jamo240

Another thing to consider in the design of your oiling system.... Be cautious of high volume/pressure oil pumps....just because some is good, doesn't always mean more is better! By increasing the oil pressure, the pump does more work on the oil, which heats it up more...you don't want unnecessary heat. Likewise, increasing oil pump volume is not helpful if the engine can't use it (increased volume is primarily consumed by increased main and rod bearing/side clearance, or the addition of oil consuming devices such as turbochargers). If this hasn't occurred, then the increased volume cannot go anywhere, and hence will be by-passed through the oil pump relief system (no effect except to heat the oil), or will be by-passed back to the sump. Now after all the trouble we're going to to get the oil into the centre surge chamber, we don't want to pump it out only to dump it out in the wrong part of the sump, or just by-pass it and heat it up for no gain. Bottom line: don't automatically specify a high volume/pressure oil pump...consider the application/specification/design of the engine oiling system, and whether it is indeed warranted. You don't want to pump the oil out of the pan at any greater rate than the engine requires it. Cheers

Hey folks....here are a few more pics of the windage tray top detail. The tray is important to both contain the oil in the centre surge chamber while driving, as well as directing the oil back to where you want it as it returns from the operating parts of the engine. The motion imparted to the oil from the movement of the crankshaft and rods can be used to help direct the oil to where you want it using diverting vains and louvres. If you put louvres or vains in your windage tray, make sure they are facing the right way! You will also note the hole provided for the pickup tube strainer is rather large. This is because of the strainer I am using on this engine (90mm dia). If I was racing this car, I would use a smaller dia strainer to reduce the size of this hole, and would also ensure the shape of the tube allowed me to move the hole as far forward as possible while positioning the point of suction at least half way between the back end of the hole and the rear wall of the surge chamber, thus providing a sealed box at the back of the surge chamber during hard acceleration and cornering, which is when oiling requirements are greatest. The idea of the wings is to feed the chamber during cornering, while the front chamber feeds it during acceleration. As far as possible, you want oil returning from the top end to be directed back to the centre chamber. Also note there are a couple more louvres and a vains to be added before it's finished. If you get it right, you can eliminate the need for the complexity of a dry sump setup! Cheers

Hey Pete I reckon (just an educated guess) the right donor sump might be off the RB30 powered Patrol. I have a mate who is well connected with the Patrol scene, so I'll ask him if he knows where any old engines might be found....meantime you might want to tap your sources to find out if any still exist...even through Nissan perhaps?? Although I don't need the work given I'm knee deep in finishing my own car, I have all the patterns and jigs, so it would be faster for me to make you one than for you to do one from scratch. Cheers

Ha Lurch! Always like to acknowledge someone trying to help! For info, I'm pretty sure the rear bowl RB sumps come from the RB30 powered Nissan Patrols (Y60?) of the late 80's/early 90's....probably a pick-a-part item these days. Cheers

You bet Salty..thanks for the thought...I will look into it. Cheers

Hey Salty....I meant donor RB sumps...not L series sumps (as in out of a 240/260/280C). I would need donor rear bowl RB sumps. I think Nato 240Z was going to make some RB sumps from scratch at one stage too...don't know what happened there though.

Oh yeah....the 45 degree cut outs on the back of each of the sump wings are to provide clearance for the engine to transmission beaming braces...I intend to use those to reduce vibration and harshness...if you don't care about that, you don't need to provide this clearance. Cheers

Here are a few more views. Pete: The sump volume is a bit more than 7L at the standard dip-stick level.

Hey Peter I guess I could make some. I don't know where I'd get the donor sumps though, unless you are aware of what RB application they came off. I seem to remember getting mine from a wrecker down in Moorabin about 10 or so years ago when I bought an RB30 short from a VL that I was going to build up. While you could build one up on a front bowl donor sump, it would be more messing around to deal with distortion and also not as neat. Cheers

Good stuff Lurch. I have an L-series one here too, but it's got to stay with the engine it's on! I forgot to mention that you make the pivot for the flap valves out of 'Gap-ex' TIG welding rod (the 3.5mm stuff). Works a treat. The 3 tabs on the flap valves are 10mm wide, and 11mm high. That will allow you to wrap the end ones around the gapex nicely. The centre tag is bent at an angle of your choosing to limit the extent to which the flap can open...that will modulate the flow of oil into the centre chamber. Cheers

Hey Lindsay at the Z repair shop in Melbourne has some of those. You'll have to rebush them though, as he only sells the ones with stuffed bushes. It is a bit of messing around, but may be a good option for you. Cheers

In case it needs explaining, the way it works is to hold the oil in chambers on each side of the central part of the surge chamber, and then when you corner, brake or accelerate, the flap valves shut to prevent oil leaving the central chamber, but open in the case of chambers that are able to supply oil into the central chamber. This means that the engine is always supplied with oil under any condition. The final part of the design not shown in the pics is the top that screws onto the side frames.

Hey folks. Well project Jamo 250Z is rocking along, and I thought I'd do a sump special for those who are interested in how to build a race sump. Now my car will never really need this, as I'm not intending on racing it, but I started it a while ago, so thought I'd finish it as you have to do a degree of custom work on any RB sump going into a 240/260Z. While I had a look at the Z200R sump, it is not was I am after, as although the bowl is in the right spot, it's way too deep, and will hang down below the cross member height, making it the first thing you'll hit going over a speed bump or similar (let me know if you want one, as the one I have here is now surplus to requirements!). Anyway, I can't for the life of me remember where I got the donor sump from, as it too is a rear bowl setup, but NOT a Z200R...I can only imagine it came off some kind of RB powered 4WD, as I got it here in Australia, but too many years ago to remember what it came off. The pickup I have used is off the same engine, and it kinda worked out nicely in terms of where the pickup ended up, in that I could use it without modification. Otherwise, all the rest is custom made, and is what we used to make for the Gibson R31 Skylines (2.0 litre RB20 powered).

Z cars are prone to diff whine due to the less than ideal isolation incorporated in the mounting system, and proximity of the diff to your ear. The whining is a product of bearing wear and/or gearset wear/mesh. Replacement of bearings and resetting of the ring/pinion mesh is the cheaper solution. While gearset replacement is the more expensive fix. You can inspect the state of the gearset by removing the rear cover and inspecting the gear teeth. In the most extreme cases of wear, you will find feathering on the 'trailing' edge of the tooth that you can actually pick up with a finger nail. Although he's not in your city, I know Jeff at Jack McNamara differentials here in Melbourne has quite a good collection of brand new long pinion R180 gear sets, as well as some good second hand ones. He may be a good source of a gear set if you need it....hopefully it's just bearings and mesh though. CHeers Jamo

Hey Dave...nice work...I did a similar job on the battery tray area/firewall a few years back...Datsun sure did a great job of designing in consistent failure modes for us to figure out all these years on. Interesting my car needed exactly the same repairs when it was just 13 years old! I will only use gel cell batteries now too...once that acid gets in, it's hard to get out. Your rear muffler hanger solution is the way to go...mine did exactly the same thing. The std Datsun has a single mount at the rear of the muffler (bracket fixed to the body via 2 spot welds) which fails as reliably as the battery tray area rusts! The fix I employed was to duplicate the muffler rear mount at the front end of the muffler (like you've done). I put that fix into service 15 years ago, and hung a custom made heavy muffler off it, with no failures in the time since the fix. Bottom line: support the muffler front and rear, and you won't fail the mounting system. CHeers mate. Jamo

Hi Roberto Yes, it's the spindle pin with the M12 thread on each end (where the nuts go) that I need, not the cotter pin that holds it in...the cotter pin is fine! If you have a spare one, I'd be much obliged if you can spare it. Let me know how much, and I'll fix you up. CHeers Jamo

Evening all.... Good progress made this weekend...even rebuilt one of my quarter windows with new seals etc. Like all the quarter window frames, the mild steel bracket where the bottom meets the vertical member was rusted through, so had to be replaced. That all worked out fine, and with the new seals, it fitted up a treat and looks like a brand new one...gaps to the door are spot on! I also replaced the rear hatch glass rubber and hatch seals. All looks brand new now, and I've been able to put the stainless steel trims back into the seal after 23 years on the shelf! The bad news though....when I torqued up all the rear suspension bolts, the rear lower control arm to strut stud (the one held in the strut by the cotter pin) stripped one of the threads at the rear end before it made 60 ftlb. Consequently I need anothery! Sooo....does anyone have a surplus 240Z stud they are willing to part with (including nuts would be peachey!). Otherwise, it's all going back together as planned, and I will put some pics of the RB25 sump build up so you can see how I'm doing it. Cheers guys Jamo

Also, here is the finished rear suspension all buttoned up. Note the relocated brake hose junction with the steel pipe. I had to relocate it to provide appropriate strain relief for the rubber hose....I did it while it was on the rotisserie, so it was easy to do, and got painted so you can't tell it's modified. Rear brakes are HSV VS Commodore, but with VT calipers. The 36mm diameter VS pistons could not pull up the rear wheels effectively, so I went to 45mm VT calipers. Fortunately the VT aluminium caliper fits onto the cast iron VS anchor bracket, so I was able to carry over the VS installation, as the backing plate contains the Commodore park brake (drum brake inside disc rotor).....with the Porsche GT3 brakes up front, the car certainly stops when you jump on the pedal. Oh...and one pic of the power steering rack thru the radiator panel! Cheers Jamo

Hey guys...some more progress to report. After finishing all painting (under the frt frame rails where the rotisserie bolted on was last), it's time to start putting it back together. The power steering installation is now complete, and I'm happy with how the geometry has worked out. The pics show steering arm spacers, but I have since removed them, as I want to more closely mimic the roll couple at the rear (note I have also raised the inner control arm pivot point too, so that will do for now).

Hey Wally...yes, they are soarer from memory...let me know if you want me to get a set, and I'll pick some up next time i am over that way. I had a bit of a hard time finding them at Repco, but the super steer guy seems to have plenty of them. Yes, the WRX appears to have the cast iron/steel body, whereas Liberty is aluminium. You can do it without re-orienting the valve body, but the clearance are tighter and you will have to chop up your x-member a bit...but, given the regulatory thing, I guess you're stuck. Cheers Jamo

Hey Wally....I don't agree that you need a WRX one. I have a 1989 Liberty one in my car, and ONCE YOU SHORTEN IT TO THE RIGHT LENGTH, it is right in the 2.7 turn lock - lock range. If you get a rack with 2.7 turns lock to lock before it's shortened, you will find it's even faster when the right length....too fast for my liking....the car would be too darty for a road car. In case you're unsure, the reason for shortening is to get the inner ball joint centre to centre length right (ie suit the spacing of the LCA inner pivot points) and also to get the rack travel right so you get the right steering lock (which determines amongst other things your turning circle)...if you left the subi rack at std length and travel, the bump steer would be wrong and the locks would be excessive, causing the wheels to foul the body at or near the locks. It's just a fortuitous coincidence that by shortening the rack about 11mm each end you get the centre to centre distance AND the lock travel within a bees dick of std 240Z, so it all works out nicely. Jamo

Well done Wally...you've achieved a sensible interpretation for all of us...and I agree with the interpretation too...that first ruling was ridiculous! If you are in Melbourne I can show you how I did mine, and give you some ideas. There is a good Subie wrecker down here if you are having trouble up there. I used a Liberty rack I think...it has identical turns lock to lock once you shorten it to get the travel the same as what the std 240 rack is (approx 11mm off each side of the rack)....Rob at RC engineering (down here in Vic) can do the turning without stripping the rack. Supasteer in Bayswater has the Lexus rackends that you need to get the right overall length, and you can carry over the std subie tie rod ends as they have the right thread to suit the Lexus rack ends, as well as the same taper as the std 240 steering arms. Rob can also do the welding to the valve assembly if you want to go that way. If you choose not to, it is a bit of a challenge to modify the rack without putting big divots in it to clear the fluid pipes...your engineer may baulk at that. Rob has access to a very good welder who did mine, and he has made up mandrels to ensure the valve body does not deform during welding. Anyway, happy to help you if I can. Cheers mate. Jamo

OK Wally...that's interesting to know. I am not sure how you'll get any rack to work without some modification to the X member. While the MX5 rack does package fairly well at first blush, its geometry does not suit the car...from memory, it's too wide, and to get the rotary valve in the right spot, the rack is not in the middle of the car....on top of that, you'll have to shorten the rack to the point where you'll have insufficient travel to effect a sensible turning circle. If those are the rules you have to comply with, you may have to ditch the idea of power steering altogether. It seems like a dumb rule to me, but that's nothing new for automotive regulation. Maybe you could try to go back to a standard gearbox mount (by modifiying the body to accept it), and then you can do what you need to do with the front X-member. It's something of a conundrum! Jamo

I will put my hand up to pop my xmas party cherry this year, complete with finished Z... Jamo

Hey Wally Fair enough re the engineer. I actually closed the rear of the RH engine mount pedestal to strengthen the structure. I am happy it will not fail under max load (ie ultimate strength is adequate) and I am happy I will not run into fatigue problems during more conventional use (let's face it, it can't be subject to max torque loads all the time...all roads run out eventually!). I don't think you'll have any problems with an LS1. My subie installation does put the steering rack back on the original Z rack axis (in the X, Y & Z planes). This was a key feature of the installation. I am not sure if the roll couple is balanced front to rear in standard configuration...maybe other people on the site can answer that question in terms of whether modifying the front inner LCA point helps or hinders the coupling front to rear. I have certainly been happy with the changes I made to mine years ago...it corners a lot flatter with much less front bar than it needed before I increased the height above road of the LCA point. From what I've seen though, Peter Mac's BMW installation fits the RH engine pedestal better, so I think that would be the way for you to go, given the accreditation issues you face. Cheers Jamo