blueovalz

Lets get this "average" age up a bit. 47 here, and so far I've been able to outlive this Z, but it's a close race!

Keep the pictures coming as I like any documentation on swaps as unique as this one. I am surprised in the length of this motor and always assumed them to be very short. To see the what appears to be a complete use of space between the crossmember and the fireway surprised me.

Unless you enjoy mechanical challenges, this would be too complicated to try, but I believe the old 510s that were raced had some kind of serated plates the were used to adjust camber, which were located on the arms themselves. You might try looking up some old 510 tricks.

With economy of wording, Aux said it all. Once you max out the wheel wells (usually with an 8" wheel on OEM springs, and perhaps 9" with coilovers, then the flare is the limiting factor and there are a bunch to choose from. Here is an 11" wheel and what was required as far as body work. The flare could be a bit tighter, but I built these when I was racing with 12" wheels in back.

Wished I could have been there.

looks good. Keep any tips comming our way.

Dang it!!!! I'm headed out of town Monday. Oh well. Perhaps I'll be able to stop by in MEM some day when I'm up to see my boy. In the mean time, the only time I every had these symtoms was when the pad clips (that hold the pad in the bracket) were not fully seated, or improperly placed, causing them to scrap against the rotor. It was on the outside diameter of the rotor that was being rubbed.

1750 lbs. I believe this will be a record weight for the Z. I had a somewhat heavier composite body with a 400lb motor, and gutted (really gutted) interior and the best I could do was just over 2000 lbs (the only glass was a windshield). I figured that with a thinner (thinner gauge) composite body, narrower wheels and tires (I had 10" and 12" duralites), and a lighter motor (such as your 13B), I could get close to 1800. My "heavy" panels, which had street duty as a consideration and hence their added thickness, placed the entire front clip, including hood at 75lbs. Doors are 9lbs, hatch is 19lbs, and quarters at 10lbs each. That's about 130lbs. Super thin ones in CF could get this down to perhaps 30lbs. Unfortunately, the cage added 100lbs to the then 2000lb car, and my asperations for ultralight went down the tubes.

Funny to see this string. Today at the gas station, while filling up, I noticed the car next to me had these wheels (Dayton) on it. As I was examining them, I thought to myself "SCARY!" The important thing in transfering torque from the axle to the rim is spokes that run off a tangent from the hub, paired in opposite directions, out to the rim. This places the spokes in a tension mode to support the torque. On the wheel above (Dayton), no such spoke configuration exists. Though there are many more spokes, the problem I see in this design is all the spokes exit the hub radially. Obviously, these wheels are tested for strength and durability, but the design scares me. I wonder how much distance there is between the inner and outer row of spokes that keeps the wheel from collapsing under high side loading. If you compare this design to the example of the Ferrari wheel, you'll see a larger hub size, to rim size ratio, as well as the tangentially oriented spokes (seen as a strong crossing of the spokes). IMHO, this wheel above was meant for beauty and not much else.

What set-up are you using on the back?

There have been a couple of different approaches toward the manual transmission install. I do not know enough about other's approaches to add or comment on them, so I'll instead describe my approach. I am using the road track version of the T-5 which has a .80 overdrive gear. You may want to find one a little taller than this (e.g. .65 or so) because with my 4:11 gearing, 70mph hovers around 3K. Anyway, pressure plate movement is provided by a McLeod hydraulic throwout bearing, which gets rid of all arms and parts that normally take up space outside the bellhousing in the transmission tunnel. The master cylinder for this can be any aftermarket (Tilton, or Girling for example) 3/4" bore type. Most of these aftermarket MCs have the bolt pattern that very closely matches the Z bolt pattern. I have a heavy (high sprung) pressure plate, so I chose a 3/4" MC. For those using a lighter clutch could probably do well with a 7/8" as I think some have done. This will provide quicker action along with additional pedal pressure.

Thanks, but I'm no pro (if I was, I'd have some shiny paint on this thing by now). Transmission is a personal preference. For me, my car is the embodiment of old school hot rodding brought into the 21st century. Fat tires, manual transmission, rough idle, and the appearance that the only person that can tame this beast is it's creator. Personally, I love the manual, but it is more complicated to install than the auto is.

Al, don't be a stranger! Glad to hear things are looking up for you and yours. Keep in touch and remember, "Z car not required" for you to grace our site. When the time is right, a Z will come your way again. Take care

While I was modifying my lower control arms last night I paid particular attention to the TC orientation. At full droop the TC rod, once disconnected (released) from the lower control arm, maintains a "natural" position of maintaining the lower control arm about 3" higher than at droop, which is just about the static ride height. This surprised me somewhat being the car is lower than normal. I pushed around on the rod a bit to get a "feel" for it's flexibility, and now feel more confident that I can avoid some of the problems listed in this forum. BTW, I'm running the OEM rubber bushings with an extra washer (thick) between the steel end plates and the step in the rod so that the rubber is compressed more than normal.

Any targeted torque figure? 400hp at 4000rmp is a different animal than 400hp at 8000. I've got a WC-T5 behind a 289, and it handles an estimated 330lb/ft of torque (380hp) very well, but thats at a higher rpm than most are comfortable with.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think you'll find a better sizing of racing tires if you stay away from the 15" and go with the 16" wheels.

I too enjoy seeing new paint jobs roll through the forum. Looks great.

I've done the swap. But new rotors can be had for about $100, and rebuilt calipers for not much more, so $600 is a lot pricy. It's a good swap in my opinion and very simple and requires only minor modifications and the manditory use of the 240Z hubs (17mm wide wheel flange).

Don't EVEN get me started on this subject (not unless I can go ahead and put my 50mm cannons in the headlight holes of my Z and blast all those unconscious cell-phone drivers)

Pete seems to be snake-bit in regards to pictures of his Z (remember last year?)

Ahh yes. Something good to see before signing off. Thanks

Thanks Jon. If the peened part of the nut is not sufficiently cleared away from the threads before unscrewing the nut, you'll end up galling the threads in a fustrating attempt to remove the nut. Take your time here on the issue Jon spoke of. It will save you time, and aggravation, later.

I've got engine near status as long as I'm next to my Blueovalz......bada boom..... come on, not half bad for acute gearheadidis.

Yeah Tim, but you're closing in on it!

This picture brings up another factor which has not yet been discussed. When the nut at the end of the T/C is tightened, it tightens the bushings until the inner sleeve makes contact with both outside steel flanges. When this happens, the bushings no longer compress, and any over-torque applied to the nut then only pulls against a "step" in the rod. In the above photo, it appears this is where the rod snapped. I am curious as to how much of an effect this would have on accelerating the failure by over-torquing this nut. If I remember correctly, this is a self-locking nut.