pparaska

Billyz, Breakaway torque: I asked the same question a while ago. Most people said to leave it in the stock range (~25-35 ft-lbs). Supposedly this is much better than having it snap in and out in a turn with more torque running through it with a higher breakaway. If you're dragging only, I guess it wouldn't matter much. Cutting/welding halfshafts: Not advisable. At that small a diameter, a weld has to deal with very high shear loads. A weld out at the diameter of the outside of a 280Z companion flange is less stressed, and it is longer to take the load. If you wanted to shorten the "stick" in a CV shaft, the way to do it would be to cut it and have it resplined.

Clint, thanks. I've been aware of dsm.org, the mail list etc. since soon after it started. Even $1000 is too much for me to consider, so I'll gimp along with the ~240hp that the $50 mechanical boost controller gives . Some day the stock exhaust might rot out (106000 on the original and it's still going) and I'll upgrade that. As far as Japanese 4cyl. cars go, it's hard to beat the DSM.

quote: Originally posted by clint78z: Excellent discussion here Pete, I am not all turbo and no SBC chev fan . Me either, as having one of each (V8Z and Turbo Eclipse) shows. Believe me I'm on both sides of that fence. I toasted a 5.0 Liter Stang the other day (loud exhaust, etc.) with the Eclipse. Man was he surprised his V8 got spanked by a little 4 cylinder. I want to do things to the Eclipse (front mount intercooler, etc.), but parts for it ain't cheap and I tend to throw money at the Z instead. Seems that it's aftermarket has many of the same problems as the rest of the import scene - the prices of the parts seem very inflated to me. At least most of the Eclipses/Talons I see riced up can actually perform as well . [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited November 01, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by clint78z: Pete not to beat a dead horse here, my brother also own a 1990 talson TSI AWD and it does have what alot of people percieve as a ton of lag . I would like to take the negative and mystery from lag . Compare you dsm to the N/A version of 2.0L, if you were to test each side by side, theN/A vesrion is just gutless all the time . In most cases in driving the turbo car will have quicker response in all most every driving situation than it's N/A counterpart . Corky Bell says it best in his book no lag means no doubling your power . I guess it's that last bit (no lag, no doubling your power) that keeps me away from being a total Turbo freak. I do like the power my Eclipse makes at 15psi, it's just that if it's warm out, or the combustion chambers aren't totally clean to keep it from pinging (and the knock sensor is hearing it and retarding the timing) then it just doesn't run at full potential. I know I should put a catch can in the PCV line and I've done away with the valve cover vent spewing into the intake tract. Oil into the combustion chambers on these cars KILL their performance and it seems to be prevalent in the Talon/Eclipse/Laser. For racing, Turbo lag is not a problem. On the street, with pump gas, there are compromises with high boost turbo setups. It's those compromises, the immediate low end torque, and the simplicity and easy of working on the SBC that drove me to the V8. I'm not saying turbos aren't a great way to make power, as I have a 3200 lb 2 liter Eclipse that proves they are. And it's mostly stock, not optimized! ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I know that Paul Ruschman went after this issue by raising his differential. After lowering the car, he put in full bump in the rear and determined that the u-joint angle was too extreme, so he raised the back of the diff. Seeing as raising the back of the diff also helps the driveshaft u-joint angle issue with most V8 swaps, I think it's a good idea to raise to back of the diff for both reasons. I used a modified version of the JTR method for doing this - I cut about 0.3" out of the length of the top urethane mustache bar bushing above the end of the M-bar, and a like amount out of the center sleeve. I also left out the top large washer that comes with that kit. These two changes raised the rear of the diff by about 0.45". It was enought to really help bring my driveshaft u-joint angles closer to being the same (and smaller at the rear u-joint) and it made the halfshaft angle less severe at full bump. I have the CV shafts, so that was less of an issue for me. Oh yeah, an added benefit was to allow more room under the back of the diff for exhaust clearance. I could raise the exhaust a bit and run it more to the center of the diff because of this mod. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I paid $100 for the 280ZXT halfshafts from Clark Z cars of Arizona. I'd think the companion flanges would be on the order of $50 to $75 more. Not bad, IMO. Two new R200 pinion seals, a little grinding around the outside diameter, swapping the dust sheilds between the 240Z and 280ZXT companion flanges and you're good to go. Less than $250 if you paid someone to weld the dust sheilds on. Pretty cheap upgrade. But I know some have run into endplay problems with this swap. I don't know how, but it has happened. Greg Kring is one of those that this happened to and he shyed away from it (according to his web page). I'd say that Scottie's method of welding a plate onto the 240Z companion flanges and drilling 6 holes is worth considering to try to alleviate the endplay issue. From looking at the length difference in the 240Z companion flange and the 280ZXT on, adding a 3/8" steel plate to the 240Z companion flange ought to give about 1/4" more endplay in the shaft. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I just want to point out that Steve went through quite alot of work to get those numbers (~300hp/~300 lbft). Not to say it's not impressive, but Steve is a very sharp guy and had access to alot of good help and equipment while doing this over a number of years. Definitely not a cut and dried bolt on affair, or easy for the average Joe. I don't think anybody said a turbo L6 would be more gutless than a NA L6. Just how easy is it to dial in the turbo setup to not have some lag? I'm talking about cruise lag, at 2200 rpm. Yeah, that's how I want power. That's streetable to me. IF you ever get a chance to drive a car that has real grunt from down low (2000rpm) and keeps giving it to 6000+, you'll know what I mean. If I have to shift to make decent acceleration, no thanks. I have a turbo car (92 GSX - just stock with a spring loaded wastegate controller, not optimized) so I know what turbo lag is. Sure, if conditions are right and I'm set up for it, I have no turbo lag. Otherwise, forget it, shift, wait, and I have thrust. Not very enjoyable to me on the street. Sure I could spend a ton of money on it and get it to do what I want, but I'm not interested in a highly tweeked setup that I have to babysit. And 190 hp for all the money of going to 3.1L is a fun adventure I guess, but not that way I'd want to get that RWHP. It'll still be a peaky motor, compared to anything with lots of cubes or boosted. Yeah, I'm biased and these are my opinions. The thing I don't understand is that if people want streetable power, why turn up their nose to a larger engine (V8 or a large V6 like a 231 Buick) and maybe add a blower or turbo. Trying to get lots of streetable power out of a 2.8 or 3.1 liter engine is just fighting a tougher battle. If you're in it for the engineering exercise, cool I can appreciate that, but don't think it's going to be all cake to do it. And all this BS about american engines suck, pushrods suck, etc. is pointless nonesense. Tell Tony Christian, or your favorite NASCAR team that. Those guys have more high tech stuff than most of us can ever hope have under the hood. I'll delete any post on these forums that has that in it.

Euro, I think Morgan has your ticket there (Turbo L28). I've heard it's about as simple as he wrote there. 250ish hp is nothing to sneeze at in a 3200 lb? car. It'll move with decent authority. Pretty cool thread, seeing where it started. We kind of went all around the circle there guys, and ended up with a fairly inexpensive, farily easy way to get Euro what he wants. And I think we covered the options if someone wants more than 200hp as well.

Morgan, I think the only thinkg you left out was the Turbo and spercharged V6 examples we have with Scottie and John Scott. Very nice power curves (a bit peakier than a V8 but probably not as peaky as a smaller Turbo L6) and very streetable. BTW, I wasn't slamming Steve Webb's efforts. I think it's a great example of the capabilities of the L6. I just wouldn't want to go through all that to get 300 HP, RW or not. My way would to be add cubes (231 GN) and turbo THAT or Supercharge another big V6, or, of course, go with lots more cubes (V8).

As far as I know, to mount the R200 (saying nothing of the driveshaft) where a R180 was, all you need is the R200 Mustache bar. If you have the early R180 placement (70-some of 71?) you need a new front mount and the piece that goes between the "uprights" that the nice alum one mounts to.

First off, I'd think the core charge for an L-6 would be higher than a 350. Anyway, you might want to look at a known remanufacturer like http://www.jasperengines.com/frames.html . I'd bet Kragen's uses the cheapest remanufacturer they can find. I doubt teh quality would be high, but maybe o.k. There are some fairly cheap ($1289) crate motors from GM, e.g. http://www.sdpc2000.com/cart.asp?action=prod_detail&catid=128&pid=110 I'd feel better going with one of them. Of course, the bang for the buck one is the ZZ4, but you need over $3000 to play that game. Another option is check out the local speed shops and machine shops. Sometimes people have a motor built and can't pay the bill and the machine shop is willing to let them go for reasonable prices. This way you can get a warranty that can be enforced locally and be dealing with the engine builder directly. Hope that helps, ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I'd try a larger diameter Master Cylinder. This is a known problem with using the Datsun hydraulics to actuate the GM clutch fork - not enough throw. Not enough throw and you get not enough clutch disengagement and it's harder to shift. The stock Datsun MC is 5/8" diameter, you probably only need to go with a 3/4" diameter one. If you use an aftermarket piece, most are too long if you want to keep the windshield washer bottle in place. I've used the JTR recommended AP Racing ones, but they are pricey. The one I have on my car now is a Girling remote resevoir unit that I used a handfull of AN fittings to mount the remote filter to it, offset to the passenger side and toward the firewall. AN fittings aren't cheap either! The other option is to make a new place on the clutch fork that's closer to the fork's pivot. Not easy, especially with it in the car! HTH, Pete [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited October 28, 2000).]

John, do you have a digital camera or are they photos on paper? You could mail photos to me (I seem to be scanning alot of photos for people here these days - Just wait a few days or so and there will be TWO nice additions to the members rides page!) Or if you have a digital camera and can get them on your computer, email the pictures to me. If you need help, don't hesitate to email me - Back many years ago I had ZERO computer skills, and now I know enough to be dangerous and get a few things done. Nothing a little studying can't fix . Just be glad the only way to the Internet isn't Unix anymore. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I was going to look for this last night, but the #$@#$@#&! cable was down for 12 hours yesterday. There's a guy named Dave, I think on this site that makes them. Check the forsale forum and search, I think there was an ad there several months ago. If I find his email, I'll post it here. Something like 240Dave or some such.

Morgan, thanks! I remember the Home Dyno from years back, glad to see they have a way around tape recorders, .WAV files, cleaning up the files, etc. Talk about correction to the calibration of your pant's seat . I can see this as a new toy to have. Lord knows my finicky Turbo Eclipse could use it too. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Check out the rest of Simon's site. It's the nicest Z site I've seen, and some really nicely engineered and executed Z mods are eveident everywhere. IMO, Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

John, good call. Mine used to stick because the book frayed and got tangled in the switch. The switch is below the front of the pivot part of the handle. The only other thing that can make the light stay on (besides a short somewhere) is the brake switch in the hydraulics. It's on the fender below the master cylinder. I guess that the guts could get corroded and lock the piston in it to one side, but having air in one part of the system (front or rear) can make the switch activate. I think that's the whole reason for having the switch in there anyway. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

You need to use a slide hammer to put on the studs to pull the stub axle out. The inner bearing will either stay on the axle or stay in the strut. If it stays in the strut drive it out toward the center of the car. I use a brass drift to tap the outer race around it's circumference to make it come straight out. If the bearing stays on the axle, it will need to be tapped off or pulled off using a gear puller or press. The outer bearing will need to be removed with a gear puller or press with a bearing split plate. Machine shop time for me - I don't have this stuff. I had my stubs magnufluxed and shot peened while the bearings were off. I provided them with the outer bearing from Nissan and reminded them that the sealed side went to the flange, just in case, because when you pull an outer bearing off it will most likely ruin it, by the balls digging into the races. I put a new inner bearing in the strut housing (after packing the bearing, cleaning the housing and putting new grease in it). Next, I installed the copper washers and the bearing spacer sleeve onto the stub that came off it originally, and slowly tapped the stub axle back in, using the inner bearing as a guide to get in going in straight. When I had the stub axle seated, I then made sure the inner bearing didn't get driven out any by going around the inner and outer races with a brass punch. Install a new inner seal, install the companion flange (grease the splines a bit) an the large washer and a nut from a 280ZX (PN 43262-W1202). Torque to spec (sorry I don't know what it is). Then check that you don't have binding. The Nissan manual has a spec for a turning torque, I don't know what it is. There shouldn't be any discernable endplay. Well, that's what I did. [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited October 25, 2000).]

John, I guess I was wrong and 4 hoops are needed and not 2? Got any pics of these puppies? Thanks, ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Seems like if you can MIG weld (or pay someone to) making up halfshaft loops would not be such a big deal. Hang them well from the floor, and crossbeam above the diff, and have them so that they are just a tad wider than the OD of the halfshafts, and allow an extra inch top and bottom for the full throw of the suspension. One right at 1/2 length of the half shaft on each side. Make sure that if either end broke, the loose end would not be able to reach up to take out the brake line or fuel pump/lines. Some 1" by 1/4" steel (would they except AL? Probably not) from the steel yard, some bolts, some backing plates, etc. If you couldn't get enough containment with one, you could do one inboard and one outboard, but I don't think you'd need it. I don't see it as a big deal. (Your) time or money to have them fabbed and you are safe and legal. Since I won't be beating my car to death at the drag strip, and I have CV's and 280Z stubs, I'm not going to worry about my car. The wimpy 350hp 327 won't be too hard on it, and I have a light touch. Yeah, the halfshaft hoops weigh a bit, but it would at least be at the correct end of the car . I wonder if they'd allow lightening holes in the hoops .

The hooker mounts are for putting the SBC into a Z not a ZX in the "Scarab" postion. Yes, that's the same for aft position that you need to use in the ZX, since that's about as far back as the engine will fit, but I'm not sure the engine height you'd get with those mounts is what would work for oil pan clearance and air cleaner clearance. Ross C has done this with custom mounts I believe, and you should talk to him about the trade offs. Hopefully the MSA kit strikes a good balance on engine height.

The improved scan of the 280Z "Underbody alignment" drawing is updated at my site: http://members.home.net/pparaska/bodydim.htm ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

JOhn, I'm pretty sure the axles are the same except for the splined area. Check a catalog, (I don't have one here) to see if the bearings are the same between the 240Z and the 280Z. I'm 99% sure they are. That would clinch it as them having the same diameter at the bearing races. Remember, the other area the stub axles fail is at the friction weld between the flange and the shaft for the stub. It seems some racers are beginning to inspect this once a year and even magnaflux the area.

The way I read that is like I had interpretted it from what I heard: Since the Z has no upper control arm (although I think a Chapman/MacPherson strut has an infinitesimally small one up top) then it couldn't weigh more than 2000 and use it's IRS, according to NHRA. Again, the NHRA is pretty slow at coming around to changing it's rules for anything but a standard solid axle car. The rewrite from the late 90s to what Ron posted was to allow Vipers to run, or so I've heard. I think you might be able to protest that functionally, for safety purposes, the Chapman strut set up of the Z is just as safe as the upper and lower control arm setup, in the event of halfshaft (axle) failure. I believe it was the Corvettes with the older style IRS (where the halfshaft served the function of the upper control arm as well) was the point of the original "swing axle" rule. BTW, I was the turkey that moved this to the drivetrain forum . ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

One thing I can't believe no one has brought up is the NHRA rules on "swing arm" axles. Unfortunately, they see anything but a solid axle as swing arm, even though the IRS is better than swing arm. In the older vettes, the halfshaft is part of the suspension (it acts as the upper control arm), and if it snaps, you lose control. It seems that as far back as 1998, NHRA said that many classes of car could not use swing arm rear suspension if the car weighed more than 2000 lb. Since then, I've heard they re-wrote that to allow upper/lower control arm rear suspension for weights above that, supposedly to allow the Vipers to run. Anybody have a 2000 NHRA rule book to check this? Anyway, I've heard of people's quick Z's being banned from a track because they moved into one of these classed (went too quick for their old class) and that rule knocked them out. Any info on this? I'd imagine Michael's car will get into some pretty quick times once he gets the Big Block he wants in it (not the truck motor he has now). I'd figure Ron Jones would know about these things as well. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -