Leon

It's not "HP magic", what you achieve by changing cam timing is altering the torque curve, essentially shifting it one way or the other. There is no requirement written in stone that you must time it that way. Best performance for the given requirements is found by using the adjustable sprocket and a dyno and it won't necessarily be what the cam card says. You should make sure that the valves don't hit, but if the cam is fairly mild then it shouldn't be a problem. I suppose you could time it "straight up" but make sure that you do so on the #2 hole if using the stock timing sprocket. That way you'll have 4 degrees of advance/retard if you want to play with your torque curve using the stock sprocket.

Bingo! We have a winner!

The only reason I can think of related to the discrepancy between the card and reality is if you're a tooth off on the chain. I would also verify TDC by using the method outlined in the sticky using a piston stop (I made one at home using a hollowed-out spark plug). I'm not sure why you'd want to set the cam more advanced (open and close earlier) than what the card says. You can do that if what you're trying to do is shift the powerband down. I would set the cam 4 degrees retarded on the #1 cam sprocket hole and go from there since the stock sprocket advances 4 degrees at each hole. You'll have 4 degrees retarded, zero, and 4 degrees advanced to play with if using the stock sprocket. Reference the manual for changing cam timing. DO NOT move the cam or chain when doing this. All you rotate is the sprocket, the cam may need a very slight rotation to seat the dowel in the hole.

I dunno, leftover Thai food is pretty damn good!

I don't need to "draw all the little pictures" personally, I'm just trying to help others understand what's going on here. I agree with the way you look at it, but only for the purposes of analyzing a floating wheel. Sure, it may be good for something like upright design, but what else? Analyzing the suspension when you hit the brakes with the wheels off the ground? Fact of the matter is, the TC rod picks up a majority of the braking forces. There is no way around it. In order to properly design or "tune" a suspension, you must take into consideration the forces that exist at the tire contact patch. Without that, what's the point?

This is why you have to look at the entire car, not just a section. Your example works for stopping a levatating spinning wheel. This brake torque is also sent through the tire and to the road, and this must be taken into consideration. The torque caused by the brake rotor generates a force at the contact patch which is opposite to the direction of travel. This braking force is what slows the car down, and it is what must be reacted by suspension links (EDIT: along with the other torques and moments). Jon brings me to my other point. Weight transfer happens because of a braking force at the tire contact patch. If all you had were torques, then there would be no weight transfer! Brake forces at the wheels have leverage on the car, proportional to CG height. The taller the car's CG, the more leverage the brake forces have on the CG, the more weight transfer you have. I can draw and scan in an FBD when I get home today, if it will make this easier to understand.

Not true at all. Take a look at our exhaust design sticky: Exhaust Tube Sizing Then I don't see why you need approval from others to do so. If you like it, use it.

The 260Z tach is unique to the model. Electronic ignition was first introduced to the US Z line in the 260Z, thus it got a 3-wire tach similar to the 280Z but with a faceplate similar to a 240Z (yellow at 6500, red at 7000). This means that 280Z tachs are interchangeable with the 260Z, but not the 4-wire 240Z tachs. The 260Z tachs seem more prone to fail, so they often get replaced with 280Z ones. I replaced my 260Z tach with a 280Z unit and kept the 280Z faceplate (yellow at 6000), but that can easily be swapped. That being said and as others mentioned, there is not much point in revving a stock or stock-ish engine that high, they don't have much left above 6k.

Wha? Draw a free-body diagram of a car under braking and there will be more than a torque on the wheel. Brake pads generate a torque on the rotor which is directly connected to the tire. This torque produces a force proportional to wheel radius (lever arm). You must look at the car as a whole. The strut picks up vertical loads, meaning the springs compress because of load transfer caused by brake forces at the tires having leverage on the vehicle's CG. The T/C rod picks up longitudinal loads during braking. Moments produced from the braking forces are reacted by the TC rod, control arm and strut top.

To maintain pressure? What "info" is it that you need? If you want to use it, weld it in. This post is somewhat vague, and I'm not sure what info or suggestions you're looking for, but your answer can probably be found on here, google, or youtube.

Nissan Juke = Joke + Puke

Sorry, I guess I didn't fully understand your plan. Yes, moving the end-link further from the end will increase roll-stiffness. However, I would probably put the effort into adapting an adjustable bar instead of playing with the stock one.

Besides figuring out how you want to do this, may I ask why? Any adjustability added to a stock ARB by drilling holes will decrease roll stiffness from stock levels. Is this the result you're looking for? It would probably be easier and more effective to buy/make an adjustable bar which has a roll stiffness range from below stock to above stock.

FYI, spring rate increases if you cut the springs. I think 200/225 is close to the reasonable spring rate limit if you do mostly street driving.

The TC rod takes the longitudinal forces, so braking was likely unaltered. Steering effort increased because the tie-rod was now taking steering and lateral loads.

The reason people use 280Z Tokico springs is because they are linear. The 240Z Tokico springs are the progressive ones.

Yup, that's a control arm. The picture is dark, but you can see the tie-rod is still intact and the broken piece attaches to the LCA mount on the crossmember.

Judging by your stated needs, there is no reason to go so custom on the suspension. Sure, it would be cool but not cost, nor time-effective. I would sell all that stuff you have and get S30 parts as others have suggested. You want something fun to drive around on the street, and for that I think you will be satisfied with stiffer springs, matching shocks (as John points out, this is key), poly bushings, and maybe larger ARBs. This will be much less time and energy intensive and definitely cheaper than going a fully custom route. If you feel like building something, take a look at all the threads on building control arms and coil-overs. This will give your suspension some adjustability, but I just don't see a reason for it from the intended use of the car. There is absolutely no need to get 300ZX brakes and an R230 rear end for what you're doing. Again, it would be cool but not necessary. Stick with a simpler plan and you'll have the car on the road much quicker so that you can enjoy it! As Stepan also pointed out, there is no such thing as a "perfect" suspension. Suspension design always involves compromises. Ride quality and road handling have an inverse relationship, mostly dictated by the dampers.

I would check clutch hydraulics way before even thinking about synchros. I second Pete and Jon; check fluid first, check master and slave cylinders, and bleed the system whether you replace hydraulics or not.

Sweet! I've been on the lookout for an M Coupe myself.

Nice! I ended up getting a 1/2" longer bolt from a local hardware store. Made things real easy!

Ok... I wasn't looking for input, but thanks anyway.

Nice choice, the E36 M3 is one hell of a car, especially for the money!

Yeah, it's not too bad. It's much better than leaving the holes, but looks a bit cheap up close.

Here's the PO's solution to the problem on my 260Z: