Jason240z

Hi So, new bearings, both sides are exactly the same. doesn't have the copper shim, doesn't mean it shouldn't though. It only needs 2-3mm of a shim there and it'll be spot on. I've read the TSB, seems to be lots of variables, some should have shims either side of the distance piece, others under the companion flange, I think a 2-3mm shim there would be perfect, I can't actually see why I shouldn't? I've found some copper washers/shims online, 32mm inside, 42 OD, 1.5mm thick, I might try 2 of these, a little torque would reduce them below 3mm total?

I forgot to add, I removed the seal to see if that was the cause, had the same problem. It all points to a bearing not being seated properly?

as another thread bump. I put my rear hub together tonight, checked the distance piece length, its bang in the middle, checked all bearings are fully seated, they seem to be and was showing 11 tonne on the press guage. Its spings lovely and freely without the companion flange torqued up, however as soon as some torque is applied the whole assembly goes stiff. could it be the inner seal causing friction? distance piece is installed and all correct, outer bearing is the right way round! its causing me some head scratching, i've had it apart about 5 times trying to see whats causing it to bind. I even checked the bearings were 'square', and the spindle span perfectly round. <a href="https://imgur.com/dlqhmz1"><img src="https://i.imgur.com/dlqhmz1.mp4" title="source: imgur.com" /></a> Its a B distance piece(hub is b also)

Yes, I’ll think I’ll make a single on the lathe then flip it as you say. I’ll offer it out over here I case anyone wants to use it. thanks again . This is a Great forum for the s30.

Thats my plan also, i think 2 stage is the way to do it. Think it would work with a single though?

on further investigation, the insulator bushings are over length, so they should have a return lip pressed in once fitted to the bar, like they did at the factory when new..... I was leading myself up the wrong path thinking that there was an earlier design. The cars were just well made it seems. However none of the manuals seem to mention it. The PO did fit a polybush. The rest of these i've given away!

Sorry I made that clear as mud! Pics my bar. its got a factory pressed bush in as standard, you can see either side of the 'lip' factory bushings... diameter current size of the hole pressed in bush thickness So, on earlier cars, the bushing was rubber outer that pressed into the factory fitted metal flange/bushing. So it seems, I need to cut one end of the curve off, then press out the rest, before fitting the newer design(1971?) in. Can i use my early straight bar, just flip it around to use with the later lower diff mount?(curved one). Is there an actual issue with early ones?

So, to add some fuel to the fire. I've a 1970 10/70 build 240z. Bar has the number450e4102 I managed to find bushings part number 55476-n4300 also thanks to a good friend, some insulated washers. However it seems my bar is the earlier type, which is 'double flanged' from the factory. has anyone cut a flange off and pressed the rest out with this earlier bar? its only got 45.75mm ID, compared to the 50mm bushings. I measure the flange/insert thas been press flanged at a thickness of 1.9mm. so basically it looks like theyd press fit nicely. it seems nissan changed the part design for the bar bushings?

its still firing.

that as neat as i've ever seen it done.

why would you want to ruin your strut tops!?

when in the strut, it alters caster and camber, its not as massive as it looks, its come from development of a 'fast road'-'rally' setup, one thats very streetable. It helps overcome some of the softening down that some of the ROW spec cars suffered from the factory. I've a US spec early car that suffers from the softer spec given to the USA.

Intrax suspension and VA motorsport top mounts.

I think thats the only negative review of an ATI damper?

IIRC the Kameari bolt isn't quite long enough. Regarding the underdrive on the alternator, at race speed it should be fine, a friend did some calcs on a road use engine, he said at idle and to 1500rpm is it wasn't enough. Anyway, ended up changing the alternator pully to a smaller one. Job fixed.

Perfect choice.

They mean they go to 50mm I think, as in the Center section etc. given the development and knowledge they’d not go sticking 50mm primaries on it. Could you imagine the space needed!?

Hi Sean, think they advertise pipe size on their website. It’s not massive.

To prove I've not been going mad. you have part number 510-1535, lots of pics about if you google the part number. Fujitsubo call this the EX-mani. http://aritaspeed.com/html/510-15035.htm Part number above is 510-1536, google that part number. Fujitsubo call this the 'super ex-mani'. The data they provide here is with the super ex-mai, and the low corrospondence exhaust. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=https://www.fujitsubo.co.jp/prods/detail/000000000000002298/00000000000000005120/00001708&prev=search

Here you go

Yes I do. pleased for you! It’s useful that the older style manifold does fit, it’ll be interesting to see how it fits at the front (height) compared to the new style of manifold it’s designed with. Also the general alignment. Can you measure from the top of the engine flange to the bottom of the first join?

they're all only RHD. They just happen to fit LHD cars. If you order the complete system new, the header above is what you get. Its got the part number lazer cut into it.

I'd just try and see what happens. They didn't change the design after the article, the pic above is a recent one. If you compare the two there's quite a few detail changes.

See your first pipe. Now compare that to the magazine article and the shape, it matches the old one on the right. This is the new type, matches the pic on the left.

Sorry, that wasn't my intention! It is the old style though, which is strange?