NewZed

Do you have one of them? I could measure an R200 and let you do the math. Or someone with an R180 might do the same.

There's a new FAQ section at the top of the forums page. Maybe it's there.

There's an 88 300ZX in the Sherwood Pick n Pull with an FS5R30A. It's an NA car with an open diff, so I don't really know why it's in there but I did take a good look and it seems to be the real deal. Hex head bolts holding the cases together, fill hole in the same plane as the drain, 71C type shifter in a six bolt top cover, external reinforcement on the bell-housing/front case. It seemed in good shape. I know the high HP guys use them. Hate to see it go to the smelter. It will probably be crushed in another week or two. Looks like the one shown here - http://www.az-zbum.com/images/information.transmission.fs5r30a.1.jpg

If you're talking about the port in the side of the block, that would be the bypass valve for when the oil filter won't pass enough oil. It just means that your oil isn't getting fully filtered, if it's getting filtered at all. Diagrams are in the Engine Lubrication section of the FSM. Apparently the whole thing can be pried out with a screwdriver for replacement. Doesn't really explain your knocking though.

The 240SX transmission up to 96 is the FS5W71C, I believe. Nissan changed the last letter for minor variations but they were all FS5W71_. I don't think that the numbers on the transmission case tell you anything.

How will you know what to replace, or where to put it, if you can't find the ignitor? Maybe you don't have the ECU timing control. Just wondering, you might be wasting your time and money.

My limited wisdom can't figure out what "little bit" and "not much" means. Do you have any numbers? Degrees of rotation would be a good one. Video would probably be better. By the way, I won't have any help for you after you supply this information. But I'm still interested.

Didn't know that the Fidanza flywheel was thinner, that throws a kink in the generic "which collar" question. If you boil it all down, for choosing a throwout collar, the critical distance should be the distance from the back of the engine to the face of the throwout collar bearing (where the fork contacts it). The distance of the pivot ball for the fork from the back of the engine will always be the same, since it's the same on all of the transmissions. The end of the fork will always be in the same spot, the objective is to get the face of the throwout bearing in the same area. If I knew that distance, on a setup that works, that would be part of the answer to every "which throwout collar should I use" question. There are several different pressure plate thicknesses out there along with the various throwout collars. Now there's a flywheel thickness difference. That's where the chaos lies, all those different dimensions. Just match them up to get the same stack distance, from engine to bearing face, of what you have now that works. It can't not work, if you're using the same master, slave cylinder and fork. I don't have any power to speak of, so no advice on clutch selection, but do like a good throwout collar puzzle...

Here's some fairly close comparisons, all the pieces and specs are listed on some - http://www.crateenginedepot.com/store/ZZ383-Crate-Engine-425HP-12498772-P764C510.aspx http://www.crateenginedepot.com/store/HT383-Performance-Crate-Engine-12499101-P7C510.aspx another option with all the extras - http://www.crateenginedepot.com/store/Turn-Key-FastBurn-385-Crate-Engine-350CI385HP-with-Accessory-Drive-Package-And-More-19201331-P944C510.aspx All of the choices - http://www.crateenginedepot.com/store/Chevy-Small-Block-Engines-C510.aspx They've been around for a while but I can't speak to their service.

I've read of the nut on the mainshaft loosening, causing issues. But that was a problem with the older transmissions, fixed on the newer ones, that you should have in the 79 ZX. There's a full page blown-up diagram of the internals of the transmission in the FSM. Plus a thorough write-up of the disassmbly and rebuilding process. It would be worth reading before you decide. Difficulty going in to reverse is usually a clutch problem. Slipping out of gear, apparently, an insert problem. You should drain the fluid and check the magnet first, to see if the transmission is destroying itself, before buying the rebuild kit. Good luck. If you want to avoid downtime, buy a 4 speed for $50-75 and install it while you mess with the 5 speed. Here's a few of the write-ups that FricFrac mentioned, if you decide to go that route - http://home.comcast.net/~zheimsothtn/transmission.htm http://www.motortopia.com/cars/1973-datsun-240z-11118/car-pictures/240sx-transmission-swap-14041/DSC04293JPG_Thumbnail1.jpg-266482 http://www.atlanticz.ca/zclub/techtips/240sxtransmissioninstall/index.html

It's described on Page BE-44 in the FSM, Brake Warning System. It's a relay, normally closed.

At least tell an interesting story: drifting, speeding, running from the cops... How did she "lose" 5th and 2nd? If she lost a shift fork, the other half should be affected also, 1st and reverse. It might be a simple fix for her broken transmission. The S13/240SX/71C transmission swap requires removal of the front case/bellhousing, some machining, maybe a bearing replacement (depending on how much machining is done), and some measuring and shimming (for the front cover counter-bearing pre-load) to do it right. Minor work to some, maybe not so much for others, plus it can get spendy even if you feel comfortable with what the modifications are. I've wandered the various forums and never seen anyone suggest that 1981 510 wagon transmission will swap to an ZX or vice-versa. What engine does the 510 wagon have? If it's not an L engine, the bolt pattern is probably wrong. Any of the Z or ZX 5 speeds or 4 speeds from late 1971 to 1983 should bolt in, otherwise. There should be one out there somewhere, lots of leftover 4 speeds from people swapping.

I had also posted one more note on the 1989 300ZX 71C transmission, above, but deleted it. I was going to wait until I picked one up at the local Pick n' Pull on Saturday (20% off transmission week!), but the synchros were worn, and the main shaft scuffed up, and it was on its second life (prior wrecking yard marks) so I left it. One added benefit to the 1989 71C is that Nissan added a double cone synchro to 3rd gear too. So 89 appears to be the ultimate 300ZX 71C transmission, assuming, of course, that double cone synchros are actually a bonus. You can actually see the 3rd gear synchro setup through the filler hole, and tell the difference from the standard single cone, for anyone's future reference. I agree on the 240SX transmission, from my limited knowledge. It looks like they also went to sealed main bearings in the SX, I would guess as an improvement. No help from me on the RB transmission. Edit - Just looked at the 1995 240SX FSM and see that they don't use the double-cone 3rd gear. Maybe it was a modification that didn't stick? I've only experienced the 71B 5 speeds in use so don't know much.

Advice for you - Rewrite this post so that someone can understand what you're asking.

Edit - My mistake, saved for future...

Listen at the end of the video and you'll realize that it's really an old Herman Cain subliminal campaign commercial.

3.9 is the factory ratio for the 89 300Zx with manual transmission. The 300ZXs did have some low gearing though, with 3.9 in the differential and 3.321 first gear. Maybe 'cause they were starting to get heavy...

Dude! You have 9 posts before this one, you should know better. Rule #3 - http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules I'm sure there's tens maybe hundreds of people that know the answer (I do) but either won't see it, because of "HELP!" or won't answer because of "HELP! Go back to Start, do not pass Go, do not collect the answer that you need.

That looks like a surprising load of BS from MSA. Can't believe they have that ad copy on their site. More power from NA with a rising rate FPR, "when conditions call for it". "Reports of 15 - 20 HP gains". $269. You should call them up and see if anyone there actually believes what they're advertising.

Even the guys who use the adapters have problems with the shafts being too long. There doesn't appear to be a simple answer. I don't think that you've read through any of the links that have been offered, there's a lot of information in them. Report back with the MM adapter purchase and re-drill, it will add to the base of knowledge. Edit - one thing to note though, that might be in your favor: the 280Zs appear to have more distance between the companion flanges, wheel-to-wheel, than the 240Zs. Edit #2 - actually, if the bolt pattern is the same for the 6 bolt 300Zx and the 280ZXT flanges, and you determine that the shafts are not too long, then you should just get the 280ZXT 6 hole adapters (Post #3), not the 300ZX 4 hole adapters. I think that the 300ZX shafts might be too long for 240Zs and 280Zs though, but worth checking.

Tanks changed shape when they went to the space-saver spare tire, in 77 or 78. They're not interchangeable.

Pretty sure that you can see the circlip inside if you look down the hole, with the axle out (use a mirror if your head won't fit in there). If you want to be sure before you hit it with a hammer...

They're called out differently in the 1983 FSM, for one with oil pivot and one without. The drawing seems to show one with a lash pad, and no lash pad on the oil pivot setup. EM-5.

http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/50208-the-ultimate-l28et-guidewhat-you-need-for-350whp/

Just doing some homework and filling things in for the record, for the 300ZX 71C. You qualified your statements on Motortopia as for the 240SX box, so definitely not a problem. The early 300ZX 71Cs, 85 - 87, did not have the dual cone synchro so you were right. You showed a picture of an S13 box with narrow gears, but maybe that was a 71B box (as I said, I don't know the S13s). I think the question above is when the wider gears came about for the 300ZX, and it looks like the 300ZX has always had the wider gears (haven't verified 1984 though). It seems like the 1988 (edit- and 1989) 300ZX is the best 71C you can get from a 300ZX. The statement below is WRONG. 1989 had the 71C also. Looks like they stopped using it with the model change to Z32 in 1990. 1989 still had no reverse synchro. WRONG - Looks like they used the 71C last in 1988 - WRONG Reverse synchro would be nice, which would be an advantage of the 240SX box. I'd guess there's some other improvements also.