doradox

What benefits would one expect from advancing the valve timing? More low end power? Steve

The distributor is driven from the crank so timing chain stretch does not effect spark timing only valve timing. Stretched chain retards valve timing. Steve

Thanks, and merry Christmas to you too! Steve

I'd hesitate to blame timing or mixture for your woes. A few degrees one way or the other or a little rich or lean shouldn't be causing any popping. It doesn't make sense that you would need to be in "perfect" tune to run right. In my experience many a ridiculously out of tune Z has run just fine. How have you checked your ignition? H4LIGHTS mentioned hooking up to a tune up scope. Have you at least resistance checked your wires? Steve

And what about stuff like "for all intensive purposes" instead of "for all intents and purposes"?

Also notice that the production of that evil greenhouse gas, CO2, is max at stioch. Every modern gas powered car has a device that maximizes CO2 production. Steve

You and K&N don't seem to agree. What is your reasoning? http://www.knfilters.com/cleaning.htm Steve

You are correct. Moot point. Use the approximate fill value from the FSM for a generic instance of your transmission or the precise amount of fill for your individual transmission by filling to the fill plug.

I would argue that it is a precise way to fill the trans to the correct level. Diff and trans housings are castings with tolerances that aren't very tight. The internal volume of a cast housing can vary because of that. So the volume of oil to reach the fill plug level can be different between one trans and the next. Hence the approximate fluid capacity listed in the FSM. The fill plug location is pretty well controlled because it is machined into the casting along with the other features that position the gears in the housing. So, the oil level with respect to the gears is fairly precise if one fills to the fill plug. Steve

Just in case you didn't notice I didn't offer any advice, I asked some questions.

Yes, because it's the oil LEVEL not the amount of oil, within reason, that matters. Diff and trans housings are castings with tolerances that aren't very tight. The internal volume of a cast housing can vary because of that. So the volume of oil to reach the fill plug level can be different between one trans and the next. The fill plug location is pretty well controlled because it is machined into the casting so the oil level with respect to the gears is fairly precise if one fills to the fill plug. The gears are partially submerged in oil and splash the oil around and so the level of oil relative to the gears is what controls how much oil gets splashed around. Steve

So when you top off the oil level do you drain the engine and refill with the amount of oil stated in the FSM or do you fill to the full line on the dipstick? How would one top, or even just check the level, off the trans or diff if the only way to know how much fluid to put in is to drain it and refill with the "recommended" amount? Steve

It's the car I have been waiting for. I recently sold my 240SX coupe. It was a blast to drive but was getting a little long in the tooth. (250,000 miles). I look forward to test driving the "86", and if Toyota got it right, back into a fun small car. Steve

The link I provided explains a wet compression test. Steve

Have you done a wet compression test? And it sounds like you can't run the engine to operating temp before the test either. How much have you been able to run the engine since you began reviving it? To get useful results from a compression test you may need to run your engine for a while to get things freed up if it's been sitting for 20 + years. The advice about valve adjustment should be heeded as well. A lot of times an engine that has been sitting for a long time will "repair" itself if driven gently for a few hundred miles. And if not you are going to have to rebuild it anyway. http://www.car-techie.com/compression.php?003 Steve

Let's try this instead... Oxy-acetylene uses a bottle of oxygen and a bottle of acetylene. Neither of which is an inert gas. Steve

Found one out in the Imperial sand dunes while riding. Found a business card and an ID in it. The guy worked in Yuma and I returned it on our return trip to Tucson.

Try swapping your front tires from side to side. You could have a bad tire.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

I'll second that. My other Zs were outfitted that way when the batteries died and my current will be when it's battery dies.

I'll assume you didn't actually read the specs. 210 isn't so bad a read. http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.210 FMVSS 210 has requirements for restraint anchorages. Position, spacing, strength (S4.2) requirements. Since the S30 "chassis" and body are one and the same there would have been a need to make sure adequate strength was built in to the areas that the restraints would be mounted to to meet the 210 requirements. I don't know if other safety standards had already required a level of design that makes 210 a moot point. Could be so. That's not an argument I am making. I never once said any such thing. Just that some aspects of the design may have been influenced by a US market requirement and may have been difficult to integrate into the whole of the design. The opposite dumbing down in other words.

It's certain all regulations would have to be taken into account. With some being more stringent than others. I think it's reasonable to assume that barring any evidence to the contrary. Again, I think it's reasonable to assume that barring any evidence to the contrary. My experience has been no one customer gets everything they wanted. And that's with the broad definition of customer including manufacturing, Sales, Marketing, Retailers, and end users. All of which would have had input, in some way or another, into the design requirements docs.

Why wouldn't you consider a Miata MX5 as similar to a 240Z? From a dimensional standpoint it's the pretty much the same sized car. From a wheel base and track perspective it's a larger car. In net HP numbers about 40-45 more. At 2500 lbs for a base model it seems that if Mazda had made it a 2 seat coupe instead of a soft top they could easily stay under 2700 lb. Price wise it's still in the ballpark adjusted for inflation. Steve

You might try a new Mazda MX5 on for size. Virtually a match the 240Z for wheelbase, height, width, OAL. just shy of 2600 lbs with a retractable hardtop and 100 lbs less with a soft top. 6 speed, 167 HP, fabulous handling and good fuel economy. Starting at $23,000 which, by the way is equivalent to $4,000 in 1970, it's the modern day Z. Steve

Look up FMVSS if you need some light reading. Most the the FMVSS were new in 68, 69 and require very specific performance criteria to be met. A vehicle MUST meet these requirements to be sold in the US. That's a good start. But what came first the chicken or the egg? Were the changes made to a base US spec geometry or the other way around, or neither? But this is an example of the mass of compromises that need to be made. Each unique part carries a cost associated to tooling, inventory control, etc. Manufacturing and Operations don't like it when one has lots of similar bits to be kept track of. A goal would have been to minimize that cost by commonizing as many parts as possible. An example would be using a very high volume fastener on a low volume application where it might be overkill. But setting up a new part number, managing inventory, and the cost of a low volume appropriately sized fastener doesn't make sense. I didn't even respond to your example other than to give a contrasting one about the geometry. Typically a stiffer chassis is better in all cases. So that one doesn't need any compromise. I'm glad to see we agree. Your interjection of the "American Car" stuff into our discussion was a distraction as I was not making any attempt to prove this to be the case. I understand your frustration though. Steve