Jump to content

260DET

Donating Members
  • Content Count

    2,670
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

260DET last won the day on May 16

260DET had the most liked content!

About 260DET

  • Rank
    The 2000+ club

member details

  • Location
    Warwick
  • Tagline
    Tribal Elder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My comment is that given the increasing value of 260's doing mods just to save a few $ may not be best for the long term value of the car.
  2. You'd better start charging a commission Gavin
  3. The S130 and Z31 are very similar structurally, for some reason Nissan just seemed to carry the basic design over. Back in those days structural strength did not seem to be a priority like it is now, for safety and noise minimisation reasons too.
  4. The main problem with the S30, S130 and Z31 seems to be that both the rear and front parts of the body start at the fire wall with insufficient structural connexion between the two. Look at a modern body like the MX5 to see the difference in structure there, it's significant.
  5. The 400 has 285 wide tyres at the back, that's pretty good standard. My 350 will take 10" wide wheels at a squeeze so I'm guessing that the 400 will take 10+" at the rear with stock guards.
  6. Great idea, let's hope that there is plenty of interest. Racing experience shows that the basic S30 is weak through the fire wall to the strut towers.
  7. Well if the current info is correct, and it seems like it is, I think that it's a great looking car with plenty of S30 design cues, some quite subtle. Anyway, who here is/was ready to buy one in the near future? The chassis is supposed to be one all ready in production, some Infinity thing, so it should be sorted from the go. Only thing that annoys me, and it's typical of Nissan, is the small 3 litre motor when they could have used a larger displacement with lower boost. Nissan really do not want to compete performance wise at the higher end and this costs them. They don't seem to unders
  8. Not aware of that distinctive 2+0 ever being in Q, may have kept a low profile of course. I imported my 2+0 from Japan back in the day, it wasn't easy to find a good one then.
  9. Could not agree more, it seems that the Z has been sacrificed so it does not compete with the GT-R performance wise. The basic problem seems to be that Nissan lost their ambition for the Z and settled for a generic semi performance coupe that was not going to get anyone excited, particularly performance potential wise. It almost seems like Nissan don't want to make waves.
  10. Pffft, tests at Lakeside back in the day resulted in a stock S130 doing faster lap times than a stock S30.
  11. Expensive S30's with cheap wheels, how does that work out?
  12. Relevant comment on the front X member Matt, my race experience with the 280ZX 2+0 is that it's stock bolt system which is similar to a S30's comes loose, the nuts specifically. Because of that I have made some fore/aft supports hence my earlier comment, their weight is insignificant. I have bigger brakes so the loads involved when braking particularly are significant.
  13. Looks good to me, perhaps a fore/aft brace to the chassis too?
  14. As far as a seat goes, the key is to mount it as low as possible. What I did was measure the amount of usable floor space available and then check the base sizes of seats I was interested in plus of course the internal bum/hip width. I'd start by checking out the Sparco range.
  15. 18x10 wheels all round should be OK with those guards but that will make it a tight fit on the trailer's width. Have been trying to think of some sort of video or mirror setup to see where the R front tyre is from the driver's seat in relation to the trailer when loading.
×
×
  • Create New...