NewZed

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.

The OP might be talking about using this - http://www.modern-motorsports.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=32_53&products_id=63 - with a 300ZX NA 6 bolt CV flange. MM calls it out for the 280ZXT 6 bolt flange. So the question is, are the bolt patterns and dimensions of the 6 bolt 280ZXT CV flange the same as those of the 6 bolt 300ZX NA CV flange? Might as well also ask if the dimensions are the same for the 280ZX NA 6 bolt CV flange. They all look similar. But here's a couple of threads on the CV swap, in general, worth reading - http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/65177-300zxt-cv-issue/ http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/102798-short-z31t-cv-shafts-group-buy/

142 psi is the standard. The gauge used can have an effect. Did you do a cold test or fire it up and let it run for a while first?

Quite a few threads pop up if you put - BAE turbo kit - in the search box. If the car came with P90 heads, it may also have an F54 block. Worth a look. It might already be a turbo platform. What is a "G-Force 4-speed"? How is it different from the stock 1976 Nissan 4-speed? Curious...

Missed this post somehow. Yes, that is my take on the double-cone synchro. The synchronizer cone shown in between the rings in 1988 is the 2nd cone. The first cone is part of the gear itself. My 1985 71C also has the ~20 mm gears vs ~18 for the ZX. I'm not familiar with the S13/S14 world so can't speak to the comments on Nigel's motortopia web page about wider gears. He shows 20 mm as the wide gear. It looks like you get all of the major benefits from 88 on in the 300ZX. There were other modifications also, like a mainshaft brake, for synchro help I assume? (a weird little gizmo on the 3-4 shift rod, no explanation in the FSM), shown in the shifter diagram, introduced in 1987. So far, for the 300ZX 71 - wider gears from at least 1985 and on (probably 84 though), mainshaft brake 1987 and on, double cone synchro 1988 and on. And all 71Cs have the larger diameter CS bearing, I assume. Here is something interesting from zcarsource. The swapped 300ZX/71B bellhousing transmissions are available for sale, completed. Spendy. http://www.zcarsource.com/manual-5-speed-transmission-conversion-from-300zx-84-86-to-240z-260z-280z-rebuilt_8_52706_50262.html

Just a daily driver with an easy, low-revving 250 hp, but no ticking noises from the rocker cover. I would like that also, I'd even accept some ticking. Edit - isn't the P90A a factory stock head for the turbo engine? Not only a direct bolt-on, but a factory issued configuration.

Someone just had a similar problem on a different forum and it was a bad fusible link. As noted, the charging circuit is fused, your bad alternator might have blown it.

Get a volt/ohm meter and take some measurements. Search and read some threads. It's a common problem with many potential causes. Sounds like your new alternator is not charging.

Is 260DET the "man that paid for" a Rebello race motor. 260DET quote from the "twin-cam-l6-34l" thread - "Power output claims are one of the big ones and one which I have good $ reason to be annoyed, at least, about." He seems to know what this is about. Seems like a lot of smearing going on, of both Rebello and US engine building, from looking at one Rebello engine, and a weird way to introduce your engine-building skills.

You could check continuity to a reverse bulb socket.

I'm just swapping bearings for now. Boring a new counter-shaft bearing would require time and effort (= money) to get it right since it affects the location of the end of the counter-shaft. I don't have any power anyway so don't really need it, and it can be done later. I relieved the inside of the bell-housing for the drive gear behind the bearing myself, since it's non-critical, and drilled out the shift fork hole. I managed to find an early 240Z propeller shaft. They are short enough to work but longer than recommended. The 240Z shaft is 21" between the centers of the u-joint caps (measured myself, couldn't verify anywhere before I got it). The stock 280Z shaft is 22 1/4" (verified in the FSM and my garage). You can see that I'm getting more accurate with each measurement. Obviously not a machinist, I'd never make it. The 71C transmission is 2" longer than the 71B, that's why everyone recommends shortening the drive shaft by 2". I was just pointing out in Post #14 that's there's 1.5" of room for "error" or alternatives like the early 240Z shaft. With the early 240Z shaft, the driveshaft is 3/4" closer to bottoming on the mainshaft than with a stock shaft cut 2". 3/4" of clearance instead of 1.5". If you're going to cut drive shafts you might consider combining a Z for the diff and the SX for the front. The dust cover will fit right. The diff flange bolt pattern is probably wrong on your SX shaft. Wordy...

Is this a bench-racing thread? Are these future engines from thought experiments? Lots of flow numbers and test results but I can't really tell if an engine has been built and done something in a car. Reading it is liking being in a bizzaro world, with the iphone grammar and fantastic claims. Maybe things really do rotate backward in Oz. Any pictures or videos of a completed engine, on a dyno or in a car?

I wish I had a lathe, and more. I'm only up to drill press so far. I will probably be filing the two spot welds by hand.

I got curious on this so took some measurements on my car, a stock 280Z, and a drive shaft and transmission I have. I eyeballed the fit from under the car so not exact, but close. The Nissan engineers left ~1.5" of space between the bottom of the drive shaft yoke sleeve and the end of the transmission output shaft. There's about 4 3/4" of spline in the sleeve, they use ~3 1/4". That would be why the early 240Z drive shaft works, even though they're only 35 mm (~1 3/8") shorter than the later shafts. You should end up with ~7/8" of space between drive shaft and transmission output shaft with the early 240Z shaft. Edit again - my numbers were off (happens often). Edit again - see #18. Accuracy has improved by 1/8".