Captain Obvious

That's not to code.

Haha! The stupid stuff we hopefully and thankfully lived through in our younger years.

LOL! So I saw a note (probably on Innovate's website) about sensor mounting. They said that if the sensor gets wet it can cool too quickly and crack some ceramic portion. For that reason, I think they recommended 3:00 or 9:00 with 6:00 being the worst not only from the standpoint of ripping the sensor off on a speedbump, but also for potential water damage.

I thought it was more complicated than that. I haven't really looked into it, but I guess I should dig around a little and get some learning.

LOL. Well that took a turn quick! I'm sure I wont. Only thing that has me a tiny bit worried is I bought it off ebay from the cheapest guy I could find. He's head and shoulders cheaper than the next guy and because he's so much cheaper than everyone else (and the MSRP of the device) that it sets off my scam danger alarm a tiny bit. Hoping it's all legit and I'll have it soon.

Easy for me to say, but the monitoring and logging of the sensor output sounds like a relatively easy ordeal. What I don't know anything at all about is how to deal with the heating element.

I just pulled the trigger on an MTX-AL. I'm assuming I'll eventually be in the market for something with more features (and a bigger price tag). But for now, baby steps. Thanks for the generous offer, but I'll install my simple gauge first and see what happens. If it were safe to have company right now, I'd be on my way up to spend some time with you. Hopefully soon my friend!

Sure I remember! Lets to that again! Having you as my co-pilot again would be a much better solution as far as I'm concerned! So I knew you had the analysis equipment, but I didn't know it was an LM-1. I guess at the time, I just knew it worked.

jonbill, thanks for that link. Good read, and simple enough for my little mind to work through. So it seems that the real value would come with a multi-variable logging system and you can put them together with multiple pieces, or buy one already packaged together (like the Innovate LM-2). I was hoping to get away cheaper than that. AK260, So you have the analog MTX? And I agree with your assessment as well*. There's a lot of value there too, but not as much as a multi-variable logging system. So do you get any meaningful info while just cruising normally and not at WOT? Or is the needle all over the place all the time? * Except for the Bond-esque part about flipping a switch and having your clock become an A/F meter.

Thanks Jon. Hmmm... I see your point. For my logs, I guess I was looking for mixture vs RPM. As far as engine load goes, I was going to have to do that by memory, as in "This was a full throttle third gear pull." and then interpret the results knowing those conditions. So I guess the question is do the stand-alone gauges (like the Innovate MTX series) even know what the RPM is and output the RPM data on their log stream? Does the MTX even have an RPM input pin? Or do I need something like the LM-2 to do that like blodi:

You're kidding... Wrong firing order? That was the issue?

How about a couple pokes for input (in no particular order)? @Chickenman, @duffymahoney, @jonbill @blodi, @JSM, @conedodger

Yeeesh. Too much black magic and voodoo in that ECU for me to ever consider doing something like that. If you ever succeed with this, I will drive my Z to your house and loudly proclaim in public that your kung fu is the best.

Current owner... Albert Hammond?

I want an A/F ratio meter like many of you other guys have so I can make a run with the car while logging the fuel ratio details. My short list is "I want to do data logging, and I prefer an analog display over digital." If I pulled the trigger today, it would be for Innovate's MTX-AL (analog). Why? Because I know nothing about such devices and Innovate is a big player in the market, and hopefully produces quality stuff. Any input about Innovate's logging and analysis software? If I don't like it, are there other third party offerings that I could use instead? Any other recommendations about brand or style? * I thought I had asked some of these questions in the past, but I just can't remember or find it if I did. So apologies if I'm rehashing something I've already done.

Well beyond the scope of the thread, but... The theory behind that is that the voltage from the coil will ramp up rapidly until it reaches the point where it ionizes the air in the gap and jumps that gap. By adding that additional second gap, the voltage will rise further before it finally jumps the gap. This is because the effective gap distance is greater and a greater gap takes a higher voltage to jump. By riding the voltage curve higher and holding off the spark a little, you can get a higher energy spark. It's also helpful when there's a carbon trace buildup. The carbon trace could provide enough of a path to dissipate the coil discharge without having to spark at all. With that second gap and riding further up the voltage wave before discharge, you can sometimes burn out the carbon traces. Assuming, of course, that your coil has the nuts to consistently jump a gap that big. There are plenty of risks, but (as you found) in the old days, it could sometimes get you home in a pinch.

Simply because I had all the parts handy, I took fresh measurements and ran some numbers: 280 throttle butterfly - 50mm diameter. This provides 1964 mm square area. The Sentra (96-98) throttle body as well as the 280ZX are also the same as the 280Z Carbs butterfly (both round and flat tops) - 46mm diameter. This provides 1662 mm square area. Now interesting (to me) is that the 1964 sq mm for the throttle body is shared between six cylinders, while the 1662 sq mm for the carbs is shared only between three cylinders instead of six. So for the fuel injection, it works out to 327 sq mm per cylinder and the carbs work out to 554 sq mm per cylinder. The carbs provide significantly more butterfly area per cylinder than the fuel injection. Now I'm sure Nissan did their research and found 50mm diameter for the EFI was good enough, but the difference is still striking. Working backwards from the carbs 554 sq mm per cylinder, you would need a 65mm diameter throttle body to get the equivalent area per cylinder. I'm no in any position to draw any conclusions from the above, but I was moving some stuff around today and had all the parts handy at the same time.

Damn your eyes!!

LOL. All the rest of that material keeps squirrels out of your bell housing. Haha!! Racer X, I bet everyone at every level of racing bends some rules and stresses others beyond the limits of bending. Your secret is safe with us. All 30,000 of us. Haha!

At that level of detail, my stainless plate is (nominally) four thousandths (.004 in) thinner than the plated original. So I guess it's a performance increase too. Not sure how much weight difference that would result in, however.

Hmmm. As simple as the question seems, I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking "Is there a weight difference between my new stainless piece and the old triangular holed carbon steel piece? If so, then (ignoring miniscule differences in density between stainless steel and carbon steel) the answer is "No, they are the same." But if you are asking "Is there a weight difference between my new stainless piece and the older 240 version with the round hole?", then the answer is "Yes, mine is lighter because the hole is larger." Here's a pic of a rusted up older 240 design with the round hole in the middle:

As a recent project, I had a new rear plate made for between the engine and the transmission. It's laser cut out of 304 stainless, and it turned out fantastic! Just the thing for bling! Since I'm putting it on a 280, I modeled it after the later version with the triangular shaped hole instead of the earlier 240 version with the round hole in the middle. The parts fische says the manual trans 240s used P/N 30411-E3000, while everything after that used P/N 30411-A8600. Also note that the 240 version was superseded by the 280 version, so according to that documentation, they are interchangeable. Here's the new shiny stainless bling plate next to the original with the failing plating: Mounted on the back of the motor: Pic of the front of the transmission to see where the holes are: And here's the plate up against the tranny face. Just hanging in place with bolts and drill bits: Any interest in having more of these made and offering for sale?

I'm saying that I don't remember the exact locations of all the parts involved and it's possible that the throttle opener may be mounted lower on the 240 balance tube. If that's the case, the throttle opener device itself may be identical between 240 and 260, but they may have put it in a different spot between the two. Same goes for the throttle stop you're hovering above on the balance tube. That little stub of throttle linkage may be significantly different between the two. I just don't remember. I know lots of people have done flat top to round top conversions and have overcome these hurdles and I bet there are pictures out there on this forum that would answer some of those questions.

Glad to help. Hope it saves some time. You may find that the holes in my plate are a tight fit on the mounting bolts with the geometries and tolerances involved. The holes in the throttle bodies I've messed with here use larger holes than what I put in that plate. In fact, they used two different hole sizes on the diagonal. Two of them are really sloppy, and the other two are tighter, but still not as tight as what I did. Anyway, you may find that you need to open those holes up a little bit to get it to fit without interference on the mounting bolts. Depends on the accuracies of all the parts involved. On the factory floor, they just want things to fit without a fight and they made the mounting holes sloppier to guarantee that happened.

Well if you're going to make it two pieces, you really don't have to clock the throttle body if you don't want to. You can use flat head screws or counterbored bolts to hold one piece to the manifold. Screw that into place first. Then use flat head screws to hold another plate to the first and have threaded holes in the new pattern on the second plate. Not really a good description..... Anyway, here's my sketch of the original throttle body mount. Let me know if you can't read the dimensions and I'll edit the sketch to make them more readable: I made a spacer plate for the Sentra throttle body. The mounting pattern is the same, but the linkage interfered, so I had to move the throttle body out away from the intake by 1/4 inch. Here's a spacer plate made to the dimensions above: And here it is next to the intake hole: