LeonV

Cylinder head bolts are M10, intake/exhaust manifold threads are M8.

Get a Tee banjo fitting to run the fuel line back from the rear carb to the fuel rail.

That's Mark Rolston's RB26 Z. He now has a wilder, more awesome build going on at HybridZ.

I've got the exact ones in the Princess Auto link and have used them for all suspension coil spring work on my Zs.

Wow, great detail-oriented work there! Looks like it's shaping up to be a very nice Z when it's "finished".

Check that your nozzles move smoothly. Sounds like it could also be a large vacuum leak. Is there an unplugged hole in your balance tube?

Not a problem! Seems like Keith is one-upping himself with the e-tubes. Looks like he's close to developing a newer, better version. The next tuning day could be a great chance to check it out.

My 260Z tach had the same issue (although it's a bit different than a 240Z tach). Replacement made it all better.

Nice! I'd be down to go again.

I used ATF, should make removing them much easier for the next time that happens.

Welcome to the nitty-gritty of a rear-suspension rebuild! Glad you got the issues sorted. I struggled with LCA bushings as well, got tired of pounding and took it over to my neighbor who has air tools. A few minutes with a die grinder and they were out! Once you've replaced the outer LCA bushings and put the pin in, you'll be in the home stretch. Good luck!

It helps to relieve the mind... I really miss working on problems involving topics like the flow of energy. I'm currently in injection molding, and while satisfying at times, it's not what I want to do (but who the hell am I to complain, especially at this point in time!). This was a fun distraction.

Last week, I replaced the custom 100 air jets from the O3 etube with 140s. This flatlined my AFR trace at WOT! No more getting richer as rpms climb. This did make low-rpm transition a bit leaner but I'll be tuning that out with the hypojets, which control low-speed, low-throttle opening operation. Next plan: - Smaller hypojets, either the H20 or H18 should do the trick. - Drilling out my pump jets to .62mm, I still need a slightly fatter shot when I get on it. By optimizing (leaning out, in my case) all the other circuits in the carburetor, the pump shot needs to do more work to keep the mixture proper now that everything isn't masked by running overly rich.. - Re-sync and re-tune idle

Well there's your problem, the car's too quiet! I bet the exhaust on your Z tends to drown out a lot of that noise. I was in heavy traffic on the commute home last week and shut off my Z when I was on a downhill (yes, don't try this at home...). I heard a strange clicking noise that sped up with the car that I'd never heard before because all the other noises mask it. I'm sure a different, less worn, transmission or a bearing replacement will quiet it down but by how much I don't know. I don't think new fluid will help much if it's topped up and has been replaced fairly recently. Is "years ago" a couple of years or 15 years?

Call Isky with your specs and requirements and have them regrind a cam for you. It's cheaper and more effective. Win-win.

Cost/benefit: is it worth it? Like others have said, it's hard to tell in the video, but the noise sounds similar to the typical noise a Z-transmission makes. We can't hear it in person, so we can't really tell how "bad" it is. If you're really concerned and don't want to/can't do the work yourself, get a quote from a shop and go from there. I can't tell how loud the noise really is, so I'd try to sell it as is, and if someone was concerned then be up-front with them. It's probably typical noise, but it's going to cost $X from Y shop to replace the bearings if deemed necessary. The transmission will make some noise no matter what.

Oh, you'd be surprised, Julio! Don't get me started, just hope no one mutters, "backpressure"...

Finally a decent explanation of what you're saying with the math behind it (besides just yelling F=MA, F=MA!). I think this discussion is very good and beneficial, as it encompasses quite a few things. No need to hurtle insults, I grasp math and physics just fine. I'll agree that this is a way to look at it, but my viewpoint works just as well. Either weight can be unchanged (and inertia changes) thus acceleration changes because of a different amount of power available at the wheels, or power at the wheels doesn't change but effective mass does, thus does acceleration. In the end, both cases accomplish similar tasks. I prefer the "effective mass" method since it nicely shows where and when inertia is most prominent and, in some situations, can be a better descriptor for what's going on. Other times, the "more available power" method can describe a situation more clearly. It depends on what one is looking for. Sometimes, it can be tough to see someone else's viewpoint when you think only you're "right". Sometimes, no one is really "right" but both are seeing things from a different prespective that "works" for them. This is not a jab at you, Steve, but rather a commentary about this discussion.

Countershaft bearing(s). You'll have to figure out if the cost/benefit is worth it. Before you delve deeper, have you replaced the transmission fluid?

Thanks for the shout, but Phil (Blue) takes the credit for the actual Tech Tips! Removing the spindle pins is much nicer with a puller tool, especially a sturdy one, and a lot of heat into the strut housing around the pin.

Very clever! I will say that the current logo looks good and is perfectly fine.

P = T * RPM. RPM represents the rate at which torque is being applied, i.e. rotational mechanical power. Notice no time involved, but a UNIT of time is. Yes, but this is true whether the force is used to rotate or translate mass, e.g. removing the interior increases "available" force to motivate the car. See above. Clearly, but that's not what I was getting after. By your argument, you are making that equivalent to saying you've "freed up" power at the wheels. Can I say that I've got more power to the wheels if I remove my spare tire? Am I correct in saying that? Easy. F=ma. Since inertia is an equivalent mass (you've agree with this), mass increases and thus acceleration decreases for a constant force, or torque if you like that better. Nope. See above. Sort of... Well, that is the logic behind my post. If you've followed what I said and agree, then there is no point for further discussion.

Nice photos, Mike!

If that's the goal then you need to develop a metric to test performance. Since your stated goal is to decrease 1/4 mile times, the easiest and most logical thing to do would be to go to a test-and-tune night at a drag strip and actually try out different combinations, etc. If the strip is too far for you, then things are tougher. It's not very easy, effective, or recommended to tune your car on public streets. I'd give my car a tune-up, put together a plan and head out to the strip for a day.

Power need not be anything. It's all about how we define it. We're not pulling a trailer or a railcar, so drawbar power is irrelevant. There are all sorts of power measurements and calculations and it's up to the user to choose which one fits their model. Yes, force * distance is the same UNIT for energy and work, as well as torque. Energy and torque are intertwined but torque is NOT. As you say, power = force * distance / time, so when we're talking about a rotating wheel being powered by a rotating engine, the pertinent equation becomes Power = Torque * Angular Displacement / Time. You're still not getting it. You're describing total power consumed. Stop thinking about time. Time is out of the picture. Picture a car accelerating and imagine you can freeze time. Again, total, instantaneous power is Power = Torque * RPM. It makes no difference at any discrete torque and RPM value whether you're accelerating or not. How do you explain an increase in vehicle acceleration due to removing non-rotating weight? A car will go faster if you strip it down, but not touch the engine. The wheels accelerate faster, thus more energy is put into the wheels to accelerate the car. Should I also consider removing the passenger seat to "free up power to the wheels"? How about you do the math and prove me wrong? Here is my assertion: lowering the moment of inertia of a driveshaft, or any rotating driveline component that is powered by the engine, is effectively equivalent to removing weight from other parts of the car. How much effect it has is determined by where that rotating component is in relation to the differential and transmission, i.e. removing 1lb-ft2 of inertia from a tire is different than 1lb-ft2 from a driveshaft which is again different from removing 1lb-ft2 from the flywheel. The equivalent weight change of replacing the stock steel driveshaft with a super-duper lightweight Aluminum driveshaft is probably on the order of 1lb or less. About as effective as taking a dump right before hitting the track.