Sven

Pretty damn impressive.

The AFR 185's are great, I have a set too. Beware- make sure you have your pistons flycut for clearance, or just buy new ones. Everyone I talked to said you cannot use them without more clearance, even with the factory cam. I haven't been to Kuwait yet. I spent 4 days in Bahrain last year, and didn't get to see all that I wanted to because the guys with me were lame. We angered the Taxi Mafia while we were there somehow. They have angry cabbies. Kuwait's on my someday list.

I thought it said on Tein's website the EDFC works on all their newer struts? Having to have soft struts revalved puts you right back up there with cu$$$tom struts. Damn.

I'm interested in the Tein's too. I've seen some Japanese and Australian cars online with Teins, but never a descrition of how, or what model struts they used. I would love to be able to use their EDFC, it's a digital controller that can adjust damping real time (@$350).

At that price, I hope you offer combined shipping!

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you looking at things to prepare the Datsun for the swap, or recommendations for what to use from the MUstang? Use all of it. I say while the motor is out, put on some decent alum cylinder heads and cam it. You could make it really easy by using the matching Performer RPM heads, but there are many options. The RPM is a bit extreme of an intake to have with factory 5.0 heads, and is costing you torque when you aren't on the nitrous.

Umm, I am dumb, I never pasted the link. Actually, my first post was just me typing from memory. Hypercraptastic is all me (Hypereucraptic is another favorite). I checked my numbers afterward to make sure I remembered correctly and didn't lead you astray. Here's the link: http://www.mustangworks.com/articles/electronics/eek-vs-eek.html Here is another site link with a bunch of related info, along with several Wesley articles in PDF. He really makes complicated concepts easy to understand. http://fordfuelinjection.com/?p=20

Tony D, that's pretty cool. Thanks for posting it up. Do you have any views of the front end of #236? I imagine it is already in one of the heavy mod classes with the body changes already on it, but it seems like they sort of went halfway? Just nose, chop, roof strakes, and wing. No skirting or rear diffuser or pan. It's hard to tell, but I can't see an undertray up front either. I hope I don't sound critical, the car is neat, but it just seems kind of odd. Are there some weird class restrictions that only allow certain combinations? P.S. I dig the khaki.

Somebody give this man a tracing of a triple carb intake! (sorry I can't help, mine is quite literally on the other side of the country)

I found a pretty good article detailing the electronic buggery that hurt the 94-95's power. It's written by Mike Wesley, who is pretty much the god of Ford electronic tuning.

The lower MN12 (T-bird/Cougar) intake manifold required to clear the SN95 hood is more restrictive. It's just a matter of asking air to make sharp turns. I've held both intakes in my hands and compared them; it's a case of crappy vs more crappy. The other issue was the introduction of the EEC-V processor and OBDII. The emissions stranglehold got much tighter, and many people have issues with these processors. The factory programming those first couple of years leaves a bit to be desired. They retard timing between shifts and other icky things, while just not being friendly to modifications. More than one company made a harness to use an older EEC-IV ecm in a 94-95. IIRC that alone made for a .4 sec 1/4mi improvement on a stock car, not chump change. On the upside, they got a 2mm larger throttle body. Hooray 2mm. Officially, the 94-95 has more power than the '93. A year earlier the '93 was downrated to 205hp with no real changes, other than it being the first year of the hypercraptastic pistons. Ford claimed they changed their rating method. Meanwhile, most dynos were showing around 205rwhp. Probably just done to make the SN95 cars look better when they came out.

OTM, here's a goody I found down the line from the ones you posted. There's even a 200SX,RX-7, and RS200 (one of my favorites when I was little).

Well, that was quick. I found details. Would have been equipped with a 10.5 to 1 Chrysler 340 and 5 speed, if they had ever gotten off the ground. If anyone's interested: http://pages.infinit.net/amphilot/monica/monica1.htm

This car seriously resembles an S30 from the cowl back! Well, a Z plus two doors and a 914 nose. It's a "Monica", made by an Englishman and Frenchman with a Romanian designer. This really hints at what a factory 4-door could have been. It would be an easy Photoshop... I'm trying to find more on this car, maybe some other side and rear 3/4 views. Post 'em if you got 'em.

That is a really good question, no one here has thought about that one. Hmmm...

Gollum, that really sounds like more of an alignment issue, particularly toe settings. You can have touch-feely alignment, smooth tracking at speed, or a compromise.

Tony, It just so happens that very book arrived today. It's awesome. I got a few of the relevant charts and pics for you. You can see the many improvements added to the basic S30 design, a tidying up of details. I haven't found any yarn testing yet, maybe you're thinking of another book... one that I'd really like to see. Excuse the pics, I didn't want to break the spine scanning the book. I've been reading up on ducting design also, it is surprising how small you can make the opening if it's designed correctly for the given HX size. Anyway, on to the pics: