blueovalz

I witnessed as a passenger a test drive in a 911 turbo (not sure of the model or year) in which he (the mechanic) was clocked doing 121 in a 35 and recieved no ticket. We were on a riverside park road which was very straight and long with one slight crest in it. The lightbar of the police car (using radar) was visible over the crest from where we started, but for some dumb reason neither of us noticed. When we did notice it, the shut it down immediately and went hard on the brakes. We ended up pullin over and stopping before the police car even got up onto the pavement and to where we were, which was the one thing I think saved him (the driver). I guess the officer figured if we could stop that fast, on a no access road, then he could look the other way. Anyway, he made sure we knew this was a one time give-away, and the next time was mandatory jail.

So there really is life for the old Bimmer. Thank god. My 325 is the best driver I've ever owned, but the power is not up to what I'd like. Perhaps in the next decade, if we still are burning gasoline for transportation, I can try this.

Thanks Jon, When I was able to use the 280ZX calipers front and rear with the same size rotors on both front and rear (300zx front on front and '87 Maxima fron on the rear), it was on my race set-up which had a different weight distribution and tire combination than is the current street set-up. Back then the proportioning valve just barely allow the correct bias adjustment. Now that I've gone to a street set-up, I've installed the Cressida calipers (which use a slightly smaller piston) on the rears, and an '86 Supra set-up on the front (larger rotor) so that the proportioning valve is once again affective in biasing the brakes.

Makes me wonder if it would withstand a rock ding at speed without cracking, especially in cold climates.

Dan, I agree about the S30 convertable opinion. The profile on the Z is too important to lose. With that said, I experimented with a picture of my Z as a convertable:

I'll start things off. One of our favorite members is attempting a Mazda swap (20b as well?) that, last I heard, has become quite a challenge in that the turbos do not fit without some creative surgery. If the Z car you want runs well, then IMHO, I'd look at the chassis first. Installing suspension, and brakes, that provide you the feel and safety you're looking for. While doing this you can "sleep" on powerplant ideas so that when you do make a decision, it won't be one you regret later.

I did on my current intake and water pump. It sure makes cleaning easier, but gasoline does seem to soften it up (or the warm temperature, or both), so I try not to wipe it, or clean it while warm. Otherwise, the clearcoat has stuck very well. I still cannot get used to the glossy finish as I keep catching myself trying to wipe off what appears to be fluid on the intake or water pump, when in fact none exists. Especially the water pump area, "Is it leaking or does it just look like water on the pump?"

Not from the bow-tie crowd here, but the Ford V-8 has one head (and cylinder bank) offset from it's opposite side by about the same amount.

I can atest to the fact that even the typical fence type of spoiler works well in downforce. On my red Z posted earlier, I was hauling a few pieces of thin-wall 1/2" counduit. They stuck out the back too far to close the hatch so about a foot of it was left sticking out past the car. At about 80mph, the downforce on the hatch was sufficient enough to push down on a the short amount of lever moment (about 4 inches) to cause the much longer end (about 6 feet at least) to raise up off the floor and hit the bottom of the dash.

As to the front rotors, I am thinking the front SX rotors are smaller than the 300ZX four lug rotors. I say this because I put the Maxima rotors on my SX and they are of larger diameter than the OEM front SX rotors (and the same size as the 300ZX rotors) by at least 3/4".

This reminds me of my younger years when I cheated the racing rules by running an aluminum intake when the stock intake was required (small town racing and rules were not enforced too rigidly). I ground up a lot of iron, spinkled it on a wet intake and let it rust. After enough "coatings" of this to make the manifold look rusty, I clearcoated it was a flat clear. I was eventually called on it, but it it was fun not so much in any gains, but just as an exercise in "creative thinking." Yes, I hang my head in shame when I think back upon the indiscretions of youth.

It sounds like too small a wire size. Generally, if your wire speed is too small for the current setting (or current setting too large for the wire speed) you'll get a stuccato effect in the process of welding as the arc stops and starts in quick cycles. Too slow a speed and the wire wants to push the head away from the work. I'd experiment with spacing the head a little further back letting the shielding gas help cool the wire if you can't put a larger gauge wire in the machine.

I'm in the process of getting newer pictures of this (my old z) car for RacerX. This rear spoiler far and away provided better comments on its design than anything else I built for the Z. It starts about 7" below the hatch on the ends of the quarters, and sweeps up and aft much as the 250GTO rear spoiler does. It is a 3 piece spoiler that has the end pieces bolted onto the quarters, and the center onto the hatch. This is a poor scanned polaroid, but I've been allowed to photograph all my old bodywork on this car as soon as I can remember to carry my camera when I'm in the neighborhood of the car.

That's the first ZX if seen without a rear bumper, and it looks great. One thing to remember if you were to find an acceptable way to reinforce the back of the car is, what happens to the rest of the car if the back does not "give" in a collision. I thought about doing the same thing at one time, but decided that in a limited range of collision speed, a dinged up rear panel will be a lot easier to fix than a straight panel that is behind two buckled quarterpanels that were bent because the rear panel didn't give any. That's why they had shocks on the bumpers

From what I can tell by the pictures, it all appears normal. Here is my R200 from the front, and this still requires the passenger side shaft to be about 1/2" longer than the drivers side.

I may be misunderstanding your question, but I think you're seeing the pinion centerline as being offset toward the passenger side (because the ring gear is offset toward the drivers side), which is common with all the differentials, and allows the two halfshafts to be equal length (or almost equal). The rear cover may be centered, but the pinion centerline will not. BTW, I cannot open your pictures.

I give up..... What and where is "top gear". I've not heard of this one, and that places me in a rather awkward position being you'd think I should know this.

Some of this topic was discussed about a month ago in reference to dropping the engine by using spacers. With the use of the spacers, the rack and inner pivot point is dropped right along with the motor. This will then drop the roll center as well. The body will remain in the same position reference the wheels or the ground (ride height) as the body height is a function of the springs, which sit on the strut, which is unaffected by the location of the inner pivot point.

Anybody notice that the Mustang race was on the same identical strip of road that the old Dariius video against the bike (R1 ?) was on?

Unfortunately there are no "kits or plans" for the Ford install that I am aware of. Many here who have the Ford install have done so within their individual design parameters, so there are almost as many methods as there are conversions for the SBF. Member "alsil" has made and sold motor mounts for the SBF I believe. I solid mounted my 289 being it was being raced at the time, but the solid mounts have posed no problem for the street duty the car now sees.

I couldn't deal with the closer wheel either. I ended up shortening the column by the same amount that the wheel was moved closer.

The Cleveland should fit. I believe the dimensions of the block are very close to those of the Windsor (with the exception of the water passages, even the heads will swap). I'm not sure here, but I believe it will weigh more than the Windsor, and be close to the BowTie in weight. Sounds like an interesting swap that is do-able.

Old timer here, but hopefully someone with more recent head knowledge will jump in. Your '72 heads will work fine for your application. I don't know the combustion chamber volume on yours, but I'm guessing it should give you an easy 9.2 to 1 CR. The 351W heads offered a slightly wider intake port on the earlier generation heads, but I don't know if this was true later into late '80s. If you're looking at spending a minimal amount of money (e.g. not buying any of the newer aluminum aftermarket heads), I'd stick with what you've got.

True. Some styles of PP increase pedal pressure the further they are engaged, and some maintain a linear pressure, and some have a centrifugal assist. For the most part, I believe that the pressure plate pressure is the sole factor in this regards, and that this stress on the fork is the same, regardless of the mechanical advantages (or disadvantages) upstream in the clutch system. Know the characteristics of your PP will help in this regard.

Your rational of comparing the bores is correct. The first thing I noticed as I read your post was that one SC would work in disengaging the clutch, and the other did not with only 15% stroke difference. I would think that a 15% difference in stroke would not be a factor here unless the smaller SC was just barely small enough (meaning a smaller one may be more desirable). If both SCs were correctly bled and operating well, then I'd consider a move to perhaps a 5/8" bore SC being it seems that pedal pressure is still "light" as you say. Or a slightly larger MC bore, either way will provide a longer stroke, but firmer pedal. Anyway, the total mechanical advantage is a compilation of pedal leverage X hydraulic leverage (MC bore/SC bore) X the throw-out bearing arm leverage. Then, as you said, you also must include the pressure plate leverage as well.