2126

Screw PETA and the horse they didn't ride in on! More bleeding heart liberals doing what they do best......exercise their jaws! Maybe they tend to forget we are at the top of the food chain. I know, lets do lab experiments on the homeless! And the croak of dodo about not eating living things.....aaaaaah, last time I checked, everything we consume was living at one time. I know I feel really bad when I eat an orange....I can hardly stand the screaming in addition to being squirted with an acidic solution!!!

Why would you want to have a heavy shift knob? Lighter is better as far as I can see.....less mass to move, less load on the entire shift linkage and forks, translating to less wear and better performance. Have you seen the aluminum shift knobs that have been milled out and look like a bunch of stacked up whaffers...just to save some weight. I'm curious now about why you would want a counterbalanced (what ever that might be) shift knob!

I think the reason lighter sprung clutches are not recommended for use with the light flywheels are....light flywheels do allow your engine to rev quicker and are usually installed on higher horse power cars...and some people tend to slip the clutch a bit more during take-off with a light flywheel. All I can say is, it was one of the best improvements I made on my 240.

Interesting read for sure. Isn't it funny how most all oil manufactures still tout the "change your oil and filter every 3000 miles". Its about the $$$....as usual! Mobil #1, as you know, has the new longer mileage oils....5,000, 7,500, & 15,000 miles. I'm guessing that the 5,000 mile stuff is the exact same stuff we've been buying all along....you think? I've been using Mobil #1 oil/filter in both my cars for probably the past 20 years and change it at about 5K miles. I always thought it was a no brainer.....all the good things about synthetic they promoted, over convensional oils, convinced me that changing your oil/filter every 3000 miles was just a waste of money. Now some 20+ years later, they decide to promote to the public what they've known for decades! Interesting, yes?

He's obviously not a structural engineer!!! Fat ***!

Well, maybe our friends to the north thought it more economical to just send him south and let the authorities here deal with this poor misguided youth....I mean freak! Nice hair cut, by the way!

As a daily driver, the puck type clutches are pretty grabby...no conducive to normal street driving. Other than that, I'd say you should expect some broken parts now and then, especially if you drag race it. As you likely know, setting up a drag car vs a road course car vs an autocross car are three completely different animals. Keep us posted on your progress.

Your entirely welcome...just glad I could assist a fellow Z freak! And hey, lets thank Mr. Terry Oxandale for providing the info on the conversion......it certainly shortened my learning curve, back when I was trying to figure out what to do with my Z brakes, on a limited budget. Thanks Terry!

I'm certainly going to try and be there! Last time was really fun...got to meet some great people and had great conversation and eats, thanks to Mr. Tim and who ever else helped out. Tim, did you enjoy the bottle of scotch I brought ya? Tom (2126)

Datsunan, For a quick check on the lower portion of the car......you can use the string method for checking to see if the chassis is square. Use reference points on the outer most suspension members and measure from the left front to right rear and compare it to the measurement from the right front to the left rear. The measurements should be the same. Be sure you have the car sitting on relatively flat ground and use the the same reference points relative to each side. If you think you may have any bent control arms, measure from the control arm pivot points on the chassis.

Well done....one more box checked off the to do list!!! I had the same issue when installing my late model 5 speed. Blast thoughs POS plastic F'in misalignment tools anyway!

Where are you heading with this project, drag racing?

WHITTIE, I'm not certain on this but, I think the 280ZX front brake conversion (Terry Oxandale's street conversion) may fit within a 14" steel wheel. Check out the archives for brake conversions. This setup uses a 300ZX vented rotor, turned down to fit under a 280ZX front caliuper. Add a 15/16" master cylinder, some good pads and some S.S. flex lines and you should feel a big improvement over the stock brakes.

THUNDERZ, Terry's suggestion is certainly another way to do the job without a bridgeport and removing the strut from the Z. One suggetion however, if you don't own a nice digital caliper...buy one! Us it to gage how much material you remove with the grinder. Use the stock machined caliper mounting surface as the reference, that way you can ensure your new surface is in proper alignment. One other suggestion....when you get really close to what you think is enough, finish it off with a good file! It will give you a nicer finished surface and you can make any needed minor adjustments. GET-R-DONE!!!

There ya have it guys! Thanks for the input John. P.S. Blue and cupped....Now thats what you call Bling Bling!

I knew you were going to ask that! With a bare bones strut (completely stripped for easier handling) I mounted it to the table of a Bridgeport mill, taking great care to ensure the axle stub was square and perpendicular to the table, and then proceded to mill away as little as possible to get enough flat surface for a spacer to bear against it without becoming unsquare when the rotor bolts are torqued down. When I milled the other side I milled away the same amount, for consistancy. That way the spacers would be interchangable side to side. You can also use the stock milled area on the ears as a reference for squareness and perpendicularity. Does this help?

Well JM, I thinks its like any other engineering exercise.....its always a trade-off! Give up a little of this for a little of that. My personal opinion is, it's more likely an initiative to sell more product.I think some people use the word "BLING BLING" to describe such items. I would hope that a reputable brake company wouldn't resort to that, but hey. Shoot, this design has been used in the mountain bike word for a number of years. Do they work any better? I don't know, but I'll bet if you ask someone who has shelled out the $$$ for them will tell you how incredible they are. Now if you can loose the unsprung weight without loosing any brake surface area and they survive as well as the round type, which is debatable, then it should be a plus up item. There's always a price to pay.....just one man's opinion.

I have done the conversion (Terry's) and have had zero issues. I am using Metal Master pads and they appear to contact the rotors perfectly, inside and outside surfaces. The only step in the conversion that is not covered to well is mounting the 280ZX calipers to the stock mounting ears on the front strut housing. Since the 280ZX calipers mount to the opposite side of the ears, which are a rough cast finish as opposed to a machined surface for the stock caliper mounting, I milled the rough side of the ears so I would have mounting surfaces that are square to the rotors/axle stubs. Of course, Spacers are required to center the caliper over the rotors. If by chance you did not true up the mounting ears before adding the spacers, your calipers may not sit square to the rotors....hence the pads not making full contact. Just some food for thought.

37:11 does equate to 3.36.....37 divided by 11 = 3.3636364

Tony, A search though the archives will enlighten you on wheel fitment for the Z. Basiclly, by taking a few measurements of your existing wheels and fender clearances you should be able to determine what will or will not fit. I'm running 17"x 8" in the front and 17"x 9" in the rear and have no clearance issues (my Z has been lowered 1.5" to 2" as well). Some of the tire/wheel manufacture sites provide a lot of info on figuring offset and backspacing too!

As a mechanical engineer, you should know the answer! Welding springs is a no no. They will eventually fail at the edge of the weld, not to mention changing the temper in the coils. Even if you weld the coils together, it will not improve your roll situation to any great degree, but it will limit the travel. Coil bind is not a desired suspension function.

I had the same head room issue when I installed my Sparco seats. To get the required head room I needed (I'm 5' 10" and long in the torso), I had to install the seats without any slide adjusters and mount the seats directly to the existing factory seat floor rails. Of course you have to determine the correct reach to the pedals before drilling any holes. It's nice to have adjustable seats, but not so nice when your head is an inch away from the head liner....and if you intend to compete and have to wear a helmet, you will certainly need all the head room you can get. Sorry I can't provide any pics!

Of course this is just one idea......based on my experience with a very low Z, the biggest problem area is the ground clearance 1/2 way between the front and rear wheels. Driveways and speed bumps tend to get the closest to the under side of the chassis at this point. So as a suggestion, you may consider installing the oval shaped pipes, that are used on corvettes. The side profile on these pipes are much less than a 3" diameter round pipe and provide the same flow. Also, you may consider a side exit exhaust just in front of the rear wheel (like a cup car). Would look similar to the old TransAm cars. Just some food for thought!

As was once said...."If it ain't broken, don't fix it!" Or, as an engineer might say......"If it ain't broken, fix it until it is!!!"

I couldn't tell you from looking at them however, I believe I read that the 280ZX cv's are a three ball set-up and the 300ZX CV's are a five ball set-up. Apperently, the 300ZX CV's can handle more torque. If you search the archives, I think you may find pics for each one.