G-E

Would there be any advantage to attaching to the bottom of the spindle? drill and tap a boss for an M10 bolt maybe?

Are you against coilovers? Or is it just a cost issue?

Post some pics, but if you are correct, they could be either the TT or NA calipers which are very different, they could also be rear calipers -- porsche used a lot of variations of 4-piston calipers. Also, measure the piston sizes, I suspect they will be rather small, probably something like 36-38mm, which means even a z32 caliper would have more clamping force...

I think you might be right, or alternately the design was to be used as high offset, like they would on the front wheels of a truck, but then someone decided the design should work flipped for racers who need the low offset...

Holy crap, that definitely does look like the wheel is the culprit!

Well saying you don't like them because they are hard to find cheap is silly I got the entire clsd rear end from a car being parted out, plus you can buy new shims and clutch plates, which can be rearranged to provide a lot more clamping force for very little money... Like with all things, just gotta keep your eyes peeled for good deals.

What about machining up new tapered pins for the purpose?

I'm sure it's exacerbated by the steel wheels he's running, and a stiff solid-core aluminum one like a weds or rays wheel would help I disagree, just like the egg shell is incredibly thin, it's strength comes from the shape, a 7mm thick rotor hat will be far stiffer than a 10mm flat spacer, a situation that wouldn't change until probably >20mm bolt-on adapter...

The Z31's prior to the 87+ turbos had the same kind of bolt-on hubs with the same kind of valleys between bosses, and while I've never heard of one failing on a road car, that's not really the issue afterall... I did however make a big brake kit that converts it to slip-on, I made some really tall hats for this purpose, you can see just how tall in this pic (32mm thick ring): That would go a looong way towards eliminating flex, not only because of the extra 7mm of aluminum, but that it's part of a cone (unlike a wheel spacer).. If you ran 17's I could send you a set I had opened up to 73mm bore...

I'm sure using slip-on rotors would help mitigate if not alleviate much of the problem. The isolated stresses you're putting on each stud (edit: using a bolt-on rotor) will radiate to those valleys on the back side around the bosses... As stiff as the wheel is or isn't, adding a rotor which is a solid flat layer would help diffuse those stresses. It is also very possible the heat stresses from the rotor on the other bosses plays a role in the long term fatigue rate, something that would also be diffused with a slip-on rotor...

The ecu grounds the pump on 2 circuits, therefore it's perfectly possible your ecu has a blown main pump ground, probably because you upgraded pump... The good news is, you have the priming circuit working, and it's a trivial matter to hook up an actual switch or switched relay to run the pump while driving. If you haven't, you'll also need to upgrade the hot wire to the pump to something like 10ga, the walbro will have increased current requirements....

Cometic will stamp out mls gaskets for you for all sides if you order 25 sets btw... might even be fairly economical considering they can just add ports to existing gasket designs for intake/exhaust if you're keeping any of them k-series style...

Awesome job, if you don't mind, I'd like to hear more about the manufacturing end of things, I fully expected printing sand models would be possible, but I'd never heard of it actually being done! I'll pm to keep the thread clean..

Generally a 13" bbk will fit under a 17" wheel with tons of room above it, the challenge is usually spoke clearance... Show us pics! Are they radial mount? How many pistons do they have?

You need a rear sump oil pan, enjuku has options specifically for the Z31, mckinney makes a rear sump for the S30 which may or may not work properly... The motor mounts are better off made locally, it's easy to do, and you should be able to modify the Z31 trans mount to work...

http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/119399-240z-camber-adj-rear-coilover-adapters-bolt-on/ I've got a solution for that in the works

You asked a lot of questions in that one, and wandered across topics a few times, so I'm not really sure how to respond without asking a ton more questions? The needs for a road racer are going to be far different than a drag car, this includes the strength of the various arms/linkages, the struts/springs/coilovers used, and even geometry. There is no 1 "best" of anything if you want to be "good" at everything... drifting is a perfect example of how a really bad alignment for street can make you more competitive in motorsport X-ray scanning and all the dreamy ideas floating in your head wouldn't help you, if you're installing a cage, or tubing anything, they will be the new skeleton, the unibody can be weak around it with no adverse effect, as long as you link all the suspension areas structurally. Do a reasonable job of un-twisting the chassis, and make it solid to the new structure, don't think too hard So let's separate the two topics you've merged, suspension and damping, because I'm sure a lot of us can recommend top quality coilovers under $3k, but they may be completely useless in your application or suspension design. Carrera was a big name in the racing shock business and was eaten up by QA1, they now offer a bunch of really quite decent compact coilovers with rodend mounts, you could spend as little as $400 per corner, or $1500 per corner... these are likely your best bet if you go custom suspension. This has nothing to do with whether kw v3 s13 coilovers are any good, and more to do with the style of suspension, ie hubs/spindles/uprights, multilink, double wishbone etc used. It's not about the money... When I mean custom, I mean doing a double wishbone front setup, you could easily adapt a mustang kit or cannibalize one for specific parts. Something simple for the rear like an s14 subframe swap with adjustable multilink might be good enough? Both would need fairly extensive fab work to the chassis to accommodate them, even if you sourced almost complete assemblies... How do you want your front setup? What are you most concerned with, and what aspects are unimportant? Geometry? Damping? Steering lock?

I think you're rambling I'm going to let you in on a secret, s13 front suspension sucks, it sucks on an s13 too, most of them just don't know it... that's why there's so many aftermarket replacements from pbm to wisefab, and none are particularly cheap. It goes far beyond rodends vs bushings. And if you go down the pro-level s13 gear route, you won't be saving much over going fully custom instead, and it sounds like you want to do it cheaply?

The azc and silvermine kits relocate it the same way, using factory attachment points for their inner bar, but having offset the pivot points from there... this doesn't seem to be a problem for uptake?

The only parts lost were drilling and through-bolting the AZC bar and mount to lock it in place... And of course JM's mistaken belief that my design in progress has some unnatural toe change I am still trying to figure out a few key points I can improve on the cars at the same time, since my design doesn't include track width changes as it stands, I have yet to come to a conclusion if this is important, assuming the reason to narrow everything is eliminated... Also I could split the balljoint block from the V, by adding captive shims, things could be lengthened fairly easily, but then what's the minimum length I should account for? Are people interested in widening the rear track width if strut clearance is improved equally for higher offsets?

To me, a consistent, easier to drive vehicle just shows that you're well setup... so you should be pleased about that as a driver. Now you can try tuning with other elements like toe or chassis stiffening for example, or maybe you just need more powwaaahhh! A lot of people make the mistake of changing too many things at once, often one area counteracting gains in another, but it sounds like you've reached a new plateau that's a great new baseline to work from...

Well the ability to control the toe curve, whether you want it to change in a specific direction or not change at all, I think you'll agree there's use cases and driving styles for each possible setup, and I think the fine adjustment just adds another tool to the arsenal. Both inner pivots are balljoints in my diagram, and the middle pivot is a rodend or uniball as well, all oriented horizontally, they would all act as a solid member in the horizontal plane. The only additional force added would be rotational to the inner pivot bar, just like the azc kit with the tabs hanging off the bar, but unlike the azc kit, I would go with a solid mounted inner bar. The strut isn't really relevant to this aspect of the discussion, though I'd obviously aim toward using my s13 style coilover mounting system, that would allow the camber adjustment, but still operate as a chapman strut.

Now that we have THAT sorted out, any other thoughts?

No, I'm pretty clear... why don't you tell me what the difference between lowering the outer pivot or raising the inner pivot is?

Actually you have the RC mixed up, when I say balljoint down, that means the center of the ball is below the bar, hence a low pivot and decreased roll stiffness... when I say balljoint up, I mean upside down, so the ball center is above the bar. Of course I'd use a balljoint that's retained by a side bolt or pin, not the press-in kind, so it would be up to the end user to chose how much they want. But like I said, I wouldn't worry about bump toe, because you could align it to be zero too, you'd have full control of aligning it's axis to the a-arm's axis, and since we know the strut won't let the a-arm twist up or down, that precludes any complex motions too.