NewZed

Do you mean the shock absorber inserts themselves? Are you just looking for the travel or a point to point dimension? Which points? I have a couple of old rear replacement inserts and the original style (oil bathed) fronts out in the garage from a 76 and 78.

The diagrams are in the FSMs and the FSMs are available for free download at the xenons30 and xenons130 web sites.

These old ECUs don't have the "limp home" mode that the newer computers do. They're primitive. Have you measured fuel pressure with the engine running? Fuel flow doesn't tell you much. Your problem sounds more like it's fuel related, with the lack of high RPM power, the dying and the backfiring. By the way, I think that your 1977 280Z is supposed to have 188 cc injectors. Are you running non-stock injectors or is that a typo?

I'm curious about what you heard about the MSA rebuilt AFMs. What did you hear and who did you hear it from? There aren't that many sources for rebuilt AFMs. MSA'a are actually rebuilt by Fuel Injection corporation, whoever that is.

The AFM, in general,is supposed to match the ECU. The ECU takes the voltage returned from the AFM to determine injector open time. I don't know if the Nissan engineers actually changed the potentiometer circuit or the spring tension or the shape of the air flow channel between the various AFM numbers, so couldn't say what the difference is between those two AFMs. Some AFM numbers appear to be the same AFM in function, except for small differences like the fuel pump contact switch. But there might be bigger changes that cause problems like you're having. The ECU and AFM inputs and outputs are kind of mysterious. You might get more ideas if you gave some history on the car. Did it run with the "wrecked" AFM? Has it ever run? Can you put the old one back on and get it to run? Things like that.

What year car? Why did you buy A31-625-000 if yours was A31-601-000 (or vice-versa, can't tell which is old and which is new from your description)? The backfiring sounds like what mine was doing when I had a bad AFM.

1978 used the same ECU so the AFMs are probably not that different. Maybe Nissan tuned the spring tension differently for emissions or use with EGR. I had a 1978 with AFM # A31-604-000 and the same A11-600-000 ECU that my 1976 had. There are only a few circuits in the AFM, the potentiometer circuit that tells the ECU how much air is passing through, the air temperature sensor and the fuel pump contact switch. Getting the right parts together is a worthy goal but "running rich" is a common problem and has many causes. You might check the other reasons for running rich before you go too far though. Fuel pressure control, temperature sensors, TPS adjustment, etc. Here is a thread from classiczcar that tells a story - http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/showthread.php?42574-MPG-timing-fuel-and . He had a similar dilemma. 1975-1977 are your best candidates for finding the right AFM part number. Check the glue blob under the cover to see if it's been tampered with. It's very common for people to get inside and muck around with the spring tension for "tuning" purposes.

That is the right ECU number for 1976. What is the number for your current AFM? It might not be mismatched for the ECU. For example, Nissan changed the part number for 1978 AFMs to show no fuel pump contact switch but but some of them still have the parts. 1978 has the same ECU number, but a different AFM number. What problem are you trying to solve?

What is it that "goes away" when you shut the car off, after letting it run for a while? I saw your other post, which is more descriptive since you say that you have spark. If you have spark, and the engine turns over, and it ran just a few seconds earlier, then fuel would be the place to look. Do you have fuel pressure on the second try, and are the injectors firing?

There's a diagram in the FSM.

PCV system connected (crankcase to intake) or blocked off? Taking the oil fill cap off opens up the PCV system to atmosphere. No response when you remove the cap implies that it's already open.

Page FE-4 in the FSM has a pretty good diagram.

There's not that much stuff in the transmission tunnel. You could follow it out and see where the other end is.

Most of the auto parts stores have loaner tools. Pay a deposit, use it, return it, get your money back. I've seen the brake line flaring kits at O'Reillys.

Sounds just like dirty battery terminals. They get enough corrosion between the battery and the connector to either heat up and break the connection or not. Easy to clean and check.

The answers to most of your questions are in these forums somewhere. The Search function is free. This site is popular and one of the originals for the V8 swap - http://www.jagsthatrun.com/

The original poster's question doesn't match the title of his thread. He asked about everything, but only titled about control arms. 1975 is a 280Z. 1972 is a 240Z. There is quite a bit of difference for most of the components. Read #6 in this thread for a short summary - http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/101070-easy-r200-clsd-question-about-axles/page__pid__947746#entry947746

What happens at 3,000 RPM that stops it from revving higher?

You said you read so if you go down to #4 and look for LONGNOSE R200 on the first post, you should see the list of parts. From what I read though (same paragraph), the VLSD Longnose R200 only came in the 1988 SS model. http://forums.hybridz.org/index.php/topic/49194-differential-cv-lsd-hp-torque-r160-r180-r200-r230-diff-mount/

It's there to keep voltage spikes out of your wring harness and away from electric components. Kind of like insurance for your ECU (or whatever they call it on the 79 ZX). The wire is actually the positive (hot) lead, the body of the capacitor is the ground. You can find them in the junk yard. A lot of Fords have them, easily accessible, if you can't find a ZX. Or an alternator condenser/capacitor from an auto parts store will work.

Nasty looking. My mistake on replaceablity of the tail section, if you consider half of the whole transmission housing as the "tail shaft". You'll probably need to buy a whole transmission to get the piece you need. Good drawings available in the FSM, with instructions.

Did you look at the pictures in beerman's attachment? If you pushed the clutch fork forward, you might have pushed it off the pivot ball, you should have pushed it backwards and made sure it was seated on the pivot ball correctly. It should hang there. It's supposed to be held on to the ball with a retaining spring. Look at pictures #1 and #11. #11 shows the spring clip. If the retaining spring isn't holding the fork it might be dropping below the pivot ball and jamming. You might be able to lift it up while you install the slave cylinder to get it to work, if your spring is screwed up.

I'm not positive, because I don't have one, but I think that the JTR swap manual covers all of your questions. I have read many comments suggesting it's well worth the money. I think that it is available here - http://www.jagsthatrun.com/OrderingBooks.html

Apparently there is little benefit. I only proposed it as an alternative way to get an R200 with u-joint half-shafts in to a 240Z, without having any binding problems. I'm just trying to understand why the distance between the wheel-side companion flanges on a 240Z appears to be less than that between the companion flanges on a 280Z, since both body styles have the same track width.

oakland240, I hope you don't mind me jumping in to your thread. I have read up on the R200 swap in to the 240Zs and am not 100% sure why the R200 with u-joint half-shafts fits fine in the 280Z but leads to binding in the 240Z. JMortensen, are the 240Z wheel-side stub axle and companion flange combination wider/thicker (from wheel mount surface to companion flange surface) on the 240Z? Is that where the lost width comes from? From what I can find the 240Z and 280Z have the same track width. If this is true, then one option to allow using an R200 in a 240Z would be to install the rear suspension and hubs from a 280z in to the 240Z to get the thinner stub axle/companion flange assembly, with more space from wheel-side companion flange to wheel-side companion flange. This should give all of the dimensions from a 280Z. Of course, springs, ride height and brake components would have to be considered to make everything work together.