Datsun diff ID and making strong shafts

So how do i tell the difference between an r180 and an r200? Car started life as a 1975 280z and has a narrow brake pedal in it, so it could have been a manual trans car. Stuff i find says 75 manual cars got r200. And i found something about external seal retainers on an r180 and not a 200.

Then, halfshafts. Does anyone make cv ones that do not cost $900-3400? Those were the two kits I found. I read the 300zx tt ones have the right stub axles and ends but are long and you'll bottom the cv in the cup. I exploded both rear shafts with one launch. I need something to stand up to a 5.3 ls engine launching at 3000rpm plus 150 shot of nitrous.

I have a feeling the answer may be a stick axle and a 3 link, but trying to explore all options before i decide what to do.

How long do stock replacements last?

I'm sure you had plenty of launches in whatever was in there right?

I wonder if you just got a new set, made sure the u joints were perfect, and ran with it if you would continue to have problems, of if your would get a lifespan of 100 launches or something. Having a consumable but cheap part wouldn't be that bad.

Pat...

I looked at pics on zip tie thread. Looks to be an r200 in your car because the transverse carrier that bolts to diff is curved downward. R180 bar is straight because of location of mounting bolts on diff center section.

This may be a dumb question and you may not be able to ascertain from aftermath damage, but dud the u joint fail or the yoke fail? You did not indicate the shaft itself failed

With that spectacular of a failure I'd be finding out what the next weakest link is before putting money into something that might just explode another way next time.

I'd suggest a complete IRS out of something else entirely but you'd have to narrow anything out there to get a 53 inch (per google) track width, which in most cases goes back to $$$ custom CV shafts.

Ovid_and_Flem wrote: Pat... I looked at pics on zip tie thread. Looks to be an r200 in your car because the transverse carrier that bolts to diff is curved downward. R180 bar is straight because of location of mounting bolts on diff center section. This may be a dumb question and you may not be able to ascertain from aftermath damage, but dud the u joint fail or the yoke fail? You did not indicate the shaft itself failed

U joints are sheared and yokes are oval shaped. Probably a difficult autopsy but will definitely take disassembled carnage pics.

Robbie, at the challenge and up until yesterday i was launching soft on a stock converter(see 2.15 60' on a 12.1@122.6 pass) The 5.3 isn't a torque monster down low but starts making nice power above 2000rpm. I now have a 3,000 stall converter and this was the first launch on the new setup. It hits HARD now, so it's much harder on driveline parts.

According to andrew nelson i've got the best stub axles on the outside. I found r200 and r180 gasket pics and i think it's a 200. So the diff is strong, i just have to decide what to do about putting power through to the wheels, or re-engineering the entire back half of the car.

I found another place that has a $900 cv kit that uses porsche 930 based parts with lots of fancy words like heat treatment and cryo treated and billet. I'm not in the business of spending $900 on some axles, but if it's going to be reliable it's less work and is a bolt in solution. That would remove challenge eligibility, but what good is towing to gainesville to blow stuff up.

Going to definitely sit on things a little bit and find all the options and pick the best one for me.

For 930 stuff it looks like you can get just the flange adapters for ~$200, maybe see about getting some used joints and shafts from the offroad VW crowd? I know the shafts are available in a lot of different lengths off the shelf.

I have a 75 280z and it came with the R200. Picture of a R180 and R200 side by side.

Budget CV upgrade would be installing 82-83 280zx turbo half shafts. Internet says they are 14-11/16" long for both sides compared to the 84-89 non-turbo 300ZX which are 15-3/4" right and 15-3/8" left. I've read that the longer 300zx ones can bind with the rear suspension fully compressed. To make it all bolt in you will need the 280zx turbo CV's, 280zx turbo companion flanges, and 240z stub axles. The 280zx stub axles will not work because they use a larger metric bearing and you would have to bore out the hub. 280z stub axles will not work because they are a different spline compared to the 280zx companion flange. You will also need to find a different grease seal for the wheel bearing or sleeve the flange to use the stock seal.

Disclaimer: I haven't done this swap personally but I picked up a 240z that already had this done and researched what was need and how it ended up with CV shafts.

Patrick wrote: I have a feeling the answer may be a stick axle and truck arms, but trying to explore all options before i decide what to do.

IIRC, part of the reason the 240Z is so light is because the suspension and everything attach to the center spine of the car, the rocker area is mostly nonstructural so it's not very well reinforced. Truck arms attach to the center of the car, are awesome, and you can probably eBay some ex-NASCAR stuff for pennies on the dollar.

Here's a set, starting bid $50

I saw some Buy It Nows in the $200 range, too.

PseudoSport wrote: I have a 75 280z and it came with the R200. Picture of a R180 and R200 side by side. Budget CV upgrade would be installing 82-83 280zx turbo half shafts. Internet says they are 14-11/16" long for both sides compared to the 84-89 non-turbo 300ZX which are 15-3/4" right and 15-3/8" left. I've read that the longer 300zx ones can bind with the rear suspension fully compressed. To make it all bolt in you will need the 280zx turbo CV's, 280zx turbo companion flanges, and 240z stub axles. The 280zx stub axles will not work because they use a larger metric bearing and you would have to bore out the hub. 280z stub axles will not work because they are a different spline compared to the 280zx companion flange. You will also need to find a different grease seal for the wheel bearing or sleeve the flange to use the stock seal. Disclaimer: I haven't done this swap personally but I picked up a 240z that already had this done and researched what was need and how it ended up with CV shafts.

Ok yeah its a 180.

I have a 350z r200 lsd with bad pinion bearing.

Truck arms you say? I'd have to think about that one

That 350z LSD will also let you use the later beefy Q45 CV half shafts. Not sure the length on them but I know someone that might be able to measure some.

I priced 930 axles, adapters, and custom length shafts and it's well over the $900 kit.

I know that r200 is short and would require a new driveshaft. But it gives the advantage of bolting known cv axles to it. The outside end is the tricky part. I'll have to pull one side apart and see how it goes together. Would be crazy if i could find something like an s10 front hub and shaft and make an adapter for the inside. I do have access to a bridgeport with a rotary table that i have no idea how to use, so the chance for failure there could be spectacular

PseudoSport wrote: I have a 75 280z and it came with the R200. Picture of a R180 and R200 side by side. Budget CV upgrade would be installing 82-83 280zx turbo half shafts. Internet says they are 14-11/16" long for both sides compared to the 84-89 non-turbo 300ZX which are 15-3/4" right and 15-3/8" left. I've read that the longer 300zx ones can bind with the rear suspension fully compressed. To make it all bolt in you will need the 280zx turbo CV's, 280zx turbo companion flanges, and 240z stub axles. The 280zx stub axles will not work because they use a larger metric bearing and you would have to bore out the hub. 280z stub axles will not work because they are a different spline compared to the 280zx companion flange. You will also need to find a different grease seal for the wheel bearing or sleeve the flange to use the stock seal. Disclaimer: I haven't done this swap personally but I picked up a 240z that already had this done and researched what was need and how it ended up with CV shafts.

Hmmm. I have most of this in my garage. I'll have to check it out and see if it works.

GRM Forum: Where any random and unlikely collection of parts will have at least one member comment "Hmmm, I have most of this in my garage."

I'm usually the guy. I do not though. I found 930 adapters for companion flanges and stub axles. it would be ideal if i could call someone with the length between those adapters and say make me some beefy freaking axles.

It's one of those deals where a custom 9" is going to never break, but re-engineering the entire rear of the car, which is set up very well, would suck and be time consuming. I'm giving up on challenge budget here

If it is any consolation, practically ANY constant velocity joint is going to be stronger than a U-joint because the torque is spread across three bearing surfaces instead of two, and a full diameter cup instead of a weenie little cross.

Yeah, U-joints work fine in the driveshaft. They don't work so fine when you multiply THAT torque by 4:1 or so through the rearend. Honestly, I'm shocked that Chevy managed to make U-joints work as long as they did in the Corvette, especially through the "425hp nudge nudge wink wink" late 1960s big block era. They must have been saved by late 1960s tires.

Knurled wrote: If it is any consolation, practically ANY constant velocity joint is going to be stronger than a U-joint because the torque is spread across three bearing surfaces instead of two, and a full diameter cup instead of a weenie little cross. Yeah, U-joints work fine in the driveshaft. They don't work so fine when you multiply THAT torque by 4:1 or so through the rearend. Honestly, I'm shocked that Chevy managed to make U-joints work as long as they did in the Corvette, especially through the "425hp nudge nudge wink wink" late 1960s big block era. They must have been saved by late 1960s tires.

Yeah but the tires sucked back then!

freetors wrote:

Knurled wrote: If it is any consolation, practically ANY constant velocity joint is going to be stronger than a U-joint because the torque is spread across three bearing surfaces instead of two, and a full diameter cup instead of a weenie little cross. Yeah, U-joints work fine in the driveshaft. They don't work so fine when you multiply THAT torque by 4:1 or so through the rearend. Honestly, I'm shocked that Chevy managed to make U-joints work as long as they did in the Corvette, especially through the "425hp nudge nudge wink wink" late 1960s big block era. They must have been saved by late 1960s tires.

Yeah but the tires sucked back then!

Well.....

Wrinkle wall slicks killed a lot of them. But it was hard to get an irs vette to hook good, even with slicks. So they usually survived.

Have you looked at what the guys on hybrid z are doing? Been a long time, but i remember that they had a bomb proof junkyard recipe.....

One kit i found claims 800hp capable. It's $3400. Another kit, the one featuring all the fancy buzz words, looks exactly the same and is $900.

I'm leaning towards just calling and saying make it happen, but i really don't want to spend $900. Any strong solid axle is going to need narrowed and new axles. So it's big $ either way. There is no "cheap easy strong" option here like tossing an $85 exploder 3.73 posi 8.8 in anything normal width with leaf springs.

I can get a custom width 9" with axles for $700. Thats just housing and axles. Then add center section, brakes, suspension links, coil overs, new driveshaft and i'm doubling the price of the car.

In reply to Patrick:

I've heard of people swapping the long and short sides of the Explorer 8.8 to get better driveshaft centering. I wonder if you could combine two and use a pair of short-side axles.

Also, I still have the 9" alignment dowel bits that I bought when I had the dumb idea of putting my own 9" together. (Dumb because I ended up spending more trying to make bent/twisted/worn-out junk work than if I just bought a turnkey solution - $2k in the rearend and still not done, while $1500 would have got me a full floater 9" rear with aluminum hubs in my bolt pattern, and brake rotors, just add centersection and calipers)

You're free to use 'em if you want. I'll even tell you where I went wrong and how to avoid the mistakes I made.

What about later 240sx hubs and axels ? 5 lug lsd . R200 diff.

I somewhat wonder (and have no idea) if the answer will be Q45 axles/rear/diff.
If so, here is a link to a $500 1990 Q45

Q45 supposedly has the strongest diff to ever grace a Nissan - many ls swapped 240sx go to Q45 diffs.

In reply to Robbie:

I gave three R200s to the 240sx guy around the corner. Sucks cause someone tboned him several months back. Poor car is sitting behind his house.

Patrick wrote: There is no "cheap easy strong" option here like tossing an $85 exploder 3.73 posi 8.8 in anything normal width with leaf springs. I can get a custom width 9" with axles for $700. Thats just housing and axles. Then add center section, brakes, suspension links, coil overs, new driveshaft and i'm doubling the price of the car.

I was researching the explorer 8.8 previously as an option for my Datsun roadster, but ended up with an S10 axle and camaro diff. Anyway, I came across this information about narrowing the axle relatively easily. You can make it 3" narrow be cutting the drivers tube down and using a 2nd passengers side axle shaft. This gets you down around 56.5". Run high offset wheels and put together a 3 link or torque arm suspension. http://thefabricatorseries.com/build-blogs/how-to-narrow-a-ford-explorer-88-rear-axle-part-1-prelude-and-qa

Now I wonder if the same trick works on the ranger 8.8". That on starts out at 56.5 so after narrowing it'd be aprox. 53.5"
Or look for a magic recipe of 240sx/J30/Q45 pieces.

In reply to bigben:

The magic of the Explorer 8.8 is that there are a ton out there thanks to the popularity of the beast and how many of them were turned into parts piles via Cash for Clunkers. And they had very thick tubes and 31 spline axles, as well as a drag-friendly 3.73 ratio. They're much stronger than anything put in a Ranger.