Justinp551

I have a 280 2+2 that I lowered with Eibachs and Tokigo Blues. I am happy with the look and ride but didn't like the resulting increased camber. Looked like a sagging ricer. So I made a few measurements and concluded that moving the strut towers out 3/4" each should get rid of the camber. With the wheel off looking up into the shock tower tunnels there is about a inch to work with around the springs however there is a 45deg support plate on the outboard side of the strut mount that limits available real estate. Now the 2+2 is a bit wider in the back so I don't know if the coupe has the same available room. I made a pattern that fitted to the existing 3 holes and then it superimposed a new bolt pattern rotated 60deg and moved 5/8" out. I removed the 6 nuts and jacked up the car under the diff and the shock towers lowered down out of the holes. I drilled the 6 new holes using the template I made and using a second jack lifted each assemble into the new holes. Inside the car I had to put one small notch in the plastic cover and it was able to cover 2.5 of the mounting nuts. Almost indistinguishable from inside. After getting it back on the ground the tires now sit virtually straight up and don't have the sagging ricer look. The other advantage is now the top of the tires are roughly 1/2" farther out and fit the fenders snugger. I am running 16X8.25 0 offset with 245-50-16 and on the wider 2+2 it looks perfect. Not sure how that combo would fit a coupe. In hindsight the only change I would make is to move the mounts out 1/2" verses the 5/8" I did. It all looks great but imo it would look perfect to have the rear angle spot on with the fronts. I will try to attach some pics. The blue one was just after suspension install and 16-7 +4 offset Rotas and shows the camber issue. I swapped everything to the silver one then changed to the XXR rims.

Interesting read. Any one have a idea of the weight differences?

So I have been thinking of enabling a small "controlled leak" around the AFM in my L28E when freeway cruising. My thought is the AFM door would have less air opening it which would tell the computers to inject less fuel. Hence on a low load on the engine it would be in super lean cruise mode. We operate aircraft engines to lean of peak egt temps when in cruise flight. Why not a car? Now I have done a bit of research on here and have come across some high egt numbers for turbo applications which should never be seen in a NA application so I am not worried about burning anything up. Also planning on installing a egt gauge and wideband to keep a eye on things. I came across some info on Atlantic z techt board that the AFM gives a voltage to the ecu depending on airflow. Instead of a "adjustable leak" around the AFM could a adjustable resistor be placed somewhere between the computer and pins 6-9 of the AFM to lean the mixture out in 5th gear during cruise conditions? Looking forward to the input.

So the discussion came up amongst a few fellow flight instructors about leaning engines and temps of exhaust gas temps. Some quick background. Mostly all general aviation engines arel air cooled and rely on a rich mixture on takeoff and climb to keep the cylinders from overheating. Now when you level off in cruise and have the power back a bit you lean the mixture(it's cockpit adjustable) to specific settings. As you lean the mixture the exhaust gas temps will increase to a peak and continued leaning will bring the temps back down. There is a long argued debate about lean of peak vs rich of peak operation in cruise. Without going out on a tangent on that subject... What theory causes the egt to change with a different mixture? I am hearing evaporation, un burnt fuel pulling heat out, my theory is the different mixtures burn at different temps and or speeds. Braaap and Tony D always seem to be a wealth of knowledge on the dynamics of engine operations and I know there is alot of other smart minds on here so... Throw your ideas or theories out please

Thanks for the quick answers. I did not know how things were balanced and it makes sense. I appreciate the info. Apr it will be!

Useful info. If I am following this correctly would the preferred route be to use larger piston 280zx calipers and the larger diameter 300zx rotors. I assume the caliper bracket is the same so is the calipers set for different diameter rotors? Would the 280zx/300zx combo work or would custom brackets need to be made?

I completely rebuilt a n42 combo few years ago but rarely driven. I had the machine shop bore block, new pistons, resize the crank bearings, and balance the whole rotating assembly. However beings how this was my first car engine I re-used the rod bolts. Now the engine is out to switch to a nicer body s30. Read a few posts about putting new rod bolts in and have ordered apr bolt and popped the oil pan off the other day to install. I purchased a digital scale and wanted to make sure what was going in matched what was coming out. Well the rod bolts old and apr are all 40grams +-1g. I am happy with that but the nuts are a different story. The stock nuts are 14mm/8-9grams and the apr are 13mm/6grams. With the apr nut/bolt combo I am a total of 4-7grams lighter than what it was balanced for. Is this critical on a street engine with occasional spirited driving? I have considered using the apr bolts and stock beefier nuts to get back to balance weight and look stronger but figure apr wouldn't sell the smaller ones if they were weak. Also the apr combo is taking roughly 36 grams off the total rotating weight. So would it upset the balance to go with the lighter apr set up? Or should I put the stock nuts on the apr bolts to get the balance weight back? Some input on what direction to go would be great. Thanks.

Whats the fb page under?

Thanks for the input folks. That makes sense about the r4's. I don't mind about quicker wearing for aggressive pads. Working well and more replacing is better than long life and marginal performance to me.

Been doing done researching on here and I understand there is never the "best" combination for brakes. With that bring said looking for a combination of pads to help with the bias issue of the Toyota vented/240sx caliper combo. This is on a 2+2 and will mostly be spirited canyon/street driven. Maybe one or two track days. I hear good things about the hawks and porterfield pads. Looking for feedback on combos. Maybe rs4 on front and r4 rear. Maybe a mix of the hawks and porterfields, maybe some EBC brakes on there as well? I do have the bigger mc and prop valve. Thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks for the response. You car looks great. I will be getting my car together with those rims in about a month and I will post a few pics. If you happen to take a few more pics please post. Thanks for the info.

Has anyone done a weight comparison on the z32 front caliper vs the vented Toyota caliper? It could be worth building the bracket if the weight savings was advantageous.

Has anyone done a weight comparison on the z32 front caliper vs the vented Toyota caliper? It could be worth building the bracket if the weight savings was advantageous.

Or if anyone else has 16's 0 offset feel free to chime in. I am running a 2+2 so rear fender clearance isn't a issue as they are 2" wider in the a@@. Thanks

DailyDrifter, I have been considering these rims and my full compliments to your choice and the look of your car. A few questions for you. First do you think those rims would clear the stock springs dimensions(eibach lowering springs)? If the rim/tire was laid face down and face up what is the backspacing and frontspacing dimensions of your combination? Did you have to do any tricks to get the front tires to clear fenders or airdams? Once again great looking set up. Thanks