TimZ

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Call me stupid scottie, but what good are the 280z stub axles if they're only a coupla hundreths of an inch thicker anyhow? Does anyone actually have a chronic breakage problem? I think that the fact that the 280 stubs have more splines is what makes them more desireable. Presumably, you would be doing this upgrade to accomodate higher torque, so the thinking is to start with the strongest pieces. Whether the 240 stub was a weak point to start with, I'm not sure.

Andy - there was both cable and vacuum control on my 78. Cables control the heater **** and some of the flaps, but there is a vacuum controlled water **** that is in series with the temp control heater **** , that is used to completely shut off the water flow to the core when the a/c is on.

Scottie... repeating my dumb question from before, do I use the stock Nissan CV bolts for the m8x1.25, or do I need to find something else? I'm mainly concerned about finding a bolt with adequate shear strength if I can't use the oem bolts.

Well, it doesn't look much like the Delco alt that I'm using. You do realize that it has a pulley for a serpentine belt, right? IdealZ might be able to provide a bit more insight...

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: The TWM throttles are individual throttles - so there is no central throttle body for TBI. I don't think a tec2 will run TBI anyhow, but I could be wrong on that. First off, the TEC will do TBI with no problem. That's not what he was talking about, though. TWM refers to the Mikuni replacement throttles as 'throttle bodies'. This does not not mean that they are the same as TBI. The injectors do mount directly to the TWM units, though, so that might have something to do with the nomenclature. Actually, I think that it's just a generic term for a housing with a throttle in it.

quote: Originally posted by Morgan: Throttle body injection on the TWM throttles from a tec 2? What? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Ummm, the only thing that didn't make sense to me was this response... what's wrong with that setup? As for the original post, it looks like you've spared no expense on the rest of the hardware - you might consider going with a full T4, instead of a hybrid. They don't lag that badly, and unless you are also going with 315 section width rears, a bit of lag might be your friend. The ceramic center section won't make that much difference in the RPM that you start making boost. That's more a function of your turbine housing and compressor maps. Where it does make a difference is in throttle transients where you are already in the boost making RPM range. In other words, if you were cruising at part throttle at, say 3500 rpm, and suddenly crack the throttle open. In this case, it does make a noticeable difference in how quickly the boost comes on. Usually people's eyes get real big when I do this...

Hey, if you could post the Ford part number for the sender, I can try to get you the specs for it. The part number should be a 3-part number, like f5cz-14a464-aa, or similar (that won't be it, but you get the idea ).

quote: Originally posted by Scottie-GNZ: BLKMGK, the adaptors are threaded, M8x1.25. Okay - one more question... do the Nissan CV-to-companion flange bolts work with this, or do I need to find something else?

Since the TEC is really intended for use with any number of engine modifications, there is really no way that they could have a single '1983 280zxt' wizard button. I'll have to look again, but I was pretty sure that the wizard just needed basic engine parameters, like displacement, compression ratio, and injector size. I thought it was supposed to come up with IOT, TOG, and an advance curve on it's own. Even still, don't expect any miracles. This is only intended to get you running - don't expect it to run perfectly with just the wizard settings.

I think that I responded to a post a while back that you made on zcar.com. As I recall, you were using the Wintec software. It has a wizard that is supposed to come up with basic setting for you - just what you are asking for. Are you having a problem with that?

Scottie - could you maybe repost the picture that you had posted a few months back of your adaptor? Last time I checked, the picture didn't show up in the old post anymore...

Scottie - I'm in, as long as I can have them in my hands by March. Summers are short here, so I need to limit my down time to the winter months . Not trying to be a pain in the ass, but I missed almost the entire summer last year, due to waiting on having stuff fabricated - not doing it again this year... jeromio - I paid $125 for my pair of cv axles shipped.

Well, don't feel too bad - at least it was off in the safe direction - would've been worse if the fuel pressure had been too low . One thought - I agree that it's suspicious that you were able to verify a 1:1 relationship on another vehicle, but it's also suspicious that both the gauge and the FPR showed the same error (4psi high) on your car. Are you sure you trust your mityvac gauge? I'm kind of in the same boat - I've been trying to do a conversion from kPa to relative gauge pressure (+psi, -inHg) for my datalogger. The math conversion is simple enough, but the readings are about 10% low when I compare to my mityvac. Now, I'm just not sure which gauge to trust. All of my test pressure gauges are setup to read relative pressure (including the mityvac), and have a 'dead zone' around 0psi, presumably to allow for differences in atmospheric pressure. Anybody have a source for a truly accurate pressure gauge? [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited January 28, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by Evan Purple240zt: TIMZ, can i get that in english please? Are you saying that its better to use a rising rate fpr or not? I am NOT using a rising rate fpr. Well i dont think the SX unit is a rising rate fpr anyway. Evan I said nothing about a rising rate FPR. I was referring to a pressure referenced FPR, which is what most EFI systems require, including the SDS. This was mentioned in an earlier post, as I recall, but I'll go over it quickly again. 'Rising Rate' and 'Pressure Referenced' are two distinctly different types of regulators. This is important to understand. A pressure referenced regulator simply maintains a constant pressure difference between it's reference port (i.e., manifold pressure) and the fuel rail pressure. Let's say you are using a 35psi pressure referenced regulator, as is used in the stock Z. If you have zero manifold vacuum, then the fuel rail pressure will be 35psi. If you have 20psi of boost, the the fuel rail pressure will be 55psi. Remember that the injector has to spray into the manifold, so the pressure that it sees is 55psi minus 20psi, or 35psi, which is the proper pressure for the injector. A Rising Rate FPR changes the fuel rail pressure in a non-linear fashion. Usually, if you have manifold vacuum, everything works as before. But when you have manifold pressure, the fuel rail pressure is increased by an amount (usually 2-5 times) greater than that of the manifold. So, if you have zero manifold vacuum, you'll have 35psi. If you have 20psi boost, you might have anywhere from 75 to 135psi of fuel rail pressure, depending on how the FPR is adjusted, and how much pressure the pump can actually supply. The idea here is to increase the flow capacity of a fairly small injector to allow it to function in a higher horsepower application than it was designed for. In general, a pressure referenced regulator is necessary to get a properly tuned EFI system. A rising rate is only necessary if your injectors are too small for your maximum horsepower requirement, or if your maximum horsepower requirement is so high that you can't get a properly sized injector to work at idle. If you run constant fuel rail pressure, however, you will have the worst of both worlds. In order to be able to supply enough fuel for max power, you will need to run a fairly high rail pressure, like 55psi or higher. At idle, then, the pressure that your injectors will see will be more like 65 psi, and you may very well not be able to make the pulsewidth short enough to keep from running wildly rich. Because all injectors have a minimum pulsewidth that they will react to, you'll most likely end up at a setting where the minimum pulse is still too rich, and you'll oscillate between too much fuel and none at all. To sum up - if you run constant fuel rail pressure, you'll either be too lean at max power, or you won't idle well. Sorry - I know this is wordy, but I don't know how to make it any clearer. [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited January 27, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by randy 77zt: if a person was installing a programmable efi system like sds it seems like it would be better to run system at set pressure at all times instead of using a regulater that varies pressure by manifold vacuem pressure.like a constant 50 psi and make all adjustments with injector pulse width.i think the system would be easier to program this way.please post opinions ABSOLUTELY NOT. The reason that the fuel injection regulators vary the fuel pressure is to keep the pressure differential across the injector constant. The pressure differential is what matters, NOT the fuel rail pressure. The constant pressure differential is what allows you to reliably infer fuel flow from injector pulse width. If you keep the differential constant, then the change in fuel flow is pretty much directly related to the injector pulsewidth (i.e., double the pulsewidth, double the flow). If you were to hold the fuel rail pressure constant, then the pressure differential across the injector would change with manifold pressure, and NOT in the direction that you want. At idle, you would have the highest differential, say 35psi fuel rail pressure plus 9psi from the manifold vacuum (I'm assuming 18inHg vacuum, which is -9psi). Since fuel flow varies with the square of pressure, your 400cc injectors would flow like 450cc injectors, requiring you to artificially shorten your pulsewidths to compensate, if you can. Now let's say that you are running 15psi of boost. Your injector pressure differential is now 35psi minus the 15psi of manifold pressure, or 20psi. Your 400cc injectors now flow like 300cc injectors. In other words, holding the rail pressure constant will decrease the dynamic range of your injectors, and make it very difficult to tune properly.

AEM used to carry it, too. Haven't talked with them in a while, but I would imagine that they still do. I'm not sure what you have for injectors, but if it's at all possible, I'd recommend switching to o-ring style injectors (if you don't have them already). They are much, much easier to work with than the hose barb style. I have both my manifold and fuel rail setup to use o-ring injectors, and I can r&r them in about 5 minutes. I was talking with James (240Z turbo) recently, and he mentioned having found suitably sized oem injectors that used the stock Z mounting config at the manifold, and had o-rings at the fuel rail. Don't remember the specifics - maybe he will chime in.

In addition to Kinsler, both Aeroquip and Earl's make a banjo fitting adapter that should work, as well. The banjos can be had with either single or dual -6 hose outlets. Note that this would not be a male fitting - the banjo fitting is the hose end in this case. Both have two different 12mm thread pitches available: 12mm x 1.25: Aeroquip #FCM1070 (single -6 outlet) Earl's #807691 (single -6) Earl's #807991 (dual -6) 12mm x 1.5: Aeroquip #FCM1067 (single -6) Aeroquip #FCM1068 (dual -6) Earl's #807692 (single -6) Earl's #807992 (dual -6) Any Earl's or Aeroquip dealer should be able to get you one of these with no problem. All you have to do now is verify your thread pitch - I'm pretty sure it's 1.5, but I included the 1.25 part numbers just in case.

I know you didn't like their prices on the surge tanks, but I am 99.99% sure that Kinsler stocks the metric to AN adapters.

Pete Paraska has a scanned picture of the chassis dimensions for a '73 and '78 Z on his page. Try: http://members.home.net/pparaska/bodydim.htm That is what I remember seeing posted here recently, anyway. BTW, if this is what you were looking for, IdealZ has the Factory Service Manuals scanned on CDROM for ~$40US. You should be able to get the same info for the '77 there. http://www.ideal-z.com/ (Craig posts here fairly often and is really good about not spamming the forum with idealZ ads, but since I have no affiliation with idealZ, it doesn't bother me to recommend them )

quote: Originally posted by Mikelly: OK, Then here is the question... How much are we talking to put 13 inch rotors (1.25 or smaller thickness) and wilwood billet calipers on the front of a 5 lug Z? Interesting side note on the Wilwood billet calipers... I talked to a tech at Wilwood a while back, and inquired about 'upgrading' my current cast Wilwood calipers (AZ Zcar - similar to Pete's) to the newer billet style. The tech told me to stick with what I had if I was worried about caliper stiffness, as the billet calipers were not as stiff - they just look nicer, and were more popular with the hot rod/show car crowd. Now, I'm sure that nobody will believe me on this, as it still sounds strange to me. All I can say is that it wouldn't hurt to call Wilwood and confirm this - I believe that the billets are quite a bit more expensive.

This question can up a while back on the mailing list. I went through my 'archives', and found this response from Carl Beck(reprinted without permission ): >Hello everyone, (the car is a 71 240) > >I was wondering if someone could shed a little light on my reconstruction and >fine tuning of my front suspension. >....{snipped..cjb}.... >There is a half an inch difference between the the left and right sides. With >the driver side being further forward. This is cleary visible by looking at >the tire in relation to the fender wheel opening. The wheel doesnt "look" >centered in the wheelwell. In addition the car turns in better to the left >than to the right. And when ya look down at the drivers side tie rod from >directly overhead it is angled forward compared to the other side which looks >to be going straight out. > >Ok heres my quiery, should I bring the driver's side back to being even with >the passenger side, or vice versa? Hi John (everyone): From many many years ago - as I understand it - the difference between the right and left wheel is factory stock, original and intentional. Don't change it. Having the two front wheels off-set front to rear, aids in directional stability and steering response. I don't claim to understand exactally why - but that was the word from the Factory Service Rep when we ask him in 1970. We also noted at the time that we could find nothing in the Factory Service Manuals that specified this right side to left side difference. [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited January 21, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by pparaska: Evan, interested in your stealth approach. I want just decent tunes in my Z, but I'd like it to be clean and efficent. I just did a stealth stereo install in my Z last winter (every winter has to have a project, right?). It was not 'show quality', but I am very pleased with the results. I used a pair of Infinity kappa series 10" subs, and Polk speakers in the doors and in the stock speaker location. Not nearly as high-end as what Evan was talking about, but they are quite impressive, nontheless. The part that I am most proud of was the enclosure for the subs. I built it from 3/4" MDF, integrated it into the tool box area, and managed to get the proper box volume for the speakers, while keeping the entire thing _under_ the package deck. At first glance, it looks totally stock. The woofers fire forward, behind the seats. Unfortunately, I didn't take any pictures while I was putting it all together, but I'll try to get some of the finished product, sometime,if anybody is interested.

I also have the AZ ZCar brakes. They work very well, and I've never faded them. They are not for the faint of heart, though. Installation requires the elimination of the stock proportioning valve, and installing an adjustable one in it's place. I routed mine inside, to make adjustments easier. Also, as Pete alluded to, they come with no provision for an e-brake. Mine came with a manual line-lock device, which could be used to keep the car from rolling when parked, but this would do you no good in the event of a hydraulic failure. Pete - I've been meaning to ask you about your modification to the rears to add the spot caliper as an e-brake. Do you have any pictures? I'm really interested in this, as I'm getting tired of not having one, and the line-lock can't be trusted for more than an hour or two at a time.

quote: Originally posted by Mikelly: (snip)...Now I'm gona move the hole further outboard so I should clear the washer all together, allowing me to leave it and just weld in the new ones. I've been meaning to comment on this for a while now, and this looked like as good a place as any to jump in... I agree with most of the comments that have been made so far, and agree that there are definite benefits to increasing the camber gain, but I have no faith whatsoever that either of these mods will 'cure' your Z's bumpsteer (at least, not on the first try). I've done this adjustment, both on my Z, and on several of my prototype vehicles at work. To actually achieve zero bump steer, or close to it, takes a fair amount of trial and error positioning, and very small changes in the location of the pivot point can and does make noticeable changes in the bump steer curve. When I first started being interested in this, I bought the spacers, and tried them - they actually made by bump steer worse. This was most likely exacerbated by the fact that my suspension pickup points had been moved laterally in order to adjust camber - which is exactly the situation that you are talking about above. If you were to start out with known stock suspension geometry, then either of these mods might be directionally correct, although I still have my doubts. Otherwise, all bets are off. With all of this in mind, I can't envision any way that moving the pickup point 'about 3/4"', or adding a pre-made spacer will get you there. It might get you closer, it might not. The only way to know for sure is to measure the bump steer before and after, which isn't that hard or expensive to do - just time consuming. A better option would be to remove the stock reinforcement washer, slot your holes vertically, and assemble the inner pivot assembly with new washers on the bolt. Adjust the pivot point until you are happy with the bump steer curve, and then weld the washers down in this position. The drawback to this would be that you might end up with different camber gains right to left if the optimum pivot points end up appreciably different. A better still option would be to go ahead and relocate the pivot points as you originally intended, and fab some heim jointed tie rod ends, and make your bump steer adjustments by shimming the tie rod ends. This decouples the camber gain adjustment from the bump steer, and allows easier adjustment of both. The drawback, aside from having to fab up the tie rods, is that I'm not sure about the legality of this mod (or any or the others, for that matter) for any specific racing classes. I'm sure that JohnC could enlighten us on this... [This message has been edited by TimZ (edited January 20, 2001).]

This question got discussed a bit about a month ago - check the post 'SDS question' posted by Morgan on DEC 19 in this forum. Don't worry about the repost - it's easy to see how you could have missed it...