pparaska

A hydraulic TO bearing is a cylindrical thing that slips (snuggly) over the bearing retainer like a regular TO. Think of it as a hollow slave cylinder that has a TO bearing at one end against the clutch had and pushes against the bearing retainer at the front of the transmission case at the back end. The hollow cylinder has an annular volume for the hydraulic fluid and a ring shaped piston in it that pushes on the bearing to make it move forward. Two lines run to it from the outside of the bellhousing, one for actuating it and one with a bleeder in it so you can bleed the clutch hydraulics from outside the bellhousing. Hope this helps, Pete

I have the McLeod unit in my car. It's not running, but I push the pedal every once in a while (I'll get to why later). The first push has a sticking point that's stiff at the top. After the first push, it is like a normal hydraulic clutch. I greased things when putting it together, so I don't know what the problem would be, other than an interla sticking in the hydraulic TO bearing. The reason I push it every once in a while is that I've heard of them leaking if you don't keep using them. Some versions are different than others about that, I would suppose. The McLeod unit is nice, but not cheap ($260). The nice things about the Mcleod unit are that it's self adjusting (some aren't?) and the swivels for the hoses look to be very rugged. Very trick looking having the braided lines going in an out of the blowproof bellhousing with grommets on a custom access plate over the fork hole.

Not sure, but I thought the 83 or 84 was the last RWD straight 6 Maxima. I had an 85 and it was FWD, V6. I had a buddy in college that had an 81 Datsun 810 (became the Maxima in later years). That think had an EFI L24 in it, a 5spd, and IRS RWD. It would flat out go around the corners. I couldn't keep up with it in my stock 240 with wide tires. THe guy was a better driver and a bit mor insane though! Fun sleeper. Hmm. How about an old 810 with a small block? Hmm. Family car!

Just wondering what: 1) the weight of the car with the stock engine is and it's front/rear weight ratio. 2) either the stock engine/trans weight or the body weight (including front/rear) is without the engine. In other words, how much will this thing weigh when you get a Chevy v8 in it, and what will the weight distribution be? If you don't know yet, this is something people will want to know to see if it's a "pig" handling wise, etc. What kind of engine/parts are you using and what transmission? Sounds like a cool project. That'll be one hell of a GT! ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Jim. Forget about the wheels and the relative height of the engine crossmember. The control arms and tierods are the only things that connect the wheel to the crossmember, and they pivot, so they don't have any set relationship to one another. The struts and springs hold the car up over the wheels. The strut is holding the unibody up at the front and rear at the top of the shock towers. The crossmember is bolted to the unibody. So adding the spacers between the unibody frame rails and the crossmember (on top of the crossmember) LOWERS the crossmember and hence the engine. I had a tough time with this at first until I thought about what was holding the car (unibody) up and what was holding the engine up. And I agree with you, the crossmember spacer blocks that JTR says to put between the bottom of the frame rails and the top of the crossmember can't possibly have an affect on the harmonic balancer to steering rack distance. I couldn't find where they said that when I checked my book. Maybe mine is an older addition.

Fast Frog - that Flexlite 150 is actually about medium for moving air. ALot of OE fans move more, notably the 4.6 Mustang GT fan, the Lincoln Mk VIII, and I've heard the Taurus fan.

Jim, you've got it backwards - easy to do. The struts and springs hold the car off the ground through the shock towers. The spacers between the frame and the engine crossmember only lower the engine (along with the control arm inner pivots and steering rack). So taking out the spacers gains you 1/2" of ground clearance on the pan. The spacers were put in by JTR to gain hood clearance (I didn't need any with a 30-336 Holley contender manifold, 750 vac sec Holley 3310, and a 3" high, 14" dia drop Moroso air cleaner) and clearance at the top of the tunnel opening, and to fit the taller distributors (HEI) under the modified hood latch. I didn't need that either, since I move the hood latch over the left valve cover. I took the spacers out to help with the crank and transmission shaft centerline angles, relative to the diff, to get the u-joint angles smaller and more equal. In my opinion, only use the spacers if you are running into distributor or transmission clearance problems. The extra oilpan clearance is needed, and the induction system can probably be altered to get clearance there. The JTR mounts lower the engine quite a bit anyway, so try your engine install without the spacers first. Those driveshaft u-joint angles are important too! BTW, the oil sump ends up just behind the front tires. Having it low there means that coming down too fast off of a speed bump when crawling over it will fairly easily smack the oil sump. I've seen that happen! [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited July 20, 2000).]

Thanks Scottie, Yeah, in my original post on this thread, when I said "muffin fans in the wheel wells", I was referring top Henry Costanzo's 4" fans in the inner fenders. If you look on this site's (or my) links page you can see the article on the GA Z Clubs site documenting this modification. I remember seeing Henry's car at the 95 Convention in Atlanta, where he gave a V8 Z conversion tech session and used his car as a centerpiece for discussion. That's one nice show Z by the way. Anyway, he said it worked to cool the engine, but I was just relaying some info the Z racer had told me. He said that Lotus had tried that method and went away from it. I'll bet it helps in slow traffic though! I hate being snobbish about technology, but the NACA ducts "look" hi tech to me (even though they are 40-50 years old), and I like that they are efficient for their size as I don't want a lot of holes in the hood. I'd really like it to look understated - just my style. I believe the NACA ducts work best with laminar flow over them, so I'm not sure if they will work, as I don't know what the flow regime over the hood in that area is. Still hoping to get info. I still may go with fans that exit to the inner fenders. The more I think about it, the further up on my list the cold air induction gets. Thanks for the info! Any details of where the fan on the Mr. 2 exited to? Those are neat go karts! ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Drax, - NACA ducts in front of wheel. I have no idea if that would work. - Louvered inspection lids next to hood. Yeah, I bet they leave the hot air out at a stand still. I wonder if there is positive or negative pressure there at the side of the windshield when the car is on the freeway? Motorsport used to sell those, I wonder if they still do. You could get that done at a rod type body shop also. Hmm. But I kind of agree with Jim - I don't like the louver look on a Z. I think the NACA ones look more fitting to the visually (not actually) slippery lines of the Z - just my opinion. Thank for the input!

Just remember that if it came with an LS1, it has a different bellhousing that won't work with the earlier motors.

The Series 1 240Z (1969 through mid Jan 1971, VINs HLS30-00001 thru 051583) had fresh air vents in the outer sheet metal of the hatch just below the glass. These were piped to the two holes in the bottom surface of the hatch behind the weather strip and into the interior of the car through the hatch. The pipes were there to keep water out of the car. Later cars had no vents in the top surface of the hatch, but had filled rubber grommets in those two holes at the rear underside of the hatch. The filled area of the grommets are really thin and tend to rupture. Then you get exhaust gas in the cabin through the deck, just the way Drax found it. The key is that Nissan saw the flaw in this ventilation design and plugged those holes. The fresh air vents were moved to the C pillars, behind the Z emblem. Nissan still has the filled grommets if you want to buy new ones. Either way, fill those holes! I also found numerous areas where the the floor or deck behind the shock towers was not sealed well to the area where the little wells next to the quarter panel is. The radio antenna drain hose grommet is popular, as is the grommet where the vapor hoses go from the interior of the car into those little wells. One really good idea I found was to make a sort of boot for the latch mechanism in the hatch to block the gases coming around the hatch mechanism through the hole for it in the hatch lower surface next to those old drain hole grommets mentioned above.

Thanks for all the input guys! Yeah, I'd need to borrow a car to do some testing! And I looked at that AZ Zcar hood - those NACA ducts are pointed the wrong way, and the geometry looks suspect also. Since I'd need $1000 worth of parts to get anything shipped, I guess I'll stay away.

Last week I mentioned that an old Z racer I know had seen aero data for the 240Z that showed a low pressure area above the hood in the first several feet from the leading edge. I'm looking for any detailed info on that phenomenon for the 240Z that anyone might have - especially what the pressure profile along the hood is, and how it might vary across the width of the hood. I plan on using that phenomenon to aid in underhood temp reduction and radiator scavenging. Supposedly, the GT40 used this idea, and Terry Oxandale used a similar method on his Ford V8 Z race car. Instead of a huge hole/duct in the hood, I'd like to employ NACA outlet duct shapes cut into the hood and epoxied ducts on the underside of the hood, a la 1969 GT500 Shelby. Our grandparents and/or parents tax dollars paid for that research many years ago to come up with those inlet and outlet duct designs, so I figure why not use it? I'll pull my Fluid Dynamics book out of the packed up boxes and see if I can figure a size and number of ducts needed to make this idea work. With a high pressure area in front of the radiator, some good ducting from the grill opening to the radiator, and the low pressure area above the hood in the area behind the radiator, I hope that more than two ducts will not be needed. BTW, this old racer kind of poo-poohed the idea of muffin fans in the wheel wells, as alot of racers have shown that the wheel well is a high pressure area and the fan would have to fight that at speed. Same thing for vents toward the trailing edge of the hood since that is getting into a high pressure area. No doubt it would help in traffic, as the heat would rise through the vents at ambient static pressure. BTW, I saw some pics from the latest National Z convention somewhere lately on the web, and I saw a Z with louvers in the front area of the hood. Another shot had two tubes connected to the firewall leading to the cowl area. This was on a red Chevy V8 car. One tube and hose lead to the air cleaner, but the other went toward the carb? Not sure what's up there. Anyway, I also plan on tapping into the cowl area for high pressure intake air, although the ram air box with hose(s) to the radiator support looks promising. Any ideas or prior work appreciated! ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Drax, no biggie, the thread was just heading in a bad direction, so I thought I'd say something. BTW, the reason I chose the unsophisticated "BIG" displacement route (although a 327 isn't that BIG), was that I want low end grunt that is repeatable, easy and trouble free without the "buzz" of a high strung setup (cam choice, gearing, etc.) I have a turbo car that is admittedly not tweaked (except for a spring loaded manual boost controller valve), but I'll tell ya the thing is tempermental about when it wants to have what amount of performance. Ambient temps, the cleanliness of the combustion chambers, etc. have lots to do with how it will jump when I down shift and jump on it. The car in question is a 92 Mitsu Eclipse GSX, running 15 psi boost, through all the stock restrictions. Obviously not a tweaked setup. Now, I'm sure that a well setup turbo or supercharged car with a V6 of 3+ liters will run great at almost any kind of rpm, but I don't want to have to engineer the car to get to that point - I want the easy way out. For me, there is just something special about a large displacement engine that makes the car jump at low rpm (and higher ones of course.) I don't race, but enjoy a fun street car. When I hit the go pedal on the highway, or after shifting into the next gear at less than 2000 rpm, I want to feel LOTS of push on my back. A large displacement engine in a light car is an EASY, yet unsophisticated way to do that. Not that I couldn't build a turbo or supercharged smaller engine to do it, but not as easily or cheaply. I just don't care that it's a 50 year old design - it works and does what I want. Gas mileage? I live 1.5 miles from work, and gas is dirt cheap anyway, compared to life's other costs, in my opinion. So yeah, the old, inefficient pushrod motor is not exciting as an engineering statement, but it will move the car the way I want it to - quickly from just about any rpm in just about any gear, with the A/C compressor running! (Granted, I haven't driven MY conversion, but I've driven others that are similar.) I really don't care that it's not high tech or sophisticated. I deal with high tech stuff at work all day, and I get my fill there. My Eclipse is no fun in stop and go traffic when the A/C compressor is on, or worse yet, cycling from off to on or visce versa. Cubes cure that little problem! A recent drive in a 400 hp (flywheel) V8 240Z with a 5 spd reassured me of my choice. Mashing the gas from anything above 1800 rpm and it threw you back into the seat with authority! And the push didn't give up at some low rpm either - it lasted to 6500 rpm until I let off the gas! If you haven't driven or ridden in a car like that, it's hard to imagine or appreciate. Just my thoughts on why a pushrod V8 isn't such a bad choice. YMMV.

Hmm. Disappointing direction we are headed down here. I thought we were all about open mindedness on this site. I believe Michael (HP Tech) was just pointing out that the V10 Triton motor, etc. are heavy and not that powerful in standard buildd. And it's hard to go away from stock affordably that way. "Pushrods suck" is definitely a closed minded idea. Take a look at what's been done with it, the LT1, etc. GM decided to go with pushrods on the LS1 because the idea of lower potential due to valvetrain weight were unfounded. Advances in camshaft design and roller cams have negated the need to spin the engine up, and the valvetrain can be lightened easily enough so as to not have it be a detriment. Pushrods = truck engine? Come one, that's a bit radical, don't you think? Check out the latest (Sept 2000) GM high Tech Performance mag. An LS1 Camaro with head work and a new cam went 11.27. I really don't think that's a low tech motor, but if you want to make generalizations like "pushrods suck", then you won't be able to see the beauty of that design. Let's keep it openminded people! This IS NOT Zcar.com!

Congrats on finishing (at least getting it on the road - I doubt these cars are EVER finished ). Just wondering if you were planning on documenting how you did things. There is so little documentation on engine mounting, etc. for the Ford V8 swap, it would be good to have some tech articles for it.

Iamjackal: Check out the Sept 2000 issue of GM High Tech Performance magazine. It's kind of hard to find, but they go through a T-56 rebuild with D&D Performance in Wixom, Michigan. D&D offers a synchro rebuild kit ($250), and notably, a manual for $20 if you buy parts from them. D&D Performance, 49676 Martin Dr. Wixom, MI 48393 248/926-6220

The backspacing needs to be more like 149mm, or 22mm offset (toward the outside of the wheel) for a 17x9 wheel to fit with coilovers. Note that this is with a Wilwood rotor hat that is 1/2" thick at the wheel mating surface, so for a stock drum, you'd need more offset or a spacer. Check "wheels & tires" on my site (below) ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

About the Ford Fans. Mike kZ is right, the Taurus fan is shrouded, the GT Mod motor Mustang fan is not. If the Taurus fan motor is the same as the Mustang one, I'd go for the Taurus piece as a shroud is better, and you wouldn't have to make one. I'm goint to try to go with out a shroud first, since I have the Mustang fan mounted 1/4" from the core of the Camaro radiator. I may end up adding a shroud and moving the fan back a bit.

If they are real leather, I kind of doubt the paint would work well. Talk to an uphosterer. BTW, I had a guy come over in his Miata and he pulled the seat. We test fit it and it is plenty small in width (2 inches narrower, seemingly everwhere- much the same shape as a Z seat) The cushion length was the same (about 2 feet) and the seat bottom was just a tad thinner. I had my Z seat in without any of the plastic spacers on the studs and I had 3 1/2 finger widths between my head and the un-linered roof. The Miata seat allowed for about 4 fingers. The Miata seats mount differently (holes in the brackets instead of studs) and the pads with the holes are angled a bit from the seat rail. The adapter brackets wouldn't be hard to make though. The seats seemed o.k. in comfort and support, nothing to write home about (they were out of a 91 though, so might be flattened). Supposedly, the seat mounting, etc. were all the same from 1990-1998.

You guys aren't mentioning the diameters of the M/C or S/C, but I know this is an issue with the 6.2:1 pedal ratio of the Z, especially if you are using a stock length clutch fork. Some people solve the excessive pedal throw issue with a modified clutch fork (S/C point closer to the pivot) or a larger diameter M/C. There are aftermarket Tilton, Girling, AP racing units that come in larger than stock (5/8") diameters. I've had a few in my car trying to get the clutch to work. I started with a 1" AP Racing master cylinder (short one to keep the W/W bottle in stock location) but it was too large, and made the clutch pedal feel like a quadracep exercise machine. If anyone is interested, I have this unit for sale. It might work better for a fork type clutch setup (I have a hydraulic T/O bearing). Anyway, having to get rid of the bottom pedal stop to disengage the clutch, and then having to remove the top stop and add a spring leaves you with a VERY long clutch pedal throw. The car would be much more fun to drive if you used a larger M/C diameter and shortened the throw needed for full clutch actuation, fully disengaged to fully engaged.

WOW, Mike, that was an impressive diagnosis. I read the first post and I had no clue. Your analysis makes alot of sense!

Frank, others, see my response on clutch pedal throw at: http://24.4.88.29/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000083.html I moved that tread from the ChevyV8 forum, BTW. FastFrog, What year Corvette had the 13/16" M/C [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited July 13, 2000).]

I got my fan from the parts dept at the local Apple Ford Dealer in Columbia MD. He was interested in the project and gave me a hell of a break on the price ($175). I'll work on getting a schematic together that's presentable and post it on my site. I don't have any suitable pics of my car's wiring, but when I'm done I will document it and put it on my site. M.A.D. Enterprises used to have a web site, but I haven't been able to get to it in a while. I think Mark may have taken it down because it was out of date as to what his advice is these days. The guy is incredibly anal retentive, and that's coming from someone else who is! He is a wealth of information. His phone number is 559-539-7128. Jim, I've been playing with electronics since I was a kid. My dad's an electrical engineer and taught me lots of stuff. I've just been researching this fusible link stuff myself lately. Any way I can help with the electrical stuff, ask and I might have some ideas. One thing I've learned is to size wire based on acceptable voltage drop. Look at the total length of the circuit (including ground wires) and the max current draw on it. Then pick a wire gage that gives no more than the allowable voltage drop for that amp load and wire length. For instance, if you have 20 feet total of wire in the circuit, and the circuit needs to carry 35 amps, and you decide on a 1/2 volt acceptable drop, then you use R=V/I to figure the allowable resistance in all the wire: R=.5/35 = 0.0143 ohms. To find out an acceptable ohm/ft value to select the wire gage from, you divide the value of R by the wire length: R/L = .0143/20 ohms/ft = .000715 ohms/ft or .715 ohms per 1000 ft Then you need to know the resistance per length of the standard wire gages (which I'm going to give you ): (Reference, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 28th edition, 1944 Wire Table, Standard Annealed Copper ) Gauge No. Ohms/1000 ft Ohms/1000 ft @ 68 degrees F @ 167 degreesF 4/0 0.0490 0.05961 3/0 0.0618 0.07516 2/0 0.0779 0.09478 1/0 0.0983 0.1195 1 0.1239 0.1507 2 0.1563 0.1900 4 0.2485 0.3022 6 0.3951 0.4805 8 0.6282 0.7640 10 0.9989 1.215 12 1.588 1.931 14 2.525 3.071 16 4.016 4.884 18 6.385 7.765 20 10.15 12.35 22 16.14 19.63 24 25.67 31.22 Any smaller than that, I don't see a need for. Notice that the resistance per length goes up for a higher temperature (more likely for underhood I guess.) Anyway, for the example above, 8 gage wire would be needed (.764 is close enough to the .715 number), 10 would have too much resistance and voltage drop. School's out! Hope that helps.

Seems that I remember someone saying to not bolt the shoulder straps to the floor, since if the seat gives where the straps come through, the shoulder straps would tend to compress the spine! Not a good thing!