wheelman

I cut my stock belt, routed it through all the pulleys, compressed the tensioner a bit with a wrench and blocked it in place, cut off one end of the belt where it overlapped itself then measured that. BTW: pretty much any standard 6-rib belt will work. Just ask the counter person at the parts store for one of the length you measured. The current one I'm running is from an Isuzu but I put the PS back in mine so yours will be shorter. I believe the one I ran with the A/C and PS delete pulleys was 60 inches, but I custom made my setup.

I need to correct the trim specs (apparently I wasn't wielding my caliper correctly). The correct specs for the wheel trims are: Compressor - .60 trim Turbine - .70 trim

Nope, straight T3. The specs on the one I have are as follows: Compressor A/R .60, Turbine A/R .63 Compressor trim .59, Turbine trim .69 I'll have to check the trim values when I get home but I know the A/R values are correct.

I don't know anything about the stock Skyline pump. The GM pump I'm using produces about 1300psi which works fine with the Subaru rack, if the Skyline pump produces more you may want to use the Heidts valve referenced earlier in the thread, if it produces less then the steering will be a little heavier but should work. I think the hardest thing you'll find with using the Skyline pump is plumbing it, but who knows it might all just bolt up.

260zShooter, I bought the Subaru steering shaft when I picked up the rack. It consisted of 2 u-joints with a rag joint between them. I separated the u-joints from the rag joint and made an adapter which I welded to my stock Datsun steering shaft after shortening it ~6 inches, then I bolt the Subaru u-joint to the adapter. This is a PDF I put together documenting the process I went through installing the Subaru rack. Page 6 contains a pretty good picture of the setup. http://www.vikingds.com/zcarguy/Power%20Steering%20install.pdf

Mike, I replaced the larger rear bar that was on my SX with the smaller one you sold me, it made a big difference in the way the rear end hooks up. There's a road I use here to test suspension changes, I used to be able to easily kick the rear end out in the corners, now it just hooks and if I push hard enough I actually have a little under steer. It'll take little getting used to, the Z is setup pretty loose and so was the SX, but I think I can be faster with this setup. In fact, now I'm thinking I want to find a stock 280 rear bar for the Z, see how much it'll tighten it up.

I was reading my latest edition of Grassroots Motorsports, the article about the $2008 challenge. They published a link to the build website for one of the competitors. It's a V8 powered 68 Bug. Pages I found of particular interest: Days 11-15 shows a couple pictures of a 180 degree header system the guy fabbed up. Unfortunately the pictures don't show a lot of detail but they're still cool. Days 66-70 has 2 videos of them running tests at the drag strip. This thing has a very unique sound. They built the car in 77 days. Here is the link to the home page: http://cam777.synthasite.com Enjoy!!

Yeah Mike, like you I need POWER!!!! I like the SX but once the revs go above ~4000 it sort of falls over, so on goes the turbo (hair dryer). It wasn't the single auto-x that convinced me I wanted to turbo the car, that was the plan from the beginning. I just wasn't going to do it this soon, actually it will probably happen next winter. I want to finish the stuff I plan for the Z so I can auto-x it next season rather than the SX. I also want to use this season in the SX to improve my driving skills, rely less on the HP and more on the driving to win. Mr. Makenoskenokaskosy didn't have much influence on my decision. Yes it bugs me that he beat me in PAX (PAX is for wimps anyway) but considering I was on almost bald tires and in a new car I didn't do to bad. If I had been able to keep my last run clean I would have beat him in raw time by almost 3 seconds and PAX by almost a second. I'll have my new Kumhos on this weekend so he better watch out. So, will you be back seat driving the SX or the Z? Can I be the front seat driver? What class are you running? Or do the mods you've made force you into XP?

Will do!!!

Ok guys, I'm the one that initially put together the Celica inner rod ends with the Subaru outers. Keep in mind this was with a 1999 Forester rack which has 14x1.5 threads in the end, some of the later Subaru racks have 16x1.5 threads so make sure to check before you buy these rod ends. Here is the Moog part number for the 1984 Celica inner ends I used: EV167 I used stock Subaru Forester outer rod ends, the taper on them is identical to the stock Z outers. The Moog part # is: ES3712 As was stated in a prior post, it's almost impossible to get the Subaru rack as low on the crossmember as the original Datsun rack, so if you want perfect geometry you have to move the outer pivot points. If you move them up enough to match the rack location you might as well move them out as well. One caveat here, if you totally rebuild the crossmember it would be possible to mount the Subaru rack as low as the Datsun rack, but then you can also place the inner LCA pivots where ever you want. To answer the question about whether the PS pump will over drive the rack asked many posts back. I'm running mine with a stock LT1 pump and have no problems at all, the pump has a built in pressure regulator and the Subaru rack uses the same pressure as a GM rack. The Heidts valve is used when you combine a GM pump with a Ford rack. The Ford system uses a lower pressure (~800psi) so when you hook a GM pump (~1300psi) to it the rack is over-driven and becomes very twitchy (extremely fast reacting). My overall impression of the swap is very good, the steering is light and quick without being twitchy. I run 265/45-16s for auto-x, without the PS the steering was way to heavy, after a day of auto-x I was totally beat from wrestling the car around the course. Now I'm tired but not exhausted and the racing is more enjoyable.

Ed, I've been running those fittings and that hose ever since I got my Z back together. I used them for the fuel system and to plumb an oil cooler, never had a problem. I used the same method Scottie-GNZ used to assemble the hose, squirt a little WD on the fitting and a little inside the hose and it goes together relatively easy. JohnC Thanks for posting the link to that catalog, I'd never heard it was good idea to clamp the push-on style hose ends. Do you think worm gear style clamps would be sufficient?

I'm going to be building the motor that's in my current DD 1992 240SX. It's an SE hatchback in pretty good shape. I did a compression test and all cylinders were at 185psi or above. It's a nice car but could use a little more power, I ran across a T3 turbo from a Merkur for basically nothing but the cost of a rebuild and decided "Why not?".

Jerry, No hurry man, I did some searching on KA-T and NicoClub for Gladman, it appears the manifolds he built are for a KA24E, mine is a KA24DE so probably wouldn't work. It also seems he no longer fabs them. I decided to pick up a cheap bottom mount tubular manifold I found on ebay. I haven't received it yet but as soon as I do I'll let you all know what I think of it. I don't plan to sart the build until next fall/winter so it'll be a while before I can report on fitment.

Thanks Jerry, BTW: Aren't the RB20 turbos T25s or T28s? I know the Z31 unit is a T3 which is what I have. If I'm correct about the RB20 unit the flange on your manifold will be to large. I should be clear that the T3 I have came from a Merkur. Wheelman

It would probably be cheaper just to convert to the JTR mounts and shorten the driveshaft than have a special shift lever fabbed up. Wheelman

Jerry, Which exhaust manifold did you use? I recently picked up a 92 240SX and am collecting parts to build a KA-T. So far I have a T3 turbo from a Merkur, .63 A/R turbine housing and .60 A/R compressor. It needs a rebuild but the wheels are perfect and for $50.00 I think it was a pretty good deal. Anyway, I've been looking at exhaust manifolds and so far the one I like the best is the log style from JGS Precision, but $400.00 is more than I really want to pay. Did you build your own or get a used one? I'm going to run Megasquirt. I have an MS2 and plan to run the Extra code in it so I can play with the built in over boost protection and boost control. Could you post some pictures of your engine bay that show the manifold and how close the turbo is to your brake master cylinder and booster?

I agree, the exhaust is probably a bit restrictive, if it was a boost leak you'd notice lower boost than you expect through the entire rpm range with more lost on the low end than the high end. How much boost are you trying to maintain? Wheelman

Ron, Are you running the T25 or T28 turbo? There's a guy who's a member (logrmyk) here who I auto-x with that just swapped an SR into a Z. It's definitely no slouch and doesn't seem to have the high RPM boost drop off you describe. Wheelman

MJLamberson, Yeah, those 4G63T motors can make tons of power and are very tough, assuming the tune is good, but the transmissions in those cars are trash. Mine was very notchy even after I replaced it, that's another reason I got rid of it. I was always worried I was going to blow-up the tranny or break and shift fork or who knows. Like I said the car was fun on the highway and tearing up a back road but around town it sucked big time, but that's my personal experience, YMMV. Wheelman

Grim, Have you ever driven a car with the characteristics you say you want around town? Last spring I bought a 1990 Eagle Talon TSi and put it back together thinking I would like the rev happy 2.0L turbo motor. I replaced the stock 14b turbo with an Evo 3 16g so it would have a little more punch but ran it at stock boost levels (max 12psi). After driving that car around town for a couple months I was done with it, having to rev the thing to 2 grand just to get it moving and then get back out of the throttle to stay out of boost so I didn't run into the guy in front of me got VERY old. On the highway or a back road the car was a lot of fun but around town the lack of low end torque made the car miserable to drive. Think about that when you're day dreaming of a 9000rpm motor. I got rid of the Talon and now have a 240SX with the KA24DE. I'm much happier with the KA, it has the shim and bucket valve train like the CA but it has gobs of low end torque. So when I put a turbo on it I'll have the best of both worlds, low end torque to tool around town and boost for racing and more power on the highway. Wheelman

Close, but it's actually a flow regulator not a pressure regulator. At high RPMs the the pump puts a lot of stress on the heater core if you don't have that restrictor. I've been running my car without one for a couple years without a problem but if you have it you might as well install it. As for the heater hose outputs from the pump, just loop them if you aren't going to run a heater, I ran my car that way for a few months before plumbing the heater. Deja's idea for plumbing the steam vents into the upper heater hose is actually a very good idea and I believe the way the stock f-body is plumbed. His system has the stock upper bleeder vent which allows him to bleed the air from the system easier than using just the vent on the top of the pump. My radiator ended up quite a bit higher than the motor so I haven't a problem with bleeding air from the system but the extra vent would be nice to have. Wheelman

Mike, I'm going to have to disagree with you here, the direction of flow from the engine to the radiator is through the upper radiator hose. If the oil cooler return line is connected to the upper radiator hose the coolant will not bypass the radiator, but if it's attached the lower radiator hose it will. That's why you don't want to attach the steam vent line to the lower hose, the coolant would end up bypassing the radiator. This thread has a very detailed description of the coolant system of an LT1: http://www.impalassforum.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?p=1978454 Wheelman

From the picture it appears as though the oil cooler is fed from the third line (driver's side connection) on the F-Body water pump and then the coolant returns to the bottom of the radiator. Hooking the return line from the cooler to the top radiator hose should work fine. BTW: The steam vent line that normally passes through the TB should also be hooked to the top radiator hose. Hooking it to the bottom hose will inject hot steam from the engine into the cooled water coming from the radiator. Not sure this is such a good idea. So the complete system should have the steam vent line and the oil cooler return line T-ed into the top radiator hose, the bottom radiator hose should not have either of these lines T-ed into it. The heater hoses should both be connected the the 2 connections at the water pump the point toward the passenger side of the car. That 3/8" line at the base of the TB is part of the PCV system. Hope this helps. Wheelman

I also busted the balancer bolt in the nose of my crank the first time I reinstalled the balancer. Fortunately for me the bolt busted right where it enters the crank so I was able to use a screw driver and a pair of pliers to work it back out. Then I later stripped the threads in the crank and had to use inserts. The bottom line is use a torque wrench when you are tightening that bolt and DO NOT EXCEED 70 FT/LBS. The hub will look like it's not fully seated when in fact it is, if you keep torqueing the bolt to seat it more you'll either bust the bolt or strip the threads. Needless to say I do not look forward removing the balancer. BTW: It doesn't matter if you put the balancer back on in the same orientation as it came off, that's why it's not keyed. There are no timing marks on it and you can't time the engine by adjusting the opti anyway. It's nice to have the triangle indicate TDC but it won't affect the balance of the engine if it doesn't.

Here are a couples shots of the LT1 in my engine bay. I should really take some pictures from a little further back. Wheelman