Psykovertible

wow. that sounds like a small air cleaner. especially with a drop base. you dont notice the motor choking or anything? man if that's the best i can do i may reconsider the "cold air indiction" type gittyup with a carb "hat" found with ati procharged carburated cars. maybe i am making a big deal of nothing though. I dont plan on running more than 6500 RPM. it'll be about a 406SBC built to run between 1500-6500 with 400-500 HP/TQ.

I would like to know as well. Block huggers get the job done but I simply dont like the way they look. I was about ready to order a set cause $400+ dollars for the hooker long tubes that may or may not work with the newer MSA mounts is a big gamble. I'm gonna have to sit down and learn how to use that formula someone posted about calculating what tube size is actually needed. Shotening down tubes looks to be doable task but will the tubes be TOO short at that point to take advantage. Dont want to cut our own throats on this one.

I would venture to say that if you are 300HP or less it is not a concern. More than 300HP and aggressive driving may warrant a simple 4 pt cage.... just to tie the car together. you can beat the car with a lot more HP before it falls apart. one of the guys here, i think "fast frog" was running low tens with no cage but it was starting to do damage. a solid 13.0 sec Zcar should have no issues...in my opinion.

I searched old posts for a while but had not luck. I am trying to figure out what the largest airfilter is that can be used with the MSA mounts. I want this 15" oval i was looking at on ebay so it matches my valve cover but dont know if it'l fit. i remeber hearing its tight but not how tight. I am trying to avoid a cowl if possible. I like the lines on my car and dont wanna cut it up.

something i dont know is how deep is a stock oil pan. i dont have one to look at so when i hear 7 inch sump i have no frame of reference my dad told me i should use the vette pan cause its stock depth but hte sump goes further forward to hold an extra quart.

PROJECTRB240SX i like the look and i trust the name of moroso but there is not dipstick spot in the pan. only has a "oil level sight plug". am i missing something on that one or is that the case?

for the sake of comparison. my msa mounts are made from 2" box tube. when i measured them from centerline of bolts (bolt that goes into crossmember to the bolt that goes into the center of the rubber mount) it measured 2.75 inches. on the driver's side mount... there is a 1/4" spacer welded onto the bracket for clearance. they look...at a glance... to be the same basic design. can you get a rough measurment on the one that are mounted without too much trouble?

the newer msa mounts are a far cry from their first series from I understand. I want to play with some of the hooker brand headers as i do not think the s&s ones will fit well as far as ground clearance. s&s is just north of bethany on 55 drive i believe it is. they should be in the white pages or get address from website. it is in a culdesac and is a marked building up on the left. Does anyone have a picture and or a set of hooker headers we could take measurments on? i am dying to know how far they hand down in comparison to the s&s. the msa mounts i have appear to put the motor withing a 1/2 inch roughly each direction of JTR

my bad. BTW Tim I looked again at you webpage and saw that it was you who created those schweet look tyi-y headers. I think i would really like to have something similar. For the sake of being cheap I am gonna give a set out of a Camaro a try because they are likely free and available. Would sure be nice to skimp out on one major expense to get me ahead in this game.

looks like he is in So.Cal. for southern california

I wrote to JTR in email and asked: For my Datsun I am shopping for an R200 and have run into small snag. There is some confusion as to which works or not. I have the manual and it states that if my diff has the 2" pilot i should swap it for one that is 2.25". However, on the JTR site I read where I can buy a flange for the 2" or 2.25". Do both of these adapt flanges utilize the same large GM u-joint or do they use different u-joints? The response read: Both flanges use the Dana 1310 u-joint, which is a very common u-joint, and was used on GM cars in the 1960's and 1970's. Therefore, it does not matter anymore according to that email from Mike Knell which pilot diameter anymore as they supply one for each taht takes the big u-joint

i know this is an old post but i think something may have been overlooked as a simple answer. on the JTR webiste i read: Driveshaft adapter flange note: The driveshaft flanges that bolt to the Z Car differential and uses a Dana #1310 U-joint, which was commonly used on most Chevrolets in the 1960s and through the early 1970s. The pilot diameter on the DAT-110 flange is 2.25 inches in diameter. All 1970-1978 Z Cars (except 1975 models) came with the 2.25" pilot diameter. 1975 Z cars, and 1979-1983 (ZX) cars came with either a 2.25" or 2.00" pilot diameter. If the differential has the 2.00" pilot, use DAT-110-2.0 ($65). does the one for the 2" pilot not use the large u-joint? it looks as though they provide a flange for either. please help as i am getting close to a puchase of R200 that has the 2"

I may be down for one of these. I would need to have a solid number for total cost involved. I need everything. I have no starting point except my muncie 4 spd that I am trying to avoid at this point. T5 all done up G Force style and ready to bolt in and fill is what I need. I want to focus my attention on details and not spend money on the same thing several times before finding something that works. I actually need the bell housing and throwout stuff too. Obviously I would likely rely on you all to finish the combo off and make it work.

i dont have one to offer but i am excited about the oportunity. I would like to see a set like mike, i think it was, made that were a tri-y type setup. on a less complex note. i only need a 3/4" primary to a 3" collector and a reducer to 2.5 inch pipe. nothing more. that should be plenty to hold my 400 -500 hp i'm shooting for.

i second that grumpy. I would be willing to pay 20-50 bucks depending on how many areas of engine concepts convered. you could even turn it into profit and a hybrid fund raiser.

good to hear the progress. shouldnt be long now and you will be on the road. going to the msa show in california when april comes. if by some miracle mine gets up and goes i will be there. and i mean miracle. that would be running and driving....with one seat,,, no interior,,, no paint... no no no no no. long list of missing parts.

fuel system in place? throttle and tv cable made/in? cooling system?

is this fitment using a stock style pump or the larger diameter holley style pumps

actually no. could you expound on that formula so that idiots (me) can plug numbers in more easilly.? what is "p" what is "cc"

I dont know but I have a used holley red electric fuel pump i will sell cheap if u want it. a mechanical pump would be kinda cool for less clutter i guess. no wires no fuss

and dont foget to make sure its shifting. if its not or it manual valve body you will be trying to drive in just 3rd which will will suck and burn the trans up

i was all hot and moist over the prospect of getting the S&S headers which is one of the reasons i went with the MSA kit. However....... the MSA kit apppears to be only 0.25 inches forward of JTR mounting, 0.25 inches higher than JTR on passenger side and surprisingly lower on the driver side by thickness of set back plate which is 0.31 inch thick according to my JTR manual on driver side. is there really any notable difference..... am i missing somthing.... or is my math screwed. MSA setback mounts are 2 inch box tube. driver side has 0.25 inch plate that raises the mount for steering clearance. rubber mount is same. there are no other parts. JTR has the set back plate and the spacers. can someone with a JTR book check my math please. if i am right there is no notable benefit of MSA vs JTR when talking about long tube headers

those spacers designed to provide a little hood/air filter clearance as well as firewall/bell housing. a little goes a long way for the fuel lines in the tunnel from ive been told

id go t-5 hands down to get the overdrive. search on t-5's on google or here and you can find a place that makes an upgrade for the t-5 that makes it hold up a little better. I wrested with wanting to use my muncie M20 but really just decided to go for the overdrive.

as an uneducated guess i would say that it is mostly just different. however, with a big cam that does not build much vaccum......... the exhaust could run the crankcase pressure while the limited vaccum provided bya cam witha small lobe seperation anlge would better run the brake booster. i dont know if my theory is flawed but it seems reasonable that there is only so much vaccum to go around so the less operating on it the better shouldnt be an issue for me casue im gonna order a cam that is about 500 lift with a 112 LSA and a 240-250 duration. should be more than enough vaccum.