pparaska

I'm with Jim. Isn't it a misconception that the hot ticket is to disable the vacuum advance (or not have one) if you are driving the car on the street and want part throttle response? Yeah the racers go without it, but part throttle is not in their interest. I'd think that vacuum advance might even be the culprit as to why the motor has trouble at times with the 1600 rpm 6th gear cruise. I read about the vac advance on the street thing all the time. It seems like everything I read says that unless you are racing all the time, vacuum advance is the way to go on the street. Unless you have a computer doing things for you and reading MAP sensors and the like. I've tried going without vacuum advance, and even with a 3300 lb car with a 240 deg @.050 cam, it liked having the vacuum advance.

Not to say what Michael is saying isn't right, but I have that kit, not installed yet either. And I found out what you did. Something to consider is how far back you need the seat to go and where that bar is in relation to the seat back and your head (with a helmet) when you have the seat where you want it. For that reason, I'm considering cutting the bar, and mounting it to the raised area of the floor above the seat belt bucket. I know this isn't as good as welding it out by the rocker box, I agree with Michael on that. But I'm 6'2" and I need that seat back almost all the way. With the bar mounted as you have it sitting now, it's resting in front of the header just in front of the hatch. That's too far forward for me, so I'll be shortening the legs and mounting it above the seat belt buckets. I plan on putting a reinforcing plate on that raised floor area and to put a doubler plate on the bottom 6 inches of the inner wheel house as well, welding them together in the corner and gusseting the area. Then I'll take the tubes that go inboard from the area just below the window on the roll bar and angle them down so that they rest on/next to the ends of my subframe connector. I'll then tie the subframe connector to the bottom of the rollbar with a horizontal short tube.

Weird they won't go. Look at the splined area real well and see if there are any nicks in the area where the flange stops on the axles. BTW, you do mean that they won't go on with the axles out like in the pic on your page right? I was wondering if they were stopping at the seal when you were putting the assembly together in the struts.

So far, I know of 3 methods to get CV shafts in a 240/260/280Z. All use the 280ZX Turbo CV halfshafts (unmodified) and an R200 diff: 1) for 240Z (and Early 260Z) stub axles, use the 280ZX Turbo companion flanges with the dust shield swapped with the on from the 240Z flange. 2) For the 280Z (or any 240Z/260Z, for that matter) use the u-joint type companion flange and have a custom adapter made to bolt the 280ZX Turbo CV shaft to the U-joint companion flange. This what I have on my car now. Drawings on my website. 3) Weld a flat round plate to the 240/260/280Z u-joint companion flange that has 6 holes in it to bolt to the 280ZXT CV halfshafts. This is what Scottie has done. It gives more endplay than the other two options. I'm wondering if there is an easier way that doesn't involve welding or any machining past drilling holes in a flat plate. From looking at the drawings of the adapter that I have on my car, it seems that if you were to take a flat plate of high strength steel about 3/8" thick, and drill and tap 4 holes in it to bolt it to the u-joint companion flange, you could clock the position of the 6 holes for the CV joint in such a way that you could have room to drill and tap for bolts to hold the CV joint to the plate as well. What bothers me about the idea is the proximity of the holes to one another, no matter how you lock the bolt circles. The other thing that bothers me is running shear loads through the bolted connections with tapped holes. What do you think? Maybe just welding the plate one would be the best bet. Or maybe use countersunk bolts in the plate to give the posibility of having bolt shank in both parts, the adapter plate and the U-joint companion flange. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I think this has something to do wit hthe dog clutches used instead of friction type synchros. Is that right?

Now to get a bit off topic: Rob, anybody, do you remember a Hot Rod magazine from like 15-20 years ago that had an engine that Smokey put into a Fiero that used pre-heated and "homogenized" fuel-air into the combustion chamber? I seem to remember him heating the fuel-air with the coolant, using a low pressure turbo to "homogenize" it, and then preheating it again (with the exhaust manifold)? I think it was called "Smokey's Hot Air Engine". I never did figure out if it was hocus pocus or not, but I have a lot of respect for him, so I kind of believed it. I never did hear about it again. ...Well, I just answered my own question kind of. This guy (T.O.O.) didn't believe it either. I had the same feeling about the "positive pressure" in the intake that Smokey said was just to get the mixture into the cylinder. Seems like this guy agrees that really was boost, and the power increases came partly from that. My point in bringing this up is that Smokey describes his reason for doing this whole project from "looking at high school physics books". Well truth be told, I didn't really get what he was talking about until I go into Thermodynamics class in college. I learned about the perfect (Carnot) cycle engine and how a higher mixture temp at combustion was better for power and efficiency. Then it made sense. Sorry for the ramble, I was just wondering if any of you remembered this. I do think that Mike's problem has to do with the carb though. Mike, have you tried bolting another carb on it for kicks? I have a rebuilt 750 vac sec sitting on my motor that I'd hank for you to try. I also have a 600 vac sec that you could borrow, just to rule out the carb.

BLKMGK, the shafts are different in length by a half inch I BELIEVE. That might be an option. There is quite a bit of throw on the outer plunge joints. Mardi at Raxles was talking about those Cobra halfshafts. He said the guys at Ford tapered the shaft down too quickly coming out of the joint and that he has been making replacement halfshafts that use a shaft that's either not as tapered or not tapered at all (I can't remember.) He said he gets alot of broken shafts in from those cars. He said that the SVT guys weren't in on that part of the design, which surprises the hell out of me. John Thagard's VLSD page is: http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~jthagard/vlsd.htm He says it's the 84-89 AMC Eagle 6 cylinder front CV shaft. I don;t know if it will work, because the diff side joint might be different on the VLSD halfshaft. The case and shaft that go into the VLSD are different than the LSD parts. [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited October 15, 2000).]

No doubt the "stickier" pads work much better than stock on any caliper. THe problem with the Z rotor is that the mass is so low that it heats up to quick and that leads to fade. It also isn't vented so it can't get rid of the heat fast either. This is of course for really running the brakes hard in succession a few time. I did that with the wimpy stock L6 and the fade was SCARY.

Guys, Guys. I have no plan to change anything in that area of my car. I was looking out for everybody else! I get quite a bit of email about this upgrade and alot of people either have issues with the price of having the 2 piece spool type adapter that I have drawings of, or they have a 280Z and don't want to "down grade" the 240Z stub axle and use the 280ZXT companion flanges. Some don't like the idea of welding, but I'm swaying toward that approach as the easiest way to do the swap if you have 280Z stub axles in the car already. I really do think the best way is to just do what Scottie did and weld a slab of steel plate to the u-joint companion flange. I like the idea of fewer bolts to come loose, etc. and the fact that you can gain some endplay as well. I'd just be very careful as to who picked the plate material, welding consumable, who welds and inspects the welds, and overheating the piece. You might want to do a before and after hardness test in the area near the splines to see if any of the heat treatment had been affected, and have that area heat treated back to spec (which I don't know, but you could use the before hardness as a guide). I know you guys probably think I'm a worry wart, but working as a mechanical engineer for the US Navy will do that to ya. They are CAREFUL. Terry knows about the site, and for all I know, he might have a screen name that I just don't know about. Scottie, many thanks for all your input. I figured if just clocking the holes around would have worked, you or Jim Biondo might have tried that first. But I was looking at it on the computer screen real quick and my mind started wondering to that solution as a POSSIBILITY. Some people do fret about welding a plate to the stock companion flange. I'm of the opinion that if the before and after hardness near the splined area of the flange were close, it'd be fine. If a good welder is aware that removing the heat treatment of the splined area is an issue, they could take measures to keep this from happening for the most part and alleviate the need for the testing as well. Ross, I was thinking about shear pins as well. Another option for those that wouldn't want to weld on the companion flange is to provide threaded studs in the adapter plate. Any way you look at it, running shear loads through a threaded part of a bolt is to be avoided and not acceptable in many design practice guide. I know it is done. The larger the factor of safety used in the design, the more forgiving things will be. (Heck, I have a driveshaft adapter that someone made me that's set up that way. I don't like it, but, I'll see waht happens. It seems that I have a rare R200 flange that has the larger pilot diameter of the two designs. So I'd have to make a centering ring up to use the NEAPCO piece.) I'm just throwing out ideas here to help the next guy. Every time I do this I get the people who tell me to just do it the way it's been done and get on with it. Well, Jim decided my path for me by selling me his adapters. But I'm ALWAYS looking for a different way to do things. It's the nature of me, my profession, and my hobby. Sorry to have caused a ruckus. It seems I forgot to put a warning in the post that I was in daydream/ramble mode again.

I called Mardi at Raxles.com. A quick look showed that the "stick" (the shaft portion) of the halfshaft on the left side was the shortest he knw of before getting down to something 2" shorter. He didn't think that would work. He mentioned that he could order custom length sticks, but needed to do a run of 30. I told him there might be a buyer for a set of 30, but I wasn't sure. That way, we could use the joints from the left shaft with this custom stick to make up an appropriate length shaft for the left side of the 240/260/280Z that would get away from this endplay issue. It's an easy thing to shorten the right side halfshaft, as you could put the 1/2" shorter stick from the left haflshaft between the joints of the right halfshaft. He said he'd look some more to see if there was something less than 2" shorter than the stick for the left halfshaft.

a57oval (Peter): I'd say forget about that MSA upgrade. You will need vented rotors on the front to make any real gains in fade resistance. That means going to a hybrid 300ZX/Toyota setup, or other hybrid setups, or a totally aftermarket setup. There are several upgrades out there, just search for around in this forum (use the search engine). Check the tech article section for Mike Kelly's (Mikelly) setup. Mike (scca) has a few setups also, Arizona Z car does, etc. I know there are a bunch of us that would love the details on how you procharged the 355 in your Z. The room seems tight, so any details on mounting, intercooler, model of progharger, etc. would be VERY interesting! Welcome aboard!

Stony (pics in post): the only way to do it is to know the URL of the pic on the web some place, so you'd have to put them up on one of the free picture sites if you don't have web space with your ISP, etc. If you have web space, and pics, but don't want to put a page up, you can upload the pics and reference them in your post anyway. Just know the full URL of where you put them and include the URL between the strings {url} and {/url} in your post, but use square brackets [] instead of the curly ones {} I showed above.

I have no long term use experience with it, but I really like how hard it (POR-15) is and how it seems to seal out moisture. I bruch it on parts these days instead of using a spray bomb. It's pretty tough, but be careful that you have a rough surface for it to bite into. ALso watch out for self life. After you open it, it will start to slowly cure in the can. It will do this before you open it also. Either Hirsch Automotive (who sells Miracle Paint - much like POR-15) or POR-15's make says to not try to hold on to it for longer than 6 months. Actually the best thing to do is poke holes in the top and pour through them, putting some duct tape over the holes when done. IF you take off the lid, and get some on the edge and then put the lid back on, it will glue the can shut. Poking the holes works fine. I pour out what I'll need into a margarine container or a paint can lid and use it from there, making sure to tape over the holes right away. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

It's a moisture cured urethane, which means it has some flexibility. I don't think it's very flexible, but slight movement of the panels should no make it crack off.

I guess this is more common than I thought. I had Bilsteins in my 240Z years ago (man were they stiff!) and the weird nut on the top was hard to get their special wrench to tighten well. It came loose and after much searching I found that it was the culprit of the banging noise. It had backed out a long way, and I found it by jiggling the car side to side and seeing the strut slop around!

Mike(scca), the reason you had to disassemble the suspension to get the shaft it is bacause the end of the CV shaft has a seal plate with a cone in the center of it that sticks out from the end of the outer joint. To get that cone to clear the outer diameter of the adapter (for the 280Z stub axle conversion I have on the car now) or the 280ZXT companion flange (for the 240Z stub axle conversion) you had to move the companion flange out from the center of the car. Once the CV joint was mated with the companion flange or the adapter (depending on which conversion I had in place), there was some endplay available. with the suspension in droop, probably 1/4", but I didn't measure. What I did was bolt the suspension back in without a spring and tested for bind through the entire movement of the suspension. The only place I got any bind was full droop with the 240Z stub axle/280ZXT companion flange, and that was really more of an interaction of the extreme angle the CV was at combined with the shaft being compressed so much. In other words the outer joint was compressed to the point that as I turned the axle, the top trunion on the CV was probably running out of room to slide, but only in the last 1/8" of droop, with 1.5" shortened struts and a .5" raised diff. Stock length struts would have more droop and the CV angle would be more severe, I'd think so you would probably have trouble with that. There is an issue there. With the adpaters and the 280Z companion flanges and stub axles, I did not have this problem. In looking at the stub axles, I'd think that a rebuilder could have the shaft shortened on the outer end, even by 1/4" and have the splines extended toward the other end of the shaft the same amount, thus shortening the shaft. This doesn't seem like such a big deal, since you might want to have the boots replaced anyway, and for that the trunion has to come off the outer end of the shaft anyway. Finding someone to respline a shaft is not a huge problem - the hotrod guys do it all the time with shortened rear axles. I think this would alleviate any concerns about end play for little trouble and money. I will give Mardi at Raxles a call about this . He's a pretty good guy and into this sort of stuff.

Morgan, thanks to DrewZ, I now have the Euro tail lights I've wanted for a long time. So wiring all the lights in the housing of theses the same would do away with the yellow for the turn signals only (I think the Europeans have a great idea with yellow for the rear turn signals) That said, I really want to do something about the low amount of light that comes out of the tail lights/ back of the car. I have a buddy that had his 240Z rear ended on the DC beltway 3 times in 3 years. He is and excellent driver, and knows that his Z could stop shorter than the average SUV, and knew to leave distance between who he was following. All of the hits were many seconds after he had started braking. He feels that the low amount of light coming from the brake lights was the culprit. I agree. That said, I want to brighten the both the tail lights and brake lights. SInce I have the Euro tail lights (that I've pulled the lenses out of and polished up) I'd LOVE to put LEDs in the housing to get faster and brighter light. I love the quick response of the LED lights. But it would be VERY expensive, in my opinion to get enough LEDS in the housing to really make a difference, and they would need to be white to make them bright enough through the dark red lenses of the Z. So my first attempt will be to use some reflective aluminum paint on the entire inner housing of the lights. One tail light has aluminum reflectors that are polished and the other never were polished. Weird. Anyway, I will paint them with Eastwoods reflecitve aluminum and cover it with their clear diamond crystal paint to fight oxidation and dulling of the reflectors. I'll just go ahead and paint the entire inside of the housing hoping that it might enhance the output of the housing. I may try brighter bulbs, but I fear melting the housing or lenses. Has anyone come up with a good center mounted brake light for the Z? I'd like something to go at the top inside of the hatch glass, but not to tall as to not block rearward vision. I think a single or double high strip of bright red LEDs would be great! I'd love to hear any ideas.

I just wanted to clarify. The binding that I had at full droop was an angularity problem with the inner joint. It may have had something to do with end play and the severe angle the joint had at full droop. Note that this was with the differential mounted about 1/2" above the stock location at the rear which agrivated the problem.

Morgan, you are right about the turn signal switch. If you look at my second page on turn signal switch mod you'll see what these wires go to. The Green w/ Yellow (GY) stripe (on my 73 anyway) goes to the brake switch. The turn signal switch interupts power from the brake switch (GY) from going to the bulb that is being used by the turn signal flasher. You can see that from the schematic of how the turn signal switch works on that page. Here's an excerpt from my page, telling you what the 6 wires go to: Green-Black stripe (GBL) : Right front turn signal & dash indicator bulbs Green-Red stripe (GR) : Left front turn signal & dash indicator bulbs White-Black stripe (WBL) : Left rear turn signal bulb White-Red stripe (WR) : Right rear turn signal bulb Green (no stripe) (G) : Flasher output (other side of flasher is +12V) Green-Yellow stripe (GY) : Brake switch (closed when brake pedal is up) Wipers: Pull the cowl panel off that's infront of the windshield and pull the wiper motor and arms out. You have to feed the wiper motor wire and grommet through the firewall. It's tricky to get in and out. Just move it around a few different ways. Now see if the pivots and housings that bolt to the car near where the wipers go on are corroded. The part that bolts to the car with 3 screws is aluminum, and the shaft for the wiper that goes through it is steel. Yes, galvanic action. There's a tiny c clip that holds this together at the top of the aluminum piece. I was chicken to take that out as I thought I'd spring it and it wouldn't fit afterwards. I just kept soaking the part in Kroil and moving it. TONS of read rusty liquid came out forever. I then lubed it with WD-40, and then soaked it in 10W30 oil. They move nice and free now. This is usually why the wipers are slow. While you have it out, grease all the joints in the system. I left the bag on the motor, some people open that up and lube things. Yes, I've disected the entire car. It's an illness that I've yet to seek treatment for . ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

That's right, no headlight relays! Yes, you can disassemble the headlight switch, clean, lube, and flip the rocker parts around to use unused parts of the contacts as well. (there's very few parts on this car I haven't disected ). Check my site for an article on adding relays to the turn signal circuit to keep the lights working and the switch from taking the brunt of the lighting current. I used the stock headlight switch and hi/lo beam switches, but wired them in series, sending fused power out on the low and high beam wires. I did away with the wire from the common of the headlights back into the cabin, and grounded the headlights to a big cable going to the battery. I ran a realy off of each of the high and low beam wires that go from the hi/lo switch and ran large gage wire from the altenator (with fusible link) to the relay contacts, and then to the hi and low beam contacts on the lights. Yeah, the person(s) who designed the Z wiring studied at Lucas Electric, I believe! Pete http://members.home.net/pparaska [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited October 12, 2000).]

I didn't know any 79's came with CV shafts. I thought is was only the 81-83 Turbo models. Yeah, endplay is scarce, but there are a few cars with this conversion (using 240Z stub axles, and modified (dust sheild) 280ZXT companion flanges) with the 280ZXT CV halfshafts and no ill effects. I've had both swaps on my 240Z, both the 240Z stub axle/280ZXT companion flange conversion and the 280Z stub axle, 280Z companion flange, and custom adapter. See this site or my site for tech articles. On my car, with the 240Z stub axle conversion, there is was slight binding only at the last 1/8" of droop of the suspension travel. I doubt that would have been a problem. This is not always the same car to car. I think it has to do with build and assembly tolerances. If the diff is moved to the left to much in the mountings, the left axle could have a binding problem. There is some play in the mounting, so if I were setting a car up like this, I'd try to get the diff pushed over to the right of the car as I was bolting it all together. I know that Greg Kring had big problems with the left shaft binding when he tried this conversion. With the 280Z stub axle version of the conversion there was no problem with endplay. But there is only a 1/4 inch of end play at full droop. Plenty in my opinion. I think it was Scottie who has converted his car using a customized 280Z companion flange. With a piece of plate welded onto the companion flange, and the 6 holes for the CV shaft drilled into it, the shafts don't have to be compressed as much and there is no problem with endplay. To get the CV shafts in and out of either of the conversions I did, you have to either tak the control arm loose (inside is easier than outside joint, generally), or undo the struts at the top and swing them out. I usually do the latter if I'm not taking the diff out for some reason. For Scottie's welded adapter, I'd bet you could swap the halfshafts out without undoing the suspension. Scottie? comments? ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

I didn't forget, but was goofing with scanning and reducing the size of the file. I came up with a PDF that is 30 Megabytes (600 dpi scan BMP embedded in a PDF) that zipped down to 0.35 Megabytes. It's HERE, on my web site. I hope that helps.

Once again, I have to beg off on this issue - I have never started the engine! If you have no radiator, I'd go for a Griffin or other large Aluminum radiator, since a few have had problems with the JTR recommended 84-86 Carmaro (non-heavy duty version) overheating on them. Like I've said before, I got mine cheap, I have a powerful fan behind it, and if it doesn't work out, I'll have a Griffin, or some such, AND a powerful fan. I have A/C afterall, and you need more than just a wimpy fan if you ask it to do more than just cool the engine. I doubt I'll regret paying $175 for the fan new (the Ford parts guy liked the project!). I would go with a SPAL or other sort of fan before the Black Magic fan though, as they have been shown to be better at pulling air through, make less noise, and are more efficient. I believe the same can be said of alot of the OE fans of late (Late Mustang GT (after the cooling fan upgrade (after 98?), Taurus, Lincoln MK VII, etc.) I feel this is one area the OE's have done their homework and have alot to offer. Those are my opinions based upon the information I've seen on radiators and fans. Others will probably come to different conclusions. Some of my info on fans comes from automotive engineers at Ford, and from JTR. As for the radiator, well, this site has shown me that the Camaro radiator has it's limitations. For a mild V8, it's probably fine. If I have to change mine to a Griffin, I'm out a whopping $50 for the like- new Camaro radiator and custom supports that I bought from Jim Biondo. $50 is chump change when it comes to the total project cost, believe me!

Just to let you guys know if you didn't already - Centerforce ($$$$$$) is not the only maker of dual friction clutch discs. You can get just the disc (unlike the robbers at Centerforce) from McLeod. Centerforce DF in some applications is just an OE clutch hat with a dual friction plate, that you pay SUPER BIG bucks for. I found that out when I bought a CFDF for my AWD Eclipse.

I think the difference is a (very wimpy) inner door beam in the 73. It's so wimpy looking that I'd not worry about it being there or not. It might add a few pounds of weight, but not much. The doors are pretty light either way.