SleeperZ

As long as your wheel center is the same as stock, or slightly out, there is no issue. The Honda wheel spacers, with a modest width wheel (7") ARE hub centric - your spacer combined with the offset of the wheel centers place the tread exactly where the Nissan engineers designed it to be. And take a look at the people who race Porsches. They space the fronts out 1" and the rears 2" using the stock offsets. Never heard of an issue from them, and their wheel offsets are ridiculous.

Normal for carbon fiber brakes. I run Porterfield R pads - they dust badly, squeak when cold, but brake and brake and brake without EVER fading.

I'm a bit on the outside here, but why on earth would a turbo timer be installed on the starter circuit? The turbo timer just holds the ignition on for a preset time after the ignition has been disconnected. What does the starter have to do with it?

Too damn cool! I'm looking forward to seeing how the rest of it fits. Nice job so far!

No doubt. I don't think child molesters are well received in prison - may he get a taste of his own medecine.

Actually, the idle problem with big injectors relates to the minimum time the injector can open and close. There is a significant amount of minimum time the injector stays open before you can close it, so a large injector on a small engine may give too much fuel for a smooth idle. So if the above people reported no trouble with 500cc/min+ injectors, chances are you won't have any problems either, as it doesn't have much to do with the ECU.

That's a cool deal and a half! Congratulations, what fun!

Does it look like a deployed airbag on the passenger side? Don't they usually break the windshield when they go off?

Bring your bowtie to race up Vail pass! It'll bring ANY n/a to it's knees.

For what I do with my car, the progressives work great. I bought them off a guy who was converting to coil-overs, and it was clear to me he was disappointed in them. Denver streets suck, and so do the highways - rutted, rough and full of holes. I couldn't tolerate a stiffer spring, and they work fairly well for me, even on the road track. They are not hard to launch on the strip either - I can work with a bit of compliance.

That turbo is going on a 427!!!!! I guess they need more torque

At this point, I do not have the time to do a formal write-up on what is needed for the conversion. I used a '86 turbo ECU; others have used later models, some non-turbo. I wanted to use the turbo ECU because I didn't know the difference between the fuel and spark curves, and I didn't feel like experimenting. The later model turbo ECUs use an expensive O2 sensor, '86 and earlier can use the old unheated type. The MAF can come from any Z31, turbo or non. I believe they are all the same. The one I used I made sure had the idle mixture adjustment screw; some don't. I was never sucessful connecting the knock sensor - I looked on Z31.com, and most people just connect one wire of the two to avoid getting a code. I wired in the fuel temperature sensor, mostly to avoid getting a code, don't know if it's needed - I suspect not. The fuel pump is controlled differently on the Z31. I rewired my pump and relay as documented in the Chilton's manual ('70-'89 Z and ZX). I highly recommend this book for the wiring diagrams. The CHT, TPS and CAS can all be used by the Z31. The slotted wheel from a Z31 distributor will bolt into the 280ZXT distributor ('82-'83) - it has a wider slot for #1 spark plug, presumably to mark a TDC reference to the Z31 ECU not used by the 280ZXT ECCS. As far as wiring, you have a few options. Some have used the existing harness from the 280ZXT, even using the AFM connector to wire the MAF. This requires the defeat of the keying to make it fit, and if you wire it wrong, the ECU is toast. I used the connectors cut from the Z31 ECU and MAF, and spliced them into my '82 harness. Lots of soldering. Another option is to use the Z31 harness, which may require relocating the ECU to the passenger side of the car, I'm not sure. Hope that helps.

If I could tell you I would. For me, it's all theoretical , I jumped ship on the AFM and went with the Z31. I am much happier as a result, I'm sure! FWIW, you could probably get a safe rough tuining on your fuel curve with either regulator. Considering a cheaper, simple adjustable FPR could get you there too, that may be the best solution before you get a better fuel management.

That sounds like a reasonable approach from the data you are taking and from TonyD's voice of experience. I think a RRFPR would be more work, and probably not necessary; a regular adjustable FPR could be made to function reasonably well.

I'm not sure adjustments are necessary purely to compensate for increased compression. The AFM simply moves in response to a given airflow, and provides an injector duty cycle appropriate for the amount of air. A hotter cam should move more air and the ECU should supply more fuel. On the other hand, the n/a injectors are pretty wimpy, so a conversion to turbo injectors may be in order, and possibly to a turbo AFM. Then you can tweek the tension spring inside the AFM to get you the mixtures you are after.

That's hilarious. I imagine he took the dump from the turbo and split it into 4, then back into one! Looks very intimidating.

A jumping tach is a DEAD giveaway for a misfiring ignition. Sucks about the AFM, I learned that lesson myself - they rarely go bad.

That's really good data Bastaad, and it surprises me, as I was fairly sure it was your fuel pump causing the leanness. Of course I was running 10psi (at my altitude) before my intercooler was installed, witht he stock pump, and running fine. But I didn't dyno it or otherwise quantify what I had. I upgraded my ECCS, then my pump/intercooler, and found how far the stock injectors would carry me. Given that, I'd have to say it's a limitation of the stock ECU, either the internal fuel map or the AFM.

I wish the search function were up and running, but I understand it costs bandwidth. I have my opinions on the RRFPR, as many know, but here it is in a nutshell. The RRFPR works well in an EFI that infers air mass using a 1 Bar MAP sensor (manifold absolute pressure) and the TPS. That's because at boost the MAP sensor reads no higher than 0 vacuum, and there is no knowledge of pressure above atmospheric. So rising the fuel rate non-linearly is effective in getting a good air/fuel mix out of the range of the EFI's ability to fuel. This is what Honda uses. Nissan, on the other hand, uses an AFM or MAF to directly measure air mass. Remember, vacuum is not air mass. If the air mass is known, it doesn't matter whether it is above atmospheric pressure or below - the EFI simply adds fuel to match the air to get a good air/fuel mixture. And the ECU is programmed to add fuel at a constant fuel pressure, maintained by the FPR that is manifold referenced. Unless you want to run richer than the factory ECU is programmed at boost - and factory a/f ratios at WOT are about 11.5 to 12:1, there is no reason to richen it any more. If you are adding fuel to limit detonation, get an intercooler instead, and make more power. A RRFPR is often just a bandaid, or a "shotgun" fix for a problem more directly solved by a good EFI system.

Is it intelligent enough to not drip where your drive wheels are going?

Nice deal, ranks with my score of an L28ET from a local scrapyard for $150 with a bad turbo. I also got a great deal on a T5 with a couple flywheels and a used Stage4 clutch for $50 - friend of mine went to automatic.

Summit and Jegs both carry them. You can get either 0-100 or 0-60 psi. Not sure about the $10, they might be closer to $20. It's just a small dial with a 1/8" NPT fitting. Mine threaded right into my FPR.

Yes, they are geared quite short, not sure why, perhaps they have higher redlines. Nice kills, but watch yourself, tickets for racing will be a serious bummer. I shouldn't talk, having torn up a turbo Honda 2 weeks ago on the freeway, but be careful.