JMortensen

You could drill another hole in the RT mount and use two holes if it makes you more comfortable, but here are a couple questions for you that may ease your mind. How much torque do you put to the pinion in reverse vs driving forward? Enough to cause that bolt to fail under tension? How many bolts hold the stock diff mount to the crossmember that's taking 100% of the torque under acceleration? What size is that bolt compared to the one on the GM mount?

If you do a search you will find that Terry (blueovalz) did exactly that, but you will need to make some cone shaped inserts that fit the tapered hole. By drilling the knuckle to 5/8 you completely eliminate the original hole and that's why I think people tend to do it that way. It's just a bit easier.

Yes, lengthening the tie rods is important, but I think the rod end implies that he will be drilling out the steer knuckles, and that means he can shim the rod ends up or down to adjust bump steer. Hence the title "DIY bump steer adjustable tie rod ends".

From that other thread looks like you could still get part number 38335-N3220 a year ago.

Wilwood Superlites in front and Dynalites in rear. Went and tried again on the new front setup with Austins slip in shim vs the shim washer. I think that press fit of the rotor on the hub is really the issue with these. I'm going to have to take the hubs off regardless (dammit, I just repacked the front wheel bearings too). I think I may try opening up the ID of the rotor and see if I can then shim. The slip in shim is a lot easier to deal with than the washers I was using on the rear...

Just remembered someone here also had a ceramic bearing made, so there is another option for you.

If it is the ball bearing at the front of the pinion shaft (the one that usually goes bad), the 280ZX part number was superseded by the 300ZX part number and is still available last I heard. Was discussed a while back and I think zcarnut came up with the new part #.

I opened up the pilot some more and was able to shim both of the rears to about .002. I think my hubs are just barely out of true because the numbers did still change just a hair when I put the rotor on in different positions, so I indexed the rotor to the hub and was able to get the results I needed. The fronts are going to be a bit more difficult because the rotors I bought are very tight on the hubs that Austin sold me. I think I may just have those turned. What did you do with this setup Austin? I assume you turned them...

Mine acted just like that when I had a bad slave cylinder. Most people recommend replacing the master and slave at the same time. Pull the boot on both, and if either is leaking fluid, replace them.

Just tried something else. I have been testing this with two lug nuts holding the rotor square to the hub. So I found the high spot and loosened one lug nut and the dial indicator jumped about .004. So then I put 4 lug nuts on and snugged them all down and total runout went to .008. I think the pilot is still the problem. I'm going to go spend some more quality time out there with some sandpaper and see if that helps. I think the problem may be that Juan didn't adjust his measurements for the thickness of the anodizing. Everything on these hats is tight. They are SUPER tight on the lug nuts too, ridiculously tight IMO.

More frustration. I grabbed my other strut just to be sure that it wasn't the hub face that wasn't square, threw it in the vice, and measured the runout. Then I clocked the rotor 90 degrees and measured again, same runout in the same spot. Then I clocked it 90 degrees again, same runout, same spot, so I did it one more time, and now the runout went from .008 to about .0035 and the high spot is in a different area. WTF??? Next thing I'm going to try is indexing the hat and the hub (already indexed the hub and the rotor) and try that and see if I can get anything approaching consistency here. This is driving me nuts.

I'm measuring on the backside of the rotor and shimming the high spot as viewed from the outside to push it back towards the dial indicator. I had spent quite a bit of time on it yesterday/last night. I'm going to try again today, maybe a little time off will help.

Went out and bought a couple cheap feeler gauges and used a hole punch to make shims out of them (drilling DOESN'T work). I don't get what is going on. I find the low spot, shim it, and then it is LOWER afterwards. I triple checked to see if I'm reading the dial indicator the right way, and I am, so I'm just a bit stuck. I guess tomorrow I'll shim it the exact opposite of what I think I should and see what that does, but I really don't think I have the dial indicator fundamentals wrong. I'm also worried that I might be chasing the torque on the rotor. If we know that torquing the rotor warps it just a hair, and so I'm taking the bolts off, shimming, and putting them back on and then getting different readings, isn't it likely that just tightening the bolts again is the cause? Thinking hard about taking all the shims off, torquing the bolts, cutting the rotor, then reinstalling and seeing what that does on the dial indicator. I suppose the other thing I could do is take a little more off of that pilot hole, just to make sure that is not the issue. Frustrated...

My contribution: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=102715

Just checked and the thickness of the McMaster Carr shims for a 5/16" bolt is .002" minimum.

Just getting around to installing my JSK rear brake kit and I remembered this thread and thought maybe I'd shim the rotors. So I throw one of the rotors on the hub and measure the runout. .035". No ♥♥♥♥. I grabbed the other rotor and tried again. .040". I'm looking at this and there is just no way the thing is that far out of square, so I did a little test. I put the strut in a vise which holds it at an angle, put the rotor on the hub, and spun it. You could see the rotor ROCKING on the hub when it hit a certain spot. Pull the rotor off and you could see two little tiny wear spots on the inside of the pilot hole. Now I know what the problem is: the pilot hole in the hat is just a hair too small. The only reason I recognized this is because I had a set of wheel spacers that had a pilot that was like .003" too small and when you'd torque the wheels they seemed fine, but when you'd drive it you'd swear that it had a tire balance issue. Took me forever to figure that one out, and I finally did because the wheel spacer started to crack. So anyway I used the old finger and sandpaper "lathe" to open up the pilot hole and checked again, and now runout is .005". At what point is the runout going to be acceptable? With .005" I would think it would be close, and I don't know how easy it will be to shim the thing since I think the size of the shim is multiplied by the time you get to the rotor edge. What do you think Dave? Is this shimmable and is it worth the hassle to shim it?

Take a look at my big ass diff post in the stickies. I would bet that you could install the threaded buttons in the 260 diff the same way that John Hines did on the 240SX diff (pics in the thread).

You might consider drilling a hole through the flat plate here and tapping for a zerk fitting. Then drill a corresponding hole in the swaybar bushing. Being able to grease the swaybar bushing is a good thing and wouldn't take a lot of time or effort at this stage...

Absolutely. F1 cars and high downforce cars might have a drag coefficient of 1+ compared to an aerodynamic road car's .29 or the Z's .46. They trade the drag for downforce because going faster in the turns and in the braking zones is worth the penalty on the straights. I think as mentioned the golf ball is dimpled all over because it has no front, and a good aerodynamically designed car should not have to have the vortex generators all over. If you put them in strategic spots you should be able to get the same effect without parking your car in a hailstorm.

Looks like coilovers to me.

Here is some downhill stuff: http://www.goprocamera.com/hdheropreview/ This one from Rio de Janiero is just NUTS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=003WlaIbi5E

Progressive springs are commonly coil bound or very nearly coil bound for the first several coils when the car is sitting with it's weight on the suspension. That's not it.

I haven't seen flatland freestyle like that since 1985 in the Send Me an Angel scene from RAD! Stay tuned for the backflip scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXYjjYWRC9M

They are wider, but they're smaller diameter. They're 10.5" so you'd have some serious issues with bolting up a caliper. If you want a cheap brake upgrade the 300ZX is a little easier because the rotor diameter is the same as the Z at 11". That simplifies things a lot.

There is a British ad about finding a job you like that basically has him riding to work in similar fashion for about 1:30. It's similarly incredible.