pparaska

Mike, I'll measure the bracket and the parts this weekend, if CRS (can't remember $h!t) doesn't get in the way. If you don't hear from me, let me know. I'll also measure up the hat and rotor, and determine which caliper part number it is. These are standard Wilwood parts. I'll see if I can come up with a vented rotor and caliper part numbers that would also work.

I was actually thinking of that for an anti-theft device. I still prefer a mechanical caliper for parking/ebrake use.

Mike, thanks for that info. It's great having someone here that's tried all this stuff. I went for the ebrake for a strange reason. The car has to go to the body shop and it won't be able to be run since I'm going to mask the engine off etc. They'll be pushing it around and I want them to be able to yank the ebrake to stop/hold it. I also like having an ebrake in case anything funny happens to all the new brake stuff I've put on the car. [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited September 08, 2000).]

Here's my opinion on rear disc brakes, fwiw: The early and late rear discs are probably not much better braking force and fade wise than the stock drums. But adjustment issues go away with discs, and hey, they look a bit better. The early calipers have a large yoke that goes around the caliper. This yoke/caliper is fairly heavy. The late calipers don't have the big yoke, but I hear they need rebuilding often - that's just hearsay though. (In the tech article section, there is a description I wrote up on using the heavy, early caliper/yoke and the late 280ZX rotor, with a flat plate adapter.) Most (all?) racing caliper setups don't have a parking/emergency brake function. I have the early Arizona Z front and rear brake kits. The early AZ rear kit uses a solid, drilled rotor. Both the early and late AZ kits don't have parking/emergency brake provisions. No parking/emergency brakes - that bothers me. So I'm working on adapting Wilwood mechanical spot calipers to the AZ Z bracket with another bracket. This isn't easy, as the caliper is a slider, and the bracket has to have fingers that fit into grooves on the caliper to hold it. I think a good bet would be to find an OE or aftermarket caliper that has a decent pad area (larger than the 280ZX type) and adapt it to the strut housing. If you are really working the car on a road course, I'd try to go with a vented rotor. I think Baer has a rear caliper that has some sort of parking brake provision. [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited September 08, 2000).]

I'm pretty sure it's 83, maybe also 82. I'll look into some old email I have on this and get back to you.

Low PMI is what makes cars like the McLaren F1, Miata, Elise, etc. fun. You turn the wheel, they go - no waiting - with less tire needed, less weight transfer, etc. Someday, I'm going to experiment with taking a 50 or 100 lb weight and moving it around in the car's luggage area to see if I can feel the effect. My guess is that this has more effect than you'd imagine. The moment of inertia (MOI) effect is proportional to the square of the distance (D) from the center of gravity of the car, and proportional to the mass (M). MOI = D*D*M So moving things closer to the CG has a large effect. I also put my battery behind the passenger seat on the luggage shelf, longitudinally and near the center of the car (just inboard of the strut tower). Nice sealed aluminum battery box from Summit also.

Not to shoot holes in your ideas/cars guys, but all that cast iron turbo plumbing and equipment looks like it might weigh something considerable. Have either of you weighed all this stuff out, added it to the engine weight, and compared it to the SB Chevy or Ford? I'm guessing with either the Buick or Nissan Iron block V6 and all the turbo stuff, including intercooler piping and intercooler, you're getting to within 50-100 lbs of a SB Chevy. How much do those IPR intercoolers and the piping weigh? The reason I'm asking is that stuff is far in front of the crossmember, and it increases the polar moment of inertia of the car. Again, I'm not shooting holes in the ideas or cars here, but I'm wondering what the real, installed system weight differences are.

Some camber plate/top spring perch combos are 2" less in height than the stock perch and isolator. Shortening the distance between the top of the spring and the strut tower with these aftermarket combos can take height out of the car while keeping the suspension travel the same.

The way I see it, there are at least the following questions you must ask yourself. The answers will clearly guide you to your motor size choice: 1) Do you want lots of low end torque? I mean, torque that is in the high 200 ft lb range at speeds below 3000 rpm. If you do, there are two ways to do it. One is a large displacement engine (V8), the other is a smaller displacement engine with super or turbo charging that is set up VERY well to get low speed torque and responsiveness. The latter is NOT easy or cheap to do, in my belief. But I may be wrong. Please enlighten me. Of course, either work great at the drag strip once set up correctly. Just look at the recent turbo small block cars/trucks in the NMCA drag championships. The turbo V8 guys are kicking butt! 2) Do you want an easy swap (as far as complexity in getting that torque curve) or a more high tech, but more difficult to set up car? The V8 is very simple to get the low and high rpm torque and power out of, the boosted smaller motors, less so. 3) Do you want to live with a car that may melt down if you push it too hard? This is an issue with highly boosted engines in the tuning stages, and not so with normally aspirated engines if built with reasonable compression ratios. 4) Do you want to do a highly documented swap (Chevy small block), or show off your ingenuity by doing something different? Either is valid, but one is easier and has more available support, while the other is more of a challenge and a chance to show off your talents. Don't forget that things like intercoolers, intercooler piping, turbos, etc. add weight as well. So when doing your weigh calculations, make sure you are figuring the complete swap, not just the long block. Think about how you'll use the car. If going drag racing, anything that makes gobs of power is fine, and a lighter setup is obviously better from a weight and weight transfer point of view. If you are driving on the street, and want to be able to hammer the car from 2000 rpm and feel an immediate surge, it's easier to do with larger displacement (V8) normally aspirated engines. Just some food for thought.

Yes, I'm sorry I forgot about Mike (scca), he's from my area originally, so I should send some business that way, huh? Anyway, if you look at his other thread, the issue is whether you use camber plates or not. I decided to not use them so as to keep the stock isolators for road noise isolation. I figure if I want more camber (than the slotted holes in the strut towers allow - not much) I'll get/make some custom control arms that can be lengthened, or change the dimensions of the strut top isolator.

Mike (scca) has a really good point that I left out - the camber plates lower the cars 2 inches (Mike, isn't it a different amount on 240Z's and 280Z's?) I'm using the stock 240Z strut isolators, and not camber plates, so to lower the car, I had to section the strut to keep the bump travel.

John, I just poured through the Chevy Power manual, 1970 Chevy overhaul and service manuals (I had a 1970 Camaro in high school ), a Chiltons Camaro manual, and a big Chiltons for cars up to 1980. I couldn't find that torque anywhere! Most places emphasized slowly tightening them in turn to keep things square and to make them "tight". I'd imagine they are grade 8 bolts. I think they are 5/16" diameter, right? Anyway, here's an excerpt from a manual that has torques based on fastener grade and size: I'd use that as a guide. The issue is as with any bolt, you want it to stretch enough that the spring of the stretched bolt clamps the parts together. Too little, not enough clamping force, too much, permanently strecthed bolt (sometimes designed that way, i.e., some head bolts) or broken bolt. I'd make sure to use a grade 8 bolt so that you can get enough clamping force. Hope that helps, ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Myron, have you tried enlarging the acclerator pump to 50cc's, changed the accelerator pump cam, or tried larger squirters? Those things usually are what hi-po engines need for tip in response. Sorry if you knew this and tried it already, I can't remember your set up exactly.

Mike, I took 1.5" out about 5 or six inches from the top. You don't want to cut it off too close to the top for two reasons: 1) you get too close to the threads with the cutting and welding, and 2) you want a piece long enough to weld on so that you can lay the strut and the top piece you are welding back on in side of a piece of angle iron to align them. A short piece is harder to aling than a long one. From about an inch and a half from the top, the wall thickness is the same, so anywhere is o.k. as far as that goes. As far as how much to cut, if you are lowering the car at least two inches, I'd cut out 2" inches worth so that your bump travel will be that same when you set it at 2" lower than stock. The other thing to watch is what strut cartridge lengths are available. If you cut out 2" I THINK the Rabbit and MR2 will fit. If you go more than that, you may end up with custom strut inserts. IF you cut off less, you just have to shim up the bottom of the cartridge within the strut housing. I think the front 240Z cartridges are 2" shorter than the rear, and if you section the rear by 2" you can put the front 240Z cartridges back there. The best advice is talk to Top End Performance, Ground Control, or Dandos, as they've been doing this for many years and know what would work for you.

Mike Fererra - they might have canned him for breaking so many Eagle Talon parts. No seriously, the Talon/Eclipse/Laser guys on the DSM list used to rag on him for breaking stuff so much, and for doing so much Honduh stuff. I think he tried to get other stuff in the mag, but that's changed, it sounds like. I have a few Turbo mags, but only the ones that feature a Z, which aren't many these days!

BTW, Henry Costanzo got back to me about his V8Z's crossmember. He made it himself. It uses a section of 4" pipe to pass the steering shaft by the motor mount.

John, thanks for that tip. Yep, I agree that since Comp Cams already had 4 degrees in the "dot to dot" way that they placed the dowel in that cam it would be 4 degrees advanced that way. I added another 4 degrees. I'm going to take that out now. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Yes, you can get glossy powder coating, in many colors. Just contact a powdercoater and they can tell you just how glossy it is.

Eastwood Company sells the tools, etc. along with a video on how to do it. Check out: www.eastwoodco.com and search on LEAD

I degreed in my cam at 4 advanced. But if you look at the cam card (pretty neat - Comp Cams has the spec cards for all of their cams on their web site (http://www.compcams.com), you see that when you install it a 106 degrees intake center line, it's already 4 degrees advanced from true "straight up". So my question is, should I retard it back to 2 degrees advanced (6 degrees from true straight up) or leave it at the 4 (or 8 straigth up)? I installed a quick change timing chain cover to be able to change the cam advance without upsetting the oil pan seal. It's not much work to drop the accesory belts, pulleys, water pump and timing cover to get to the parts. Put the dial indicator on the valve spring retainer, degree wheel on the harmonic balacer, and goto town. Once I get it on the road, I plan on including cam advance as a tuning variable. My (solid flat tappet) cam: (remember, this is a 327, so this cam is a bit "bigger" in duration to it than it would be to a 350 or 383) ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Jason, you should be fine with that balance issue. All Stock SB Chevy's except the 400 are internally balanced, so the 305 can use the same flywheel as the 350, provided they are both of the same seal design.

Owen, if you are referring to shift forks, I've read a few articles lately that quote T56s with forged shift forks to be stiffer and stronger than the stock (cast?) forks. Anybody know how much they cost? As far as clutch forks, I don't know. [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited August 31, 2000).]

Larry wrote: quote: So, front to back, I would need a Ford slip yoke, a stock replacement front u-joint, shortened (or new) tube, a Ford to Chevy u-joint, and finally the NEAPCO flange. Right? Either that or: -Ford Slip yoke -Ford to Chevy U-joint (sorry I don't have a part number for it, but call a driveline shop and ask them for a Spicer part to do this.) -Shortened driveshaft with chevy yokes welded to each end -Chevy u-joint -Neapco (or nice stainless alternative adapter for Chevy u-joint to Datsun 280Z R200 input flange. Actually, I'd go this way because the Ford U-joint is a large piece, and having that large driveshaft and welded on yoke at the rear will make it a tight fit near the front diff mount. Also, note that the Neapco part mates to the 280Z R200 input flange, but not the larger 300ZX R200 flange. The latter piece won't clear the front diff mount. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

Man, I've seen what happens when a stock iron flywheel comes apart in an aluminum bellhousing. The aluminum bellhousing takes away maybe 1 or 2% of the energy of that flying shrapnel. The 22 gage steel of the Datsun Z tunnel would take away less than 5 or 10% (my guess) and your (and your passengers) legs would slow the pieces down a bit. I knew a guy with a 57 steel body Chevy that had just spent a ton of money getting the rust out of the body, trunk, etc. and had it painted, then put a nice 283 and 4 spd in it. The stock flywheel let go at over 6000 rpm, as best he could tell. It made a nice crater in the concrete highway, chopped the headers off like they were strands of hair, cut through the inboard sides of the huge thick frame rails and almost through the other side, went through the top of the tunnel and out the cowl panel in front of the windshield, and made huge holes in the sides of the tunnel. Since these cars have the pedals behind that area, the driver and passenger got to keep their feet and legs. By the looks of the frame rails, etc., they would have had at least one of their legs either broken or cut off. NOT a pretty picture. Hopefully Mcleod or some one else will start making blow proof bell housings for the T56. I have one that was made for a Muncie, etc. It weighs at least 20 lbs, maybe more than an aluminum bellhousing. But it's low and near the c.g., so in it went! I have my GM'd Tremec bolted to it. I guess a kevlar bellhousing blanket might work but would be tough to fit in the space. Sorry to be so glum, but Locutus is right on this one and anybody that skimps on this phase ought to think about walking around on stubs or prosthetic feet/legs for the rest of their life to save a few hundred bucks. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@home.com">pparaska@home.com -

You're welcome, Grinz! I like the idea of taking the GM driveshaft route, with the Ford T-5, and the NEAPCO adapter. Just make sure you pay attention to the driveshaft u-joint angles - equal and less than 3.5 degrees - to stay away from driveline vibrations. This is a common problem for V8Z, if you hadn't heard. I have some stuff about this on my site, with links to a driveline specialist that covers this in better detail than the JTR manual. Check out "Driveline Modifications" on my site (see my .sig below) if you're interested. I hate that V8Z driveline vibration. I've been in two V8Zs that had it pretty bad.