Jump to content
HybridZ

JMortensen

Donating Members
  • Content Count

    13143
  • Donations

    20.00 USD 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38
  • Feedback

    100%

JMortensen last won the day on October 19 2018

JMortensen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

242 Excellent

About JMortensen

  • Rank
    Retired Admin.

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    JonDatsun
  • Website URL
    petdoorstore.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Seattle area, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

17196 profile views
  1. Second on Dutchman. Best axle supplier I used when I was making stuff. It was done right, first time.
  2. You can't get around the limitation of a 1.250" stub axle no matter what CVs you use. IMO you're never going to keep the stub axles from breaking at that power level. Time for backhalf or an IRS solution that allows for larger diameter stub axles. I'd look to an 8.8 if you want IRS. Might as well upgrade that too while you're in there. The diffs are cheap and readily available, lockers and limited slips galore, wide range of gear ratios, there are very strong CV options for them, etc.
  3. You can specify the site in your google search this way: whatever you are searching for site:forums.hybridz.org
  4. Is Tokico still in business? I thought they were, but they aren't offering these for Z's anymore. Might see if they can fix it. I remember a lifetime warranty when I bought mine in the 90s
  5. Not sure why you'd want inboard brakes on a 9" rear end, but looks like this guy pretty much has the rest covered: I think that car is the best that I've seen. I love it. There are a couple things I would change, but not many. I do like what I did with my own with the 15x14 wheels and slicks, but I'm sure he would smoke me on an autox course and road course wouldn't even be close as he's got an extra couple hundred hp on my L33 truck engine which should put out ~350whp.
  6. To be fair, I have read of some people losing the control arm bushings on a hard launch. Seems to me Jeromio did that about 15 years ago and posted here, and there might have been another one. I'm not going to go looking for it now though. The point, for me, anyway, is that if the bolts are tight, the tube in the control arm already does this job. IIRC the way that happened to him is that the bolts came loose and the control arm slid out of the bushings under hard accel.
  7. Ok then. Obviously had that wrong. Seems like it's not necessary so long as you keep the big ass bolts on the control arms tight. Probably have to sand down the bushings so that you can actually bottom the bolts out. Hardly anyone does that though.
  8. If I'm looking at it right, this goes between the lower control arms in the back, connecting the bushings. There is a piece for that in the stock suspension. Looked at their site, and it appears that they use a different brace mounted higher, which would allow for the use of a finned cover with a bigger sump. I guess you could use this piece and their other brace together? Not sure that would really improve anything. I dunno. The more I'm looking at it the more I'm not sure what it is. Can't figure out why you would want the brace up higher and this one too, since they both do the same thing.
  9. One thing occurs to me. If they slotted the holes on both sides, you could adjust the toe with this. You'd need to pry the arms instead of using a turnbuckle like the Poor Man's Toe Adjuster that many of us have made, but that's not such a big deal if you're doing an alignment every couple years.
  10. There is already a link there that ties those points together. This one looks cooler, but I think that's the only benefit.
  11. I would suggest that you consider what you're going to want for camber and work from there. If you want more neg camber than plates will get you, then I'd make the LCAs at least as wide as the stock ones at full compression. With this setup you'd have 5/8" adjustability before you fell afoul of the 1.5x rule. I can't really tell you what plates and stock LCAs will get for max neg camber. I suppose it depends on your ride height. I don't think you can go farther than about 2.5 degrees (would be good to have someone else verify that), so if you are running newer radial slicks or Dot R tires you might need more camber to make them happy. Bias slicks don't need much camber by comparison. Also keep in mind that there is not a lot of thread engagement in the tie rods, so if you add a bunch of width there you'll need to deal with those too. That's easier now as there are aftermarket ones available.
  12. The scrub radius issue is a problem. I've got ridiculously wide 15x14 wheels on the front of mine. Had to use spacers to clear the bumpsteer spacers on the tie rod. Car has about 6" scrub, which is a lot. I did this after talking to Tony Woodward of the custom steering rack company and he told me that it really wasn't that big a deal and he had seen plenty of fast cars with 6" scrub or more. I think his experience was more to do with circle track though. You would want the camber plate as far in as you could manage to minimize scrub. The imaginary line from the top of the plate and the ball joint and through the tire contact patch is where the scrub radius is measured from. It's the distance from that intersection with the ground and the center of the tire. Tube80z was looking at a dual LCA system to work with the strut to alleviate the scrub issue on this thread: He kinda stalled out on that and I don't have software to figure it out, but that's an option if you have the software or know someone who can help you out with that. Otherwise, I think SLA is the best solution and you can solve other issues while you're in there, like adding more camber gain, fixing bumpsteer, using 5 lug hubs and bigger brakes, etc.
  13. Looks like I saw a year old post there. Oh well. Probably missed caperix but might help someone else down the line...
  14. This is incorrect. Many of us have held this erroneous opinion at one point, including myself. BlueovalZ explained it to me maybe 15 years ago: the control arm doesn't need to be level to start losing camber, it needs to be perpendicular to the strut before it starts losing camber. This is basically impossible, unless you're running really tall tires and trying to scrape the frame on the ground. 24" wheels or something ridiculous would be required to get there. There is a really good thread (IMO best thread on this site) started by Tom Holt and with lots of info from Dan McGrath, aka 74_5.0L_Z, where he takes on all the suspension kinematics. The Z has a very flat camber curve. It just doesn't have enough gain to offset the roll with soft springs. Here is the post where he diagrams the camber curve:
  15. Agree with Leon. I have to wonder if there is a measurable difference in a 6-3-1 vs 6-2-1 design. I would think if you grouped the primaries so that you got an exhaust pulse every 120 degrees on the 6-2-1 you'd get roughly the same effect as the 6-3-1. The main thing is the primary lengths, and according to Vizard, even that is secondary to not having as many bends in the tubing on a V8. You see some people go to great lengths to get equal length primaries, and I think especially when they use a lot of really tight bends to make the rear cylinder primary as long as the front, they're probably losing overall.
×
×
  • Create New...