pparaska

0) Welcome! 1) The first one is easy: Buy the JTR manual first, no matter which parts you buy. STAY AWAY from the John's Car's kit if you want it to handle the best. I'd think the JTR mounts make good sense, they're not that expensive. And he shows you how to make the rear mount or buy it from him. 2) World Class T-5 is fine as long as you don't make tons of torque and use sticky tires and you don't powershift, etc. The T-56 shifts very nicely and you can beat on it and it lives. Read Mike Kelly's tech articl on this site for how to do the T-56. Look in the Drivetrain forum and look at the recent posts - Chris has found a place in Washington state US that sells rebuilt T-56's for $1000. The parts to make it hook to the engine isn't cheap, especially if you go with the older two piece oil seal SBC. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Thanks! And I got it plumbed in correctly as well. Any idea what years the two resevoir 280ZX MC went on?

Here's a pretty nice page on the swap: http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/R200.htm ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I have the 280ZX brake Master Cylinder (MC) that has the two separate plastic resevoirs on my car. I don't know if that is the late or early one, but the other version of the 280ZX MC has one resevoir. Anyway, the question is this: Does the forward-most resevoir feed the circuit for the front brakes or the rear? Thanks for any help. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

You're probably getting it hot and the case or rear cover moves (deforms) a bit, then cools down and stops afterwards. I've seen that on the R200 as well. There is a gasket between the two also. There are a few sites that go over the R200 install. Search on Zdriver, zhome.com. You need a mustache bar and the R200, and probably a new front mount anyway. Get the polyurethane mustache bar bushings also. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Doesn't it just come down to how much you are lowering the car and by what method? If you lower the car by ONLY using shorter springs, or by using coilovers and lowering the bottom spring perch enough to lower the car by 1.5"+, you are effectively taking that much bump travel out of the suspension, if you do nothing else. You can handle this problem with much stiffer springs to keep from hitting the bumpstops, but you have to decide if that's what you really want, especially on the street. If, however, you lower the car by using a shorter tire by that amount (half the tire diameter decrease from stock), then yes, you wouldn't need to section the struts, since you'd have the same bump travel - that is you didn't lower the car by changing anything with the springs or the suspension. But is that recommended? - the tires are already on th small diameter side anyway - especially if you are going to a 17" rim. There's another way to lower the Z - use a shorter top spring perch attachment to the car. The stock 280Z perch/isolator is taller than the 240Z perch/isolator, which is also a good bit taller than the aftermarket coilover spring perches and camber plates (these do vary though). So swapping these parts in and out has an effect on ride height (CG height) without messing with the spring length, the bump travel, etc. For the street, I chose to keep the 240Z isolators - call me a wimp, I don't care. All the vertical impact loads of the tires going over bumps goes through the strut cartridge and into the top strut mount, be it a stock isolator or a camber plate. Talk about a huge effect on NVH! So the option of shorter top spring perch/camber-plates or shorter isolators for lowering the car was out for me. I may take a half inch out of the rear 240Z isolator, but that is more to allow a longer spring with less stiffness than to lower the car, another topic. I actually increased my tire diameter with my wheel and tire combination (this helps traction by the way - larger contact patch) so I needed to lower the car by shortening the strut height. I did this by using coilovers to make that dimension adjustable. The problem with this method is that if you want to retain the same bump travel you need to shorten the strut tube (and cartridge) by an amount close to what you will be taking out of the strut height by using shorter springs of adjustable perches on the coilover. I chose to be conservative and took 1.5" out. I used a 1.25" larger diameter tire in the rear, so I raised the hub height by half that, 0.6". So I allowed myself about 1" of lowering with the coilovers to have the same bump travel as stock. In the front, the tires are 1/2" taller than stock, so I raised the hub height 1/4", giving me a 1-1/4" lowering capability with the same bump travel. Note I can raise and lower about these points, but I gain and lose (respectively) bump travel and lose and gain (respectively) droop travel. Both are important for good handling. Losing too much bump travel is bad because you hit the bump stops and traction goes away . Losing too much droop travel is bad because you can lose tire contact over sharp rises in the road/track. Wayne Burstein, an ITS racer out in East USA, went too far with strut sectioning and found this out the hard way at the track. He said adding tube material back to the strut tube was no fun. Anyway, that's the way I see it. If I've screwed something up here, let me know as I want to get this right. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

It's pretty small, not sure about efficiency. The core is like 8x8" or so (I could measure the one on my 92 Eclipse if you like) and a few inches thick. All I know is that it heat soaks pretty quickly on even the 2 liter engine with low (11 psi) boost on that motor's turbo. I believe this turbo is sized pretty well and still running in it's efficient range at those levels. I'd look elsewhere, but I'm not too knowledgeable on this stuff - I know the Talon/Eclipse guys go for the front mount Spearco setup as soon as they start turning up the boost much or adding bigger turbos, etc.

The real issue is how good are the frame rails. The stock ones (without rust) where probably o.k., as long as you reinforce the area to spread the load out, like Rich suggests. But the problem is that the rails rust from the inside out and it's hard to tell how bad they are unless you cut them out or bore holes and do some spot checks with a micrometer, etc. My rails gave me a clue when the side near the sway bar mount popped clean through from rust . ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

No, all the power does not go through the ammeter, but a good portion of it does. The only reason for a big (2 gage or larger) battery cable in a car is to turn the starter. The rest of the car runs on the 10 gage wire, actually. I can get you the particulars of what does and doesn't run through the amp gage later if you like. But the alternator output goes straight to the lower right 3 fuses in the 240Z, along with a few other things not directly in the fuse box. It's a really screwy electrical system. I have the entire thing mapped out for my 73, and alot of is really stupid (the headlight circuit being the stupidest thing I've ever seen - Mark at MAD agrees it's pretty bad). I just called Mark at MAD Enterprises (559-539-7128). Mark is very sharp and knows the 240Z electrical system. He actually recommends a GM internally regulator alternator, but can help with any kind you might have. He took down his web site, as he feels there was info on there that was out of date. He prefers for people to call and talk. Make sure you use a cheap long distance carrier, as he loves to talk! This guy is the sharpest electrical/automotive guy I've run into. Give him a call. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I'd not hook it to the stock wire, as that goes to the Amp gage. I don't like Amp gages in cars... I'll give you my OPINION on this one: Amp gages (as implimented on the 240Z) are dangerous. Really, do you want the full current of the alternator output running through the firewall, through the dash? Plus the 240 amp gage has a habit of burning out (the big shunt across the meter movement burns out, then the gage movement follows immediately.) Yeah, I'm an info hound, and I'd like to know the charging/draining current situation from time to time, but to me it's not worth the risk, etc. Plus knowing the battery/alternator output voltage is useful in different ways. On my Z, I've gotten rid of the Amp gage (just bolted and soldered the leads at the gage together and insulated it) and I'm running no volt gage per se. I might put one of those cigarette lighter plug in ones in place of the cigarette lighter (thanks to Mikelly for that idea). As for how to wire it, I'd get a 12 gage fusible link to hood to the output, then some 8 gage wire to the battery + terminal. Or if that is too big for you, use a 14 gage fusible link and a 10 gage wire. If it's a 90 amp or more alternator, use the 12 fusible/ 8 gage setup. 8 gage wire is tough to find. I got some of this from M.A.D. Enterprises (there web site seems to be down), in California. I can get you a number if you can't find them. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I have to agree. The car weighs maybe 3000 lbs. There won't be much if any need for more than 12" brakes, and that's probably overkill. Unless you're really doing endurance racing, I can't see where more than 11.25" would really be called for, especially if you used curved vane rotors and ducting. Bigger brakes (of the same design) mean more unsprung weight (bad for suspension dynamics) and rotary inertia (more difficult to accelerate), and you don't really want that either. It's all about balance. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Good plan, as I see it. I think 1/4" plate is overkill though. 1/8" or 3/16" would be plenty, IMO. However, I would probably just box the entire length, from the firewall to to just past the swaybar mounts (at least) in 1/8" steel. That way there'd be less of a hard/soft point issue where the reinforcement ends. I handled this by replacing the entire rail, but mine were rusty. I think the perches would be enough, and the added crossmember would not be needed. BTW, Marc Sayer used to sell a kit to add another one (or two?) through bolts for the OE crossmember, which included tubes that were put into the crossmember to keep from crushing it with the long bolts through the crossmember. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I'm not concerned that my car's Wilwood calipers don't have dust seals (it won't be a daily driver or in the bad weather), but I wanted to bring up the point so people were aware and could make an informed decision. I got the Arizona Z car brakes slightly used for half price, so I went for it. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I personally have no problem with you guys talking about the RX's here. I agree the basic formula is the same as the HybridZ - light car, lots of power, great handling and braking potential (with available parts for the Z). If I had more money and room, I'd love to have an RX-7!

Arizona Z car puts a kit together like that, I have it on my car. Check out SCCA's site (I'm sure he'll chime in here soon and give it) as he has a wide range of brake upgrades and a few surpass the Arizona Z offering I have. I believe Arizona Z also has a bigger brake upgrade as well. Check the links page here. Note that the Wilwood parts have no dust shields on the pistons like OE stuff. Not sure if the stuff SCCA (Mike) has does. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Yeah, you did. Too bad they are so lame as to not even act as if they are concerned, even if they did nothing. Yo, Morgan! Whatcha tryna do, overload Dan's smut filter . **** **** ****

Seems I'm not the only one with the Tremec in a V8 Z. Kind of neat for me that the only differences in the "Drivetrain" specs were the gear ratio of the diff and the MMC AL driveshaft and the brand of his dual friction disc. Those wheels are nice looking and probably light and stiff/strong as well! 17x11.5! Jeesh! Sweet car!

On head port size versus dyno performance, Chevy High Performance Mag. this month has an article on 5 different Dart heads with different port volumes to see what the results are. I just got mine yesterday and haven't read it yet. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Man, that suck even more! I hope you know a good body shop. I hope there was nothing damaged too much in the wiring. What does your management say about all this?

...as will a good roll bar tied to the strut towers near the isolator attachment. Marc Sayer used to preach this point alot on the IZCC list. Seems he saw the benefits first hand many times.

As a neighbor always says "Leave no witnesses, especially in the case of the assailant" This guy had fired employees after him and walked around his house and yard 24 hours a day with his Walther . Coincidence is he used to work for the DMA in Bethesda (now NIMA) Hmm. Sharpened EXISTING metal around the back of the dash. .

Going to Simon's site is like walking into a custom race/show car builders shop for me. I am always delighted with the incredible workmanship on the parts, the photography, and the site. I LOVE it! BTW, two turns on those puppies looks like alot of toe adjustment. Those threads aren't very fine by the looks of it, and two turns looks like at least 2/10 inch. That'd be a pretty large toe adjustment, I'd venture. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Man, we need an FAQ. I was about to just respond "look in old posts", but finding it was not easy. I KNEW there was a thread on this, but I ended up having to search on " AC " (a space before and after AC) to narrow it down enough to be able to find it. Anyway, here's the previous thread on this: http://24.4.88.29/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000267.html HTH, ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

As usual with you Simon, beautiful workmanship on the new parts. Two questions about the arms: 1) Why not go with Urethane bushings? 2) If the front link is shortened and the rear lengthened (by turning the adjusters in opposite directions) won't you get a bind? It looks like the adjusting part is threaded into rigid (non-pivoting) parts of the control arm. I'd think that if you were to try to put toe in with this setup (not advisable to do much toe in or out, as I've heard) you'd get binding due to the angles induced. For straight camber adjustment, it seems there'd be no problem. Just wondering how much toe adjustment you'd have with this setup before it binds. If a car is tweeked, sometimes it's nice to be able to get rid of that with an adjustment in the arms, if possible. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Mike, Check out my page on how I (well Jim Biondo did it for me ) fit 17x9 wheels in my Z. 149mm (5.87") spacing with coilovers, short springs to move the perch/spring up, and 1/2" thick rotor hats made it work out to 1/8" clearance at the rim lip, and 3/16" clearance at the sidewall. But you have flares, so you probably don't need that extra 3/4"-1" of backspacing anyway. I think you'll have no problem fitting them with coilovers. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -