Zed Head

I remembered some past comments about sprockets that didn't have a notch. I thought that they were Cloyes brand so I searched around and found a comment on Amazon about the S462, which is the L6 sprocket. The comment doesn't support that it was Cloyes but does mention that he had a sprocket with no notch. So they are out there. Probably just an oversight or a manufacturing mistake. The sprocket is fairly easy to replace (if you don't drop the chain). If you have a used one with the notch, it might be worth a few minutes to swap them out, just to see.

By the way, I always talk about the notch and groove because I have a 76 L28, a 78 L28 and a 1980 L28 and they all have the notch and groove. There are probably 240Z guys out there who don't know what I'm talking about and have always used the shiny links and/or counting to 42. Seems like there should be another way using cam lobe position, a little more precise than "pointing up", if you don't have the notch and groove.. Not sure exactly what it would be though. Actually, in motorman7's thread, he does point the locating dowel up (but the motor is tilted so...?). So that might be a good method. Remove the bolt and washer and you should see the locating dowel hole. Easier than removing the front cover. Even if the motor is tilted, if you align the crankshaft keyway with the locating pin, that's very close to right. The number might be visible also from behind the washer, but you won't know if it's stamped directly over the locating dowel hole.

I think that I implied this in your other thread - it looks like Nissan didn't use the notch and groove on the early engines. That's why the early procedure calls for counting 42 links during installation, or using shiny links, and they don't talk about the notch and groove. The notch and groove are an easier way to confirm proper installation and to monitor chain stretch, that they apparently added later. Here's a thread that has an excellent picture of the notch (the second picture), but uses the link counting method for installation. It's confusing if you have an early engine. It's not clear which engine motorman7 is working on...

The CHTS is in the vicinity. If it's connected, a meter reading at the ECCS connection would be worthwhile. I'm all about taking measurements before replacing anything. It's cheaper.

Did you work on anything at all in the engine bay? Sounds like you knocked the CHTS plug loose. You'd think that the filter should have caught any crud that was stirred up. A fuel pressure measurement would tell if the fuel supply is correct.

Woke up to teen temperatures a week ago. Today, teens. Record low. The snow (that really shouldn't be here) is not melting.

With a bench bleed you can do both front and back at the same time and use hoses run back up in to the reservoirs instead of plugs. You're not trying to build any pressure just to move the piston through its stroke so that it pushes all air out the bleed ports. When you're doing it you want to pay attention to where the outlets are and orient them upward so the air bubbles will be there. Not positive but I think that I "bench" bled mine while it was connected to the hydraulic lines in the car but not bolted tightly to the booster. So that I could put som etilt on it. You can also tilt the car to get the parts at the high point. It's all about the air bubbles. Be the bubble.

How do you know it's too tight? The notch and groove will give an idea of where cam timing will end up if you move to a new hole. Did you mean too tight or too advanced?

What brand? Just trying to make sure that what happened to you doesn't happen to me, and the rest of us. That's all. Did you nick the hose by accident? Push it over a sharp edge? The inner fuel resistant coating is very thin and if it gets penetrated fuel will leak through it and soak the outer support material. You could have the exact same thing happen again. Edit - another way to look at it is - there must be a cause. This is not a random event.

Tell us a scary story...

Interesting story. Is there some reason you can't give us some details? It was only two years ago. The writing is surely still visible on the hose. You didn't really say what the rating was of the hose that split. It's like you told us you saw a monster but don't want to tell us what it looked like or how big it was or where you saw it. An engine fire is a pretty scary monster. I trusted that the PO or maybe the PO before the PO had used correct hose on my car. Before my engine leak, I had a UPS driver flag me down and tell that there was "a lot of some sort of liquid leaking" from the back of my car. One of the PO's had used fuel vent line from the pump to the metal line. Split right open. Luckily I was within jogging distance of my house.

They do look good though. Mine all cracked in to pieces. When I looked at them.

Are you doing a restoration on your 280Z? Kind of kidding, but putting new boots on those old about to crack in to ten pieces plastic connectors seems like porcine lip enhancement. The connectors from 90's era GM cars are very nice and about as sleek and smooth as yours after the boot replacement. Volvo and BMW have nice ones too. Spring-loaded retainers also, not the easily lost paper clips. Just saying>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hey, so how did this two year old piece of hose fail? Did it split, or pop off it's barb, or what? Was it an off-brand or one of the big names? That's a big deal and seems like we could all learn something. I've had raw fuel spraying in my engine bay, over the hot exhaust manifold, and never want to experience that feeling of dread again. That was old original fuel line cracking lengthwise though, not new high pressure fuel hose.

The only thing that matters at this point, right now, is how much of the bolts stick out from the bottom of the cover when you stick the bolts in to the holes. Forget about all of that other stuff and focus on that. Stick the bolts in the holes. Measure or take a picture of the bolts sticking out of the bottom of the holes. That image, or measurements, will establish the ground work for future suggestions on this problem. The suggestion about the flat washer was intended for AFTER you determine if you have the correct bolts.

Do you have a picture of the FSM image showing the rubber only? I can't find it. Also just realized that the commonly available electronic 1975 FSM appears to actually be the 1976 FSM. The actual 1975 FSM seems very crude, with misspellings. The 76 image shows a separate pipe that could easily be transplanted from a 76 to a 75, if they did start with a long rubber hose. My impression of their system is that they only used very short pieces of rubber to connect metal tube, over the manifolds.

Put the bolts in the holes like in this picture then take a picture from the side.

Your bolts might be too long. Run them in to their holes with the cover off and see how deep they go. It's a little bit weird that you removed the cover without removing the hose first. Remove the hose before you put it back together, and be extra careful when you reassemble everything. Check the mating surfaces, install the thermostat in the housing making sure it's flat and seated in its groove, place the gasket carefully, then carefully set the cover on and insert the bolts. Tighten the bolts firmly, use a torque wrench if you have one. Then put the hose on.

You're missing the little rubber grommets/standoffs/vibration insulators. So you actually have more and redundant grounding. Nissan engineers were just being fastidious in ensuring that all part functions were accomplished, with that dedicated ground wire. Powering up shouldn't cause any problems, at least as far as grounding is concerned.

The cam sprocket's postilion, relative to the crankshaft, is determined by the chain. You can check the damper with the camshaft completely removed. I like the idea of removing the crankshaft damper bolt and washer and checking the woodruff keyway position. It should be visible and oriented to the top of the cylinder bores. I'd say "straight up" but the engine is tilted. Once hate starts removing belts though, he'll probably find that it's wiggly and obviously bad. If the bolt was easier to get to and remove this would probably be the first thing we recommend. But it's a pain, so it's not.

Don't want to hijack your thread. Just trying to figure out who decided. Seems to be the IZCC, I guess. Internet Z Car Club. Carry on. There's probably a past thread out there about it.

Weird, I've been observing the 240Z's indirectly, since I have a 280Z, but I never noticed anyone refer to anything but Series I and Series II (and there have been arguments over just those two labels). But now I see that maybe they go all the way up to IV. And there are actually two Series I's, a 1969 and 1970 version. Is this generally accepted labeling or is it just a certain club's? I found Carl Beck's page when I searched "240Z Series III". Somehow I'd never seen it before. http://zhome.com/History/DesignChanges.htm

Makes sense now. I was thinking of the air hose to the top side of the AAR. Those hoses get overlooked. And they're hard to get to. I should replace mine.

I watched a few and I think that once he got a bid the number on the screen only showed the last bid made. Before he got the first bid though it would show what he was asking. Maybe all bids are off if the reserve isn't met. Still, $22,000 is a good number. Who knows about quality of the car though, I guess you have to be there.

What's up with the "$51" from your other post? Is that the hose from the cylinder head to the heater core? I couldn't eke out the complete story from your cryptic post. Why'd you replace the AAR hose? Not connected to coolant. Not getting the picture.