Funkysi

It neeeeeeeeeds this front end! It would all match then!

If it had a matching Stillen fascia (stock bumper with Stillen extension) and stock grille it would be nice. I do quite like it, but that front bumper (as with most aftermarket ones) doesn't suit the stock Z lines.

You can't even spell that! If you're going to call me a 'PRICK', at least spell the bloody word correctly! :rofl:

Yes, repost. ;) All good though.

You can get around 400bhp on stock internals at a real push, but you really need to make sure everything is running well and you have lightened and balanced flywheel, upgraded clutch, lightweight pullies and most important, decent brakes! Typical upgrade that will give you between 350 and 380bhp on a solid engine and turbos would be filter, chip, exhaust, boost controller (set to 14PSi..no higher!) and a good service.

Speak to Jeff then. I remember seeing a pair of the smoked blanks on one of his shelves when I was down there last.

Yeah that's fine.

Chewie's old car? That's a real shame, why did you decide to break it??

Gearboxs are the same. Only differences are in the gearing and I think some bearings (but that's between TT and NA). Casings are the same size.

Fairlady is the JDM name for all Zs regardless of style. This name was only used on the JDM cars. 240 all the way to 370 use the 'Fairlady' name in Japan. Outside of Japan, it's purely known as the Z car range.

:rofl: It's a good vintage!

There is no hard and fast rule. It depends on so many factors, how the car has been maintained/stored/driven/mileage.

AndyZ is still in business. He sells most of his stuff on ebay now since he's not a trader on there anymore. JeffTT also does spare parts on here. Mr.F also does new OEM parts.

Maddie's going...if I go. But like me, she probably wouldn't like standing out in the cold and wet on a bank of muddy grass.

Bhav, you're a star, this forum wouldn't be as it is without you! :bow:

Yours a manual?

Hmmmmmmmm. Been toying with the idea of one.

You notice much in the way of transmission vibration/rumble?

**** :rofl:

Plus less transmission loses due to no-UJ.

Edit: Bollocks: I think it's a past conditional. Kinda wished I'd studied English at A-level. My father's a linguist and I am just interested in language in general. Anyway, my brain just farted, so I will hit the sack.

BTW, you can use 'had' twice too (a more common occurrence). IE, "They had had to go to the toilet for shit". Same methodology as above. :) I think the correct term for that use is a past participle. I stand to be corrected on that one though. Anyway, night everyone. Sweet dreams [danyzx]xxxx [/danyzx]

You two go and learn some English! In the meantime, I'm off to bed!

Yes. He's using the first 'that' as a clause (I think) and the second 'that' as a noun. It sounds funny, but if you read it like the following (as I'll write it), you'll probably recognise it as something that maybe used in conversation. "never realised thut that young fool"

No, that's actually correct Stu. :)