JMortensen

I'm thinking that Jeff may be right. You can just listen to his engine and compare it to others built with that cam and there is obviously a huge difference. I still don't get WHY there is such a difference, but there is. Jeff, I think you should build a EP legal motor and see what you can get out of it. If you're 50 hp above what Sunbelt can do, I expect you'd get some engine orders pretty quickly.

It doesn't make any sense at all to have a stud at the bottom of the strut insert take all the load from an engineering perspective. I've never seen and I would laugh my ass off if I did see someone design a strut that bolted straight through the bottom with no bushings or anything because that would be a threaded section SEVERELY loaded in bending. I suspect that the stud may be a way of attaching the bottom of the strut to the housing that some manufacturers feel is more secure and maybe it centers the insert in the housing or something like that, but there is NO WAY that manufacturers are relying on just a stud in the bottom to deal with all the side loading going into the insert. It makes NO SENSE to do it that way and it would be REALLY weak. Since it is the 3000GT that we're talking about here, I looked this up: http://www.stealth316.com/2-shockremoval.htm You can see that the strut housing bolts to the spindle in double shear through two mount holes spaced out from the bottom, just like on a Porsche, Mustang, etc. I haven't changed struts on too many different types of cars, but they either had gland nuts (Z, 510, etc), or they had a strut that bolted to the spindle and were not an insert like the 3000GT parts. You can see that there is in fact a gland nut on the Mitsu strut housing, but it appears to be crimped on not screwed on. I would assume that the insert that Justin is looking at can be changed out on a part like is shown here: http://www.streetperformance.com/part/bilstein/strut/1079195-f4-r36-5022-h0.html http://www.allshocks.com/productimages/R36-5022-H0.jpg Actually, I just noticed when cutting and pasting the image location that the part number for the above and the part number for Justin's insert match. Coincidence??? I think that insert does fit the housing above. See the gland nuts in the picture? They're there for a reason... That strut insert (and more specifically that stud on the bottom) is not the part that takes the side loading through the suspension. It screws into a sturdier housing which takes the load, and uses the stud on the bottom and a gland nut on the top (so as not to isolate the insert from the strut housing) to do so. The most I think you could say is that by virtue of being attached to the strut housing the insert shares the load, but it's clear to me that the housing is what is doing the work, and the strut insert is there to damp the oscillations of the spring, not to absorb the side loads in the suspension system.

Cutting axles like you did should be fine. You can go buy full float axles for BIG diffs like Dana 80s that have about 3" of spline on the end, and they're meant to be cut to length with an abrasive saw.

I made spacers for my P30-0032 struts, but that's because they were previously sectioned to fit Tokicos and I didn't want to do the work over again. I think you could probably run the front sectioned to fit the P30-0032s, but definitely not the rears. If you were planning on running with no gland nuts at all, I'd suggest you rethink that idea. That bottom post is not going to deal well with the amount of side load you'd put on it without a gland nut functioning to hold the insert.

I still don't see an advantage to screwing the strut insert in at the bottom. I'd use a tube spacer and lock it down with the gland nut, and then section appropriately. Why NOT use the gland nut? It certainly works...

My understanding is that CA isn't hiring cops of any kind right now. Something about a $50B budget deficit.

I'm not understanding the advantage to attaching the strut at the bottom vs with a gland nut. If you use a spacer made from a piece of tubing, and you'll need to have a spacer anyway because of the short body length, the post on the bottom won't hit anything. I don't see the advantage to having the strut screwed in at the bottom, so why bother with all the rest of it? What am I missing here?

TEP has had some shady dealings over the years. I've personally been to their shop and saw the "600+" hp yellow car that later dynoed at 350 or so. Nice car though not as advertised. I bought several sets of sway bars from them and never had a problem with my own purchases. A friend of mine bought a bunch of brake parts and got the wrong stuff and had a bitch of time getting it straightened out. Another friend got just plain wrong advice on his 510 head. I don't remember what the issue was exactly, but the bottom line was he called Steve to see if he had a necessary part, Steve said it didn't exist, and then he ended up buying the same imaginary part from someone else (Nissan Comp if memory serves).

That's what they were using on the linear ones, I'm not sure how the progressive ones relate in terms of those same numbers. This part of the shock thing is a big question mark to me. Can you move the knee where the pressure digresses? If you can, where should it be? Should you use more rebound since it is digressive, or less? Shock valving is a complex question. I assume you've seen this webpage. It might help a bit to get in the ballpark at least: http://farnorthracing.com/autocross_secrets16.html

You might as well try to figure out the valving you want first, and then have them revalve them before they send them out. That way you wouldn't have to send them back to be revalved.

Not following these last couple posts. Are you using my suggestion? Weld the male to the outside of the strut housing and then thread the female onto it?

Actually in retrospect that spacer just adds to the total extended length, not the stroke. Still, the bumpstop could be cut down.

That Mitsu insert has a LOT of rebound dampening, but as you said, the advantage to these is the 36mm digressive piston, and if you're willing to revalve, then it's no big deal. Checking the previous posts here, John C came up with a body length on the Konis of 13.07", so it might even be possible to use the Saab insert that is 13.75. Not sure if that leaves you with not enough strut housing to section. As to the stroke, Bilstein add spacers for the longer stroke struts. I don't see why a spacer couldn't be added here. There's a broken down Bilstein showing the spacer and bumpstop on this thread from another forum: http://www.theoryinpracticeengineering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85 I think 4" might be enough travel for a lot of Z racecars. Stiffer the springs, the less travel is necessary. Another option for the gland nut might be to hog out a male nut that is way too big, weld it to the strut housing, then thread a female nut onto it. Or alternatively, turn threads on a tube which would fit over the strut tube and could be welded on, much like the threaded coilover tubes, but weld on.

Sounds like it's going past 7000, but that stock tach ain't cutting it for accuracy. You ought to upgrade. The engine sounds great. I just can't get my head around why that cam sucks so bad for everyone else but works so good for you. Are you running it 15 degrees retarded or something???

DO THE GRINDING OF THE PEENED AREA OF THE NUT BEFORE YOU HIT THE NUT WITH THE IMPACT!!! That was my point. It's a mistake I've made myself, and it leaves you with hours of thread filing work or buying replacement stub axles.

I'm happy for you man.

Ah. Tilton has several different widths on the masters. I guess the wider the better. I can't remember which one I bought... http://www.tiltonracing.com/pdfs/28.pdf

Was that an issue where the clevises weren't far enough apart due to someone threading them onto the balance bar wrong, or was it an issue with the tube in the center being the wrong size? I'm having a hard time understanding how that issue came about...

If you haven't seen it already, http://www.ebolamonkeyman.com is NSFW, but man is it hilarious.

I cornerweighted my car that way. I borrowed two industrial scales and a perfectly flat floor, and put spacers of equal height as the scales under the other two wheels. Worked fine, but if you were going to do it over and over and over I think the ruggles might be easier just because you don't have to switch the spacers. I would think that you could make a platform to drop onto the end of the ruggle to make it work for an engine, but it would probably be difficult to get it to sit on the platform. Something like BRAAP showed is definitely the way to go if you can afford it.

I don't know if there are cheap rear wheel bearings available, but I'd buy Koyo (if you buy Timken you get Koyo) for those since they're such a bitch to change out. Make sure you read up on how to grind off the peened area of the stub axle nut before you start in on that project.

I think arguing that the cam is the magic component that unleashes all this hp is just wrong. That same exact cam on a 16% bigger motor that was pro built and tuned on a dyno made 22% less hp. Size for size, Jeff's motor should be making 151hp if it were in the same state of tune as the other L28. They were both in the 10.5:1 range, both ported, Jeff has the better combustion chamber (the other was an unmodded N42 aside from the port job and cleaning up the chamber as I recall), the other car had triple 44s. As I recall, the other engine was completely done at about 6500 rpm, revving higher than that was losing time. In my experience the low rpm peak seems to be the common complaint with that camshaft and that's why I'm constantly telling people to go bigger. There have been numerous people who bought that cam, installed it and then complained of how bad it sucked right here on this forum over the years. But somehow Jeff's engine revs to 8000 with the same cam. Pete also has (or is it had) a 10:1 MS L28 engine that dynoed 163whp with a stock cam. So if you slapped Jeff's head and intake on Pete's block, theoretically Pete's engine now would make 270whp and rev to 8K, but then when you put a ported head with triples on it with the same cam it loses 90 whp and 1500 usable rpm. It has to be the intake and the port job if anything. Can the intake and port job possibly be responsible for that much of a power increase? Again, I have my reservations. Is it an East coast vs west coast hp issue? Optimistic vs pessimistic dynos? If puny cams are so wonderful, why do the best race engine builders use larger ones? Has Jeff figured out that the single most popular off the shelf cam that you can buy actually makes a hell of a lot more power than Sunbelt's single valve spring setup, or Rebello's custom grinds? Sorry, but that is a bit difficult to swallow. So I'm skeptical. I actually subscribe to Skeptic Magazine, so that's not too far out of line for me... I'm not trying to impugn Jeff's honesty or his workmanship, but that doesn't preclude me from doubting the results of his dyno run(s). If the numbers are right then you ought to be building race motors and making a hell of a lot of money. Then again maybe you already make a hell of a lot of money...

For cars there is also a lever scale which works on the rim. I think it's less accurate than a ruggles scale because you have to judge exactly when the tire comes off the ground. They look like an old school bumper jack, but I can't recall the name. Wouldn't help with the engine. With the ruggles you're easily inside your requested margin of error, even if it is multiplied 3x, assuming you read the scale correctly.

ARP camaro studs fit right into Z hubs and have 12 x 1.5mm threads. Search and I'm sure you'll find a part number.

Rebello has a supposedly optimistic engine dyno, so all of his figures are bhp.