crazy280

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, I prefer to do my work on an engine stand, if possible. I'm pretty tall and its a real PITA to bend over the engine compartment if I don't have to, you know? So does the SR use a knock sensor? It would help considering the crap they force us to pump into our gas tanks here in Cali.

YEAH GUYS!!! SCREW THOSE GREENPEACE JERKS FOR DEVOTING ALL THEIR TIME TO IMPROVING THE WORLD AND HELPING OTHER PEOPLE!!! ** **complete sarcasm

Yeah, well I figure I'll save the intake manifold upgrade to when I upgrade the turbo and ecu, so I'll only have to pull the engine one time.

I do not believe in any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I definitely have to agree with Bastaad. I'll bet my left nut that if the evidence never got out about Nixon and Watergate, that most people would have just brushed it off as a "conspiracy theory". There are so many examples of this in history. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" truer words have never been spoken. We are all only human, with good AND bad capabilities in us. When humans are in positions of power, sometimes they can make bad decisions, and its no surprise to me. Most people just don't want to hear "conspiracy theories" about the government because they just trust too much in the government, and it would shatter their little secure feeling. Like all of the "war for oil" theories. I don't necessarily buy into them, but I don't find it TOO far fetched that people who are in extreme positions of power (and who got that way through cut-throat business/politics) would make horrible decisions in order to gain more power/money, or keep control of the power/money they already have. I say question anything you read/hear/see on tv (especially if its coming from a politician). And always question authority- its what our founding father's wanted- what could be more American?

You should pull out that tranny mount and take a good look at it. I had the same problem with my 75 280z and thought the mount looked okay until I pulled it and found that it was broken. Also check the differential mounts and all the crossmember bushings. Good luck.

Well, I got under the dash again today with a friend's advice and adjusted the master cylinder pushrod as far out as it would possibly go. I had to completely remove the pedal stopper, and the pedal height is now somewhere over 9.1" (in contrast the book says it should be 8.78"). I also removed the rubber pad that snaps onto the floorpan-pedal-stopper, to give the pedal some more distance. These tricks turned out to be a decent fix/band-aid for the problem. I drove it around for a while to test it and it works fine; no grinding in reverse and all other gears engage without too much trouble. My guess is that my clutch is so worn out that the master/slave cylinders are forced to pump much farther to compensate for the distance in the clutch throw. At least there's no slippage yet....

lol, there's a reason why people call Greddy "greedy" !

Ah, ok. I had heard that the S14(T28 )and S15(T28 hybrid?) stock turbo was much better than the S13's. So I guess the T25 just can't handle the load/heat of 15 psi for very long. So is your buddy using the T25 to get those numbers? I was slightly unclear. By the way, how much do those Greddy intakes cost? I noticed you were running one on your car, too.

So I'm planning my SR swap, but I'll be limited to the stock ecu and turbo initially because of funds. I'll upgrade later, but I want to get it all setup and running first. So I'll have 3" exhaust, EBC, and FMIC, with an S13 red top. The stock turbo is what, a T25? Can I safely run 15 psi with this setup, and what kind of RWHP can I expect?

I've got two different service manuals and I did follow the guidelines to the letter.

Damn, oh well. Thanks

Great, thanks man. By the way- quaife 5 speed sequential? Oooohhh (drool)! Do you think the MSA adjustable sway bar end links would be an easier route for tuning my street setup?

Wow, free labor! So....how do I get ahold of this kid? lol

Hey guys I'm having a similar problem with my '73 240z, which is stock. When I bought it there was no pressure in the clutch pedal, so I had it towed home. I got underneath and saw that the slave cylinder was leaking, but nothing else, so I replaced it, and bled the system. This seemed to solve the problem, as I could now drive the car, but then I drove it for longer than a few minutes, and it resisted going into gear, and grinded going into reverse. So I figured I should replace the master cylinder, which I did this afternoon, re-bled the system, took it for a spin, but still the same problem. So then I adjusted the pedal so that the pushrod was deeper into the master cylinder. Didn't work. Tried the opposite, didn't work. I inspected my '75 280z, which works fine, and noticed the stopper on the floor was not as high up as it is on my 240z. But maybe it was just my imagination. So should I buy the older "adjustable" slave cylinder, or what? Are the lines corroded? Is the clutch spring worn? I'm dying here guys! Please help me! Thanks

JohnC, I've seen your 240z on other sites, very impressive indeed. Especially your lap times. I'm curious about suspension setup though. You said the difference between 52/48 stock and 48/52 weight distribution wasn't much. Did you have to make any adjustments in your setup? Also, the sr20det with turbo/manifolds/stock IC/accessories and tranny is ~490 lbs, and your L-series engine fully assembled in crate was ~500 lbs, so with tranny that would be a bit heavier (~75 lbs) than the SR swap, right? Or did that 500 include the tranny? Thanks

Very cool...dig the polished manifold

This swap is an interesting idea, but probably better suited to a Porsche 914 or something already accepting a MR setup; there's just not much room between the driver and rear axles in a Z. As far as FR vs. MR, we all know mid-engine (or front-mid-engine) is optimal for a low polar moment of inertia, and from what I've always heard, a slight rearward weight bias is better for performance driving: somewhere between 48/52 and 44/56. More weight over the rear tires (assuming this is a rear-wheel-drive car) means slightly better grip off the line. Also, braking causes weight to shift forward, so if you start with a slightly rearward bias, the (transient?) weight distribution under braking will be more evenly spread across all four tires, improving braking. Another thing is since there is less weight over the front tires, you get slightly better turn-in. And upon exiting a turn (just after the apex) there is more weight=traction on the driven (rear) tires, allowing for better exit speeds. I read somewhere that all Ferraris are designed with a rearward weight bias (even the front engined Ferraris) for these reasons. Of course, the major downside to a rearward weight bias is lift-throttle oversteer. If you let off the gas in a turn, WATCH OUT! You might hit the wall backwards! Porsche 911's (rear-engined, something like 40/60 weight distribution, too much in the rear) are very notorious for these tail-forward spinouts. So only a SLIGHT rearward bias is good, I guess... whoops, old thread...sorry

The 300zx twin-turbo tranny frequently sees 400-500 lb-ft from modified vg30dett, so I'm sure it could take the torque of the 5.6, but I don't think it would mate up to the VK-series engines. There is a guy in Japan that did a VK45 swap (plus twin turbos!!) into a 240Z and I THINK he used a Skyline manual trans, but I can't remember for sure. You should be able to find a link to his car on this site somewhere. Hope this helps. EDIT: There's also a guy named "Lost" on this site with a Z32 that has a twin-turbo'd VK45 swapped, and he's using the 300zx manual trans with it.

lol ok, maybe you guys have some humor in you too...

wow sounds like you guys have a lot of pent up rage and hate in your hearts... i thought republicans were supposed to be the "moral" ones... nuff said

JMortenson, You make a good point. I have actually had to do that a couple times in the past, where I was having problems and just had to leave. But the problem in the last few years, at least in the area I live in, has been there aren't enough well-paying jobs to go around. The only jobs left to people like me (no college degree, YET) are sh!tty minimum wage jobs. To be fair it is slowly getting better as the economy picks up. Also, the beauty of unions is that they can take on a company even when that company is HUGE and has vast, far reaching control to the point where a single employee, or even a few employees, cannot change company policies. So the union, which is also vast and far reaching to many employees, can then negotiate, with the threat of strike to back them up. Strength in numbers, I guess.

JKDGabe, I'm always happy to discuss issues like this. I don't want to go on and on right now, so I'll just make some bullet points: 1) When I talked about setting up our tax system, and you compared it to Russia, I was talking about a progressive tax system (what we have now) as opposed to a flat tax (what Republicans are pretty much headed towards). Not communism. And we DO have property tax in America, for example my county pays for much of our services with this tax, and the people continually vote to keep it that way here. And Mikelly brings up a good point that we have incredibly low taxes compared to the rest of the world. 2)When you say I shouldn't judge you as I don't know you, I agree and am sorry if you felt offended. But it is you who are judging me and the entire "welfare class" with your hateful statements. 3)I am still trying to emphasize the fact that our society is VOLUNTARY. Taxes are not theft. The story you mention about Jesus and the rich man is a good example. He CHOSE to walk away. We have a civilization here, and sacrifice is part of that civilization, if you don't like it, you can leave, just as the man in the story did. He decided not to join Christ. No one is forcing you to pay taxes. 4)I'm not trying to gain sympathy for my point. A good person already has sympathy in his heart. The example still holds true. I had a minumum wage job last year, and I had to take up a second job (while attending college fulltime) just to get by. Thank God I was able to recently find a union job (Grocery store ). Now I'm doing a little better. I agree that unions have their place, as they seem to be the only thing keeping the "see-saw" in check, otherwise it would be one-sided and miserable as it was during the industrial era. 5)You are absolutely correct, life isn't fair. But we as human beings, and as Christians/Jews/Muslims/etc, set out to make life as fair as possible out of compassion for one another, and in devotion to our God. That is all I'm asking. Mike, You know I don't blame Bush for the economy crashing, I just blame him for not doing a better job in the wake of it. I also think the surplus was a result of Clinton (and the Republican congress ) doing an excellent job in balancing the budget, along with the "dot com bubble" expanding at the time. And after 9/11 it's fair to say that most of the country was behind the president (he had his highest approval ratings), but then he blew it by pursuing invisible threats instead of capturing the ones responsible for 9/11. Just my oppinion

JKDGabe, I respect your beliefs, but we differ in how to acheive Christian goals. I never said "stealing" from the rich is the moral thing to do, I am saying that rich people giving back to the community is the moral thing to do. Taxing is a system in government that is established by the people, enforced by the people, and accepted by the people as a means to create programs that progress humanity. That is the whole purpose of government, to help CIVILIZATION, otherwise we would all be running around in loin cloths killing each other. The key to civilization is that certain things must be sacrificed for the greater good of humanity, and in our society taxes is one of the main ways. But the point is that EVERYONE in America should be afforded the opportunity to make a better life for themselves. Since the upper class ALREADY are living well, and their quality of life will NOT be highly degraded by higher taxes, it seems only fair to set up our tax system that way. The vast majority of civilized nations in the world operate this way. I'd also like to point out that under Republican leadership in the past, and especially now under Bush and the Republican congress, the wealth gap (the financial seperation of the lower and upper classes) HAS GROWN. If Republicans are being moral, shouldn't it SHRINK? In case you don't know, when Bush cuts taxes on the wealthy, that means the government has less money for programs such as social security, healthcare programs, education costs, etc. which means we all have to pay more for them out of pocket. This creates a higher financial burden on the lower classes, since these things represent a higher percentage of their incomes. So in essence, reducing taxes on the wealthy is like stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. And now there are reports that Bush is considering a "flat tax" or even a national sales tax, which are incredibly weighted on the lower classes and benefit ONLY the upper classes. Reminds me of the famous "robber barons" we learned about in history class. Oh, by the way, what you said about the "wellfare class" being pathetic is VERY INSULTING to me, as I was a member of that class. Don't you dare call yourself a Christian and then say things like that. And even if the lower class was "self perpetuating" and thankless, that shouldn't change your drive to help them, as they (we) are part of humankind, and Christ tought people to love all, EVEN YOUR ENEMIES. Now, I'm not saying we should all go and give a group hug to Al Quaida, (screw that!), I'm just saying it sounds like you have a hell of a lot of bitterness and contempt for the so called "welfare class" in this country. This kind of talk is promoted by the Republican party. I have heard people say many times the kinds of things you were saying, that the poor want to just "live on welfare" and take from the rich. In my experiences, the same people who make those criticisms have the impression that the poor are poor because they are lazy, crack smoking criminals. After further talking with these people (the people who criticize welfare) it becomes blatantly obvious that they have no real life experiences with poverty; they don't understand how welfare actually works, and how hard it is to crawl up from the bottom. Or maybe they are just bitter. I don't understand why you think government shouldn't help people by taxing the wealthy greater amounts than the middle and lower classes, and then say you follow the teachings of Christ. Didn't your church ever do a charity drive? And on sundays, when the donation basket comes around, doesn't the church encourage those, who can afford it, to give more? One of the best things you can do as a Christian is become a Missionary. Missionaries are willing to give up a large part of their life to help those in poverty. Now tell me, do the people THEY help "deserve" it? I'm not saying all republicans are wrong, and I would like to point out that Bush has made at least a tiny effort to help by offering more support for religious organizations, and at least he "tried" with No Child Left Behind. But it won't cut it. And I'm not trying to say I'm "holier than thou", or that I'm some perfect angel or anything. I'm just saying we should all do our part, and the next time wealthy folks decide not to help the poor, they should reconsider their faith, or not pretend to be good Christians. And that goes for most other religions, too, because most religions stress helping others in the interest of humanity. And about the minimum wage, so maybe we should just eliminate it? That would REALLY help businesses, and the cost of goods. But then is that MORAL (or Christian for that matter), to pay someone pennies a day for hard work? It doesn't matter that the cost of goods goes slightly down, because the people getting paid in peanuts can't afford to buy anything anyway. Obviously I'm using an extreme example, but it demonstrates the concept. One more thing. When (if) I reach the point that I am making a lot of money, I will have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with giving more of it back to society to help others reach where I have reached. Maybe we can come to an understanding, but I guess otherwise we will have to agree to disagree, that is what makes this country great. But please don't insult me like that again.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that it was a Clinton policy/legacy (I hear this brought up a lot on shows like "Bulls and Bears" as a reason why businesses loved Clinton) but it's not really a democrat policy. Trust me, I'm not trying to have it both ways (nice use of my own words against me by the way ) because if you look at what dems like Kucinich say about NAFTA, you get the idea. And remember all the NAFTA protests? You know those weren't republicans protesting NAFTA. Oh, damn it, I was trying to stop talking!