74_5.0L_Z

I will postulate that the lifting of the inside rear wheel is caused by the combination of the following: 1. The 14 degree SAI and ~ 7 degree caster cause the outside tire to rise relative to the body and the inside tire to drop relative to the body. This takes weight off the inside rear. You can see how much this de-wedges the car in even a static situation if you have some turn-plates and wheel scales. 2. Large scrub radius. This exacerbates the problems caused by problem 1. The larger the scrub radius, the more the outside wheel will rise and the more the inside tire will drop. 3. Super stiff springs. This magnifies the problems caused by 1 and 2 above. So what is happening is that you are entering the corner and transferring weight to the outside front tire, which as you turn is rising relative to the body. Meanwhile, the inside front tire is dropping relative to the body. Essentially, the car tips about the diagonal line connecting the inside front to the outside rear. If the rear tire does not have much droop available, then it will be lifted off the ground. I know from your build that you have super stiff springs, lots of caster, and HUGE scrub radius.

I would have them water jetted or cut out on a mill. If you do have them plasma cut, then make sure you clean up the edges. The plasma cut can leave a rough edge that can create stress risers.

Those look great. How much do they weigh?

Both configurations will be equivalent as far as bump steer, roll center and camber gain are concerned. For kinematics, all that matters is the distance between the centers of the suspension attach points. The different configurations will cause different bending moments on the dog-bone. However, with the use of the improved dogleg, I don't think you will have a problem in either configuration.

That's interesting. I had three different 240Z racks and two 260Z racks, and all the ones that I have encountered had interchangeable inner tie rod ends (though there are at least two types). I would be interested to see the rack style that you turned in as a core. I just finished replacing the 260Z rack in my car with one from a 240Z. During the process, I had both racks apart on the bench for comparison and measurement. Here were the main differences: The 240Z rack is 2.3 lbs lighter than the later racks. The 240Z rack is faster. The gain on the 260Z rack was 1.59 in/rev of the pinion and the 240Z gain was 1.8125 in/rev. With the 240Z rack, the steering ratio is 15.8 to 1 and with the 260Z rack the overall steering ratio is 17.8 to 1 (assuming 4.5 inch steering arms). All of the later racks that I have encountered have been the slow (1.59 in/rev) style, and all of the 240Z racks have been the faster (1.8125 in/rev) style. I would be interested to know if anyone has a newer 260Z / 280Z rack that has a faster gain than I have posted. If so, what is the gain of the rack, and what year did it come from?

The inner tie rod ends for the 240Z, 260Z, and 280Z are all interchangeable.

What do the fasteners that attached that to the LCA look like? Did the rear bolt and washer bend? Can you post a picture?

As you stated, with the control arms mounted in the stock position, the arm angles forward as you add caster. The angle of the arm away from perpendicular (as seen from above) creates a virtually shorter control arm. The virtual shortening of the LCA reduces the amount of static camber that you can achieve with camber plates. You can correct that to some degree by shimming the inboard side of the LCA as far forward as the stock cross member will allow. Even with the spherical bearings on the inboard side of the LCA and the pivot shimmed as far forward as possible, you will start to get forward angles on the LCA after about 5 degrees of caster. I fought that problem for a while and decided to do something about it. I made a custom front cross member that moves the mounting point of the LCAs forward but keeps the fore/aft position of the rack constant.

The heim at the frame connection of the TC rod is not enough. Here is a simple experiment to prove the point: With the strut assembly removed and the car properly supported, 1. Install the LCA and TC rod on the car and make the bolted connection between the two. There will be a certain length for the TC rod that will allow you to install the two bolts connecting the TC rod to the LCA. 2. Lengthen the TC rod one inch. As you do you will start to feel resistance as the TC rod connection to the LCA tries to rotate (but can't). 3. Now remove one of the two bolts that connect the TC rod to the LCA. If you are able to remove this bolt at all without damage then try to reinsert it (the holes will not be properly aligned). I am running 6.5 - 7 degrees of caster on my set-up with no problems.

There is a major problem with the design of the TTT TC rods: The end where the TTT TC rod bolts to the LCA is welded. That means that the angle between the LCA and the TC rod is fixed. The TC rod, LCA, and the frame between the connections of the LCA and TC rod form a triangle and each of the three legs of the triangle is rigid. The angles between the three legs of this triangle is governed by the Law of Cosines that states the following: A^2 + B^2 -2AB cos(theta) = C^2 where A is the length of the TC rod from the frame to the LCA connection point, B is the length of the LCA between the inner pivot and the TC rod connection point, C is the distance between the TC rod connection to the frame and the LCA connection to the cross member, and theta is the angle between the LCA and the TC rod. Rearranging the equation given above, cos(theta) =( A^2 + B^2 - C^2) / 2AB. In other words, as the TC rod length changes, the angle between the LCA and the TC rod also changes. If the connection is rigid (as in the TTT TC rod) then either the bolted connection between the LCA and TC rod must have enough slop to accommodate the angle change, or the rod itself must bend. Either of these options is unacceptable. It should also be clear at this point that the only successful design for an adjustable front LCA / TC rod assembly allows for the deformation of the triangle. The connection between the LCA and TC is a pin joint that allows the angle between them to change but also keeps them in the same plane. The connection between the frame and the TC rod and the cross member and the LCA must either be very compliant (rubber) or a spherical bearing. Rigid bushings at either the TC rod or in the end of the LCA will cause binding and prevent proper adjustment.

Regardless of the clevis that you use, I would make the attaching bracket to the control arm with a little more material around the hole and around the bend plane. Attached is a link with the drawing used to make my bracket. Mine was made using 1020 mild steel, but you could step up to 4130 for more yield strength. http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/41611-tc-rod-pivot-relocation-bad-dog-subframe-connectors-slotted-crossmember/page-6

That is definitely the preferred failure mode. Years ago, I had one fail by fracture (different set-up than I am currently running). Not a pretty thing. You can see the bent TC tube on the ground in front of the car. It had fractured in the threaded portion adjacent to the attachment at the LCA.

What size clevis end are you using, and what thickness is the plate for the curved attachment to the lower control arm? I have a very similar set-up, but my clevis has a 3/4-16 thread and my attachment plate is 3/8" thick.

I see a dead thread.

Did you call John Berget Racing Tires? He may have some good used ones in stock.

You do have the bleeders on top (right)? If you swap the caliper from left to right, the bleeder will end up on the bottom and you will not be able to bleed the air.

You should concentrate on getting the engine placed further back. You can move the crossmember and rack forward a little but not much. But at this point in your build, you should place the engine as far aft as possible even if you have to delete the hood latch and modify the firewall. Then if you still have interference with the rack / crossmember, relocate them (a little bit). I built a custom crossmember and relocated my rack to clear the pan on my 5.0L Ford install and to allow me to run more caster with the control arms perpendicular to the car.

I have a 240Z steering rack disassembled on my work bench, and I just finished assembling and installing a 260Z rack in my car. There are some significant differences between these two racks, but they do use the same inner tie rod. When I quoted the M25 x 1.25 thread I was incorrect. I knew from measurements that the shaft is 25mm, and I searched another forum where they reported the M25 x 1.25 thread. I apologize for spreading misinformation. To make up for it, I went back out in the garage and measured for myself. Here is what I got: Major diameter of external threads of rack shaft: 0.978 inches ( 24.8 mm) Pitch .394 inches for 10 turns of the inner tie rod onto the shaft (.394 inches = 10mm for 10 turns). Therefore the pitch is 1.0. If you compare my measurements to the metric thread data presented here: http://mdmetric.com/tech/M-thead%20600.htm you will see that the thread on the rack shaft and inner tie rod is M25 x 1.0. Edit: If you copy and paste the link into your browser then it works. It doesn't work if you click on it for some reason. The text editor on this forum doesn't like me.

M25 x 1.25 Right Hand thread

I bought the Ridgid 65S Tubing cutter when I was building my exhaust. It cut everything from 1/4" to 2-5/8" tubing. I have used it to make a set of stainless steel headers, the stainless steel exhaust behind the headers, and to cut spacers out of 4130 tubing. The cutter comes with three wheels. I assumed that it would go through them pretty quickly so I bought three replacement wheels. After all I have done with this cutter, I am still on the first wheel. It is fairly expensive, but you get what you pay for.

At this point, I have the Avon 23.0 x 10.5 x 15 cross ply slicks in hand and ready to install. They are getting mounted on my wheels monday. Then I will spend the early part of next week doing preliminary adjustment to the car (reduce camber, set ride height). I plan to install the new wheel and tire combo, remove the springs, and verify clearances for the anticipated range of suspension motion. The clearances found during this testing will determine the minimum camber that I will be able to run. Once I have found the preliminary settings, I am taking the car to a friend's shop where we will perform final alignment, corner balancing, and bump steer adjustment. This is scheduled for next Friday. One problem I may encounter is the inability to reduce camber sufficiently to make the tires happy. The Avons appear to be a little wider that the Hoosiers (at least while not mounted), so I may encounter clearance issues between the tires and fenders if I take out too much camber. With the Hoosiers, I was running -2.5 camber at the front and -2.0 at the rear. I am shooting for less than -1.5 at the front and less than -1.0 at the rear. Unfortunately, reducing camber on these cars reduces clearance between the fender and tire. We'll see how it goes. The car has a very stiff suspension (500 lb/in front springs and 425 lb/in rear springs) and I will be running between 6.5 to 7.0 degrees of caster at the front. The attached pictures shows how close the Hoosiers were (especially in the rear):

Ok, I am digging up this old thread because it is that time again: I am trying a different tire set-up. For the last couple of years I have been running Hoosier 275/35-15 A6 tires on 15x10 wheels. They have worked well (when the tires are fresh), but the A6s fall off a cliff after about 30- 40 runs. Additionally, Hoosier is no longer making the A6 as they are switching to the A7. The 275/35-15 in the A6 was 23.0 tall x 10.3 wide, and the 275/35-15 in the A7 is 22.8 tall x 10.1 wide. If anything, I needed a slightly taller and wider tire than the old A6. So, the reduced dimensions of the A7 and the Hoosier low life expectancy are pushing me to try something different. I am staying with the 15x10 wheels, so my options are limited. I will be trying out some Avon 23.0 x 10.5 x 15 bias ply slicks (A11 Compound). I am mainly trying these because they are the right size (23.5 tall x 10.3 wide), and because they supposedly last longer than the Hoosiers. I just received them from John Berget Racing tires and plan to have them mounted next week. At the same time I get the tires mounted, I am getting the car aligned and corner balanced. My questions are these: 1. What is a good starting air pressure for these tires. From what I have read on-line, these require much less pressure than the Hoosier A6 radials. 2. What is a good starting camber for these tires. From what I have read on-line, these don't require (or like) much camber. Cameron, I know that you have run the Avons in the past. What are some good starting points? I am also interested in hearing what Cary, JohnC, Jon, and the other smart people have to say on the subject of the Avon Slicks.

I made my own. I don't know of any off-the-shelf long tube headers that will work for our Ford Powered Z cars. http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/114643-my-custom-made-headers-and-exhaust-system/

The main difference will be that the 351W is taller and wider and weighs ~75 pounds more. I have had considerable experience with both engines. My 1970 Mustang Fastback started life with a 302 and a C4 automatic. I had this car when I was young (1987) and the first thing that I did to the 302 was to add headers and exhaust. Shortly after the headers and exhaust, the 302 died. Luckily I had a 351W ready to go. For the most part, the 351W was a direct bolt in replacement for the 302. I reused the same motor mounts, and was able to reuse the headers. However, because the 351W is taller and wider, the exhaust needed to be modified. The H-pipe had to be cut-out and a longer piece welded in, and the exhaust was now 3/4" higher from the ground. Luckily the exhaust had been a little low with the 302 installed, so I got lucky. An additional problem that I had was clearance between the air cleaner and hood after installing the 351W. I ended up with a low profile air cleaner to clear the hood. There are people who have installed the 351W in the S30 Z cars. I don't know how they mounted them. I personally have a 5.0L (302) that is stroked to 327 cubic inches installed in my car. I like the 351W. It is capable of making much more horsepower with its stock block than the late model 5.0L engines. However, I like the 302 because it is compact and light. I autocross my car and I don't need a million horsepower. My engine is mounted using a front plate / mid plate set-up, and if this is not going to be a street car, I highly recommend using this method to mount the engine. It creates tons of space to route headers.

There is much similarity between the 289, 302, and 351 engines. However, the block is not one of them. The 351W has a taller deck height (9.5" vs 8.2") . As such, the 351W is taller, wider, and heavier. The 351W also has different size main bearing journals and longer connecting rods. What the 351W shares with the other Windsor engines is bore spacing, bell-housing bolt pattern, head bolt pattern, and motor mount bolt pattern. The heads are interchangeable between the various Windsor engines, but you cannot interchange the intake manifold between the 351W and its smaller cousins. There is enough similarity between the engines that the Laine Family write-up will be extremely useful.