Leon

Just came across this! I had no idea anyone was producing these. Looks pretty legitimate. I wonder if the GRP can withstand the stresses, how well its reinforced, and the design of the tube frame ...

Here's his site: ZSpecialties

Straight pipes into megaphones. *Not my car. I believe that's Ron Carter's replica, correct me if I'm wrong.

If the engine is in good condition just do a compression test. That should tell you whether the pistons in there are flat or dished tops. I don't want to give a wrong number from memory, but you can search and look up compression values for different compression ratios.

GLORIOUS! Unfortunately, I didn't get any good video of it...

I was lucky enough to see his car go around Laguna a few years back.

I'm assuming you're talking about the negative camber on the ZX. It's a function of suspension geometry, so as the car is lowered it gains camber. A higher (negative) camber angle tends to produce more lateral force, however that trend is also tire dependent.

Errr, that is a fuel injected ITB setup. Those are not carbs, FYI.

Race Car Vehicle Dynamics by Milliken & Milliken is very good. Also take a look at: Tires, Suspension and Handling by Dixon Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles by Hucho Great thread! I need to find the time to sit down and read it all the way through some time.

Seriously, that engine breathes! Can't wait to see this beauty put together and on the road (with accompanying video, of course).

I believe that was Rob's (?) car from Z-car Garage in San Jose. I think the plate reads RB26TT since that's what lies underhood. It's a sweet ride, got to see it when picking a part up from the shop.

Are these guys Japan's rednecks? That's some of the most stupid/dangerous/tasteless crap I've ever seen!

I'm 6'2" and fit with a helmet on. The roominess is amazing for such a small car by today's standards!

Thank You! That was fantastic!!!

I agree, the color looks very nice! I've seen some in person with that paint and it's a really good color for the Z. Nice Z!

It really depends on your compression ratio. You will have detonation with a high comp. ratio and a stock cam because the stock cam creates a relatively high dynamic compression ratio. With a 10.2:1 ratio, I wouldn't go with a stock cam because it will be fairly likely that you'll run into detonation problems and have to dial back your timing. If you want to keep your low end torque which I would imagine you would, dial down the compression and go with a stock or similar-to-stock cam profile.

Very clean! I like the matching jack too!

That would be the lesser known peppercorn jam.

I have an '83 GT, 4-speed. It is nowhere near as fun as the Z to drive. Sure, it's torquey but it really understeers in corners (the M+S tires don't help) unless you are generous with the throttle. It only has 90k miles, but I've had to replace a few components that failed. The handling feel is definitely floaty in the corners, definitely not as stiff as a stock Z is. I always have a blast cruising with the t-tops off on a sunny day though, and I can't complain because I got the car for free! (shameless ad: It's for sale )

Celica, I'm 1000% sure. Sweet paintjob! John, the stormtrooper cracked me up!!!

http://www.zcar.com/forums/read/1/2086124/2086124#msg-2086124

Not much can beat the sound of a sextuple carbed Ferrari V12!

Right, and it was mentioned by I believe JM that a supersonic aircraft/vehicle will have different geometric requirements than a subsonic one (such as a street legal vehicle) that does not enter the zone of compressible flow (M~0.4). Again, it was a general question and whether the flow was compressible or not was not explicitly established. This is a car forum however, so I made an assumption that Grim was talking about incompressible flow. In incompressible flow the "raindrop shape" (not raindrop proportion) i.e. blunt in front, slow taper towards the back, is very efficient.

Yes, the original question was vague in defining the exact shapes we're talking about. Nobody mentioned the proportions of the shapes we were discussing until RP assumed some shape that was twice as long as it is wide, or concave, etc. What was given were proper pictures and links to the subject matter. I don't think RP's digression added to the discussion. It was a general question that was understood, and answered properly. Braap and others posted very good info on the effects of different shapes on drag. I understand that a raindrop does no physically look like that, but it seemed like everyone else understood what Grim was getting at. We're not talking about drag on a raindrop, so arguing the physical shape of one really is a moot point in this discussion. All it did was allow Grim to phrase his question concisely in a way that he and others understood.

You are being the third grader, actually. You have digressed completely from the point of the original topic. Grim doesn't want to hear about your big fast plane, he was asking a question that was properly answered until you jumped in arguing semantics. Do you still not get this??? Obviously not.