My '71 510 Wagon - A long and slow project

[MrQuiet]

Hi everyone,

 

Norwegian family man and fresh owner of my first Japanese enthusiast car here.

 

Ever since I was in my late teens, watching snowboard films with smooth riders in the snow of dreams, waist deep and dry, my curiosity for Japan and Japanese culture has been present. Almost 40 years later, with teenage kids on my own, they are into Japanese culture as well; Gaming, manga, anime, cosplay, music and Japanese food. Myself, I have been fascinated by the Asian car culture films on YouTube, by Larry Chen. And I have seen through quite a bit of the Initial D anime series.

 

Lately… I believe I have been closing in on how far one can go. Down the path of 80's Porsche 944. Nearing completion of a multi-year, empty shell, nuts-and-bolts, fully caged restomod, racing and street car. My attention has shifted. 

 

And then. Suddenly. This old Datsun appeared in my peripheral vision. For once I was a bit impulsive, I followed my heart, and beat a host of other potential buyers to this '71 510 Wagon.

 

I don't know exactly where this is going. But I do believe this will be a long and slow project. I am really looking forward to the coming chapters.

 

Enjoy! 🙂

 

[datzenmike]

Very nice! I see you have the much liked 'arrow' front marker lights. Here after '69 they mandated these ugly rectangular front amber and red rear clearance lights. The factory mags are known here as snowflakes and as I like wheels with spokes these are my favorite.

 

Looking forward to more, especially a history of this car.

 

Welcome to Ratsun.

[MrQuiet]

My understanding is that this car was originally delivered in Finland. Registered as 1600 Van. No rear seats, and "elongated" rear cargo area. This original construction is still in the car. I've got some Finnish papers indicating 5 or 6 owners in Finland. And I got a Finnish license plate as well. The lack of patina on this plate indicates it is not the original. It's fun regardless. Brought to Norway in 2014, by a guy that has been active here on Ratsun. I am the third owner in Norway.

 

Now it has an L18 engine and what appears like the original gearbox. I don't know who did the engine swap. The front fenders are fiberglass. And the roof has dents above the windshield, from hitting a deer at some point in it's life. Generally the car is in an unrestored state, with small dents and surface rust everywhere.

 

Just a week after buying the car, the same guy that brought the car to Norway offered for sale a Spriso built bolt-on replacement rear axle. Based on the FB RX-7 GSL-SE unit, with LSD and disc brakes. This is now in my possession as well. And I have managed to get hold of a close ratio five speed FS5W71B gearbox, originally delivered on an L20D. Unrestored. But for little money.

 

So the project escalated a bit faster than expected...

 

 

[iceman510]

I see the 944 hiding back there.

 

Nice start to  your 510 parts and vehicle collection.

Edited July 1 by iceman510

[rosso]

On 6/28/2024 at 5:28 AM, MrQuiet said:

 

I think we have cars that are cousins:

 

A few mods on mine:

VG33 V6 with two barrel carb conversion and Saudi electronic distributor

FS5W71C long tail 5-speed transmission

280ZX struts, vented discs, and T3 coil over front suspension

Futofab front and rear sway bars

rear differential brace

2" lowering blocks on rear

Momo steering wheel

Factory matching red needle tach

Front BRE style spoiler (with no brake ducts)

 

Link to car on the track at Pacific Raceways and Alfa Romeo lapping day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZKgTUdQorw

 

[MrQuiet]

14 hours ago, iceman510 said:

I see the 944 hiding back there. Nice start to  your 510 parts and vehicle collection.

Hehe! Actually there are three 944's in this garage. All are caged race- and track cars. The one that can be seen in the back is not mine 🙂 It's still a few months until my 944 project is on the road. Currently the body sits on a dolly, and the entire drivetrain and suspension is out.

The parts collection got off to a good start. Having bought the 510 I set up some searches. And these things showed up. I believe the custom rear axle is a particularly rare item. And I figured if I am not going to use it, it's easily sold to the next guy.

 

To underline the long and slow nature of this thread... We have to find a new garage space, as the one we are in now is about to be torn down. Being replaced by something that is out of our price range. In the meantime the 510 is being stored, accompanied by a buddys very rare custom racecar. This was built right after WW2, in the 40's. To be raced as part of the racing series Nordisk Spesial (Nordic Special). Fenders added in the 60's, to be able to get it registered for the road. Here are some articles on Nordic Special". https://kustomrama.com/wiki/Nordic_Special_Racer

 

[MrQuiet]

@rosso They appear to be cousins 🙂 Cool that you took the car to the track. Not your average track tool...

 

I cannot go that "wild" on the engine side. As the Norwegian road authorities are very strict wrt engine swaps. So my plan is to go with the L18 or an L20.

 

When it comes to the ZX280 front struts. Do they have a different offset than the original 510 struts? I see that we have the same wheels, but mine are sticking on the outside of the fenders. Whereas yours are tucked nicely. Of course there is a ride height difference, but this shouldn't pull the wheel towards the center of the car.

[banzai510(hainz)]

5 hours ago, MrQuiet said:

When it comes to the ZX280 front struts. Do they have a different offset than the original 510 struts?

yes so be carefull what wheels you get

[iceman510]

On 7/2/2024 at 4:06 AM, MrQuiet said:

When it comes to the ZX280 front struts. Do they have a different offset than the original 510 struts?  Of course there is a ride height difference, but this shouldn't pull the wheel towards the center of the car.

 

The 280ZX struts have a difference in the hubs.  They are about 19mm narrower per side than the 510.  this brings the wheel further in (with no offset change in the wheels) and can often result in the wheel contacting the strut tube.  This is what Hainz is alluding to with his comment on the wheels.

 

For my '69 project (which is an eternal project), I am using the Z31 300ZX front hubs which restores the wheel mounting face position.  These fit the 280ZX struts, but then require other modifications, such as custom caliper mounting, wheel seal selection, etc.  I am not sure if they work fine with stock components if you use the 280ZX brake rotor.

 

I am going very complicated and using:  280ZX struts, Z31 front hubs (4 bolt), Z31 brake rotors, '91 Mitsubishi Galant VR4 dual piston brake calipers and a custom caliper mount I designed.  I don't have the brackets made in metal yet, but the 3d-printed prototype showed proof of concept.

[MrQuiet]

4 hours ago, iceman510 said:

...  They are about 19mm narrower per side than the 510  ...

Thx! Very nice to have a specific offset distance to relate to. It appears 280zx struts (from t3), brakes and hubs is the easy route for stronger front brakes.

 

There are so many trick custom 70's JDM wheels out there. But I believe I need to curb myself until the project is fourther down the road before diving into the deep "pit" of wheel choices. When the project has come along some more, I know more on what offsets to look for.

[MrQuiet]

I actually have not driven the car at all. Other than moving it into the garage, on and off the car hauler, and into the storage space. And that is a good thing.

 

When buying the car the previous owner said he had not driven the car much, but the little he had driven, he noticed it pulled to the left when braking. Due to a lot of things I did not have the chance to inspect the car at all, before placing it in storage. But when the car was up on the car hauler I had a slight peak at the suspension and underside of the car. And to my surprise the left castor tension rod was broken. Not very strange that it pulled to the side under braking...

 

I have tried to source some used original castor rods, but have not succeeded. Going down the aftermarket route I considered T3, but learned that they used US Standard fasteners -within- the castor rod module. Something I find awkward, given thet the entire car is metric and I only have metric tools and spare fasteners in my garage. And I need papers to keep the Norwegian road authorities happy. I cannot use anything "For racing or off-road only".

So I went with the Cusco brand, shipped from Japan. A bit too bling. And a bit too blue. But I now got the parts to be able to drive the car. Once I have some available garage time 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

[iceman510]

I've seen those lately.  They look nice, but seem pricey.  Maybe not more than Futofab or T3 though.  I have not compared directly.

 

I have some spares of the TC rods if you want one.

Edited July 23 by iceman510

[MrQuiet]

7 hours ago, iceman510 said:

I have some spares of the TC rods if you want one.

I'll send you a PM

[rosso]

If you are going to install the original TC rods, then why not get an Experimental Engineering TC rod kit. It's an affordable and simple kit to install that works great. I have them on my '72 510 wagon.

 

 

Here's a link on the Datsun 1200 site with a short description of how they work and why they are good. http://datsun1200.com/modules/mediawiki/index.php?title=Custom_Caster_Rods#Nissan_Competition

 

Experimental Engineering is owned by Dave Carroll and he can be hard to get hold of except through Facebook. Maybe CarterB here on ratsun can pitch in with more up-to-date contact info or how to order a set.

 

[banzai510(hainz)]

Rosso

Somebody says they dont flex enough.  Unless this is a updated one somehow.

Finding Dave Carrol is like finding BIGfoot in the forrest

 

Just go thru Carter if he has them

Edited July 25 by banzai510(hainz)

[Icehouse]

5 hours ago, banzai510(hainz) said:

 

Finding Dave Carrol is like finding BIGfoot in the forrest

 

 

 

Bahaha!  I laughed out loud after I read that!!!! 

[MrQuiet]

9 hours ago, rosso said:

If you are going to install the original TC rods, then why not get an Experimental Engineering TC rod kit.

Thx for the tip. I'll reach out to CarterB if I go down the original TC route.

[iceman510]

On 7/25/2024 at 9:19 AM, banzai510(hainz) said:

Rosso

Somebody says they dont flex enough.  Unless this is a updated one somehow.

 

 

This design doesn't have to flex, Hainz.  The ball rotates against the socket.

 

The urethane type are known for breaking TC rods because they are too stiff and don't flex enough for the range of motion. 

Edited July 26 by iceman510

[banzai510(hainz)]

wonder if this work with my 521?  Im sure dont need the nuts as 521 are SAE threads

 

wouldnt the bore size hole for the aluminim cup have to be bigger as when it flexes it has room to move if this is a perfect bore size hole I dont see the dont see where the TC rod flexes

 

I need to see one on a car.   If cheap enought might get for my 521 as mine are shot

Edited July 26 by banzai510(hainz)

[iceman510]

25 minutes ago, banzai510(hainz) said:

wouldnt the bore size hole for the aluminim cup have to be bigger as when it flexes it has room to move if this is a perfect bore size hole I dont see the dont see where the TC rod flexes

 

 

I don't have dimensions, but I may have a set around here.  I need to look for these for MrQuiet anyway.  I can make a comparison.  I should be in the shop tonight and some tomorrow.

[fiveoneO]

I'm not the best at explaining things so hopefully this makes sense. Those Cusco T/C rods look like solid parts, but one of the two mounting holes should be elongated. If you look at how the lower control arm attaches to the T/C rod and how they both attach to the car, it makes a triangle. Any time one angle of a triangle changes, another angle of that triangle has to change. When the front suspension on the 510 goes through its range of motion, the lower control arm and the T/C rod travel on different arcing paths. Because of that, it makes all three angles of that triangle change. That is why the stock T/C rods break when you change to urethane bushings. There isn't enough compliance to allow for the up and down and side to side movement that's needed. If you look at both the T3 and FutoFab T/C rods, they both allow for this angle change to happen. T3 elongates one of their mounting holes and FutoFab has a hinge bolt. I don't think the Cusco T/C rods will break, but they will bind and you will probably have premature rod end bearing failure.

[rosso]

11 hours ago, banzai510(hainz) said:

wonder if this work with my 521?  Im sure dont need the nuts as 521 are SAE threads

 

wouldnt the bore size hole for the aluminim cup have to be bigger as when it flexes it has room to move if this is a perfect bore size hole I dont see the dont see where the TC rod flexes

 

I need to see one on a car.   If cheap enought might get for my 521 as mine are shot

Here's mine installed on '72 510 wagon. Not the best shot but the only one I have of it.

[Rustbin]

Mine don't look that good, they kind of broke apart when I was removing them. I think they were in there forever, but it handled well with them. Now I'm not sure if I should replace them with new ones or go with Futo Fab / T3. I really need to get the rust fixed first.

 

[MrQuiet]

13 hours ago, fiveoneO said:

When the front suspension on the 510 goes through its range of motion, the lower control arm and the T/C rod travel on different arcing paths. Because of that, it makes all three angles of that triangle change.

 

My understanding is a bit different. And my comments relate to the illustration below.

 

The distance A-B never changes, as these are fixed points on the chassis. And distance A-C is fixed, as this is the length of the control arm. The caster is adjusted by changing the length of the TC rod, distance B-C.

 

Once everything is torqued down, the distances within the complete suspension assembly never changes. The A-B, A-C and B-C are fixed distances. Hence the angle at C, does not change either, as the suspension goes through its motion. The entire suspension assembly rotates around an axis passing through points A and B (The green line).

 

If one look at the B interface alone, as the entire suspension assembly goes through the motion, the TC rod will experience a slight rotation, in relation to the TC rod anchor on the chassis. If the bushings at B are too stiff, and not being supple enough, I would think some unfortunate torque and/or bending forces are transferred to the chassis and the TC rod. With enough cycles the weakest link breaks. And from what I can gather, people experience that the TC rod breaks, and not the chassis anchor.

 

It would be a good practice to torque down all the bolts in this suspension assembly (At A, B & C) with the suspension at its nominal position. As it would be positioned when the car is complete, sitting on the ground. To ensure the bushings are as "stress neutral" as possible in the nominal position of the suspension.

 

[datzenmike]

18 hours ago, fiveoneO said:

I'm not the best at explaining things so hopefully this makes sense. Those Cusco T/C rods look like solid parts, but one of the two mounting holes should be elongated. If you look at how the lower control arm attaches to the T/C rod and how they both attach to the car, it makes a triangle. Any time one angle of a triangle changes, another angle of that triangle has to change. When the front suspension on the 510 goes through its range of motion, the lower control arm and the T/C rod travel on different arcing paths. Because of that, it makes all three angles of that triangle change. That is why the stock T/C rods break when you change to urethane bushings. There isn't enough compliance to allow for the up and down and side to side movement that's needed. If you look at both the T3 and FutoFab T/C rods, they both allow for this angle change to happen. T3 elongates one of their mounting holes and FutoFab has a hinge bolt. I don't think the Cusco T/C rods will break, but they will bind and you will probably have premature rod end bearing failure.

 

The bushings at the front of the tension rods have to be compliant and compress while traveling through their range of motion. If poly is used the resistance is substantial and the tension rod is forced to bend. Excessive bending will cause metal fatigue and cracks and can result in failure...

 

 

 

Drilling holes should, in theory, allow them to compress but rubber is the much superior choice over urethane.