JMortensen

I hear that car has so much power it hurts...

That's a lot of background for "what weight oil for an R200?". 80W-90 is fine. I changed your title too, just so that it is clear what you're asking.

Changed your title. We want titles to be descriptive so that when people are looking to find information they don't have to open up the thread to know what it is about. Probably a good idea to read the rules again real quickly before you post again: http://forums.hybridz.org/announcement.php?f=64&a=2 Thanks and welcome.

No.

Actually, I said it was Dan's drawings that helped, and they do, but I was thinking of Terry's: This misalignment makes a HUGE difference on the arm you were planning and binds things badly, but on the free toe link version makes none at all. What Terry doesn't explicitly state here is that the stock arm doesn't allow for the suspension to move freely if the strut is at an angle. The greater the angle the worse the stiction on the strut. I found this when testing my own homemade control arms, and Dragonfly found the same testing his.

If you read the whole thread that I linked to it is explained. The difference is not the toe adjuster. The difference is that the toe link is free to move up, down, forward, and back on its own, independently of the solidly mounted heim that is the "main" attachment for the strut. Because of the freedom of motion in the toe link, the better designed arm allows for less stiction and bind than the stock arm or the one you had planned on. The quick explanation: 1. If the strut is not perfectly perpendicular to the control arm, the better design doesn't bind and the earlier design does as the suspension goes through its motion. 2. There is no sensitive adjustment with shims of the space between the heims at the outer end. Sometimes there isn't on the aftermarket arms either, but there SHOULD BE. 3. When you change the toe, the adjustment described in #2 doesn't have to be redone. I'm probably missing a point or two, but the benefits should be a bit more thoroughly explained in the other thread if you're still not getting it. Dan's drawings on the other thread make it pretty clear.

What you have is so close to this: I think the separate toe link is far superior in terms of letting the strut articulate with no bind. Here's the post where we hashed that out if you hadn't already seen it: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=129154

I'm not so sure here. Do your wheel's spoke go straight from the hub to the rim? Usually they flare out towards the edge, and that gives the required space for the caliper.

Yes, which is why I said the caster measurement is more important than the wheelbase. This may sound stupid, but if this happens when you hit the brakes, hitting the brakes has something to do with why it happens. Caster being off will cause a pull all the time. A bushing compressing under load and changing caster will cause a pull under braking. Based on what you said about your TC rod bushings, I'd be checking and making sure everything is tight and then moving on. The next most likely culprit is going to be the pistons in the calipers on the right side I think. I doubt the rear toe setting would change in a consistent way to cause a pull to the right every time. I could be wrong, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree there.

Road crown.

You said you have 1/16" of room already. A 1/8" spacer should suffice...

What kind of TC rod bushings are you using? They flex when you hit the brakes, changing the caster under load. I'd suspect a bad TC rod bushing or a stuck piston in a caliper on the right.

JSK doesn't sell the calipers, at least he didn't when I ordered them. I'm using Dynalites in the back and Superlites in front. Gary is right. A thin slip on lug-centric spacer sounds like the best way to fix this problem.

Sounds like you also have the old hats. I think the original mockup was done on a car with Honda adapters and then he figured out that it wasn't going to work on cars without them. The newer hats are ~1.25" deep I'd guess, maybe 1.5".

JSK changed the rear hat depth. You may have the shallower hat. Ask Juan about it.

I moved your thread, as it has nothing to do with V8s. Please don't double post. Post in the category that fits the topic only, and only do it one time. Thanks. As to your questions, the R200 should be strong enough.

Your title isn't descriptive enough. We want people to know what your thread is about without having to open it. Retrofit doesn't tell us anything about what you're trying to do. Changing it for you...

Caster being off on one side vs the other will cause more of a pull than the TC rods being different lengths.

Search "reaction disk".

Only post in one forum. Deleted this question in the V8 forum. You might look into coilovers too. About the same amount of work and you could choose any spring rate you want.

I would NOT completely redo the fuel system. I just bought all the stuff to redo mine (fuel cell, fittings, new pump and filters, regulator, etc) and I spent about $800, and that was buying all the cheap stuff. I bought hose barbs and rubber hose, not AN fittings, and saved about $300 by doing so. For FI you can run the stock tank with a small surge tank (search it, there are some good threads on surge tanks). You can buy one or make your own, they're easy to do, and then you don't have to worry about a fuel cell. My fuel cell, by the way, is probably 20 lbs HEAVIER than the stock tank. For my $$$ V8 is the way to go. Easy to find parts for, cheap to make big power, and enough people have done it that you won't be struggling if you hit a stumbling block along the way.

I think these cars were chain driven from Honda, so hooking up the chain to the bike engine would be that much easier if it is using any stock drivetrain components. I read elsewhere that it is a Hyabusa engine.

WOW! Got this link from c-c.com. Looks like fun to me... http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/picture.cgi?section=events&article=jccs2007&picnum=1

He did say that he did it to get rid of the poly bushing bind from running more caster. I do agree that adjusting camber with the LCA is not the best idea, and a camber plate is a heck of a lot easier to adjust since you don't have to remove the TC rod, but for the purpose stated I see nothing wrong with what he's done.

I don't see how any control arm that uses a rod end is any different, and I'd bet a solid 5/8" bolt is stronger than a sheet metal .080" box. Making suspension arms strong enough that don't deform when the car hits a curb sideways is a bit much I think. I doubt the stockers would handle that very well and its very easy to avoid that situation in practice.