NewZed

It's just a guessing game without a timing light. The timing of the spark is determined by the orientation of the reluctor (six-pointed piece on the top of the shaft) to the pickup coil. The orientation of the rotor just determines which plug gets the spark.

I have some Tokicos (but they're red) and the part number stamped on the spring has an F and an R at the end to signify front and back. 5022-F and 5022-R. I think that MSA sells blue springs like those. They might be MSA. That doesn't really help you though, does it? Still, I would expect some ID numbers on them.

It seems to follow then that bracing the core support would make the car more rigid. Does the core support flexing come from overall chassis flexing or just the weight of the front end hanging on it? And I assume/guess the flexing is seen mostly at driving extremes since the stock radiator is solidly mounted. Does the flexing contribute to early failure of stock radiators? I just replaced mine and wondered as I installed it. Collecting ideas on simple ways to get a stiffer chassis.

People were probably waiting to see if it was the four cocktails talking or something more. If you put your Trailblazer shoes on don't be an Oden and fall apart before you really get started (it's a Portland reference).

I don't know exactly what "does not work" means in your case, but I had a tach that stopped working after I did some ignition work (swapped my 1978 Z coil for a Z31 coil). The needle would just dance around at ~1000 RPM, obviously getting some impulses from the coil but not able to use them. I attached a condenser/capacitor to the negative post of the coil on the theory that I had some electrical noise on the blue wire to the tach. It fixed the problem, tach works perfectly and has for ~6-8 months, but I couldn't go very deep in to why.

I think I see the disconnect here. I've been focused on the CAS and how to test that it's sending the proper signal to the ECU/ECCS. That's where I would be if I had Francisco's problem, make sure that the individual components are sending the proper signals or have the proper functions for the ECU to do its "job". You are right, there is a list of tests for a variety of components. But there is none for testing the function of the CAS alone (that I can find). For the 280Z's for example, there is a procedure to measure the resistance of the pickup coil in the distributor to at least confirm that it's not shorted or broken. But for the 1981 turbo system, there seems to be an assumption that the CAS always works, or they just overlooked the fact that it might break at some time. Even the ECCS Analyzer says to have the engine running, to test the CAS. But nothing is mentioned about confirming that the CAS actually works correctly. Adjusting the position is important but only if you know that the CAS works. Anyway, we're kind of in to the philosophy of problem solving now. Personally, I'd like to be able to test every circuit in the ECU individually,pin by pin along with all of the individual components. I love the 280Z FSMs. The ZX FSMs seem to the start of the trend toward the "replace components until engine runs" philosophy that a lot of today's cars use.

You're right CG, the ECCS wiring diagram is there. I missed it, got stuck in the first half of the chapter. Although, I see it's not the typical VR pickup like a Z's electronic distributor. There's power supplied to certain pins, like Pin 40, and two to the ECU alone, maybe powered, maybe not. I still don't see a troubleshooting method, or a way to verify correct function of the components, without the ECCS Analyzer, or more inside knowledge. Good luck Francisco! Would still like to see the EL section.

Edit - Now I feel kind of bad. After referring Francisco to the xenons130 site for the FSM and the Turbo Supplement, I realize that the site download for the Turbo Supplement doesn't contain the most critical document, the EL chapter. Without that chapter, troubleshooting an 81 turbo is very difficult. If someone knows another source for the EL chapter, I'd like to have it myself, for future reference. I have to admit, the 1981 instructions are difficult to decipher. Nissan designed a magic ECCS analyzer and if you don't have it, you have to put your engineer hat on and try to figure things out. And I looked and can't find the wiring for the ECCS or CECU system anywhere. Isn't the 81 CAS a VR type? The basic test is resistance of the pickup coil. More involved would be watching for voltage while running a tooth past the CAS, or spinning the engine. You could at least do some simple tests. You should do them before you install the new parts anyway, otherwise you'll do a lot of parts replacement and probably end up in the same situation. Look at page EF-32 to get some ideas. Find the wiring diagram for the CAS, if you can, and measure resistance across the pickup coils. Make sure that clearances described on EF-32 and -33 for CAS adjustment are correct. Looks like a pain in the butt.

Your pictures seem to show everything except the rust you mentioned, through the door skin and the rotten rails under the car. Maybe I'm not good at looking at internet pictures but I don't see a lot of deep rust damage. Lots of surface rust, but no major holes. My 76 has a row of rust holes along the bottom third of the both doors but the rest of the car is solid. I think that Nissan's design for keeping water out of the doors was poor. The car might be fine except for the doors, and might be a good buy. I don't see where it's "toast" at all. Floor pans and under the battery are common rust spots, that can rust completely away. Check those out. Take a picture of the rusted out frame rails. Look in the spare tire well for rust. Check the fuse box area for rust and corrosion that would indicate water got in that could affect the wiring. You said it runs but does it drive? Things like brake cylinders, calipers, clutch and brake master cylinders, clutch slave cylinder, etc. will nickel and dime you in to the hundreds for sure, maybe thousands more.

The "help asap!" in your title is funny since there's not much useful information in your post. It's a rusty 1973 240Z with a replacement L28 running carbs, for an unknown price. What advice could an expert offer?

Just curious and trying to learn something new. I see some things in your setup that don't seem to fit the average MS II setup and have a few questons. What Nissan mechanical book are you using and what is the number for the maximum that it says you can shave? Is it the stock P90 or P90A head? Have you calculated the compression ratio? Why are you using a 280Z distributor? Is it locked? Do you still have a CAS somewhere? What, exactly, are the timing numbers - initial, advance curves, etc.? If you're using MS II for timing, timing "by the book" doesn't really mean much, unless you're just talking about the static timing. Plus the basic stuff like type of gas being used and if this is for the track or for street. Also, seems like if you could supply AFR and timing curves, they would help out to use for feedback. As I said, just trying to learn something myself. You might be focusing on the wrong thing.

Post 14, the OP, the one whose problems are being discussed, has "MS2357-C $444 Assembled Megasquirt-II with V3.57 PCB". megasquirt 1 is a irrelevant.

Some of the Z's run the Brake Check Lamp Warning Relay power through the regulator. On the 76 cars you can end up with the relay powered all of the time after wiring for the conversion. This will kill your battery in a day or two. You can confirm by listening for the click of the relay, under the passenger seat, when you disconnect and reconnect the battery. 76 has the voltmeter instead of ammeter though, so the wiring may not be the same for the check relay. Something to look out for though if your battery starts dying.

You can see the cable in the bottom of the picture. Looks like it might need a collar fabricated to hold the end of the sheath but if the cable end fits the actuating arm and it will reach you might be able to make it work.

You could have at least copied the replies from your other thread over also. Many auto stores will read your trouble codes for free. (From your other thread). Sounds like a short circuit somewhere, unless the AC system is computer controlled.

There's a lot wrong with your situation but the biggy in your case might be that you've disconnected an important part of the PCV system, without blocking the port in to the intake manifold. You probably have a big vacuum leak.

It's all described in the 1981 FSM (except the GM HEI modification). You really can't get far fast without opening it and at least browsing. Edit - actually it's described in the Turbo Supplement, Engine Fuel section - www.xenons130.com/reference That's all I got. There are descriptions, wiring diagrams,and diagnostic procedures. You can't go wrong by downloading and reading at least that one chapter. Edit 2 - Reading the 82 and 83 chapters would probably help also, since 81 is focused on using the ECCS Analyzer.

Might be the HEI module, not the ECU. I killed one by leaving two plug wires off and running the engine for a few seconds. Or the CAS if you're using one. Or anything on the path. Or anything feeding the path like power wires to the coil and ECU. CAS > ECU > HEI module > coil > coil wire > distributor > spark plug wires > spark plugs > ground to block > ...

Word is that 240Zs with 280Z R200s and half-shafts can bind the half-shafts when the suspension is compressed and/or the car lowered. The half-shafts run out of travel. There are even directions out there for increasing the travel on the inside portion of the ball tracks in the half-shaft, the area that was was damaged on your other half-shaft. If your car is lowered maybe you're bound up and it's causing vibration and half-shaft damage. Look at the betamotorsports site for a good description of the problem. I think it's in the bench-racing section.

The gland nut has come off the top of the strut tube, possibly. Your strut is falling apart. Look under the rubber dust cover.

The stock springs are noticeably longer than the Tokicos (the 5022s anyway) so the springs on your car have already been changed or modified. They're not stock. Assuming that the car in your picture is a 280Z.

The 3.36 thing pops up now and then, mostly when talking about the R200. The 1979 FSM specs the 3.36 as an option, in both R180 and R200. Some people say that the 1974 R200 came in a 3.36 also, although the FSM only shows an R180. Anyway, I just copied what was written in the R&T articles. 3.54 in an 81 ZX is an odd one also. Most come with 3.9s. Also, another odd thing - the 81 close ratio 5 speed has a 3.06 first gear, compared to a 3.321 for the 75 and 79 transmissions. So it ran a 16.8 1/4 mile with a heavier car and a taller overall first gear than the 75 and 79 cars, according to R&T. Maybe that 2-3 shift with the wide ratio boxes is as bad as it feels. Just some weird things from the past.

Well, thanks for the info anyway. It's really hard to tell which engines made more power. The only good comparison I've found is in a compilation of R&T road tests, but I don't know how they get their HP numbers. The numbers don't match the car ID plates, so maybe they actually dyno-test each test car. In a the R&T 1979 ZX road test they report 135 Bhp@5200 RPM for the N47/N47 block/head combo. An earlier R&T test says that the 1975 N42/N42 combo produced 149 Bhp@5600 RPM. But they should be essentially the same engine, except for liners in the N47 exhaust ports, so that's confusing. In a later test they also reported another 79 ZX at 132 Bhp@5200 RPM in a four car comparison test. So that's two N47/N47 combos at 132 and 135 Bhp. A later test of a 1981 ZX produced 145 Bhp@5500 RPM for the F54/P79 combo. That's the new engine with flat top pistons and 8.8 CR, but a different cam profile. In the text they say that the 1981 ZX engine is making 13 more HP than the 79 engine, apparently comparing to the 1979 ZX in the four car test, mentioned above. To top it off, none of the numbers in the R&T tests match what's on the ID plates. My 76 plate says 170 HP@5600 RPM (SAE), even though it's essentially the same engine as in the 1975 280Z, which R&R reported at 149 Bhp. Hard to tell where these numbers come from. Maybe the most telling thing is that the torque peak dropped from 4400 RPM for the 75 and 79 cars, to 3000 RPM for the 1981 car. Just to fill it out, here are the 1/4 mile times and a comparison table. 1975 17.3 s@81 mph 2875 lbs (4 speed, 3.54 final) 1979 17.2 s@82 mph 2825 lbs (5 speed, 3.36 (!) final), same first 4 gears as the 75 4 speed) 1979 18.1 s@80 mph 2900 lbs (automatic, 3.54 final) 1981 16.8 s@81 mph 3000 lbs (lots of options, "close" ratio 5 speed, 3.54 final) 1975 N42/N42 149 Bhp@5600 RPM, 163 lb-ft @4400RPM 1979 N42/N47 135 Bhp@5200 RPM, 144 lb-ft @4400RPM 1981 F54/P79 145 Bhp@5500 RPM, 166 lb-ft @3000RPM

How long and big is the hose from the MAP port on the manifold to the MAP sensor on the MS board? I've wondered about that. Maybe there's a lag in response time due to pressure equalization at the hose ends. Small manifold port, big hose would lead to a lag in pressure equalization in the hose. Just thinking...

Looked back over your thread and don't even know what engine you're trying to run with MS2. Is it a stock turbo engine? You still haven't confirmed timing with a timing light. Confirming the basics will help you out greatly. Changing parts or "upgrading" without understanding the problem rarely works from what I've seen. It just makes things more complicated. A stock engine with fuel injection should be super easy to get started if all of the basics are correct.