pparaska

I am also using the Mcleod T5 Hyd Throw-out bearing and the Girling 3/4" MC, on a Chevrolet 91 1LE Camaro diaphram type clutch hat. Works fine.

I deleted all the repeats - happens all the time, no problem. I have a 91 1LE Camaro clutch hat, and the Mcleod HTB. It came with the adjustable threaded part that slips over the bearing retainer. I tried a 1" M/C first, but it was super stiff. (Still have it if anyone is interested.) I now have a 3/4" Girling MC and it works fine. Not too stiff, but gives enough throw to disengage the clutch well.

quote: Originally posted by 240Z Turbo: Yea, but its not a Nissan motor ...like that matters. quote Probably so. At least economically.

You'd have to look at the geometry of the clutch hat (how much compression needed to disengage the clutch), fork arm, and the slave cyl. diameter between the T-56 and the typical Muncie/T-10/T-5 clutch fork/slave setups to know if the 3/4" were enough. For the T-5 clutch/slave/fork, as noted above, with the 3/4" MC, it doesn't have enough fork movement to do the job. The JTR manual goes over this, and suggests a 7/8" and/or 1" MC to work with it.

Thurem - I have a hydraulic throw out bearing - no fork. Maybe Len or somebody else that used a Chevy bellhousing/clutch/fork could measure this?

Yes. 3/4" MC bore is too small for use on a GM fork with the Datsun slave cylinder. 7/8" MC bore usually works good.

...Or force a foot on the clutch. That's what my Eclipse has. You sure the T-56 doesn't have a Neutral Safety switch in it?

Yes, JTR explains that. But I didn't want to be hindered with it. I'll drive the car less than a couple thousand miles a year (work is 1.5 miles from home), and I have a hard time thinking I could put a dent in the pollution problem. A late model stock LT1 with all the emissions stuff would be the ticket. But without the cats, I guess it'd be a bit dirty. Cleaner than a 240Z though!

Mike's got a nice jig set up for this. I saw the prototype that was about 70% done - the hard part (adjustable end) was finished and it looks great. I started saving already . But that investment got a bit sidelined Saturday night . Oh, and Mike behaved himself fairly well at the bachelor party - almost too well. Was a lot of fun. No touching, right, Mike?

jeremio's got this right. 240Z stub axle mates to a 240Z or 280ZX Turbo companion flange. Seal mod needed for 280ZX Turbo companion flange is use in 240-280Z. 280Z stub axle mates only to a 280Z companion flange. Scottie's adapter can be welded to either a 240Z or 280Z companion flange (but makes sense only for a 280Z flange). 240Z and 280Z stub axles will fit either strut housing. Same bearings and seals. BTW, a few (or more) V8Zs have snapped a 240Z stub axle. This is why if you're going to spend the money to have the Scottie-designed adapter welded to a 240Z or 280Z companion flange, it only makes sense to do it to a 280Z companion flange - so you can put it on a 280Z (stronger) stub axle. Putting Scottie's adapter on welded to a 240Z companion flange would only make sense if you were sure you wouldn't break the 240Z stub axle AND you need shaft clearance (shaft too long). The total height of the Scottie adapter and 280Z companion flange versus the 280ZXT companion flange is somewhere right around 3/8". The adapter/280Z flange being shorter. Sorry for my callng the 280Z stubs expensive. In the scheme of things, if you need new stubs, $180 a piece isn't that horribly ugly. But there are a ton of spares in the yards.

I don't get it. Why the heck can't the remote starter ALSO use the neutral safety switch? I mean, if it's in gear, it won't start and you have to forget about using the remote start that time.

New 280Z stub axles are VERY pricey. (Well, I guess $180 each at Courtesy ISN'T that pricey after all - thanks John!) [ September 10, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]

Knowing how easily I can do the stupidest possible thing at any moment , it was a no-brainer when I was doing the wiring. And the first electrical item I checked when I hooked everything up was the Neutral Safety Switch! Sorry to hear your rep and paint got messed up!

Scottie, I'm a bit thick skulled about any technology newer than a carb , but you've swayed me So, if one were to turbo a SBC this way (looks VERY likely this would work, I agree), I think making headers for this would be pretty easy for anyone that's made headers before. My next question is: Does anyone know if such a set of headers already exist? This is the SBC we're talking about - EVERYTHING has been done to it many times. There must be a set of tight fitting headers for a single turbo already out there. Heck, the Scarab company used a set of modified Martin turbocharging headers for their Scarab GT cars. (Finally found my 1980 October HOT ROD magazine that features that car last night!) I'm thinking that having an exhaust tube (like at the aft end of the passenger header as shown) of either 3.5" diameter, or better yet, two 3" diameter flanges, this would be killer. The starter is down there, so maybe sway the turbo to the front of the left side of the engine and exhaust it on the left. With an LT1 type of plenum front air door and manifold, a FMIC, this doesn't look too difficult.

I think it can be reversible. I have the L24, 4spd, R180, exhaust system, and all mounts, bits, etc. to put in the car just in case the state of pinko-tree-hugging-liberalism (oops, I mean Maryland) ever tries to enact the old California emissions laws that would make me smog my 73. I've made a few mods that make it not too easy, and I'd have to rig a few things, but for a day or two of driving, bailing wire and chewing gum may just work... I can't imagine a greasy grimey L6 under the hood. I bet the emissions station guys would know something was up . But there's nothing really irreversible that's done to convert to a V8, unless you start hacking mounting brackets (like in the tunnel) to do it. Then again, just make a new bracket to put that L6 in - no biggie.

Agreed on the crimps. Also, after making your own crimps on the distributor end, be darned sure to test the resistance of the wire. One of my crimps messed up the core and the resistance was higher than their specs included in the instructions. Luckily I had cut them a bit long and was able to cut an inch or two off that wire and redo the end and it worked fine.

Interesting reading. That Hotrocker still looks enticing...

The MSD 8.5s are pretty nice, and have good reviews in the magazines. I like Magnecors - I have them on my Eclipse and they are very nice and LOW resistance.

I like that one better. Although the one that's elevated might be more efficient, since it's up in the laminar flow more.

Al, I'm wondering about the valves at this point. Can't you change that F!rd design to something adjustable for the rocker arms? I always hated that non-adjustable rocker thing on the F!rds. How about Posi-locks or something? I guess you might want to look at the rocker arm geometry also. But why would this have changed if it was all together like that before?

I'd be leary of yanking on the ends of the shafts - I've heard this is hard on the joints - they're not designed for loads in that direction.

Darnit John, you had to go and give me the link and everything! Hmm. I have a coupon for Amazon too... Thanks!

Definitely not JTR. Decent looking though. Sounds like the guy is fairly honest about what's wrong.

Not much to see right now - engine and tranny all out and engine apart. Email me and we'll set something up - bring your Z - I want a ride!

As far as that air dam, the one on Pete Sanders car looks just like the XEON Urethane one I have. For a short rear lip spoiler, I have this one: Go Here to get one. That's actually not a very attractive angle to view it from. [ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: pparaska ]