Dan Baldwin

Motorsport Auto has 'em. 800 633 6331. I've got a set in my car, and don't have any problems with them. O' course my ride was already harsh! You can also use them to adjust toe, but when you do you also affect the tire's fore-aft location in the wheel well. I used anti-sieze as a lubricant for them, and wrapped the aluminum with a layer of sanding screen to prevent them walking around on me.

Dat's what I've got, ST springs and Illumina struts. My springs are older, though, I've heard the newer ST springs are softer (mine are 160F, 200R). Anyway you're lowered about the same as me. My problem was I wanted MORE negative camber (/ ). Sounds like you want less. Bump steer spacers at the front will reduce the negative camber on that end of the car (make it more like this: | |). At the rear you *could* use offset Al/delrin control arm bushings, or you could slot the shock towers and move the tops of the struts outboard. Or you could start autocrossing and/or doing track days and enjoy the negative camber you've got! With about 1.5 deg negative in back and 2.25 deg negative in front, I get VERY even wear across my street tires, which see some track usage and ~5000 street miles/year.

Bump steer spacers will increase *positive* camber unless the car is lowered a LOT. My car's owered ~1", and I took out the bump spacers I had for this reason. What kind of camber are you looking for, and what do you have? Like John said, if you haven't moved the car, it'll look like it's on stilts, with the wheels all relatively positive cambered. Springs and struts only affect camber inasmuch as they affect ride height. Gas-charged struts *will* raise a car up, BTW.

To get more negative camber at the front, I lengthened my control arms 9/16". Used rectangular section tubing on top and plate on the bottom, all suitably scarfed in to avoid an abrupt change in x-sectional stiffness. Went from ~1.5 deg to ~2.5 deg negative. Big improvement in front grip, and 225/50ZR15s stilll don't rub anywhere (on zero offset wheels). Changed my caster a bit, though, now it's like 2.5. I know, that's supposedly WAY too little, but I like the way it handles and the light effort required at the steering wheel. It feels like I've got servo-assisted steering, kinda neat. Just think at the wheel and you've rotated the car. Wheee!

KAT, I might be 'bout ready. They're behind on paying me up here and I need two new Hoosiers (4 really). You busted me, bTW, only one other car in my class, a Dodge Shelby Omni (weighs ~ same as me, with ~270hp). Oh yeah, that's stress wienER, I do have some self-respect left, though not enough to prevent me from considering Lock-Mart as an employer. Sorry, Pete, they haven't built bombers there in a LONG time. B-29s (I think) back in WWII. They do build F-22s there, which could be considered pretty cool. Mainly C-130s. Rivet music all day every day, with two music breaks. No music on Sundays. Dan

I'm not too worried about the pivot end, as there's no bending there. I'm more concerned with the portion of the bolt that has to take the full vertical bending load at it's outboard end, just inboard of the adjusting nut(Or am I not seeing something?). I would try to use stubby steel sleeves sandwiched in there to prevent the bolt from having to take the bending load. Of course you lose ease of adjustability there, but that's what I'd do. If any of the bolt has to take all the bending load, it should be the inboard end. The control arm is basically a simply supported beam-column, with the sway bar attachment being the point of maximum bending. Bending drops to zero at the inboard pivot and at the ball joint. Dan Baldwin M.S., B.S. Aerospace Engineering

I've never had fluid fade in the Z (~200 rwhp) at the track with any DOT4 fluid (Castrol, Valvoline synthetic, etc.) or Ford Heavy Duty (DOT3, but higher dry boiling point than off-the-shelf DOT4s). Fresh fluid for EVERY event, of course. What pads are you going to use? Shoes? I've done well with Porterfield R4s, Carbotech Panthers and Panther XPs, and with Nissan shoes. Tried track compound shoes once, but they required a lot more frequent adjustments than the Nissan shoes.

Update: After ruling out the prop valve, pressure switch, and flex lines, I drained the whole system and blew out the lines w/ compressed air. I also ground the metal plate backing the friction material on the pads, as there was evidence of some interference (although the pull to the left ocurred with two different sets of calipers and pads, so I don't think that was the problem). Car ran/braked great at Mosport, won my class and set a new class record. On STREET tires (B'stone S03 Pole Positions). Woohoo!

I think I got it. Replaced the right front SS line with an unused spare, and put in my new Carbotech Panther XP pads. Hey, it STOPS now! In a straight line to the parts store and most the way back. Then I *think* I might've detected a little left pull again, but nothing like what I had. Might just be crud in the line, maybe the act of replacing the line dislodged some of it? We'll see. Might hafta blow the lines out yet (I hope not). Anyway, the resurfaced right front rotor has now been fully swept by brake pad, whereas before there had been a band of untouched resurfaced rotor, so I think I'm O-Tay. The "82-'83 ZX rear calipers seem to be self-adjusting, as the left rear was tight despite no parking brake activity. The right rear not quite so tight. The right rear's piston notches are buggered up a bit, and partially blocked up with antisqueal (was that way when I bought the rebuilt rear calipers last year). I paid particular attention to ensure that the nub on the pad engaged one of the notches in the caliper piston. Might remove the left rear again to check that. BTW, without the prop valve (from a ZX), the fronts seem to lock easily upon initial application. The valve must also have some delay action to the fronts, which makes some sense. Yes, the prop valve IS going back in. What a mess THAT's gonna be. Man I hate brake fluid.

Guess I need to get the ebrake functional. Whole reason for the swap was so I wouldn't have to futz around w/ keeping the rears tight. I was talking of swapping the lines, but then maybe the calipers too if the problem persists. I think there's a plug that can be swapped with the bleed screw, maybe? Both rotors were resurfaced. The left front rotor has been fully swept by the pads after a couple of days driving around, while there's still an unswept band on the right front rotor. Seems the caliper just ain't squeezin. Might hafta blow out the line. Thanks again,

Thanks for all the replies. Suspension seems OK, 90% certain it's the brakes. Tire pressures OK I have braided lines, will try swapping left to right I think I voted Libertarian last election, so car shouldn't pull left or right I'll check the rears, I wonder if the '82-'83 calipers require e-brake operation to keep them in adjustment (ebrake no hooked up on my car).

At Summit Point last month, the car started pulling hard left under braking. I found that the front left pads were wearing down quickly and assumed a bad caliper. I've since replaced both front calipers with rebuilts and the car STILL pulls left under braking. I removed the ZX (I've got ZX discs in back) prop valve (right side front line goes through it) thinking it might be blocked, car still pulls left. I'll try removing the pressure switch next (device with front and rear inputs from MC; front left, front right, and rear outputs, has a wire coming out of it) as soon as I get a T-fitting. Anybody got any other ideas?

Managed to install the front cover and cylinder head (warmed over by Sunbelt) on Saturday, rad, exhaust, intake, etc. on Sunday, and the battery monday AM then drove 8 hrs down to Summit Point for time trials on Tuesday. Despite tires that had no grip and a stuck front left caliper piston I won my class, but with a time only 0.1 sec quicker than last year. Fast guy in my class wasn't there with his 375 hp gen 1 Eclipse ITE race car, he would've beaten me. I'll be at Mosport on June 17, 18 if anybody's in the area. TTFN!

Great to hear your back in bidness, Norm! Man, this guy gets more done in less time for less money with the most outstanding results of ANYbody in the Zworld! You might try dual exhausts, but I don't think and X-pipe would do anything for ya. 90-degree crank v8s use 'em because they firing sequence for each bank is all outta whack. Flat-crank V8s don't connect the two banks at all. The inline 6 should work best at high rpm as two inline 3s, with no crossover, I *think*. Dan Baldwin '71 240Z 3.1 COMSCC #7 SPB

April '87 - '89 300ZX turbos came with a clutch-type lsd, easy install. Some '88s were special edition SS models, all pearl white, and came with a viscous that requires some work to install. I haven't done it, but was told new snap-ring grooves would have to be machined in the output flanges for that diff to work in a '70 - '78 Z.

Just another voice noting the inferiority of the ZX rear suspension. Semi-trailing arms suck. Chapman struts MUCH better. ZX rear brake swap works well in my experience. I used the Maxima brackets as well. Much more consistent than drums and less lockup-prone. Use a ZX or adjustable proportioning valve. I used a ZX one to reduce the risk of the goofball driver over-biasing the rears and flying off the course.

My cylinder head is a long way away, and it's sorta overdue. They *might* be able to get it to me by Saturday, but they might not. Arrrrrrgggghhhh! My first track event is this weekend, of course. If anyone has a square-port L6 cylinder head I could borrow or rent, let me know. I'm in Providence, RI/New Bedford, MA. Reply here, email me at danbaldwin@hotmail.com (I'll see it tomorrow AM), or call me at home this evening at 401 727 0527. Dan "learning for the 100th time that nobody gives a **** when I get my parts but me" Baldwin

email me some pics to: danbaldwin@hotmail.com

15% greater MC piston area => 15% greater pedal effor required to generate a given level of brake line pressure, and 15% less pedal travel. That is the law. I've got the same MC, and a '73+ Z master vac. Thinking of trying to install a ZX mastervac to reduce pedal effort. The firewall, she do flex under high pedal force.

I swapped in an '81 ZX MC and a '7?+ Z brake booster at the same time and had no problem. The "nose" on the plunger from the brake booster was a lot longer than the one on the '71 tiny-booster I replaced. The "socket" in the back of the ZX booster was deeper, too, so it all worked out. So I'd say you either need a later booster with the longer nose or you could try to install a new nose on your existing booster. When I tried that I broke the damn threaded end the nose screws onto, some kinda weird locking thread.

Bigger MC diameter will REDUCE braking for a given pedal effort. Line pressure is force at the MC piston divided by piston area. Increase piston area and line pressure goes down, effort required for a given level of deceleration goes UP. That's what happened to me when I did the rear disk install and used the 15/16" ZX MC. Now I feel like I need a ZX booster as well! Pedal is always FIRM, though.

Oh yeah, stock ZX compression ratio is something like 8.5:1. Pretty limp.

280ZX block (flat-top pistons) and N42 head from a '75-'77 280Z (small combustion chambers, only the '70-'71 E31's are smaller) is the hot ticket. 9.8:1 compression ratio. That E31 head would get you to 10.2:1 compression, but it's got smaller valves than the N42, AND you'd have to notch the intake ports to use FI. '72 240Z E88 head has same size chambers as the N42, BTW.

Dude, read the original post and you'll see why I'm comparing an L28 w/ an L24 crank vs. L28 crank vs. LD28 crank. The question was NOT comparing engines of fixed displacement. Also, the primary benefit of oversquare designs is that you can rev faster, nothing to do with "tunability". r/s is a factor, but bore vs. stroke is more important for redline rpm. Speaking of r/s, it's been a while, but I remember reading about a SBC buildup in which the builder discovered he could make more torque and power with 5.7" rods vs. 6"ers, so maximized r/s ain't necessarily the best thing. Think of the angle of the rod with the crank throw at max cylinder pressure (maybe 18-20 deg ATDC?). If the rod is too long, it's not as nearly at a right angle w/ the crank throw, so less leverage. If the intended use is road race, drag race, autoX, or street, the longer-stroke cranks are a much better choice. If cost is an issue, an L28-cranked L28 has gotta be cheaper and easier to build than a custom L24-cranked L28. To me, building an engine that revs to no purpose (less peak power) sounds like a big waste of effort/ingenuity/uniqueness. But, as you said, diff'rent strokes. Dan "whutchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?" Baldwin

For a number of reasons, I'm sure, none of which has anything to do with what will work best for more power in an L-series engine. If max power and torque are what you're after, an L28 or LD28 are the way to go. If you want more revs with less power, the L24 crank is certainly the correct choice. I already said that for a FIXED displacement, most engines would benefit from having shorter stroke and larger bore for greater revs, oversquare designs (to a point) are inherently racier. But if anyone thinks a bored/destroked 2750cc L28 can compete with an equally prepared bored/stroked 3098cc L28 because of the increased rev potential, well I think they're wrong.