Jump to content
HybridZ

jpndave

Donating Members
  • Content Count

    245
  • Donations

    80.00 USD 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    0%

jpndave last won the day on June 14 2018

jpndave had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About jpndave

  • Rank
    Always Here
  • Birthday December 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/123712-240z-pro-touring-build/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hyde Park, UT
  • Interests
    73 240Z owned for 30+yrs(my high school car). Doing a full makeover now, Voodoo/T56 Magnum, Suspension, Brakes, etc. http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/123712-240z-pro-touring-build/

    2007 Jeep JK Unlimited, LS3/6L80E/242AMG https://www.rme4x4.com/showthread.php?77265-Jeep-JK-Unlimited-quot-Transformer-quot-6-2L-quot-LS3-quot-GM-build

Recent Profile Visitors

4250 profile views
  1. John, Keep up the good work! I enjoy following along on your progress. Very ingenuitive solutions you pull together for lots of this. I'm very interested to see how that HVAC turns out. Dave
  2. Tube80z and JMortensen are correct, there's no free lunch on this. The only place you might "cheat" a little are coilovers with the smaller diameter spring allowing a little more width and larger diameter wheels the same. I think you either optimize what's there with coilovers, camber plates etc. the best you can and deal with it or go the SLA direction and clean sheet. I am planning similar direction to tube80z but am even more pathetic on progress. I don't think I'll use the double joint lower but wouldn't rule it out. Minimizing the distance between the wheel mount surface and the pivot would help things out quite a bit. The SLA will require pretty much a complete new front subframe but since mine is a crusty mess and needs replaced anyway, why not? Sadly a new house/shop and Murphy living in my back pocket have prevented much of anything looking like progress.
  3. Nice! Beautifully executed, if that doesn't give you perfect regulation, I don't know what will.
  4. The desert race boys loosen up the star/ball clearance for more travel not the splines. They resort to finned housings to control heat and 300M cages to keep things from exploding. Spline fit stays tight. The shafts need to float somehow either in the splines captured at both ends by snap rings and a plunging style joint which is strongest/best/lightest if the application will allow it. The shafts can be stronger as the inside doesn't need a shoulder or snap ring which allows for zero stress risers in the stressed portion of the shaft. That method needs to be pretty minimal distance change. If memory serves correct maybe 1/2" but don't quote me on that. The other method has both splined ends captured. One non-plunging joint and one joint that has in and out travel like the tripod. Front outer steering joints travel/angle too much for a Rzeppa joint for example. Sloppy suspension design with lots of distance change can be an issue too.
  5. If it's loose on the splines I wouldn't even think about it. They need to back up their work.
  6. Sorry to hear about the problems. If the splines are loose on the stars, meaning you can twist the star on the splines - scrap metal. However, the stars sliding may not be a problem. If you look at the picture I posted above you can see that the splines are long and there is no shoulder inside. On the Porsche 930 style joints, in a non-steering application, at least one or both joints float on the shaft to allow for changes in length as the suspension cycles. The cups inside the joints need to allow for the movement. Basically the shaft floats between the two snap rings stopped from going "in" by the outer ring and going "out" by the inner. As long as lengths and clearances are correct and not binding it should work. On a cv/tripod setup, the tripod takes up the length change and the cv is set ridgid like those shafts you have. Tripods are heavy and weak but necessary in a steering application. Manufacturers sometimes use them as it can be a cheaper/less precise solution in the rear and they will take up substantially more length change. In that style the star needs to be contained as tripod will just slide out. Maybe an inner snap ring would do it if your second joint is a tripod. Food for thought anyway.
  7. It would be minor. Interesting on the DTM cars, I'll have to look at those. I'm interested to see how it works out for you.
  8. That Bosch setup is pretty cool BTW. Oh, and my vote is for hard lines on the brakes, even braided lines will give a bit and the firmer the pedal the better. I'm not sure what bender and flare tool you have but some work much better than others. Judging by the quality of the rest of the build, you'll do fine. Nice work on all this!
  9. There is a lot of information here that's not entirely accurate. A lot of opinions which is great too. The stock late model systems aren't exactly "dead-headed" at least as far as the pump is concerned. There is a return style regulator in the pickup box with the pump that returns off the extra pressure (above 58 psi theoretically) back into the sump the same as Ironheads setup (and mine below) just at a different point in these applications. Later models regulate pressure with PWM which is past what most of us are dealing with at this point. The direct inject engines are just lifting fuel to the high pressure pump so it's not really critical anymore with them as long as the supply is there - pressure that is. The vacuum port does vary the pressure, not sure what that would do to the engine program, I guess if you tune for it there could be an advantage. The big advantage comes with a boosted applications since you need the pressure differential for the injectors to spray properly and if you have say 20psi of boost then the injectors are really only spraying 38psi of difference. Hope that makes sense. The linked Aeromotive doesn't go on the return line, it creates the return by bleeding off pressure above the set point. I looks very similar to the one I have, much more money. Most of these will bleed off pressure to some degree, hence the pre-prime of the pump. It's a good habit to get into of key on - pause then start. I'm in the habit anyway from driving a diesel truck or my backhoe, etc. You want to give the glow plugs there a chance to do their job. Let the fuel pump prime the lines. This photo isn't the best of the regulator and I'll post up a different one if I can find it. Mine is a Russell as that is what I got the best deal on in a decent quality unit. Oil filled pressure gauge directly on the front so you can see exactly what's going on when running. I suppose the heat issue could be an advantage. I like that I can see and adjust pressure if necessary readily. I also like and feel that one big advantage is that the regulated pressure is as close to the demand as possible. It also shortens up the amount of line that is necessary for a burst in demand. You have ~90 psi ahead of the regulator or the capability to have that and then the excess bleeds off to leave the 58 psi. If you stab the throttle, the regulator at the manifolds stops dumping fuel immediately and the supply goes to the engine rather than taking 10 feet of line to get there. I have -8 to the engine and -6 return. I suspect that the in tank regulator has more to do with packaging and $ savings than with performance. I'm sure you can make it work fine but I'm more comfortable with where it's at on this application. I flared the SS fuel rail with an AN nut an backer with the regulator attached directly to the fuel rails. The early LS1 and truck versions actually bleed off at the fuel rail so even later than what I have set here. If you want the absolute best regulation, set it up at the back of those pretty fuel rails on your engine Ironhead. Full pressure in and bleed off the return at the back. Probably won't matter that much, but if your look for "best" there it is.
  10. That looks like nice shifter. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on it. Did you go the 4" back version? As far as "Super" Magnum isn't that just the GM kit badging? I wasn't aware of any upgraded from the factory Magnum - all the Magnums are built to the same strength. 4 choices - wide or narrow ratio set, GM or Ford. I have a wide ratio Ford. I think the GM "Super Magnum" is a narrow ratio GM version. I know some shops REM and Cryo the units, add bronze shift pads, etc. and get better strength/high RPM shifting. I had some inside tracks when I traded/purchased mine and they gave me their specs for the upgraded units. Also, per Tremec tecs directly, the stock Magnum is designed to be pulled from the box, installed and run 700 lb/ft drag runs all day no problem. I'm thinking of opening mine up and give it the cryo (why not, it's pretty inexpensive) and more importantly the REM treatment so it will handle the high RPM shifts better along with the upgraded fork pads. That shifter looks like it would be pretty nice to get the location correct and be faster/more precise than the stock setup.
  11. BTW, any re-spline work is most likely going to be cut, not rolled. Rolling basically forges the spline into the shaft but is for much larger scale production and would be near impossible on the hardened stock. Moser would likely not have the reduced diameter on the shafts but again, price will be great for a custom shaft. For maximum strength, you need to step away from a lot of the stock pieces and prices go up. That's where the 930/934 CV pieces with corresponding stubs to hub and differential come into play. This is what DSS is doing for their super axles for the Mustang. HTH, Dave
  12. @yellowoctupus is correct if they are case hardened. You'll need to determine that before re-cutting shafts. All of those half shafts are very poor designs for strength, lots of stress risers and improper sizing (thought the solid shaft has some elements of sound design which is why you can't respline them). They should look more like these for maximum strength. This design is not only substantially stronger and lighter but adds a "cushion" to the axle as it will wind up like a torsion bar rather than breaking and absorb some shock loads. The smaller diameter may be contrary to common belief of bigger is better but is actually stronger by quite a bit when done right. The production shafts are a for the masses piece that the beancounters dictate design to a large degree. Engineers throw mass at problems because it cheaper than better materials/design. (Photo from http://www.westgarage.co.uk/forsale/kits/shafts.html, just the first image that popped up from a Google search, not suggesting using them at all) Check with Moser Engineering or RCV. I think Moser will be your best price, RCV best quality. I would start with 4340 and use 300M for best strength materials - both are through hardened for proper strength, the 300M quite a bit harder. I'll be using 300M as I just don't want to take any chances. Moser has another alloy they use that would be a great starting point. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a set of shafts from Moser at about 1/3 of your $1200 price. They will also do resplining. I have used them for both services, and they do quality work at reasonable prices. There are others out there that will do it for you but those are the first that come to mind. You'll be way better off if you get away from the custom car places and into the race and especially desert race crowd for this stuff. The problem is getting from the Ford inner differential and outer hub splines to standard 930 or 934 CV joints. Once you do that the rest is easy. If you want to look at doing the inner and outers that way, @1969honda and I would be in for the inners for sure and possibly the outers if they are compatible with what we are doing. I'll help with the design if you want.
  13. I used a set of uncoated Sandersons, added the Cone Engineering collectors, welded on v-clamps, sectioned and rolled the pipes in tighter for better clearance. That was for the JK project on my avatar. Not having those big flanges helps quite a bit for clearance and the collectors did make a difference on flow/power. I also touched up tubes near the ports and blended them with a burr for better flow up at the heads. Someday I'll fabricate some SS equal length tuned headers for it but this worked out pretty well and was relatively quick for a semi-custom install. Maybe something along those lines would work out for you. Nice build, I enjoy following along. I wish I could get some traction on my project. View of the merge collectors HUGE improvement over the regular ones.
  14. I did cam, valves and cylinder heads myself using Tech Line. I didn't go into the bottom end at that time. The build thread on my Jeep shows some of that. The engine has since been disassembled and the results are somewhat mixed IMO. I'll see if I can get some photos of the parts now. Cam was definitely better with the coating. I'm skeptical that the intake, combustion chamber and valve coatings did much of anything. The cam showed NO wear at all. However, with roller lifters and high quality bearings, not sure it makes much of a difference in the end. Money probably better spent somewhere else. I'm not sure if I will do that on the new engine, not sure it's worth the effort and cost from what I saw on the previous engine. I didn't see any damage, flaking or anything similar on that engine. I just don't know if it's worth the cost and trouble for that application.
  15. I don't want my build thread to turn into a debate on what the Voodoo is and is not. What it "is" at this point is my choice for my build. I'll totally agree that the crank is not as light as some flat plane designs. The arrangement of U-D-U-D and firing order are indeed different to accommodate the single intake plenum which I'm sure was done for packaging in the Mustang and cross compatibility with the Coyote. The intake and heads are now sold as upgrades for the Coyote. "100% about exhaust packaging" is simply not true. The flat plane allows all eight cylinders to breathe close to the same - not so with a cross plane either intake or exhaust. That in turn allowed tuning to an inch of its life (you have to tune for the least effecient cylinder), 12:1 compression - without direct injection, stratosphere 8200+ rpm (from the flat plane too - the similar component Coyote is 7500rpm which is still respectable), not great torque on the bottom and IMO one of the most beautifully intoxicating sounds I've ever heard if exhausted correctly. My thinking is that torque lacking on the lower end will be a different story in a car that's 1200lbs lighter. Better (or maybe better said, more useable) power delivery for the lighter Z platform. Intoxicating sound and high rpms with broad power curve and awesome top end are my reasons for the choice. Easy? Nope! As far as weight goes the only semi official numbers I've seen are from Ward's putting it right at the LS3 430lb mark. One wrecking yard I am considering purchasing one from swears it hit the scales at 297 which is no way correct, maybe 397... I can live with 430 and will hope for less. The crank itself does have much more counterweight than I'd hoped for but I suspect that they are there for a reason on that engine. It it a higher quality forged crank more on par with the 4" Manley I have for my LS and drilled rod pins, etc. make it lighter but they do the same to my cross plane LS. The plasma spray liners make it lighter also - again do the same thing to a 5.2L Coyote. Thanks for following along. I'm hoping to get to the project soon and make some headway.
×
×
  • Create New...