pparaska

Mikelly and Michael: Thanks for saying what you did. I will keep the Tremec in there to see how it is. Who knows, maybe I can find a friction modifier that will help with the notchiness. I have some from Mitsu, I bet Ford has some. I will be in touch with Tremec to find out if their are any tricks to getting the shifting better if I don't like it. I do know that the Cobra R guys with the Tremec 3550 (same as mine except for the different input shaft, and a few no-consequential parts/mods) absolutely rave over the Pro 5.0 shifter for these. Since it's another $200, I will try the stock shifter first. Thanks for bringing me out of the fog, guys. Pete

Adam, here's how I did it. I yanked the text from my web page on how I went after the driveline issues. See my sig for more info. I used the poylurethane bushings on the mustache bar and modified the setup as follows: "...stock R200 mustache bar, and this time, I cut 0.3" out of the top of the top polyurethane bushing, and kept the supplied top large steel washer out of the setup. To make this work, I cut 0.3" out of the inner sleeve as well. In all, this raised the rear of the differential by about 0.45" over using the poyurethane bushing kit as supplied. " " The effect of raising the rear of the differential by ~0.45" is to change the angle between the pinion and the horizontal plane by roughly 1.4 degrees. By the way, you can only raise the back of the R200 another 1/4" before it gets too close to the transverse hat stiffener under the floor just above the rear of the diff. " The reason I did that was to raise the rear of the diff to get the driveshaft u-joint angles to down to an acceptable level and to reduce the effect of lowering the car on the halfshaft angles (although this is less critical for the CV halfshafts I have). ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Dennis, You need torque to counteract the aerodynamic drag on the car at much over 70 mph. And the torque needed goes up by the square of the speed. Michael is the aerodynamicists, so before I goof this up any more, I'm going to let him chime in .

Scottie, I was just wondering why you are not just replacing the clutch parts in the LSD and give it another try? These things do wear. Maybe the wrong oil was used. I know that the MTL is a bit thin for some transmissions and has been reported to wear bearing prematurely in them (case in point: Mitsu AWD 5spd in the Eclipse). Actually, Redline suggests either using straight MT90 or a mix of MTL and MT90 in these transmissions. I'm not sure if this is germane to the Nissan LSD though. Is it that you don't think the LSD, even rebuilt, will handle the torque? Just wondering. BTW, it's fairly easy to pull the case out and apart to replace the clutch parts. I do believe they are still available from Nissan. They aren't cheap though. Probably $2-400 to get all new friction parts. I remember that each of the friction discs was about $30 when I check a few months ago. I didn't need to replace any, so I didn't go through adding it all up. Hope this helps, Pete ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Dennis, I think the main reason for wanting the overdrive in the Z is because if you keep with the Nissan differential you are stuck with no lower (numerically) than a 3.364:1 ratio which is rare in an R200, a much more common 3.545:1 in the open R200s, and a 3.7:1 or 3.9:1 from the 87.5-88 300ZX T LSD units. (Remember, those 3.15:1 gears are NLA so finding them is like finding hen's teeth.) Of course, you could buy a new ring and pinion set at 3.364:1 (still available?) or 3.545:1 to put in an LSD R200, but it wouldn't be worth the expense (to me anyway). The 3.364:1-3.7:1 diff coupled with a 25-26 inch diameter tire (more would be tough to fit) means that you will be running around in the high 2 thousands rpm range at 60mph. If you drive on the highway much, that can get tiresome and burn a good bit of fuel. That's the reason JTR preaches the overdrive tranny and I think it's sound advice if you cruise the highways much. I don't think that top speed is the reason anyone goes for an overdrive tranny. The loss of mechanical advantage in overdrive usually means that your top speed is limited since less horsepower is available at the wheels in overdrive, and you need HP to get top speed (especially in the moderately un-slippery Z body). Most top speed runs are done at 1:1 gear for this reason, except for maybe Lingenfelter's cars . ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Michael, I agree that the bellhousing is a problem, especially with that big Lakewood blowproof piece. I have that also, as you saw when you visited. I too cut the falnge on the bottom, and it is a 1/4" to 1/2" lower than the stock SBC pan. But the oilpan is just behind the front tires, so that when you come off of a speed bump, it can easily get smacked. If the blowproof bellhousing gets smacked, probably there is no ill consequence. But smack the oil pan, and you are more likely have trouble. I've seen just that happen on a JTR'd V8Z. I saw the (Milodon) circle track pan that is 6-1/2" tall, and thought that would be a good alternative, but I worry that it might not be good for RIGHT turns. I don't know what the design looks like, but I'm a bit concerned that it is set up asymmetrically to only hol oil down in LEFT turns. Anybody know? Pete ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Scottie, I don't understand that at all. The parts come out easily, and are know wear items. In fact there is some tunability by beig able to switch thicker and thinner plates in to get different preload and breakaway torque. I know I'm no surgeon and I had mine apart and together with no problem. I have several articles on the rebuilding of them if you are interested. Pete

O.K. so even though I've never driven a car with a Tremec 5spd, ALL I ever hear from anybody is that they are notchy as hell. I have a notchy 5spd in my Mitsu Eclipse GSX, and it takes away from the driving enjoyment greatly. So I have decided I will get rid of the Tremec. It's brand new, and installed in the car, and has never had even 1 ft-lb of torque put through it. I'm sure I will lose money on selling it, as it has a bad rep. Not sure how I will get rid of it yet. Jim Biondo called me today to tell me about his T-5. No, it didn't break. He had to pull his out because the hydraulic throw out bearing started leaking where the banjo fittings had come loose on it (I don't recall the brand). He didn't like the design and decided on the Tilton piece BTW, since it replaces the front bearing retainer and is a better design. Anyway, since he can't seem to let anything alone, he took the T-5 which was working fine to a guy who builds T-5s for pro-stock guys. He grinds his own gears and makes different ratios and does other things to strengthen the box. Jim had him put the following ratios in the box: 1st: 2.55:1 2nd: 1.67:1 3rd: 1.15:1 4th: 1.00:1 5th: 0.63:1 These are supposedly the strongest T-5 gears around. The case opening on the front even had to be bored, since the 1st gear was so much larger than stock. With Jim's 3.15:1 diff it will also let him get to 60 in 1st gear, and the shift points are more suited to his engine, etc. Anyway, Jim talked to this guy a while and found that people with 3000+ cars turning single digit 1/4 miles and others doing road racing with 400+ lbft motors were using this guys rebuilds and not breaking them. I think he mentioned Warren Johnson as a customer. The guy is Craig Liberty of Liberty Gears, (313-278-4040), in the Detroit Michigan area, I think. I know the T-5 gets a lot of slamming, but I am really considering it for several reasons: 1) I have a WC T-5 that has a decent case and a few good internals to use for a core. 2) I can use the Lakewood blowproof housing (non-canted) that I have, the clutch, and the hydraulic TO bearing (McLeod) that I have. 3) All I'd have to do is sell the Tremec, get a new driveshaft (I think mine will be too short, and it would need a new yoke up front as well), and I should be done with it. 4) The Tremec, even overlooking the notchiness was a bad choice ratio wise. It has a 3.27:1 1st gear which would be basically useless. 5) The Tremec has 0 miles on it, so selling it now rather than after some miles would probably net me more for it. 6) The T-56 is what I would like also, but I'd have to source a bellhousing, flywheel, clutch, hydraulics, yoke, etc. as well, and that reportedly is tough to do for less than $1500 or maybe more. I have a hard time finding good deals anyway. 7) I may someday move from my mildish 327 and go with more power, but I doubt I'd go past te 450 hp / 450 lbft range. If Jim's car and other high powered ones are not breaking the well built T-5, then I should be O.K. This is the one point that bothers me still a bit. NOw I've heard that some of the design points that make the T-5 weak are the shaft spacing being too close to get decent sized (diameter) gears in it and that the roller bearings riding on the shaft is not good either. Anything else that anyone knows of to look for from this guy to make sure he is addressing all of the known weaknesses? He knows about all the Ford upgrades and supposedly goes beyond some of them as far as metal treatments, etc. I will call and get the scoop from him. So I'm looking for comments. I've just about decided to go for it. All I know is I have this sinking feeling that the Tremec is going to piss me off every time I drive it. That would really suck, considering the many years and dollars I've put into it. So it's the Well built T-5 or the T-56. The Tremec is going to come out. Please push me into one of these decisions! Thanks, Pete ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Mark, I understand taking out teh spacers that JTR says to put between the frame rails and the engine crossmember to help the driveline angles - I did that too). But what puzzles me is that you say you RAISED the front of the differential. Usually, the problem is that the diff's nose is too high to beging with, and the pinion angle is too nose up. I solved that by raising the REAR of the differential. Could you tell us more about what the before and after angles of the crank/trans output shaft and the diff pinion were? Anyway, glad to hear you solved the problem! Thanks, Pete

I love AWD. It rains a good bit here in the Washington D.C. area, and I absolutely love being able to nail the throttle in my AWD Eclipse GSX and only worry if the boost really comes on. But for moderate or even half spirited driving on wet roads, the AWD is great. You can accelerate pretty quickly in the wet, and leave behind the idiot loosers that poke around at the first sign of a drop. But when it's wet and the boost hits 14psi or more (I have a bleeder valve on the thing - a whopping $7 mod for 60+ horsepower - stock 11 psi to 17psi with the bleeder), the car acts like it's on ice. With three or four tires spinning (viscous for/aft coupling and LSD in the rear), it feels like you just hit black ice. Freaks people out when you fly off the line at a lite in the rain! Also freaks them out when all 4 start spinning and you start sliding across the road sideways! I remember a guy was going to build a high powered home built car that was AWD but couldn't find a coupling that would hold up. But now there are more AWD vehicles on the road so maybe there is a way.

Bubba, On the question of will the CVs hold more power, I believe the answer is yes, because they will handle transfering power better when the angle of the joint is large. U-joints are not good with lots of torque pas t about 3 degrees. To quote a pretty good site on things driveline related: "Ideally, the operating angles on each end of the driveshaft should be equal to or within 1 degree of each other, have a 3 degree maximum operating angle and have at least 1/2 of a degree continuous operating angle." The URL for that site is: http://drivetrain.com/driveline_angle_problem.html My site with the 280Z conversion info is at: http://www.tidalwave.net/~pparaska/280ZCVhalfshaftConversion.htm You can get to the Tech info page by going to the URL: http://24.4.88.44/TechAritcles.htm I'd say that if someone has a CNC machine shop make these adapters, they might want to have a few more sets made to sell. Once it's programmed, the CNC machines can pop copies out quickly and cheaply, relative to the first one made. Cheers, Pete

Mike kZ, Call it information/scope creep. At first, my braking system consisted of toyota 4x4 calipers on the Z discs up front and the early/late 280ZX discs on the rear. I added the 280ZX master cylinder, took out the stock Z proportioning valve, and added the proportioning valve on the tunnel, below the knee. Then Jim Biondo offered me his wheels and tires and that grew to the stubs axles, 280Z companion flanges, custom CV adapters, and Arizona Z racing brakes (albeit the old version with non-vented rear discs) as well. He had put longer, larger (1/2") studs in the stubs, and longer 7/16" studs in the front hubs, so I got those also. So now the car has better wheels, tires, brakes, stubs, etc. than before. I doubt I'll ever need all those brakes can offer, but the tire may still be limiting if I ever upgrade to 400+ Horsies (I'm already thinking about a Procharger, as a later upgrade once she's on the road . Then Jim told me about Stewart components and their water pumps, which are very highly touted in the circle track/NASCAR circles. And Jim mentioned that alot of the NASCAR set use the Stewart LBS. So I ordered both at the same time. Man, if I could stay on one track, maybe the car would get finished! Sound familiar, SpencZ? So, to make a long story short, I had the proportioning valve first, then added the LBS, but left the valve in place. I'll just leave it opened. Looks kind of trick on the tunnel, no? Actually, I'm just too lazy to take it out. Mike kZ, that is going to be one beast! Love the pics Lee took! ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Not a member, but with 568 flywheel HP, Jim Biondo snapped one at the line after some violent wheel hop. Right where the splines end and the bearing race surface starts. I'd say that for 300-400 hp, you'd be in decent shape since I've heard from numerous people with that kind of power and never heard of a stub axle break. It's the u-joints that go. Then again, I like Mike's plan of building halfshaft loops that would contain the half shaft if a stub axle or u-joint gave way. Nice thing is that if the stub breaks inboard of the inner bearing race like it did on Jim's car, the axle will probaly stay put unless there are extended large side loads on the tire. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Mike, what kind of switch do you have on the fuel pump circuit? I've heard that some of the cheaper rocker switches can get into an internal resonance under road and/or drivetrain-induced excitation and the amperage capability goes to a small fraction of the rated capacity when that happens. I'd try bypassing the switch for a test ride to see if that was it. Wish I could be a passenger! Pete

Danno, I'm not sure when the early/late US 260Z cutoff was, but I'm pretty sure 4/74 was after the change over to the 280Z type designs. So it would figure that you have the larger 280Z type stubs. Anybody now when that cutoff was from 1974 to 1974-1/2 in the US 260Z?

For the last 5 or ten years, the big 3 US car makers (that includes the old Chrysler) and many of the other OEs have been touting how the new model of car X now has a YY% increase in torsional rigidity. I don't know if they do that by analysis or test. The way I see it, for handling, the biggest deal would be to know if the car were stiff enough (don't know how stiff that would be) at the 4 places that the struts mount to the unibody in the towers. If cornering loads or driveline reactions could twist the car so that the line connecting the rear two strut towers and the line connecting the front two towers changed from the ideal parallel to some skewed angle between them (envisioned along the longitudinal axis of the car), then that would be what mattered. Of course, you'd need to baseline a Z and apply a certain amount of twisting torque on the body, and measure the angle change of these lines. Then do you chassis mods and measure again. Even if the car was complete, you could use the "jack up one corner" method to assess any modification's stiffening effect. I might do that once the car is started and I have all the body work back one it. It has no cage now, and I'm thinking I want to do a bolt in cage some day.

Locutus wrote: "what about taking the whole r200 rear end out of the Turbo ZX and putting the whole thing axels and all into a 77 280Z. wont that solve the problems of different splines all?" Sorry, no. The diff, halfshafts and companion flanges could be swapped, but the strut/hub carriers are too different. The 280ZX uses a semi-trailing arm suspension that can't be bolted into the Chapman strut 240/260/280Z. Oh yeah, you have to swap the pinion flange the driveshaft bolts to from a 280Z R200 I think, also. [This message has been edited by pparaska (edited April 14, 2000).]

Bubba Fett, Don't worry about the computer skills, man, they come with time. I respect anybody willing to tackle these projects! I did it first once too, and learned what you're going through now. Same thing, I just did it before you. I hope I can shed some light on the project. Pictures would help. I have a digital camera and some spare parts around so I'll snap some pics and label them on the computer and update the site. It'd be easier for every body to understand if I had pics there. Bubba, Locutus, You can't use the 280Z (same as the late 260Z) stub axles that are in your cars, without a custom adapter like I have on my car. But all is not lost. Bubba, you said you had 240Z parts. That will save you the machining of the adapters. You can change the stub axles out to the 240Z ones by slide hammering the 280Z axles out by the wheel studs, once you remove the U-joint halfshafts and the large nut down inside the companion flange that that halfshaft bolts to. You have to unstake the nut, since the factory peens it over agains a flat on the threaded inboard end of the stub axle. Once the stub axle is out, the inboard stub axle bearing is probably still in the strut housing, so tap it inboard. The seal will pop out that way too. The outboard bearing is pressed onto the stub axle and will come with it. It is a sealed bearing on the outboard side. Slide the "distance piece" (looks like a short piece of thickwalled pipe) off of the stub axle and save it and any copper washers. Clean out the hub reservoir of the old grease. Get some 240Z stub axles, and it would probably be a good idea to have the outboard bearing pressed off at a machine shop. Have them magnaflux and shot peen the stub axles to make sure there aren't any cracks, and to stress releive them. Then have them press a new outboard bearing on (making sure the sealed side goes to the lug stud flange side of the axle). Take it home and tap in a new, greased, inboard bearing into the cleaned hub cavity. Slide the "distance piece" and any copper washer there might have been when you disassembled the 280Z stub axle from the car. Add new wheel bearing grease to the hub cavity and grease the outboard bearing as much as you can. Then tap in the 240Z stub axle. You probably have to tap the inboard bearing back in a bit, against the distance piece. Now, take the extra R200 pinion seal you already bought and grind off the rubber on the outer diameter. Test every once and a while to see if it will snug fit into where the old stub axle seal went. Don't go too far on the grinding or it won't have a snug fit but will be too loose. Lube the v-groove of the seal with grease. Install the 280ZX Turbo companion flange, install the thick washer and a new 280ZX locknut (so you won't have to stake the 240/260/280Z nut). Torque it to 200 lb ft, no kidding. Pop the output axles out of the R200 that you have installed in the car. Remove the old seals in the output axle openings in the diff and replace with new, greased ones. Take the shorter left side 280ZX halfshaft and slide the splined end into the left side of the diff. If the suspension is assembled to the car, undo the e-brake cable and brake line, and unbolt the top 3 bolts that hold the top of the strut isolator to the car. Swing it out (watch that fender lip!) and you should be able to engage the outboard end of the CV halfshaft (while compressing the shaft joints to make the shaft shorter) into the companion flange. Align the holes and add the 6 new 280ZX T halfshaft bolts, lockwashers, and nuts that you already bought. Torque to spec (can't recall the number but it's higher than you'd think for these little bolts). Swing the strut back up into the fender well and bolt it up, along with the e-brake cable and steel line to the brakes. Bleed the brakes. Repeat for the right side of the car. I think that's it. Anyway, you now have the marginally weaker 240Z stub axles in the car, but it's easier than machining an adapter for most folks. I have seen somebody's site that welded a plate to a 280Z companion flange so that they could bolt the 280ZX T CV shaft to it. The weld stuff scares me for this application. High stress and fatigue and all that. Of course, my the tech article I wrote has the drawing for the adapter pieces, so that is probably less trouble, but more money, if you don't want to yank your stub axles. Please don't hesitate to ping me if this isn't clear. Sometimes my writing just can't get across what I could easily show someone. Best Regards, ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Guys, mind if I move this thread to the "Suspension, Chassis, and Brakes" forum? It kind of fits there better, since this topic is germane to all Hybrid Z's. Pete

I know Greg Kring said that he tried the swap with the 240Z stub axles and 280ZXT companion flanges and said the axles were too long and bottomed out. I had that setup on my car, but when I bought Jim Biondo's wheels from him, I went ahead and bought his 280Z stub axles, companion flanges, and custom adapters, along with the Arizona Z brakes front and rear. So I've had both versions on the car. I had no trouble with the axles being too short, although with the 240 stubs and 280ZXT companion flanges, I did experience the left CV halfshaft run out of angular play in the last 1/4" of suspension travel. That didn't happen with the 280Z companion flanges and stub axles, and custom adapters. So yeah, they are long, but on my car, Jim's and others that Jim knows of, they work fine without binding or bottoming out. Greg's case seems to be an extreme case. Since you're about the fifth person to ask what a companion flange is, I guess I need to upgrade the site with some pics. The stub axle is the part that the wheel bolts to with the studs. It goes throught the strut/hub housing and runs in two ball bearings. The companion flange is internally splined and meshes with the external splines of the most inboard part of the stub axle. The companion flange is the part that the halfshaft bolts to. There are three typs for the L6 cars: 1) 240/early 260Z for u-joint halfshafts 2) late 260/280Z and 280ZX for u-joint halfshafts 3) 280ZX Turbo for CV halfshafts The 3rd is interchangeable with the 1st type, by using a modified r200 pinion seal. The 2nd type can be used with the CV shafts, but must have an adapter to goe between the CV shaft and the companion flange. That's what I have on my car now. I'll get to work on fixing those swap pages. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

No, more to it than that. Read the tech page (hard to get to except for when you first log in to the site, since once you're in the Forums, I can't figure a way back but to reload the main page.) In there you'll see that you need to decide which stub axles you will use in the strut/hub carriers (240Z or 280Z) and that will set you on the path of using the 280ZX Turbo companion flanges or the 280Z companion flanges and custom adapters to the CV shafts. More questions, fire away. The swap and conversion pages are on my site also (see below.) ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Hard to find. I think the only car was a 2+2 79 280ZX with an auto. Have you run the numbers? You only loose a hundred rpm or so at 60 mph. I doubt it's worth it leverage-wise (you don't loose much leverage going from 3.545 to 3.364 anyway). Pete ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Mike, Run the 0/1 gage wire from the Neg battery terminal to the starter mounting bolt. Any car and especially a unibody makes a poor conductor for those distances (battery in the back). I bet that fixes it. Of course, make sure you put a big engine to chassis ground strap on (and probably run one directly to the harness ground lug on the passsenger fenderwell just above the harness). Ground is just as important as a positive cable. Learned this on hotrodder.com a few months back from the old(er) timers. Sorry, no ideas on the fuel in the oil, except when you had the hi fuel pressure with the old regulator, you probably sent alot of fuel down the cylinder walls (leaking out the carb, down the intake, etc.) Good Luck, Pete ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

Guys, I haven't gotten any email on this yet (Bubba Fett). THe R200 out of the 280ZX Turbo is the same as the 280ZX and 280Z ones. The stub axles in the 280Z/280ZX diff pop out and the Turbo CV halfshafts pop in. Any other questions I'd be glad to try to answer on this swap. ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -

I'm using the Mcloed Hyd. TO bearing (with a GM-form-factor Tremec, but that makes no difference, since the clutch disk is from Chevy (1LE Camaro piece). I ended up using a 3/4" Girling master cylinder. I started with a 1" AP Racing, then a 7/8", but the pedal was too stiff. The throw is pretty long with the 3/4" MC, but with the pedal at the same height as the brake pedal, it disengages the specified 0.030" between the clutch disc and flywheel when the pedal is on the floor. The pedal pressure is nice and easy now. BTW, the standard GM car has a 4:1 pedal to MC throw ratio, but the Z is more like 6.2:1, if you are making any calculations for pedal throw/force. Regards, ------------------ Pete Paraska - 73 540Z - Marathon Z Project - pparaska@tidalwave.net">pparaska@tidalwave.net -