rabrooks

The ls engine with aluminum block is 370 lbs. The vq is 310. The vq is shorter by a few inches, maybe as much as 5". So moving the vq closer to the firewall along with its lightness will add to the better balance of the car. It will be heavier in the rear but still well balanced. It will have a great turn in and set on a road course. The cd009 is considerably lighter than the t56. I'm not sure what the difference is. That's more weight reduction right in the center of the car. Twin turbo on light boost is going to easily get 450 whp. And with a lighter car it will feel better. The vq37vhr with a good cai and a good exhaust and a tune makes over 400 at the crank. If I'm not mistaken, the LSX is the iron block version of the LS series. I think thats about 40 lbs heavier than the aluminum block version. But its considerably stronger if you wanted to go with high boost setup.

I have decided to install my vq37vhr into a car other than my Z. The car is a 2013 Toyota FRS. Putting this engine in the Z was going to be reasonably simple from the technical side of things. But my decision has added a great deal of complexity. I would like to get the ECM of the vq to talk to the BCM of the FRS. I can get pinouts and see which items might be simple to tie together. But I think some of the signaling will be different making the two systems not communicate. I may need some sort of interface module or I may need to ditch the idea of tying them together and just get an aftermarket setup configured with the correct signaling. I wanted to save that money, but if I can't find a reasonable solution, I wont have a choice but to go aftermarket. And even that may not yield the results I'm looking for. Please share your thoughts about this and any of your experience. Thanks Roger.

No you didn't get back to me. I am interested in any fenders you have. I will be in the Atlanta area in the next week or so. I can pick them up. PM me the price please.

How much to ship the fender to NC via Greyhound 27889

Subscribed for reference 😁

So, If I were to put the Toyota truck brakes on the front of my 280z, would the original front brakes fit on the rear of the 280. I know I'd need to fab a bracket. I know the e brake wouldn't work. Or, has anyone tried the toyota rear brakes on the 280. Then the e brake would work. I haven't looked at any of this, just speculating Thanks for any help and insight. Roger

At this point, this is all hypothetical. My plan is to keep the SIA as close to factory by moving the top of the strut out on the camber plate the same amount as I stretch the LCA. The LCA may get a little longer than what I can move out the top of the strut but not by much. I would set the negative camber after that setup is in place. and adjust whichever end makes the most sense given all the new geometry. So try to imagine taking the factory geometry and moving it outboard while leaving the wide tires where they sit. I just get a wheel with a different offset, something more in the positive offset range. I haven't laid this out to see how wide a tire I can get mounted with this setup before the inner tire wall hits the strut. I could move the tire back out again with a different offset wheel to get the tire off the strut. If none of this lays out correctly, I'll just have to deal with the scrub. On the double ball joint setup, I ran across a BMW in the pick and pull with the complete front suspension. I may go back and pull it. I may be able to work out that setup or some version of it. I have a 335i. I've been looking at it trying to decide if I should do this. I'm willing to invest in the pick and pull parts for the sake of trying to figure it out. Just by coincidence, I have a complete set of lower control arms for my 335. I recently bought them to replace the old ones.

In essence, it sounds like there is no way to deal with a large scrub radius if you run a wide wheel and tire because it will have to run a high negative offset, driving the large scrub. I hoped to find a way to get a smaller scrub with the wide wheels. The only way I can envision this happening is doing what I mentioned earlier, running a longer LCA and then reducing the negative offset of the wheel. This will lower the scrub and leave the track as wide as it was with the high negative offset wheels. That was why I suggested pushing the top of the strut outward (because the lower ball joint moved out with the LCA). But I would set the camber to what it needed to be, not just shoving the top of the strut over until it hit the end of the camber plate.

JMortensen, can you provide any insight on my question about scrub radius in my previous post. I saw one of your posts recently discussing the SLA setup. You mentioned scrub radius in the post. There was a drawing of what looked like a plate that was designed to accommodate the SLA setup.

Ok, back to the suspension. After taking a long hard look at this project. I have changed my direction abit. And this new direction raises more questions. I hope all that made comments earlier will come back with your thoughts. I have decided to take the advice of others and try to tune the factory setup. I have made this decision due to cost and time to fruition. However, I too am interested in the SLA setup for a few different reasons. First question to sorting the factory suspension. Scrub Radius, How do I deal with the large scrub radius when running wider wheels and tires on the stock setup. I would like to run as wide a tire as is reasonable. So if I go wider, I'll have to get a different offset wheel. This offset will most likely upset the scrub radius, and create other scrubbing problems while turning. It seems I may be able to overcome some of this by using a longer LCA and using camber plates with the strut pushed as far out as possible (adjusting the LCA to get optimum - camber) improving the scrub radius. Then I can use a wheel with less negative offset and still have the tire in about the same location reducing scrub radius. Has anyone used this approach. Looking at the video of the SLA, it looks like it can help with the negative affect of the wider tires along with other positive affects. Thanks Roger

All the talk of ride harshness makes me wonder how many of these cars mentioned in these posts are lowered, changing the optimum suspension geometry to something less forgiving. That too will add to the harshness of the ride. That being said, there is a great deal to consider and design in when making suspension changes.

So based on the spread sheet you supplied wouldn't it be best to run the toyota vented up front and the toyota solid on the rears. If I understand this correctly, that would give a 55/44 brake bias. So I wonder how hard it would be to mate the toyota solid fronts to the rear of a 280z? My numbers may be skewed because I was focusing on the front line PSI. Not sure what the rear would be or if the volume from the master affects the overall numbers Thanks

Is this for the larger diameter 280 tubes or the 240 Thanks

Thanks to everyone for supplying all this information. I will certainly be able to make better decisions going forward. The info below is what another Z enthusiast is using since the discontinuance of the bilstiens F4-P36-3022 Rear- 1992-1995 BMW 530i/540i (front HD inserts) F4-P36-0262-H0 Front- 1984-1989 Nissan 300ZX Turbo HD Inserts

I agree with all the above. Definitely using coil over style struts with camber plates. Failed to mention that earlier. My battery will stay in the factory location. Going to the ls1 and t56 changes the ratios to a level that requires more thought on my part to get back closer to the 50/50 ratio. That's why I'm moving the fuel cell forward of the original tank and not moving the battery to the rear. I may go with a fiberglass rear hatch and plexi window. I do have another option to move some weight back forward. I can go with a built T5 transmission. In a road racing arrangement I think it will hold up. No hot launches and rev matching downshifts.