RTz

Actually, I cut holes in an air dam... ...and ducted them into the IC's....

Thank You, Kind Sir.

Uh... terrible... The holes in the hood have been cut temporary... for about 2 years now. A body guy I am not. The owner anticipates having nice louvers added to the hood. The intercoolers were mounted in that position mostly out of desperation. Figuring cooling could be an issue, I didn't want to locate them upstream of the radiator, preheating the air. In all fairness, Steve Pepka did a lot of the 'brightwork' in preperation for a photoshoot (car made it into Mark Warners "Street Turbocharging" by HP Books)

Someguy, It just so happens I'm going to sell my 510. Email if you want specifics... rontyler@hughes.net It also happens that I installed the Twin-Turbo V6 (VG30DETT) in Dave Lums 510... most overpowered car (for the chassis) I've ever driven

Yup... the old adage is still alive and well..."Speed costs... How fast do you want to spend?"

Still pretty questionable my friend. Obviously, a lot depends on how you drive, tires, LSD, etc. There are people here that can answer that question with more authority than I. I think I'd start getting nervous with much over 375 ft/lbs assuming reasonable bite. Keep in mind future goals... You may not have sticky tires and an LSD NOW but its on your long term list right?

V, If I'm reading you correctly, you're gonna put a T5 behind a boosted 383? Risky at best, in my opinion... even for a World Class T5.

Weird about the 'co-driver'... my wife drove my car that day. Must have slipped between the cracks. I had departed just before the 'disaster'. In Pauls defense, I heard it as a half-shaft failure as well. Maybe I got that from Paul or vice-versa? Funny... I remember the Fool If I remember it correctly, he was running 10.5's? Agreed, Paul had the fastest street-legal car there.

Sounds like fun!

I'm thinking two of those should do it

No disrespect to Norris, but maybe your friend needs to get used to his C5... don't forget driver is 95%.

Granted, but its potentially not as bad as it looks, depending on how the firewall is finished out. A hydraulic head is 'necessary', as well.

That car was never finished... got 'traded in' for this... I still have the chassis, though. Been kicking around the idea of resurrecting it. Needs significant structural work as the cowl became very flimsy. You can flex the windshield quite easily. Drivetrain moved 14"...

Amen.

Don't know about that one Mike... Every morning I approach my car, its dark, my headlights are off (hopefully)... but it sure is nice to see the interior light when I open the door

Wolf3D. P.S. I agree with 260DET... If you're unfamiliar, the best choice will likley be to follow your local tuners advice.

J, Its probably VERY common... however, In my experience, its not the best move. IMO, if a Z is lowered ANY, shorter dampers should be a consideration.

Jolane, Yet another way to say all this... If you lower a stock car with springs only, you will use up some of the quoted 3" of travel. If you lower the car 2" then you would have only 1" leftover before the top of the strut tube hits the bumpstop. You can put any damper in the world inside that tube and it will never change that. The most direct way to add more bump travel is to install a shorter damper and shorten the tube accordingly. If you shorten it 1" then, practically speaking, you'll gain 1" of bump travel (setting aside motion ratios for the moment). So now, in this scenario, you have two inches. The T3 gland nut does not address this in ANY way. I don't even see the point of it. If you lower a Z and you expect good handling the strut needs to be shortened. There are a couple of other ways to increase bump travel but they are a bit of a tangent.

Actually, I just imagined a one piece A-arm with its inner mounts parallel with the longitudinal axis of the car. Pivot the A-arm up and down... no need for its 'leg' angles to change right? Now, spin the whole A-arm assembly in a horizontal plane (so its rear mount is far outboard). Pivot the arm again... stilll no bind. It now just travels an arc that would promote caster change... BUT the angles between the legs don't change.

Jon, I'm beginning to think I am wrong about the angle change during travel. I believe you are correct. Forgive?

I couldn't agree more... Brian's are also adjustable so I'm not seeing your point. Agreed' date=' probably not a huge issue. But I don't want any more caster change than necessary. I fail to see the advantage of the heim and combined with it being farther forward just doesn't excite me. I think were talking about the same thing... we just have different opinions. No matter how tight the clevis bolt is, there is no way for me to imagine that it wouldn't rotate with even a small load. I'm not implying "leave it loose". However, I think torquing it to oblivion won't do anything either. *IF* there is caster change during travel (from a non-ideal location of the rear pivot point) then I don't see how it could NOT rotate. The angles must change. So something either has to flex, pivot, or break. Its possible I'm looking at this all wrong... If you type REAL slowly, maybe it will sink in

...Point taken rt

Phantom nailed it... If you can't hook up, you can't break anything.