Jump to content
HybridZ

jpndave

Members
  • Content Count

    254
  • 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

4612 profile views
  1. Nice work Omar. I say drive it! More power later.
  2. The footrest in my 73 looks much different than that. I actually used the footrest quite a bit when I was driving the car.
  3. Other than a little reinforcement and a few gussets aren't the front subframe rails pretty much stock? They should collapse at a more or less stock rate. I would be more inclined to keep the strength you have up there. Just my opinion though. I would keep in mind the collapse in an accident but you want all those bits to stay rigid and aligned. I think you are headed in the right direction and progress looks great. 👍
  4. Nice job on the control arms! I really like those fabricated/boxed parts. Should be super strong and reasonable weight.
  5. That's correct, it's not the aluminum case that is different it's the carrier. We have both here. I don't see the ears being an issue in our cars. The aluminum case would have the potential to deflect more giving clearance issues to the ring and pinion under high power/traction/stress. I'm running aluminum to save the weight. In a drag car or heavier the iron would be safer.
  6. Lizardskin is good stuff! It does work on sound and heat insulation. Also VERY lightweight. The urethane is a good idea. I used a black single stage industrial urethane on my JK project over the Lizardskin. Your project is really coming along nicely.
  7. Leave it to you @1969hondato run this right over the top. That would probably work quite well! Any takers?
  8. I'd be concerned about the kick out, especially the right one. Also as high as those are it would dump into the firewall. If the engine is kept more forward there might be room to get it turned down. The engine bay is plenty long. I don't think they will work very well if the engine is held tight to the firewall for better car balance. With how short the Coyote platform is a front/mid engine setup should be possible with the strut towers about even with cylinders 1&2. My firewall is messy anyway so I'm going to set the engine right back into it and box a bit as necessary. I plan to do some shorty equal length headers. Reports I have seen show these engines really respond to a good exhaust and tune. Because the pulses are perfectly even side to side the Voodoo exhaust can be much less complicated and still have no compromise. If they don't flare too much, those manifolds might work well to get an engine in and running initially. You could always add headers.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Nice! Beautifully executed, if that doesn't give you perfect regulation, I don't know what will.
  12. 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.
  13. If it's loose on the splines I wouldn't even think about it. They need to back up their work.
  14. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...