Gollum

I have a couple 280ZX cars around to measure if needed. I also have a 280Z but the engine is still in it so frame measurements might be difficult, but those should be easier to come by around here. There are VERY few parts that differ from the 2+2, or at least less than you might expect. Pretty much the only pieces that differ greatly are the ones that span the extra space they added. Corner windows, seats, driveshaft, brake lines, etc. For the most part they're otherwise the same and very interchangeable. I'd say there were many more changes from the early models to late models than there were from 2 seater to 2+2.

Thanks for the help guys. I'll find the wire and see what's what and get it wired correctly.

So I've been rewiring my car because a previous owner started hacking it up real bad, so I've just been removing all that I don't need or want. I'm basically hacking it all back to what's absolutely necessary. Somewhere in the midst of it all I guess I unplugged/removed something in the brake system I shouldn't have, because I've lost my brake lights (tail lights turn on when headlights are turned on). What's really strange is that I don't see a reason for this. I've jumped the wires at the brake switch to see if maybe the switch was bad, but I'm still getting nothing. The wires at the switch are BY, and I believe they go to the upper blue plug at the mass of connectors on the passenger side (only two BY cables traveling together, there's only one other BY wire). I pulled the connection box off to see what color they are on the other side, they're still BY. I then noticed two lovely paired BY wires going into the fuse box. I haven't pulled the fuse box yet but I went to the back of the car and there's a single BY wire that goes to each tail light... Am I having a power supple issue and not a switch issue? What's absolutely needed for the brake light circuit to close? I'd previously removed the warning lamp along with the hazard switch and pretty much anything in the center console, so that's not the issue because my brake lights worked fine after that.

No pictures, but she runs again! Took me a while to get it all sorted out, but she runs, and I've got almost all the wiring in place for the time being. Only problems - No brake lights and no headlights My headlights were already sketchy before, with only the brights working, so I'm going to bust out the multimeter and see if I can find the culprit. As far as the brakelights, I'm not too sure. It seems kinda odd because the wiring seems to be pretty simple and I don't think anything I deleted could have caused the circuit to stop working, but obviously something happened. So I'll have to diagnose that as well. Could be a lot worse. I'm happy it's only those two issues.

Thanks for the input. I pretty much understood the theory behind all that, I just had no clue what pin on the ECU it was, and I'm still not seeing where it had been spliced in before, so I'm still kinda left in the dark on how it was all hooked up, but that's been the story of my history with this car. Still lots to revamp and correct. I'm just going to leave it on the ignition for now, it'll do.

I ended up hooking it up to the ignition key's "ON" position. Car fired right up and seems to drive fine. Before when I went to the on position the fuel pump would prime for 5 seconds then shut off, now it just stays on. Oh well, it works I guess.

So I'm 99% finished wiring my car back up after several months of downtime and I've got it turning over again, but gawd the conversion done on this car sucks big huge monkey balls. There's two wires that come up from the fuel pump relay in the back. One I'm 100% positive was hooked up to constant battery + and there's a second wire that I can't seem to figure out where it was hooked up to before. I'm worried I might have cut or pulled the connector off and didn't mind what it was hooked up too (moe134%!F4k!) If you guys need me to I can post up some pictures, but I'm sure once someone reminds me what the fuel pump wiring is "supposed" to be switched by I'll feel like an idiot and go hook it up. I tired searching for the answer, and went through the turbo wiring guide but it wasn't of much help. Part of the problem is that my car is so freakin' hacked up. I really want a new turbo wiring harness to start over from scratch. (or just drop a V8 into it...) Thanks in advance guys.

I can understand feeling safer on a bike and I don't even ride, yet. I feel safer in a manual than I do an auto, why? Because it's so easy to just not pay attention in an auto for me. I can make a 1 hour drive home and completely forget where it all went. I'm much much much more aware of the drive, who's in the lane next to me, who's following me, etc when I'm in a manual. I can see the same being true for motorcyclists when comparing it to driving a car. That being said I've come close enough on several occasions in a car to not trust other people enough. If I've avoided so many serious accidents in california at my age (21) by and large pure luck, then I don't want to risk it on a bike.

Is it possible? I'd say so. Likely? Not really. I can see the potential to make a 100mpg vehicle, but engine transplant alone into a vehicle like a fox body mustang or a GTM seems unlikely. But let's consider this - A lot of fuel economy comes down to two main factors, friction loss and air mixture. The brake specific fuel consumption also makes a big difference but I've seen "efficient" engines that span the range on that one. If you built an engine to a high RPM race quality build it would reduce friction a ton. Removing as much weight from the pistons and then crankshaft and rods in conjunction while putting a low friction coating on the pistons would go a long way to reducing friction. We also know he's running E85, and almost guaranteed some form of aftermarket EMS. E85 can run much higher compression, and is also much more tolerant to mixture changes. Considering there's guys out there getting 60mpg with nothing more than lightly modified civics and highly modified driving styles, I could see a efficiency minded V8 build with the right driver getting 100mpg. But it still seems far fetched to model a business around. EPA standards are EPA standards. As soon as one of his cars goes through all it's certifications the truth will be revealed. My biggest concern is that there was so little information on his site as to why his engines can reach 100mpg while having decent power numbers. Most of the companies out there pushing the limits are glad to at least talk shop a bit and share the basis of their ideas.

Ok, second update for the day, and I'm not done yet today! I need to get over to my other cars to scavenge some parts off of them. I'm almost to the point of starting her up again once I get a few more wires hooked up and the battery back in again. I've moved the battery back to the engine bay for the time being, I needed the space for the wiring that's all too long with nowhere to go. So here's the current interior shot as it stands: (shot was my second attempt at a HDR image for you photo geeks out there)

Wow, two updates in two days! Expect another tonight. I'm debating leaving it like this for now. The OEM gauges aren't round, kinda kidney bean shaped, so I'm considering leaving them out for now. Besides, Tach and Boost, what else do you need?

Well I'm out of school (yay) so time to start cracking down on the laziness that's been my car. I want to get this thing back on the road for the summer so I'm using our upcoming meet as motivation to get it done. That means it needs to be drivable again by Saturday, so I've got 4 days to make it happen. Here's the new dash panel I just fabb'ed up tonight with that piece of stainless I had sitting around. I've decided it'll do until I eventually start working with composites and I'll make a new dash then.

As others have said, more power to you, and take lots of pics! As much as many of us don't find this practical you'd definitely have one of most original setups. I think you'll have a hard time getting the weight bellow 1800, but even at 1900 pounds with 200hp that's a fun little car. The only thing is that I wonder if it might just make more sense to start off with the engine you plan on using in the long run.

Imo the shaved rear makes the tail lights stick out like a sore thumb. I can see why some of the other modified rear ends i've seen on S130 cars have used different tail lights. Even the stock ones would be fine if you could find a way to recess them in a bit to make them more flush, might be pretty cool even.

I want to know how you plan on loosing that much weight since the stock engine only weighs about 400 pounds wet + about 75 for the transmission. You'll obviously loose weight in the radiator and water in it as well, but I still don't see 600 pounds being lost just in the engine change. I thoroughly believe you can loose 600 pounds of the car total, but I'm just not seeing that much weight to be lost in the drivetrain unless the engine + transaxle setup you're putting in only weighs about 50 pounds.

These rims where specifically designed with the S30 in mind, not a S130, or a S13 for that matter (pictured above). A 5x114.3 rim IS pictured on rotawheel.com, which I believe is Kim's site. I'd just call him up and see what's available. Odds are most rims he has are much more likely to fit your S13 than our old S30's which need negative offset in most cases.

Yea, now there's a 2+2 with the torque it deserves.

Don't worry, there's those of us that respect your thread too. I saw the S130. I leaned over to by brother and mentioned it immediately, he hadn't noticed.

I think I just puked a little.

I think one of the big things that keeps a lot of people from doing it is unfamiliarity of the engine. There aren't many newer engines being put into Z cars, even on these boards. It takes someone with bravery to just do it. We have many of those types around here, they just normally choose engines you can pick up for next to free somewhere. One of the more interesting swaps (in my eyes) that's being done right now is a BMW V8.

Sorry bleach, just read the specs for myself on your site - 16x8 +4. Good choice on wheel sizes I think. How are you liking the offset tire widths?

What specs are those rims and tires? Those aren't the group by rims by the looks of it. There's a surprising amount of room left in there.

I hadn't realized we were talking about the beetle air cooled engines, as you never mentioned bug, beetle or air cooled in your initial post. It'd be an interesting swap to say the least. 200 hp can be had with relative easy from the stock engine though, much more if you wanted to build up a decent 2.8 liter with a decent port job with programmable EFI. The NA 2.4 liter is pretty light too, or at least lighter than I originally thought a long time ago. For being an iron block inline 6 it's very light.

So sure? I'm not going to try to argue, but I'd say both engines are within spitting distance of each other. The VQ might be a smidge heavier, but will have a lower center of gravity, and sit slightly farther back if the blocks were mounted staring at the same point. All in all I'd say the differences aren't mentionable. You'll see more of an effect created from a full tank to empty tank. Both engines should come in under 400 pounds in NA form (dry),which is "light enough" for most applications. Verified weights can be found of both engines in the enginer/trans stick on this site under the misc tech section, though they're hard to compare because of what is and isn't missing on each. All that being said... this car looks great. Looks like you took a "perfectly good" 350Z and turned it into a perfectly good car finally (just kidding, i've grown to respect the 350Z but i'm excited to see this project progress)

Correct, which is why mitsu even states in the conclusion of their research paper that they actually decrease drag, due to the reduction of boundary layer. The increase of boundary layer size is a huge contributor to the swirl in the air behind a car. You're creating a vacuum that the air is trying desperately to fill. By cleaning up this air you create a much more efficient flow path for your wing/spoiler. I think one of the biggest advantages I could see is that you don't need to run your wing as high up to get the same lift out of it, giving you better visibility, or possibly get good enough results from a wale tail type spoiler as would make street use of a wing impractical. I don't really see any downside to them, other than looking odd at first.