RTz

Jon, Don't sweat it. We knew full well it would be controversial. People can believe what they want... my Rice Crispies will still be crispy

Kurzahls, One thing I hope this thread does NOT turn into is a debate about which motor is superior. For what its worth, both Paul and I feel that the LSx series is better in almost every way... you'll get no debate from us. Glad you're back!

For some reason I didn't open this thread initially... glad I did. Congrats to all of you. At 21 I married the coolest woman on the planet (aside from yours )... 15 years next month.

Flying lessons?

...and I thought I was on to something.

I'm not crazy about convertible S30's... but if I was, I'd like yours

Olderthanyou, There is no right or wrong answer. If there's something that tickles you, use it. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of each, search. Another way to look at it... In about 5 years I'm going to start a forum called "NonHybridZ". 8 people will subscribe.

Cary, In your linked pictures, the rear (outboard, toe link) pivot is not substantially supported vertically. Jon doesn't seem terribly comfortable with the extra side loads this would impart on the strut. If I read you correctly, not only have you driven the car in that configuration, but you're also doing it again on the revised car? What are your thoughts on the increased side loads? Thanks,

Jon, Something was bugging me about my numbers... I went back and found an error. 189LBS should be more accurate. I edited the previous picture to reflect that. Sorry.

Thanks Cary.

Opps I made an effort to calculate this out. I don't expect it to be exactly accurate, but I think its close enough for the purpose, just as 3g's is probably close enough... I come up with 189 LBS.

Jon, The thing that I struggle with the most, with the track that you are on, and I think we've discussed it in PM, is that if you succeeded in making all the suspension components absolutely rigid (to reduce the longitudinal stiction) then all the mounts in the car have to be PERFECTLY aligned. If you succedded in that, then there can be NO flex in the chassis. If there is, then something else has to flex.

It'll still get wet and read inaccurately.

Jon, I started drawing this (instead of studying like I’m supposed to be) and quickly came to realize that it doesn't matter (at least with the perameters you gave). *IF* the spindle is in the center, then the loads are the same on each side. The only way they’ll be different is if there is an imbalance. So what imbalance are you concerned about? Friction, braking, accell, the pot-hole? I might be able to figure it out with more info.

I think you're in an unusual position to do what I described. There is one flaw that I see though... If its too close to the injector, you could easily get fuel on the IAT sensor due to reversion. Not good.

I *might* be able to figure that out but I think its more complicated than that... wouldn't the spring and shock rate be a factor? (its the reaction force right?).

Jon, In looking at it again, I didn't say that well to begin with. I was trying to reference the entire toe link, including the clevis, as a flexible arm vertically, with only the clevis to stop it.

Ouch! that's gonna leave a mark I have not yet experienced the bending J bar that you guy's have (guess I havn't built a serious enough car). In looking at the front design, I really didn't figure the rotational loads to be THAT high. The only reason is does rotate, as far as I can tell is becuse the BJ isn't centered up in the same plane as the TC rod. It is, however, close so I assumed the rotational loads would be minimal. Apparently, they are greater than I expected. BUT, I do believe it takes a VERY extreme car under exteme conditions to cause a problem with that design. I don't belive its the same as what we're talking about in the back.

Jon, Honestly, I am not able to see the clevis providing the kind of strength that you're talking about. I see it as pretty weak in bending.

The issue I see, using an isulator, is that it could possibly work against you, especially in a street driven car. For example, Pauls manifold heats up under cruise when the airflow (through the manifold) is low for a long period. Its heating up mostly from exhaust (as you mentioned earlier, Pete) and to a lesser extent from contact with the head, and mabey a touch from reversion. This heat soaks the manifold, and in turn, heat soaks the IAT's mount. When he goes WOT, this "air cools" the manifold, in turn, cooling the IAT's mount. If you used an insulator (teflon tape, delrin, etc) then its an insulator both ways... drive for an hour on the freeway and the INSULATOR is going to heat soak... and it will take even longer to cool down at WOT. In my opinion, there is no perfect place for an IAT. Just before the point of fuel contact would probably be ideal. Readily available sensors don't allow us to do that. So, every location is a compromise. The compromise that I choose to make is just upstream of the TB, mounted in some sort of plastic. Obviously, that won't work in your SC car.

Is that something you can share with us? ...and, as far as I know, the only way to reduce it significantly under braking is inboard brakes.

Heavy, Looks like I came dangerously close to copying Cary's car... I'm going to spend some time looking things over. Thanks for the link.

Looking at the bottom (white) trace, the IAT is dropping SLOWLY (with the throttle opened). About 40 degrees over a 10 second period. If that was a REAL reflection of air temp, it would drop virtually instantly when the throttle is opened. At least, thats how I see it. Looks like the sensor itself is heat soaking.

Dude, you're always OFF base

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. My guess is that it wouldn't hurt the strut. I'd be more concerned about the stress on the A arm, particularly the forward mount and link.