TimZ

That's probably a good idea- as others have already pointed out, the GT42 is probably not the best "first" turbo. I don't get boost until ~5000rpm, and power stays pretty flat all the way to the 7800rpm rev limit. If you want to make the kind of power a GT42 can deliver with an L-series, you should plan to build an engine than can rev that high reliably and that can breathe at those RPMs. Then you need to worry about whether the driveline can handle it (both the trans and the diff, not to mention the axles, suspension, brakes, body and pretty much everything else on the car). Just last Friday I appear to have found the next weak link in my engine - I had a valvetrain failure at ~7700 rpm. Not a huge failure as I was able to limp home, but it looks like I was seeing some valve float at ~7700rpm and a lash pad failed, of all things. Now I have to go and revisit the my valvetrain to see what can be done to raise the reliable rev limit. It's much better to set your initial goals lower and ease your way into things. You'll learn a LOT more that way, too. Just because a couple of people on the forum have made some big big numbers doesn't mean that you will, especially not on the first try. Both JeffP and I have spent literally years refining things, trying different things, sh1tcanning things when they didn't work and starting over. None of this stuff is easy, none of it comes cheap, and it seldom comes in a kit. Hell, a 300hpZ will scare the sh1t out of you and most of your friends, and will be much easier to achieve and maintain as a first effort.

Is high vacuum a problem?

I agree that it's probably too much work for a regular WC T5. Has anybody actually proven that the KA trans is really stronger than the n/a trans? Not saying it isn't - just saying I've only heard anecdotal evidence. Before I changed to the T5, I was using an na 5-speed from an 81 ZX. With a fresh rebuild, it help up pretty respectably until I started pushing more than 400hp to the wheels. It's been a couple of years, but I don't recall having to do anything special for the bearing retainer - what machining were you referring to? As far as the shift rods - I don't think we had to do anything special there, either - either the Ford rods fit, or we were able to use the Datsun ones to be honest, I just don't remember which, but there was no "one-off" solution required for that.

The point wasn't to use a plain-jane WC t5, the point was to use a gForce T5 gearset (rated 650lb-ft, 650hp), and have it package just as though it were a stock zxt T5. As I recall, the whole WC T5 center section should bolt up to the Datsun Bellhousing and tailshaft - I think you were making this sound harder than it was. The clutch mod was a complete no-brainer - I think clutch specialties charged me $40 to swap out the the hub for the correct spline. McLeod hydraulic TOB was a bolt on and works with the stock clutch mc. The speedo gear was epoxied in place and works fine with my stock speedo and cable The biggest headache was adding material to the tailshaft and machining for the new output shaft seal, but that still wasn't that big of a deal. That and modding the input shaft to fit the L-series pilot bushing

Are they actual flywheel bolts, or are they just bolts that happened to fit? I don't believe that the actual flywheel bolts are "strectch-able" - if they aren't pitted or visibly damaged they should be fine. You might want to check for hairline cracks in the crank at the crank threads.

Okay, well I'll take credit for making you take another look under there. Glad it was that easy to fix.

As far as I know, there are no flywheel bolts of this size and thread pitch that are available in a longer size. You could probably go and find something at the hardware store, but that would most likely not be an appropriate bolt for this purpose. this did get me thinking, though. OTM - do you notice this sound all of the time, or just when the clutch is disengaged? If it's just when it is disengaged, then it could be the same problem that Datsunan posted about... http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=120974

This was my point in mentioning that the quoted post is talking about pressure plate bolts - NOT the flywheel-crank bolts. I don't believe that there is any issue with the flywheel-crank bolts being too long. Seems like I've seen this get confused several times.

That post is talking about the bolts that fasten the pressure plate to the flywheel - is that what we are talking about here, or are we talking about the bolts that fasten the flywheel to the crank?

When the diff mount was replaced, how were the bolts that fasten the mount to the diff oriented? As I recall, if you install the bolt from the top such that the nuts are installed at the mount (i.e. bolts pointing down), then there isn't enough clearance to keep the bolt from hitting the crossmember on decel. It's a bigger pain in the arse to install this way but the diff bolts need to be pointing "up" (so the bolt head is between the mount and the crossmember) for clearance.

Take another look: I think what Rob is saying (if he isn't, he should be ) is that the current piece necks down at the splines - if the OD was kept constant, a 32 spline axle should be possible.

The radiator hot side should work fine for the drain. For the source, the only water pump access you have is for the inlet, so that would not work - you'd be pulling water from the hot side of the rad, instead of dumping it there. The drain plug (should be the same one that Joel mentioned) at the back of the block near the turbo would work better.

I figured they wouldn't be driven this way, but just wanted to point out that you'll want to move them on a flatbed/full trailer (NO dollies), and preferably a flatbed/trailer with a decent suspension. I do know that some of the highest shock loads that production cars see occur when being shipped via rail with the suspension tied down...

I seem to recall that the S130s changed to "rear steer" (knuckle and rack behind the kingpin axis, instead of in front on the s30). If this is correct, then the s130 gear would steer backwards in an s30.

I agree - that's a good idea. One thing to consider, though - how are you transporting the cars to the test site? This method will increase the shock loads transferred to the shock towers tremendously, so I would only consider flatbedding the cars for transport, assuming that you don't want to disassemble/reassemble the suspensions once you get there. Maybe let some air out of the tires during transport to soften the ride a bit...

Could also be a leaking exhaust manifold gasket - this can sound a lot like valve clatter, and could come and go with engine load.

Which Miata seats were you looking at? I just installed a set of 2003 Miata seats, and the seat backs are at least an inch taller than the stock 280 seats were. They are set pretty low in my car, and there is definitely not even close to enough room to fit your head between the top of the seat and the roof (referring to the neck snapping statement).

Grade 8? Those are metric threads - no such thing. Do you mean grade 8.8? If so, those are roughly equivalent to "standard" grade 5.

Note that the Innovate wideband that was tested was the XD-16. Not sure about this particular sub-forum, but many people on hybrid (including myself) use the LM-1, which isn't exactly the same. I think the main difference aside from the display is that the LM-1 combines the signal ground for the analog output with the heater circuit, which causes undesirable voltage shifts if you are using the LM-1 analog out as your EGO input. This can be remedied with a simple external differential amplifier buffer circuit, but it's just something to be aware of if you are buying new or currently have the LM-1.

I guess I was thinking it isn't very good insurance if it can come loose just as easily as the part its trying to "fix". Also thinking that its troubling that it suggests a pretty MAJOR design flaw in the Kameari tensioner. Heresy, I know...

...So who is the best moderator?

Ummm... okay... So this brings to mind a couple of questions. First, the existence of this piece leads me to believe that there must have been some issue with the Kameari piece coming loose (not very encouraging). Is this the case? Second, ASSuming that this is the reason for the existence of this gizmo, what exactly keeps it from coming loose? Seems like if you are going to the trouble of such a belts-and-suspenders solution, the least they could have done was drill the bolts for safety wire. Then again, if they did that it might become evident that that was all that was needed for the Kameari piece in the first place. I think I'm gonna make another piece that bolts to the A/C pump mounts that holds the tension keeper in place - takers? It's only $500...

I agree with this, with a couple of caveats... In the series application, the first pump will be able to flow more than "normal", since it will be pumping into the inlet of the second pump, probably with a negative relative pressure. How much this helps the flow depends on the pump, but it can make a pretty big difference. Check the manufacturer's data (I know flow charts are available for the Walbro) and compare flow at 45psi vs. flow at 0 psi. Also, the second pump's flow chart will (I think - 95% sure ) be shifted upwards by however much the first pump has increased its inlet pressure. On the parallel application this is true, provided neither pump has an internal pressure bypass that comes into play (like the stock NA Datsun EFI pumps, for instance)

The BHJ damper pictured is a two-pulley design. I think they can accommodate a third if you have a zx with power steering

I've been very happy with my BHJ damper: http://www.bhjinc.com/2dynamics/