jmortensen

Unless someone installed an R200, your car should have an R180. The R200 may have existed in 70 but it didn't get put in a Z car until the 260Z 2+2, I believe.

You can jet the Mikunis to run fine on a stock L24, although you'd be better able to use them to their full potential with a larger cam. What they're good at is top end power, unfortunately the stock cam isn't big enough for real high rpms. In the end you'll get the best result if everything in the engine is built for the same purpose and the cam, head, induction, exhaust, pistons, etc are all suited to making power in the same rpm range, but just adding the Mikunis to an otherwise stock engine should get a sizable power gain if they're tuned correctly.

Mikunis basically need tuning once, then maintenance (synching) just like the SU's do. I'd suggest you jet them correctly, unless you're going for original. I think you can download the Mikuni manual here, and the jets are available from www.wolfcreekracing.com.

John at Beta Motorsports said that the WRX R180 had a different number of splines on the output shaft, so the only way to use the WRX LSD is to convert to their CV shafts as well. Presumably that would require machining an adapter to the stub axle at the very least, might need custom length CV shafts as well. You might try Calmini for an R180 LSD: http://www.calmini.com/. I don't know if KAAZ or CUSCO make LSDs, you should check. You can definitely get a Quaife, although they're hyper-expensive. I wouldn't hesitate to put the R160 behind a 225hp motor in a Z.

Show me an ARP stud that is $12. I haven't seen it. Maybe someone is custom ordering studs in 12 x 1.25. If that's the case, that's unnecessary and expensive. The commonly used one is the one I linked to, it's the same part number as hls30.com quoted. Yes, they require new lug nuts. New nuts are a heck of a lot cheaper than NISMO studs. Trick for those using Nissan wheels, Toyota truck lug nuts have the same shank diameter and the correct thread pitch for the ARP studs. FWIW, Quest studs are 50 or 60 mm long and have the correct pitch and knurl size. They aren't a NISMO part, so you should be able to get them for a couple bucks a piece. Stephen, I won't speak for Coffey, but I think that you seem to be saying the only spacers that are OK to use are the ones that are "machined from alumimum billet, using an auto cad based carbide end mill with conical seats to fit over the existing lug nuts and splines for the pressed-in studs that the wheels mount to, and are hub-centric to vehicle and wheel." My point is that hub centric isn't any better, especially when you're not using wheels that are hub centric. Also a hub centric spacer that doesn't have a new "hub end taper" on it won't center a hub centric wheel hub centrically. So if you're using a hub centric spacer that is flat on the outboard end, you're centering the wheels with the lugs, regardless of what is going on on the hub side. Lug centric is fine and slip on spacers are fine, so long as they fit the vehicle properly and the lugs are long enough to allow proper engagement of the nuts. What in my opinion is more dangerous is using a badly machined adapter like you have or a poorly manufactured slip on spacer.

Those are the hub centric ones that don't fit the Z hubs correctly. I expect the warning on the box is a liability protection issue. My box of Q-tips says don't stick them in your ear, but guess what I do with them??? The issue with the wheel bearings is a real one, but it's a common sense thing. The wider the spacer the more the effect, and the wheel offset will have a more pronounced effect than a spacer for most of our cases I think. Like John, I used to work on a Porsche race car that saw north of 170 mph and it used slip on spacers in the back that were 1.5 or 2 inches thick. In fact we had lots of customer cars at that Porsche shop that used slip on spacers and I never saw a problem.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a good quality slip on wheel spacer. Good quality means lug centric or alternatively a hub centric specifically designed for the car you have them on. I don't know if you remember Mat, but my original wheel spacers were cheapo ones from the auto parts store and I chased a tire vibration for a LONG time. Turned out the center hole on those was just a gnat's arse too small and the spacer was warping when the lugs were tightened. That caused the vibration and eventually caused the spacer to crack. Properly sized, they don't do that, and the replacements I got have caused no problems. The other common mistake with spacers is not using a long enough stud. There needs to be enough engagement to secure the wheel properly. On a Z the stock studs aren't long enough for any wheel spacer really. I assume you're talking about one of your other cars though.

If you're paying $12 per stud you've got rocks in your head. Summit has the studs in sets of 5 (they're Camaro studs with 12 x 1.5 thread pitch) for $12.95. http://store.summitracing.com/partdetail.asp?autofilter=1&part=ARP%2D100%2D7708&N=700+115&autoview=sku I bought slip on spacers from Coleman racing, but the center pilot hole was too small. They are a lugcentric spacer so I had a machine shop open up the center hole until there was no interference. Works great, but the coleman spacers are a bit pricey.

I wonder if maybe he figured out his problem in the last 4 years since this post was originally made...

If nobody gives you an answer on the bolt in axles ask on a 510 forum. Those guys use the Subaru diffs all the time, since they came with R160s. I think the diff is strong enough, based on Gary Savage's experience flogging his VG30T in his 510 for years with no problems.

That's quite a story. I remember you saying you were taking off to get another degree and that you'd be back. When I saw your name pop up I was wondering what the hell took so long... ;-) Glad to see you around again.

What happened to that nice 280 you used to have Rob? I don't see it listed in your sig...

What does the stock air box have to do with anything? This is for triple carburetors and has nothing to do with stock. The point here is to run a hose to a cold air source and get cooler air into the engine. Denser colder air makes more power. As to the looks or the price, I won't judge those, but it seems to me like some of you don't understand what you're looking at. Carbon fiber is light, and race cars are weight sensitive, so it does make sense to use carbon fiber. Carbon fiber appliques are rice. Poorly done carbon fiber is ricey. Carbon fiber door panels are ricey. Using lightweight RACE parts on a RACE car is not ricey.

Yes, they do have the reinforcement, it just isn't enough.

No. I figured the bar would spread it around. Not a bad idea though! EDIT-- I should also say that I called Energy Suspension and they said normal moly grease was fine for use with poly bushings.

You can also drill holes and tap them to accept zerk fittings. Then just drill a corresponding hole in the bushing itself so that you can lube them regularly. Teflon tape and lube only last so long, being able to add more lube without taking the thing apart is a good idea. Zerk fittings: http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93541

The speaker in the video I linked to has a similar diagram of the US with a tiny section right in the middle of the country that he says could provide enough power for everyone. He does cost analysis of different production methods as well. Nuclear is A LOT cheaper than solar at the present. Oh, and forget about putting your solar array in the CA desert. There's undoubtedly some endangered species of something out there that would kill that project before it ever got off the ground. CA is the NIMBY capital of the US, if not the world.

Here's Klaus's speech: http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=IS0gccWYLKQK

Sounds like you just got off the ethanol propaganda bus! I think the big push for corn based ethanol in the US has a lot to do with the farming lobbies. Brazil makes ethanol from sugarcane which is a much better source than the corn we're using in the US. The reality in the US is a bit different. Here is a maybe more balanced view of corn based methanol production: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_ethanol Compared to Brazil's sugarcane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil As far as using food as fuel for cars and expecting that not to raise the cost of food, I'm not buying that argument. It may not be a significant factor yet, but if you have a finite amount of food production and you take some of that away to be used as car fuel, then your supply has gone down and your demand raised. This will lead inexorably to higher prices, the more ethanol is burned in cars, the higher the prices will get. Plus it takes resources to do the farming and the refining, which raises demand for diesel, whatever is used for the production of fertilizer, etc. Here is a really interesting presentation on alternative energy comparing with "fossil" fuels. It's long, and the speaker has many annoying facial tics, but the info is really interesting: http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html I'm sure you've all already been inundated with the Global Warming alamist stuff, so here is some skeptical Global Warming and CO2 info from two CalTech alumni and an Australian Paleoclimatologist: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/27/best-statistical-scientific-talk-on-global-warming/ The problem with all of these arguments is that you can't really trust any one report's viewpoint. To me, the alarmist sentiments that come with Global Warming smack of religious armageddon movements, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. The arguments against it seem much more rational and level headed to me. There is also a really strong taint of socialism in the GW reduction efforts. Cap and trade as an example assumes that 3rd world countries that aren't industrialized won't produce as much CO2, so the polluters PAY them to pollute more. Sounds like economic redistribution to me, and that sounds distinctly like socialism. What's more you have the big brother government coming in to save us from ourselves by taking control of how much energy we use and how much we pollute. Sounds like a bad deal all around to me...

For the record I haven't changed anything on my setup. Plan is to redrill the ears, but it did function fine as it was for quite a few years (except for the wear on the shifter).

You can play around with the slave to adjust that closer to where you want it. So long as you still have free play you should be fine.

You should have maybe 1/4" or 3/8" from the retracted position till the ball hits the fork. If you have no freeplay then the pressure plate is always being pushed on. You also need free play between the pedal and the master. Maybe 1/8" to 3/16" there. You can also use the slave adjustment to get the engagement to a comfortable height. If the adjustment were too far out the clutch would disengage right at the top of the pedal travel (assuming everything else were fairly close).

Those are test springs.

You need to time or "degree" the cam. It's not as simple as advancing or retarding x degrees. When you get a new cam it will come with a card that shows when the valve is supposed to open to get the intended performance from the cam. You can use that information and follow the procedure here to get the most from it: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=111523

Sounds like hydraulics to me. Check the soft line and all the connections. Could be that there was crap in the hydraulic line and when you replaced the master you blew it through the slave. Pull the boots on both and check for leaks. If you replace either again, replace both at the same time, then flush the hard line before you connect the new ones. Usually on the early Z the fulcrum doesn't break, the throwout fork splits right where the fulcrum hits it. You might check that as well, but that is more common with really heavy racing style pressure plates.