TKR514

My el cheapo Gabriels did not mention it either way, so I fell back to the FSM for installation instructions and added some oil. I never installed the expensive shocks so I never heard that "dry" was specifically recommended on KYB brand shocks. Getting a specific answer from KYB on the technical reasons WHY they recommend dry installations might take some time. Still, other than help with possible corrosion advantage, I cannot find any facts that requires oil with KYB's for technical reasons. Without technical reasons for doing it or not doing it, it's your personal preference with KYB's...

Our local KYB rep said that KYB' should: 1) be installed dry and 2) over heating is not a problem with their shocks. Probably 2ManyZs had it right that it helps mostly a corrosion prevention thing on our less-than-perfectly sealed strut housing on our older Z's. The strut's themselves do not require it.

I willl give 'em a call & see if there is a Yes/No answer on installation and their take on the heat transfer concern.

More heat but no light. Not much help in any of that. DID tanny get the word from KYB on their recommendation for the installation of their shocks an/or if their shocks have heat related failures? Still would like to hear the word from folks that know what they are doing. Thanks.

Arg, just superstitions. I'd like to hear what KYB says since they know shocks.

Since NO OTHER car that I know of adds oil to their struts for "thermal protection", I can assume that it will work just fine without it. Maybe this was an old "trick" to prolong the life in early struts back in the late 60's when they were "new" and built from poor materials? Since new manufactures do not recommend it AND that the Z suspension is not special, New struts will last as long regardless of oil or not. Personally I don't really care since I have a lifetime warranty on my set ;-)

Yea, I heard that oil was not realy "needed", but I used some motor oil to fill em up a few weeks ago when I was re-assembling my struts. My idea was that it never hurt to put it in there and cost nothing to add it.... so I added it like my service manual said to do. I would NOT dissasemble the struts just to add oil....

Just replaced mine last month. They SHOULD come with NEW nuts for mounting so it should not be an issue. For 95 bucks, they darn well better have new mounting hardware in the box! Mine came from www.nissan-autoparts.com/ for $33 each and had all new hardware....

Who cares? Call it something faggy like "Fairlady" Just marketing......

good luck! I just rebuilt my L28 and will install it this weekend into my freshly painted chassis. Should know in about 2 weeks if all the work was worth it (or if I simply created a 2.8 liter hand grenade).

Felpro? use nothing but the gasket itself (dry install).

Everyone but me....

I never "steam clean", but a trip to the public car wash works well enough. Once a year and the crud is controlled. If it's been a while, you can use some engine de-greaser to spot cover some parts before cleaning. Only cautions are do not soak the distributor or AFM. They usually are not dirty and they have almost zero protection from high pressure water. No real worries except for those parts.

I've run AvGas from the plane several times in my Z here in the States. 100 octane high lead (although it's labled low lead). As far as I can tell, this "off road" fuel is not labled in any way that prevents it's use in "on road" vehicles... $2.30 a gallon but it boes well at 50/50 with unleaded.

Yep, that's the report. Causes were: 1) a diverted attention and 2) accidental rudder kick 3) too quick a pre-flight (trusting bad fuel guages). Basically, things happened fast and it snowballed even faster. The other factors that contributed were: 1)iBuilder installed the fuel selector in a non-standard location for that type of aircraft(or any aircraft for that matter). 2)Builder installed the fuel selector backwards and did not mark it when installed on the aircraft. 3)Builder had inaccuarate fuel quantity sight gauges. 4) John Denver lack of time (transition) to this aircraft to learn all of it's quirks that were built into it. The bulders goof-ball shortcut to install the fuel selector in the rear of the plane (not following the plans), then not marking it, and then having almost no way to measure what was actually in the tanks are definite factors that bit the guy that bought it. No where are John's flying abilities questioned. He was legal and qualified to fly the plane on that day. Only lesson for me was don't trust anything on a used experimental aircraft....

All I know is that you said the FAA investigated accidents. I am not adept an knowing what someone meant to type. John WAS skilled enough, he made a series of hasty but minor assumptions with a new-to-him aircraft and he paid for it. Derating him as a pilot is not called for. The worst thing out of it seems to be non-pilots using it for jokes or "expertly" pointing out the need for more regulations in training. Again, you know nothing about my flying yet pontificate an opinion not based on fact. 3 times in 30 years would ONLY be unusual if you are assuming that I am a low time pilot flying single engine aircraft. Again, an incorrect assumption. Opinions without facts are superstion, and must be avoided concerning aviation safety issues. Anyway, next time you get to Texas, stop over for a beer. Between us we should be able to solve all the worlds problems

Well BambiKiller, 1)The FAA does not investigate accidents (duh). 2)Glad you survived the deer, some hit deer and die. 3)John had very good skills as a pilot and held FAA ratings. 4)Since auto licences are given away and basically just used for identification, there is no comparison between a drivers license and a pilot certificate. However, both are licences to learn. 5) Inattention will get you killed in either car or aircraft. 6)Since you know ZERO about my plane and maintenance, you cannot make a rational suggestion on how to improve things. You sound like a politician that has little knowledge of Aviation yet "knows" how to make things better. Strong opinions, yet no information. If you want details of what happened and why, I cand send you those and then you might have some idea before you pontificate. Both mechanic and maintenance were irrelavent in my case.

Can't we stop this thread an just declare BabyKiller(Ooops, I mean BambiKiller) as the the most intellectual, wise and moral person on the planet and go on with our lesser, pitiful lives? As far as the thread being about how Clinton is responsible for skillful military procurement that made this war sucessful, well, that depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Gotta go work on the Z...

Well, accidents do happen. I can assume from your name "BambiKiller" that you have also had an accident that caused a death :-) Everyone has them, just hope all live through them and learn. I guess if everything less than a perfectly safe drive is also considered a failure, then we can criticize you poor driving skills? Maybe you can cut John a little slack.... Personally, I think flying has a larger safety margin than driving. Everything is separated by miles instead of feet and there is very little traffic. As long as you respect the limits, things usually work out as planned. I've had 3 engine failures in 30 years from various mechanical reasons but never lost my plane. Sometimes luck makes the difference.

Speaking as an experienced pilot, I can say that that John was a good pilot. He unfortunately made a series of dumb mistakes on a new-to-him aircraft. See also JFK Jr. I bought the story on Mr. Rogers, 'cause I know a guy who is very "Mr. Rogers like" but used to be a gunner in a Puff C-130 in Viet Nam....

just did it on an L28. About $250 in parts, $150 to get the block cleaned/honed at a local shop here in Texas... So about $400 if you have all the tools and books already and do it yourself.

Yea, probably wrong on that one, but it was never quoted that I can find. I do know that the areodynamics and cooling issues were not as important on the original Z(but then it was way better than an American car of the 70's). I do know that aerodynamis were better in the ZX as far as lower high speed drag and better stability at high speeds. I've always seen the Z as a great around town car and the ZX as a great interstate cruiser. Nither better, just different. Hmmm, Mr. Rodgers a sniper? I thought that he must have a past that he was hiding from

Well, numbers don't lie, people do. EVERYONE knows that the 2.8 in the ZX is 170hp if you measure it the same way that they measured 150hp out of the 240Z. The ZX also gains superb drivability with the fuel injection. The curb weight of 2970 was probably the GL 2+2 version, my stock 79 coupe that I've weighed is 2750. I guess that drag was never measured on the 240/280, the 79ZX had a 0.24 coeffiecient. I seem to remember that the early Z is something like 0.45. Yea, the 79ZX is not a drag racer. If I wanted a drag racer, I would have bought an American car with a V8. The ZX is a better ballanced car than an a fast American high-cubic-inch drag car. The 240/280 are not considered "fast" off the line either at 0-60 in just under 8 seconds. I agree with BambiKiller, the 78 Z was darn near a ZX anyway. The 79 ZX just added the "horrors" of power windows as an option... Yea, the Nash 2-seater has a following and is kinda cool. PeeWee, on the other hand, has neither IMHO.

Well, back in 1979 when I bought, you COULD NOT buy a new 1969 240Z. The choice was between a new 1978 and a new 1979. The '78 Z was very long in the tooth, still had rear drum brakes, heavy. The 79ZX was more rigid, better aerodynamics, better rust prevention, and better mileage than the '78Z. The ZX is stable in stock form to run all day at 130mph. I later picked up a used 77, but it never felt stable above 100+mph. The brakes are better in the ZX. The weight was the same or slightly less than a 78. Longest trip in the ZX was 512 miles non-stop on just under 20 gallons used. After 300,00 miles as the original owner without any problems, the 1979 ZX seems very ballanced, high quality, fun. Anyone who says a 79 ZX is heavy at 2750 pounds should complain that the new stock 350Z weighs MORE than a new stock Corvette...

Hmmm, over ar zcar.com autos-for-sale there is a nice 80 coupe 5 speed w/ leather with 71K original miles for $2,500...