers is that the air flowing under the car must smoothly exit through an expanding area so that the air pressure decreases. Turbulance is the enemy here. The fencing used in the photo helps align the airflow to prevent turbulance, and the angle of the roof, as well as the distance to the pavement is important. I believe an angle of about 7º is about max (in general), but can be effective at higher angles if the diffuser is closer to the pavement. High angles introduce turbulance, which destroys the decreased pressure. How effective such a device is may be dependent upon what the air is doing prior to reaching the diffuser. A smooth chassis floor is a "must" in my opinion, which is impossible with the usual HybridZ configuration of a transmission tunnel, differential, and exhaust pipes) unless you can stand the high interior temperatures and overheating of the differential and tranny by placing a floor under all of this. It would be nice to see some testing with this device that Darius has, as this one "appears" to have some functionality in its design, but I wonder what's happening to the air before it gets to it.

Tonycharger 72, I believe the 17mm spacer (a wheel spacer I believe) is to space the wheel away from the hub face so that the thicker 4-piston caliper will fit between the wheel and the rotor. The 300ZX rotor will fit onto the hub with caliper alignment, but then the wheel will hit the caliper because the caliper's size (extra outboard width) due to the two outside pistons (remember that the 300ZX rotor was spaced closer to the wheel with a floating caliper consideration in its design). I look at this data above, and it is obvious the spacer described is intended to fit between the hub and the rotor, but I was always under the impression that the 4-piston vented Toyota caliper was properly aligned with the 300ZX rotors if NO spacer was used. Can anyone verify this (I used the Nissan Floaters when I did this). The later hubs, which had flanges thicker than the 240Z hubs, push the rotor inboard more (which helps in reducing the wheel spacer thickness), but now the caliper will not be "bolt on" because the rotor is misaligned with the caliper.

The Pinto (Mustang II) suspension design is not a bad design in the parts used, but more in the use of the parts. Proper geometry will provide a very good set-up with this group of parts.

The 351W has some huge main journals, and I would think this would be an issue with high revs.

Situations similar to this usually result in the officer claiming that he "felt" threatened. I know, I know...(I can hear it already), but if this is the job you choose willingly, knowing what the job entails, then occasional "fear" is part of the job, and not an excuse. Not nearly so tragic, here in Arkansas, 3 officers lost a lawsuit because they impounded questionable vehicles during traffic stops because numbers didn't match (theft case issues). So when the owners request of due process and unreasonable search were voiced, the cars suddenly became tied up for months in "processing" and were returned dismantled and the owners were left with no recourse other than a lawsuit (It's one thing to do your job, it's another to simply screw someone because you can) Through the years, I have (and have) had some very gratifying personal relationships with members of the law enforcement community, which makes it a shame when I see things like this happen, and then the "organization" claims that no wrong doing was done. As a kid, I grew up thinking (and respecting the law) that the law was here to protect and to serve the good of the public, but somewhere along the line to adulthood, my observations of reality pointed to the law as self protecting and self serving, with an "us verses them" mentality, and I hate that has happened. It's too bad we cannot provide a good wage for these guys and then separate those who do a good job in spirit and in letter, from those who have nothing in it other than a paycheck, and simply enjoying the "high" of exercising their poorly appointed authority over others. Do I sound bitter? Perhaps I've said too much already.

Yeah, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference, but to be anal about it, I would use whatever sized spacers are needed to make the arm perpendicular to the centerline of the chassis. I say this because side loading forces will be focused on this arm into the crossmember, and any deviation other than as mentioned above will transfer some of these forces to the T/C rod. Will any small angles make a real difference? I doubt it.

351W. Parts are everywhere, and just about everything except for the block is interchangable with the other SBF products (which means easy access to parts). And the modular engine is VERY wide, as well as heavier. Lastly, the reason "they have been done to death just like the Chevy 350" is because they work, plain and simple. I've got a 289 in my Z and would like to see a stroked 351w in it next year.

Man, I hate that. Sometimes I wonder who they assign these jobs to when a business, such as you've described, get a customer's job. But, I know exactly how you feel due to the years of dealing with similar situations. That history is exactly why I have a shop full of tools and equipement so I don't need to depend on someone elses lack of appreciation for my equipment.

I may be misunderstanding this, but I'll try to help. The U-jointed shafts should fit right in. These shafts bolt onto the Z companion flanges and the stub shaft. On the other hand, the ZXT CV jointed shafts are a different animal in than the longer ZXT companion flange must be used (on the 240Z - 25 splline- axles only) on the Z to allow them to be bolted in. With the longer companion flange comes the decreased shaft length requirement,

First of all, I'd try to get in good with the http://www.240SX.org guys and see what their experience has been with the strength (or weekness) of the SX rear end, and focus on the holeshot issues to see if you'd be any better off after all this work. I look at my SX rear end and wonder about all those links and bushings (6 per side) and what is taking place with all those hideous angles. Secondly, I was not aware that the SX had a clutch type LSD. My understanding was that the very few that had any LSD were all viscious (unless someone has gone in and replaced the OEM unit).