Fact or fiction ?

[frank280zx]

I read an article on line and it contained the followoing:

 

'After the De Lorean, the 280-ZX Turbo is the second most illustrious newcomer on the block. Moreover, we have for you here the first Datsun Turbo five-speed to escape Nissan's prototype shop. This Borg-Warner-built transmission will be an option by the time you read this, and brings with it a number of chassis beefings, some of which Datsun hopes to introduce on regular 280-ZXs and Turbo automatics.

 

Each five-speed car will be fitted with a modified rear suspension with re-angled lower control arms and relocated pickup points; a modified differential mounting, which alters the deflection-steer characteristics of the rear cross-member for less wigwag in corners; stronger constant-velocity universal joints; spring rates increased 12 percent over the 1981 Turbo's; and shock-absorber rebound control bumped up by 8 percent. Anti-sway-bar sizes remain the same'

 

Is it true that Each five-speed car was fitted with a modified rear suspension with re-angled lower control arms and relocated pickup points? i never saw a diffrence but now im curious !!

[johnc]

No that I'm aware of. Since the car came out of Nissan's "prototype" shop it probably had mods that never made it into production. Also, magazine guys try to make themselves look smart by posting nonsense.

[Trenz]

I Agreed with John

[frank280zx]

I figured it was BS since I have never seen a difference mouningwhise.

On the European cars the spring rate IS a tad stiffer and the strut could well be matched to that. I don’t know if it is the case in the states, as most ZX's I have driven there where either modified with tockiko's or the struts where so worn the car boated along like a Cadillac..

[FubarI33t]

I have not seen any difference in any thing suspension wise from 79-83, just breaks and R180-R200 differences. My 83 N/A is built from parts of 79-83. like a 79 R180 3:90 and a 81 5 speed N/A trans.

[Rolling Parts]

That sounds A LOT like the press releases before the final production car. There were the typical "teaser" articles in the magazines. The ZX was on it's way out by the time (after the ZXR, and the "10th") and by the time the turbo came out they were well into the design of the 300ZX. They did not spend a great deal of money on any real changes on the chassis so it's all "media BS".

[Jared]

According to the parts catalog, all the S130s have the same part number rear member from 9/81 to the end of production, the same date split on the lower control arms as well.

[Daeron]

Sounds almost like they might have been reading off a list of improvements made on the next generation, but then attributed them to upcoming final 280ZX models.

 

gotta love the boys in Marketing....

[Tony D]

Couldn't everything they mention be accomplished with bushings with holes in a different orientation than the previous model?

It can alter the K Member

It can move the pivot (pickup) points on the trailing arms.

 

Perhaps you need to look at the bushing part numbers compared to N/A cars. Know it alls will say 'the turbos got stiffer rubber that's why the bushings are different'---but did they notice a hole that is bored 2mm differently than a N/A bushing---especially when the arrow signifying 'front of the car' remains similar?

 

I mean, if the bushings are concentric, there should be no orientation difference. And even if concentric, hollows in the rubber will change which way the bushing allows deflection easier than other directions...

 

Just sayin'....

[Rolling Parts]

Couldn't everything they mention be accomplished with bushings with holes in a different orientation than the previous model?

 

And yet, the rear end in the ZX was still a mixed-bag 810 transplant that ANY hint/hope of making it less pedestrian than it's sedan roots would have been welcome. What important is the turbo 280ZX's legacy. That legacy is being a stellar parts car for 1st gen cars that don't need to deal with the cheaper and schizophrenic semi-trailing arms at all.

[frank280zx]

And yet, the rear end in the ZX was still a mixed-bag 810 transplant that ANY hint/hope of making it less pedestrian than it's sedan roots would have been welcome. What important is the turbo 280ZX's legacy. That legacy is being a stellar parts car for 1st gen cars that don't need to deal with the cheaper and schizophrenic semi-trailing arms at all.

 

Want me to take you up for a roadrace challenge .. and see the cheaper and schizophrenic semi-trailing arms blow your doors of ? I think the 280zx did ok racing .. and lets not forget the BMW m3 ... also one with the cheaper and schizophrenic semi-trailing arms.

 

(At least if a bear attackts it i can fix it with duct tape)

Edited February 26, 2010 by frank280zx

[Rolling Parts]

I think the 280zx did ok racing

 

Wrong. ALL BETS ARE OFF when you talk about racing.

That's a complete red herring since successful ZX racers were never stock.

The discussion is on street production cars here.

The stock ZX rear end was used by Nissan for cost cutting.

The ZX rear end was not chosen for performance, just parts commonality.

 

If only just changing a bushing would have magically changed the suspension to be race worthy...

[Tony D]

I forecast another pointless Rolling Parts Hatefest coming on, with no good justification other than his misguided ire...

 

I was unaware Datsun changed to the secret double a-arm suspension for the racing ZX's. Seems to me they ran the trailing arms just fine.

 

And like Mr. Poll polielty mentioned, the BMW's have similar (if not identical in makeup) rear suspension and do just fine in both stock and racing forms. Sadly, this obviously has been discarded as logic will have nothing to do with any post from this point onwards...

[Rolling Parts]

Sadly, this obviously has been discarded as logic will have nothing to do with any post from this point onwards...

 

I just restated that NISSAN chose the suspension for cost-cutting parts commonality.

That's as logical, unemotional, and fact supported as it gets.

 

Also, since the article mentions that the changes were made "for less wigwag in corners" then there had to be annoying "wigwag" in the first place.

Edited February 26, 2010 by Rolling Parts

[frank280zx]

I just restated that NISSAN chose the suspension for cost-cutting parts commonality.

That's as logical, unemotional, and fact supported as it gets.

 

Also, since the article mentions that the changes were made "for less wigwag in corners" then there had to be annoying "wigwag" in the first place.

 

Its not the statement that you made just that last stupid needless line about That legacy being a stellar parts car for 1st gen cars that don't need to deal with the cheaper and schizophrenic semi-trailing arms at all. in a s130 forum ..

 

But ooh well stock for stock .. bring it on ..

 

Hmm **** where did i leave my magic duct tape to fix those wigwag problems !!!

Edited February 26, 2010 by frank280zx

[Rolling Parts]

Its not the statement that you made just that last stupid needless line about That legacy being a stellar parts car for 1st gen cars that don't need to deal with the cheaper and schizophrenic semi-trailing arms at all. in a s130 forum ..

 

But ooh well stock for stock .. bring it on ..

 

 

The Turbo ZX is stellar parts car for 1st Gen cars, The turbo swap is a "sticky" on Z sites.

The rear trailing arms in the ZX were used because they were cheaper, also not a secret.

The rear trailing arms do go "schizophrenic" as the bushings age and can get downright scary if driven to limits. Adding a Turbo will pretty much guaranty that it will be driven more to it's limits of the suspension.

 

Sorry, I always assume that people with vintage S130's already know the good and bad points of the car and are mature enough to discuss them openly. I never take it personally when people discuss facts and reasons why Nissan did things a certain way, I just find it interesting how the car has transitioned and why.

[Tony D]

 

The rear trailing arms do go "schizophrenic" as the bushings age and can get downright scary if driven to limits. Adding a Turbo will pretty much guaranty that it will be driven more to it's limits of the suspension.

 

 

So now we're talking about aged suspension components and not new ones? Talk about schizophrenic...

 

I understands Frank's Duct Tape comment more and more. Yes, use duct tape. It's superior in it's abilities to repair anything, anytime.

 

I'm still waiting for the photo of that super secret IMSA inspired A-Arm Suspension Nissan Installed in those Turbo ZX cars with 1000 Hp. I mean, since it was so terrible, and couldn't ever do well in competition with such a terrible suspension they had to change it because in the first post 'racing is something totall red herring' because they changed everything.

 

What was that word again? "Schizophrenic"? Yeah, that's the one!

 

The prediction unfolds as usual.

[19762802+2]

 

 

 

[Rolling Parts]

So now we're talking about aged suspension components and not new ones?

 

We were talking about stock ZXT production changes.

We were talking about the rear suspension.

We were talking about the suspension doing what they refereed to as "wagging".

We were discussing an attempt by the factory to address it.

 

You seem to keep bringing up other manufactures, racing, and now fictitious team efforts?

For what end?

[260DET]

The use of a semi trailing arm suspension should be kept in its historical context, at the time it was state of the art for a volume production car. Just look the suspension systems other comparable cars were using at the time. As for being cheap, solid leaf sprung rear axles were cheap, where is the evidence to say it cost less to build a semi trailing arm suspension than the McPherson strut type?

 

If there is any more knocking of semi trailing arm suspension I'll link that BMW tarmac rally video, again