blueovalz

Correction: the 5" BS will work fine, BUT I was wrong in saying that you'd have 3/4" to spare. I took a look today, and I've got about 1/4"+ clearance on the fronts, and a tad more on the rear. I ran 200 lb/in springs for many years, and much later changed them to 230/265 front/rear. I like the later set-up better, but the 200s all the way around worked great. Search the archives on this matter. The fact (possibility) that the front and rear would (could) resonate between each other if they were the same weight was discussed. But I never (At least I was not aware of it) experienced this, and perhaps the dampers were responsible for that.

5" will give you plenty of room if you use coil-overs. My 5" BS allows about 3/4" on the inside with 10" coils. Your spring rate will be fine as well, if you use a descent quality damper.

Excellent photo...exactly what I had in mind. BUT, this photo (to my minds eye) does not indicate the KPI has been changed much. If they had offset the upper mount over toward the wheel side of the remaining strut tube, I could understand it a little better.

There are so many bushings and isolators in the suspension that I believe this is the reason I found no ride quality difference between the rubber and the urethane bushings. Now, start changing springs, dampers, and bars, and that's a different story.

:confused: Oh, kingpin inclination? On the back that would not be an issue, correct?

Another view: SwayAway axles design their axles so that the inner race can slide along the length of the splines for their offroad racing axles (the splines are about 3" long on each end), and they appear to work fine. With that said, it was recommended to me (by a Porsche tech for the Porsche axles anyway) that the inner race needed to be snug between the clips, so I measured the gap and inserted arbor shims between the race and the snap-ring. In my case it was about .025", but these shims I but come in many sizes up to and including .125."

The unequal length arms allow a more favorable camber change with suspension movement (but mounting location and configuration is important). This same advantage can be had with equal lenth arms, but mounting on anything other than a purpose built race car makes this option unattractive. I've considered this for the front end as well, but am a bit concerned about the OEM unibody support for it up front verses the rear. I did not want to start adding a lot of support for the upper arm in the front being its not got a lot of supporting structure in the first place (where an upper arm would be located). The rear end though has the subframe in the immediate area of the upper arm location which keeps the weight and fabrication time down somewhat. Also, using the rear lower OEM control arm in its current configuration ensures factory strength where needed. Obviously, the OEM designed strut tower mount helps locate the hub, but it provides no twisting resistance (as viewed from the top of the strut). A triangle type of upper arm, with the ball joint bolted to the top of the shortened strut tube should ensure sufficient strength to prevent any unwanted movement (at the top of this shortened tube) in the horizontal plane, provided it is properly designed.

One more comment about what I perceived as what got this string started in the first place: A holeshot using the OEM parts causing the wheel to move forward. I find it hard to believe the metal or construction of the arm itself is responsible for anything but a negligible deflection. I find it much more likely that the bushings (rubber or polyurethane) are whats giving way. 4 bushings, all compressing a small amount add up to a large deflection. Then add some high offset wheels where the leverage against these bushings has been increased, and I cannot imagine the noted deflection not taking place. But, the Z only has these 4 bushings (plus the one at the top of the strut tower). The OEM SX/ZX suspension has 8 (if I counted correctly) that can contribute to the same issue. I would find it hard to believe that the SX/ZX suspension would be any stiffer in this regards than the Z suspension (provided using equal types of bushings), but I've been wrong many many times.

Have you ever tried to cut those uprights? Better have several good blades, and a 55 gallon drum of spinach close at hand!

Try this again (original post did not make it through). This is something I have considered as a project later on if I decide I have too much time on my hands. Basically, retain the OEM lower control arm and bearing carrier boss, but cut the strut tube short, and assemble an upper arm onto this shortened tube. My goal was vastly increased backspacing, but the wheel well inner lining will prevent a wheel with much more the 7" of backspacing. The objective was minimal fabrication, and maximum use of the OEM parts as possible, but still have an unequal length upper and lower control arm assembly that did not require extensive (a relative term) modifications.

Yeah, mine was from the Nissan dealer in town as well, but didn't make any difference.

Last month, I just received a set of the ZXT nuts (at least that is what I ordered off their monitor) and what I ended up with was the staked nuts instead. I've had the ZXT nuts, and liked them better because they have a larger diameter integral washer than the Z nuts do. Anyway, they were about $6 a piece. Anyway, I dimpled the tops of the nuts to make them "self locking" before screwing them on.

Practically speaking, it depends on the amount of lateral displacement, and the compliance in the suspension. Assuming a worst case scenario of a 1" shift (assumed to be outboard for increased camber, but if the car was lowered very much, then this amount would be much less), and even with the OEM compliance, I think it would be safe to say the effect would be negligible. The very slight change in caster and camber (as compared to the OEM settings) as a result this would seem to be one source of concern, and somebody good with trig can provide definitive angles that result from the compliance. But these angles change anyway (caster and camber) and I do not believe the difference (from the OEM changes) would be of any significance. Lastly, without lengthing the T/C rod, pushing the LCA outboard would pull the axle of the wheel rearward. Guessing the length of the triangle created by the LCA/Frame rail/TC rod (12"/18"/~21.6"), moving the LCA outboard 1" would pull the wheel rearward about 5/8".

Tough call! I love a "quiet" neighborhood, but at the same time, I can create more noise than the neighbor's leaf blower. I play it safe though. I installed triple pane windows in the garage, insulated the walls, and installed lots of lighting. This way I can close it up, do my work, and not bother the neighbors. I believe in doing my best to keep from being the neighbor nobody wants next door, you know, the time tested "golden rule" (but in our business that's tough to do).

Let us know what you find (or don't find). I could probably come up with a couple being I throw nothing away when it comes to hardware.

I cannot offer specific technical advice on this, but I have an electronic speedometer sensor in my T5 that sends a digital signal to the electronic (Autometer) speedometer. I have no idea on the compatability between the two. The sensor I am using is a 'hall effect' which to me means it's working off a very small signal, and based upon PPS which is proportional to the transmission output shaft speed.

Yep. It's VERY similar to my '78 (or was it a 79?) 810.

Ditto! I've done the cage, and the triangulation, but not the sub-frame connectors. To add to this I have a solid six-point engine/transmission assembly mounting that ties all of this together as one soild unit. It is quite rigid and allows for a comfortable and "streetable" suspension using some fairly stiff components (it has a more comfortable ride than my 240SX using softer components)

To the best of my knowledge these started showing up in the late S30 2+2 versions, and in the S130 Turbo versions (I am not sure if there was a connection on the S130 between the use of the R180 and the R200 differential in the use of CVs). Other than that, they were all U-jointed halfshafts until the Z31 model, and then from there on, they were all CV jointed halfshafts.

Same (I also like the logo we have).

Some of you guys may be aware that I moved my differential over 1" to remove the angle of the offset propeller shaft. Previously (a long time ago) I had moved the differential up one inch to reduce the half-shaft angles. Well, I always had a vibration at about 80 MPH with the 4:11 gears (a combined angle of about 4.5 degrees). Now that I've move the differential toward the driver's side by 1", it is lined up with the output shaft of the transmission in a horizontal plane, but is still about 1" higher than the output shaft of the transmission in the vertical plane. Altogether, this puts the total angle of the U-joints to about 3 degrees, and completely eliminated the vibration I had in the drivetrain. I have not pushed the speed up to a point where even the 3 degrees will show up in vibrations yet though. Just a FWIW.

I attached Velcro to the back side, and "installed" the Datsun patches. Now I've got hybrid seats as well

As much as we would like to be the experts on ANY swap, we really are only good with the Z and ZX lineup. Some SX stuff has been discussed on this site, but little in the way of powerplant swaps (mostly suspension swaps into a Z/ZX). Have you posted on http://www.240SX.org?

The next F&F sequel star in the making!

I'm on the fence in regards to flames, but these look good, well, great on your Z!