FastWoman

From a prior bad experience -- I started up and ran a car that had been sitting for 2 years. It seemed to run fine. Then I shut it down. After the engine had cooled, the valve train had been glued together with sticky varnish, which solidified when it cooled. When I cranked the engine again, I bent several valves. It's important to top off the other fluids (and then change them later). Old gas is the only old fluid I know that can cause a catastrophic failure.

Well, I remember Pres. Johnson, full service at the gas station with men in white bill caps, diners with gleaming stainless steel and Rockola juke box consoles at the table, the milk man, and the ice truck, and I was glued to the TV when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon. My, how this world has changed since then! (Thanks, also, for the kudos. This is a much kinder and gentler place than most places on the Internet. Very civilized people here!)

True, but usually our fusible links die through corrosion. If that's the case, then no worries. Just replace it. That said, I wouldn't want to drive a previously non-running car in unknown condition very far to get it home. I definitely wouldn't take it on any busy roads. Also, depending on how long it's been sitting, I wouldn't even start it up without draining the old gas.

^^ Pete has it right. In the direction the dizzy rotates, 153624 To remember it... 15 is too young. 36 is too old. 24 is just right. If you're older like me, you can think of the 180 deg version... 62 is too old. 41 is too young. 53 is just right. FAIW, most of our cars like just a bit more advance than spec. Mine is running at 13 deg advance, not the 10 deg spec.

When normally adjusted, the AFM vane has a bit of tension on it in the closed position. I would describe the normal closed tension as feeling "too heavy." (At least that was my perception.) The vane normally does not open up that much when the engine is idling, so this "too heavy" tension makes use of the bottem range of the vane movement, if that makes sense. If I recall correctly (might not!), the pressure needed to open the vane was on the order of 60g (about a dozen nickels at 5 g each), when pressing on the outermost part of the vane. This is all by way of saying that if your AFM vane "feels" weak to you, it probably is. Here's how you check the spring tension and adjust it if necessary: http://atlanticz.ca/zclub/techtips/afm/calibration/index.html I assume you've already downloaded the Nissan Factory Service Manual. If not, you can get it free here: http://www.xenons30.com Go to the EF section. You'll find step-by-step instructions that will be useful for debugging your EFI. These cars are notorious for crusty electrical connections, and I suspect that might be true of your coolant temp sensor connection. The best place to test is at the big connector plugging into your ECU, as that will test both the devices AND their connections and wiring. You can replace all of the 2-pin EFI connectors (which is most of them, including the coolant temp sensor and thermotime switch) with new. Do a search for "280Z injector connectors" on Ebay. There's a seller called f0rrest who sells a good kit. You'll need 10 of them -- 6 injectors, CTS, thermotime, AAR, cold start valve. I recommend you buy an 11th one to have on hand for testing purposes. You can get a TPS connector (3 pin) from the junk yard off of a variety of vehicles. Mine comes from a Volvo 240. You'll be keeping the same AFM connector.

^^ What Pete said. You've confirmed a rich condition. Possible causes would include your cold start injector stuck open, fuel pressure regulator regulating too high (which it seems to be?), a problem with the functioning or adjustment of your throttle position sensor, a fault with your coolant temp sensor or its connections (often an open circuit, due to a corroded connection at the sensor), an AFM out of adjustment (e.g. too loose a tension on the clock spring).

I have 2 regulators -- one from my '78, and one from an '81 ZX (same part). Both regulate pretty close to 36.3. That said, pressure gauges are often off, and I can't say for sure mine is any different. All I can say is that I have 3 gauges of different varieties that agree.

Wet plugs and gassy exhaust do suggest rich. Do all the plugs (1 through 6) look the same? I ask because you can get weird problems from uneven fuel delivery or ignition. Is your 34-36 psi with the engine running? That's rather high, possibly contributing to richness.

Well, that's if you get antique plates. But with antique plates, you're technically limited as to how/when/where you can drive the car. I have regular Virginia plates, which are $40.75 state registration. And THEN there's county personal property tax. (Don't you have to pay those in Richmond?) York County is the "bend over and squeal like a pig" county. They think my Z is worthless, so I only have to pay $4.70 tax and $23 county fees for it. I also have to pay the EZ-Pass bargain rate of $0.85 everytime I cross a bridge. (Damned toll bridges!) Now if they thought my Z were worth as much as our late model truck (which it isn't), I'd have to pay $159 county personal property tax + $23 county fees to keep it on the road. Also the state registration fee for a truck is a bit higher, at $45.75. That would be a grand total (state and local) of $182 clams per year! Gah! York county once even taxed me every year on my CAMERA. The bloodless bastards! BTW, about the inspections -- They may not be required for an antique vehicle (not even for my Z with standard plates), but you do have to file an affidavit certifying that your car is safe. If you end up in court over some accident, you'll be the certifying authority and will have to defend both your qualifications and every aspect of your car. If *I* end up in court over an accident, I can say, "My car easily passes the yearly state safety inspection, with never a problem," and that's the end of discussion. That privilege costs me $15 per year. Well worth it, IMO.

FAIW, while that fuse box might be slightly unsightly, there's nothing wrong with it functionally. Just clean the metal with distilled vinegar, dry, and lightly coat with a bit of silicone dielectric grease. Then you'll have excellent contacts with very little resistance and therefore very little heat.

Lenny, I didn't see your PM until now. Please check your PM box for my reply. Thanks!

Funny, you supposedly get the same performance enhancement, no matter the make/model. For instance, you can supposedly get up to 60 hp more out of a Geo Metro! That would probably triple the horsepower, and double the top end, given the right tailwind.

It's all text: $69 NISSAN 280Z Chip 60 Horsepower 7 MPG Savings Boost Easy Installation Custom ECU Chip www.GFChips.com Cars Get a great new Toyota at prices that will blow you away! www.BuyAToyotaCamry.com Replacement Fuel Injector Get back on the road fast! Buy new Stock OEM Fuel Injectors Here Now. Here's the really creepy part. I just sent someone a personal message in which I said I have new aftermarket injectors (OEM specs). Note the third ad.

Interesting. However, I've never been interested in such a chip and have never googled either this chip or any other. In fact it's been a very long time since I've googled ANY performance item for my car (or any other car).

... or so says the sponsored link at the top of the S30 Forum page! So this electronic snake oil product supposedly plugs into the air intake sensor via two wires. From that location, it supposedly reprograms the 280Z's (analog) ECU to unleash its hidden tiger, boosting horsepower by almost 50%. Whoa, baby! I have to question whether it's appropriate for this forum to post up sponsored links that make claims that absolutely cannot be true. Ignoring all other aspects of their dubious claims, there is no way to program or reprogram an analog ECU. Trust me, I know. I spent many a year designing and building linear circuits such as those controlling our engines. There's also no way it can reprogram ignition timing (as claimed), which is not a function of the ECU. Ignition timing is under entirely mechanical control. And then there's the matter of connectivity. Supposedly a 14 pin SIP is going to connect via only 2 wires? OK... Well, there's the power supply to the chip, which is 2 wires, and then there's the some sort of interface for communications... er.... but WAIT! That's more than 2 wires! :stupid: For anyone who is interested in this chip, I will offer the following perspective: It's a one-size-fits-all product. That means one product for every fuel injection system ever conceived, whether digital or analog, vane-type, MAF, or MAP sensor, O2 sensor or not. How do I know it's the same chip for all vehicles? It's because they boast that their product will not void the factory warranty on our (ANTIQUE!) ECUs. Could it be any plainer than that? If only my 1978 ECU were still under warranty, I'd have Nissan replace it in a heartbeat. It also claims to alter ignition timing, which is beyond the reach of our primitive L-Jet systems, but which IS generally controlled by most later-generation ECUs. Finally, it's supposedly appropriate to reprogram our vehicles no matter how they are modified -- blowers, nitrous, triple Mikunis, you name it! Could this device work on ANY vehicle as described? No. However, I won't go into the reasons here. I'll only say that altering the air intake temp sensor circuit is generally the least impactful way to muck up a fuel injection system. So people install this thing, it does nothing, and they think they have some increase in power because the alternative is that they just wasted $69 like a perfect idiot. Either that, or they are less prideful and demand a refund. No biggie for the company -- cheap device, cheap shipping, no shortage of suckers who will actually keep the thing. I really hope to persuade the admins to decline this sponsor. Their claims are patently fraudulent. There's no way even to give them the benefit of the doubt. What they claim is physically and electronically impossible, and they obviously don't have sufficient familiarity with the Datsun 280Z to realize it is an antique vehicle not under factory warranty, or to understand that our (analog) ECUs have no programming.

You realize that there are very few cars that can live up to this kind of build-up!?

Thanks, hr369! I'll look for those trouble spots. My one known leak is on the high side connection to the evaporator assembly at the firewall. It's a bit oily there. The compressor looks pretty clean. Adding oil sounds prudent. I'm afraid I've been slow to get to this repair. Perhaps I'll be able to locate that "round tuit" when the weather gets warmer.

If you can't find the 5/8" fuel line from an auto parts store, try a tractor supply company. If not there, then I know you can get it from Hampton Rubber (http://hamptonrubber.com/). They're not a mail-order company, but if you ask them nicely, they'll ship you almost any rubber item you could possibly imagine or need, including all crazy sizes of fuel hose. Hint: Use Goodyear E-Z-Coil doodads to make the tight turns in the 5/8" line.

I agree with Obvious. It would take an enormous leak there to amount to anything, and if the shaft fit loosely enough to create that sort of leak, it would wobble around quite a lot (maybe 1/16" or more). FAIW, sooty plugs do not necessarily indicate a rich condition. They could also indicate incomplete burning from an extreme lean condition. This was true on my car, for instance. It would be worthwhile to try fingering the counterweight of the AFM while the engine is idling. If your engine runs better/faster/smoother when you tweak the counterweight CCW, the mixture is too lean. If it runs better when you tweak the counterweight CW, then your mix is too rich. If too rich, there's a short list of possible causes, but a vacuum leak wouldn't be among them. Anyway, try this, and let us know -- rich or lean. Then we can diagnose further.

Just a note on the non-OEM brakes: They might perform better than the original brakes, but if you ever run into anything/anyone, you might have a problem. Those brakes are not certified by any authority as "safe" on your vehicle, unlike the less safe OEM brakes. So if someone sues you, you can't fall back on the argument that your car's safety systems were all approved by the US DOT. I briefly considered 4-piston brakes, but I decided against them for this reason. I'd frankly go back to OEM if I were you. Too many lawyers! Edit: OTOH, there are safety inspections in many states, in which the inspector certifies your vehicle as safe. That's a flimsy defense, but at least it's something.

There's a common and understandable misconception that the only cause of low vacuum would be a vacuum leak. In fact if an engine is running too rich, a vacuum leak would INCREASE engine vacuum, because the engine would run and pump more efficiently with the extra needed air. What you need to do is to verify that you have a tight intake (e.g. my patented "yogurt cup" test ), and if that checks out, then address fuel/air ratio issues. When your engine is happy with the fuel/air it is getting, it will run at a "normal" vacuum, irrespective of how it's getting the air.

Some nice ideas for tweaks in that article, Zed, but I strongly believe the best approach is the coolant temp circuit. That's because this seems to be the primary determinant of injector pulse width, and the temp correction is applied uniformly through all operating conditions. Corrections made any other way are not going to be applied uniformly. For instance, if the clock spring is loosened, the AFM will peg out prematurely, and there will be a lean condition beyond that. If the wiper is turned, it will overshoot, perhaps only resulting in a premature pegging as with the spring adjustment. If the linearity of the trace is tweaked, per De Armond's clever method, the correction is only locally applied. Of course the thesis that the CTS is the best place to make the AFR adjustment is based on the assumption that the ECU has drifted in its fundamental operational characteristics. In my experience with 70's era electronics, this is a very reasonable assumption -- indeed an expectation.

Obvious, it's interesting the repair made no difference. It made a huge difference in my '75, but again, the flap was bent in a different sort of way that I'm at a loss to describe here. I might have recommended 5 turns open on the idle mix screw, but if so, it was just something I picked up elsewhere. I don't really find this adjustment makes much difference on my engine, so I have it set at 5 turns. You've correctly determined that your engine is running lean. Now the question is "why?" I'd do the beer-can calibration on the AFM's clockspring to the factory tension, and make certain it is good electrically. I think I recall your doing the yogurt cup test to ensure that your intake is tight. I'd check all the plugs to make certain they're reading the same. Partially clogged injectors are another possible factor, and they're relatively cheap to replace (about $150). Of course check valve and ignition timing, as well as valve lash. Then after you've done all that, if you're still running lean, you'll find there's not much left to consider. Then it would be time to trick the ECU into running richer by adding resistance to the coolant temp sensor circuit.

Obvious, apparently that's a pulse width modulation design. That would be a bit more approachable. I suppose I should just bite the bullet and order another AAR.

Lenny, lately I've been having real headaches keeping a good, steady idle speed. My BCDD still isn't happy. My AAR is somewhat flakey and probably needs replacement. My A/C fast idle vacuum solenoid (term?) is really hard to adjust right. The interaction of the three is getting somewhat crazy. I've simply been running with a too-high idle. What would be GREAT would be a modern IACV in place of the AAR. Of course there are no stand-along IACVs (to my knowledge), and cobbling one up seems a bit much (for me), owing to the need for a quadrature output. Any chance of your new ECU having IACV support?