DATSUN/NISSAN FAIRLADY W/ S2K TRANSPLANT
12-02-2009, 03:46 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SF Bay Area and Sactown
Posts: 26,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GpWaP1 s2k,Dec 2 2009, 04:27 PM
why not do a f20 in a honda s600? i think that would be cooler than a f20 in a datsun...just my .02...
12-02-2009, 04:38 PM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Durham NC
Posts: 1,599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SOHCmyDOHC,Dec 2 2009, 08:46 PM
there is a guy in europe IIRC that did the swap. No sure the status of the build now.
12-02-2009, 04:41 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
never heard bout the f20 swap in a 240z but i know a few people who do the Rb 20/25/26 and SR20 and VQ motor swaps, as well as V8 swaps. makes them cars haul ass!!
12-02-2009, 07:55 PM
#14
The pre ZX models were lighter, especially the 240Z's. An F20, or better yet an f22 would be a nice upgrade in hp and about the same in trq of the 240 1-6. The 260 was marginally better then the 240, but the 77/78 280Z made 170trq/170hp stock so an f20 would feel lacking in comparison in the lower rpms if your use to the stock Z engine characteristics. 240/260/280Z weigh between 2400/2600 pounds though so its a nice performance package none the less. I owned a 78 280z FI last of the original body style before I got the S 5+ years ago. Loved that car!
12-03-2009, 03:51 AM
#15
Go to www.hybridz.org for plenty of info of engine swaps into Z's.
link: F20C in a 240Z
Why would you specifically want a '73 240Z? That's the heaviest year, and had the offset front bumper (ewww) to meet regs. '71/'72 are the years to get, IMO (I have a '71). The '70 through early '71 models had the cabin vents in the hatch, which is ugly for one, and brings exhaust fumes in for two.
As for the 280ZX recommendation, they're about 400-500 lb. heavier than the 240Z (however they aren't much if any heavier than the later 280Z's), have inferior semi-trailing arm rear suspension (vs. the excellent Chapman struts on the '70-'78 Z), and they look very disco-era/dated, whereas the 240Z still looks fantastic.
Swap into a 1600/2000 Roadster or an early-70's 510 would be brilliant as well!
link: F20C in a 240Z
Why would you specifically want a '73 240Z? That's the heaviest year, and had the offset front bumper (ewww) to meet regs. '71/'72 are the years to get, IMO (I have a '71). The '70 through early '71 models had the cabin vents in the hatch, which is ugly for one, and brings exhaust fumes in for two.
As for the 280ZX recommendation, they're about 400-500 lb. heavier than the 240Z (however they aren't much if any heavier than the later 280Z's), have inferior semi-trailing arm rear suspension (vs. the excellent Chapman struts on the '70-'78 Z), and they look very disco-era/dated, whereas the 240Z still looks fantastic.
Swap into a 1600/2000 Roadster or an early-70's 510 would be brilliant as well!
12-03-2009, 03:58 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video of the car mentioned above by Zdan on a dyno....[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwU0FC1-Dv4 [/media]
12-03-2009, 04:02 AM
#17
Originally Posted by s2000Junky,Dec 2 2009, 08:55 PM
The 260 was marginally better then the 240,
The early small-bumper 260Z would be considered marginally better than the '73 model 240Z (which also suffered from lowered compression and weight gain), but it's definitely inferior to the '70-'72 240Z's.
240/260/280Z weigh between 2400/2600 pounds though so its a nice performance package none the less. I owned a 78 280z FI last of the original body style before I got the S 5+ years ago. Loved that car!
12-03-2009, 07:06 AM
#19
I'm planing to put one into a British sports car one day. I just can't find the right chassis at the right price.
12-03-2009, 05:32 PM
#20
Originally Posted by ZDan,Dec 3 2009, 05:02 AM
The 260 was heavier, had either the offset front bumper or the 280Z BIG bumpers, and had lower compression and near-unworkable carburetion vs. the '70-'72 240Z. The extra 0.2 liters of displacement is way more than offset by the downsides vs. the pre-'73 240Z.
The early small-bumper 260Z would be considered marginally better than the '73 model 240Z (which also suffered from lowered compression and weight gain), but it's definitely inferior to the '70-'72 240Z's.
The 280Z was definitely an overall improvement over the 260Z, but the weight did continue to go up on those. My info has the last year 280Z ('78) at 2800 lb.
The early small-bumper 260Z would be considered marginally better than the '73 model 240Z (which also suffered from lowered compression and weight gain), but it's definitely inferior to the '70-'72 240Z's.
The 280Z was definitely an overall improvement over the 260Z, but the weight did continue to go up on those. My info has the last year 280Z ('78) at 2800 lb.
I loved the motor in that car, was quite torquey. I had a few bolt ons however such as a header, custom 2.5 exhaust, msd ignition. CAI. and a pretty rare N47 cylinder head with heart shaped combustion chamber for more compression. It was est 200hp/200trq.