blueovalz

I was too lazy for that. Unfortunately, the money spent rebuilding T-5 was almost as much as a new TKO, BUT, I could simply bolt it right into place where the TKO would need some conversion work. One thing you said that I must agree on in the shifting experience: I've got to be patient, and shift cautiously for the first couple of miles until the tranny box warms up, but by then the assembly is in perfect specs due to the case expansion, and shifting becomes better than it was when the tranny was OEM and new.

Update: I finally got the 6.3L running with the upgraded T-5 using G-Force gears and mainshaft. The gear noise is very noticable (but the transmission is solidly mounted to the chassis) compared to the OEM gears. I've not pushed hard on the new assmebly (new motor and transmission) as yet, but so far, my observations are in line with the gear manufacturer's anticipated characteristics of the new gears. The transmission is very tight (per their suggested assembly instructions) until the transmission warms up. After warm-up, the transmission shifts great. If I had to comment on anything unexpected, it was the noise from the 5th gear. It is cut straighter than the first 4 gears, and much coarser than the OEM gear, so it has quite a bit of whine to it, almost too much. I don't know if this is normal, so I'm going to be cautious in this gear for a litte while and let it break in.

I'm up for any change. I'll google the V-band thing and see what it's about. I think I know what it is, but my impession was that there was still some required "slip-fit" (at the V-band joint) in order for it to work. The front is a slip-fit, but I wanted a very rigid assembly midway that 'acted' solid as support for the exhaust's continuation up into the body as it leaves the differential support. I knew this would do that, but perhaps I could change this for a quicker removal (which was the purpose).

Or an R230

The one part of the car I've yet to fabricate myself was the exhaust. Well, that little detail has been taken care of. Because of the way I hid the rear portion of the exhaust above a lower exterior panel, and exited the exhaust in the OEM valance panel, I was force to disassemble the lower panel, exhaust rings and tips, and then pull the entire exhaust if I wanted to remove the driveshaft, work on the tranny, etc. This weekend I finished welding up my own exhaust with mandel bent pipes (no SS though), and inserted a joint just past the differential crossmember so that I could simply remove a short section of exhaust (15 minutes max) in order to remove everything forward of the differential.

Lukaniuk, thanks for the thumbnail. When I was looking for long horizontal lighting, I found the mid-80s LeSabre tail lights to be a good start. Mounting was straight-forward, and they were lightweight.

damned firewall!

ZR8ED, Good summarization. I fully agree and have experienced the same issue. This is the primary reason why I installed the motor and transmission as a solid member of the chassis using a six point mounting, with multiple fasteners at each point. Then I triangulated the engine bay between towers and firewall (horizontally), and between towers and the engine (vertically). The cage is attached at eight points. Result: The difference in chassis sag between the weight of the car on all four wheels, and when the car is fully suspended only by two points midway between the front and rear axles is about .090" (without the rear transmission crossmember mounted in place). In the end, I set the car down on its own weight before solidly tighten all the nuts on the entire drive train assembly in order to place the drivetrain in a non pre-stressed mode. It's amazing how much difference the rigid chassis makes in regards to handling, spring rates, etc. MaTTSuN, This is why the all the other string comments have been made in regards to the OEM design of the core support, and you're alternative. Datsun did not have the tower bracing, and it would have been nice if they did, but they did provide a sufficient core support that did help keep front twist manageable (enough so that the radiator remained intact) even with stiffer aftermarket sway bars. You're quest to improve the core support's contribution to the front twist looks like it's headed in the right direction through continued thought and improvement.

Recent Ebay prices for these (no axles) have been in the neighborhood of $700 and up (when they rarely come up for sale).

I agree. I had 380 HP from my NA 289, and I'm expecting very close to 500 HP with the 383 (351w stroker). No turbos to mess with, and more than likely, better reliability. By the time you add the turbos, plumbing, etc, it will weight no less than the bigger Windsor.

Do a search and you'll find the 302 swap into an S13 in here, but it is N/A. Photos are (were/are) included, so it may help.

I run two caps as well, in the same configuration you've mentioned, and use one overflow on the weaker cap. One thing I did last year that seems to help when I drain/fill the block is I added a tube (3" long threaded 1/4" pipe nipple with a cap) on the manifold's water passage) that is above all other parts and allows me to vent off the last little bit of air on the block side.

Yeah, I think there is a under-appreciation for the OEM stampings in terms of strength. There's no doubt that you could surpass the OEM stamping in terms of strength, but it will cost you in weight, time, and complexity to do it. Your goal obviously has merit, but the implementation of that goal will need to be tweeked. Can you imagine how much cheaper and simpler it would have been for Datsun so simply tie the two rails together with a tube if it would have been just as strong?

It will take more than just 2 x 2 welded between the frame rails to make it stronger than the OEM boxed and formed support. The OEM core support distributed the force over a pretty broad area. The 2 x 2, even if welded in the same location will not match the OEM strength (it may in a tension/compression force, but not any twisting).

Nicely said, and... Dan, I couldn't help myself, really...I thought it over for a few seconds, and said, heck with it and pushed the enter key, and then laughed longer than I thought about it.

I'm not an admin, but at times I can be pretty anal. For search purposes, should this string be titled "Shimmy" at the steering wheel instead of "Seizure". Keeping titles correct helps a lot in searches, and so far I've read nothing dealing with a locked or seized steering wheel or rack (which can happen, but this string does not appear to address this).

I'm going to ride on this strings coat-tails and ask this question. Does anybody know where the balljoint's ball centerline is in the vertical plane on the front control arm? Where is this centerline in regards to the upper surface of the control arm? I've never dismantled a balljoint before, so I've no knowledge on where the exact pivot point is in within the casing, and in regards to how it relates to the arm, and more specifically, this location's impact in regards to the steering rod geometry and roll center. Using the visually "angle" of the control arm itself is not a very precise way to do this, but many folks resort to this method.

This is not unfortunate! The best design is one that you've had time to mull over, and NOT the one that comes to mind and is immediately implemented because the funds are available. If it were not for the lack of funds when I started on my Z, it would not look like it does now. Consider yourself luck in a sense.

Do you want the total overall length, or a more important centerline-to-centerline length (effective length) between pivot point? For example, the 240Z and 280Z rear control arms overall length is different due to a little more material and bracing on the 280Z arms even though the effective is the same as the 240Z arms.

I get up this morning, my wife has gone to the grocery store for some Easter dinner supplies, and I walk into the bathroom to find this... If I stay married to this woman another 10 years, I'm going to be so emasculated, I'll just sell the Z and buy us a "bicycle built for two". BTW, it was filled with almonds and dark chocolate. What a woman! .

To get the full effect, you've started off on the right foot. Widening the Z rear is essential for this effect. The added width needs to encorporate the lights into the new additional space outside the OEM lights to take full advantage of the widened rear. A very short (if none at all) spoiler will help this as well, and any horizontally oriented sculturing or lines.

So I'm assuming from the post title that the rack locked up on you, hence the "Seizure"? The open boots will allow the ball joints at the end of the rack to be exposed to the elements, which may, with time, contribute to the shimmy of the steering wheel, but not any seizure that I'm aware of.

I don't know. The FIRST thing my eye does is head immediately toward the rest of the car, and not on the tail. I love the way the Z looks, but it can't compare to the rest of this car. I'm afraid this rear look will get lost in the translation, but who knows?

I'ts a matter of potentially leading someone off a quick fix path toward a goose chase if the information is bad, or not complete. We (I as well) may not alway provide the most accurate information at some point in our posting history, which makes it a good idea to qualify the post if you're not absolutely sure your fix is "the" answer or solution. Most if not all of us are probably perfectionist in our work, and would desire accurate, experienced solutions to our own problems verses unqualified guesses at what the issue is. In a round table discussion, that works...in this internet medium, it mucks up the repair process because of the lack of immediate feedback.

Dan, that's not true. I was just telling somebody this weekend how nice it was not hearing you chime in as much as you used to.... :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: I just kill myself!