JMortensen

Speaking of circuit breakers, anyone know of a pre-built harness that uses circuit breakers instead of fuses?

That was 2 weeks ago weather for us here... it did suck though. Nature can be a real tease.

Take your caps lock off and maybe show us a link. Sound like a camber plate without the camber adjustment, which seems like it's almost a good idea.

I didn't think rudypoochris was building an all out race car. I might be wrong. If it's a street car, I think a balance bar is a bad idea.

I would agree in at least that not all proportioning valves are going to be exactly the same, so an adjustable one would let you tune it in closer, but above and beyond that I think this is a stretch. Really, how many people are really going to try and get their brakes PERFECTLY balanced for any given situation? It's pretty much impossible to do without ABS, because the performance will change with every possible variable from traction to pad temp.

Be aware that the early ones are different, and even the early early ones differ from the early ones. Around mid 71 I think they all evened out and went to the larger booster that was used all the way through 78.

Of course it can be done. Is it worth the hassle is the question. Why are you asking?

Are you talking about making a SPOILER or a WING? If you're making a wing, you definitely want a shape. With a spoiler I don't think it matters as much, although I have seen spoilers with wickerbills on them (I think the Electromotive 280ZX in its last configuration had one). I have a book called Theory of Wing Sections: http://books.google.com/books?id=DPZYUGNyuboC&dq=theory+of+wing+sections&pg=PP1&ots=716b8-LQPL&sig=Q3su_hPEsLppXR-zlrQA4CC-k5g&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=theory+of+wing+sections&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS270US270&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail and it is filled with different wing profiles. You may want to pick up a copy and take a look. I know you can also get various different wing profiles from NASA, not sure how you go about that though... The flexibility of the hatch has been a concern of mine, especially after seeing so many riced out Hondas with their trunks all torn up from wings. One solution would be to attach the wing to the body of the car, rather than to the hatch. That probably means that you can't open the hatch. Other than that I'd think you might be able to reinforce the hatch, and attaching right at the corners of the hatch would be better than attaching right in the middle.

The MN42 has the smaller valves, and exhaust liners. The P90 is easier to come by. Some of us think that 11.5:1 is too much compression for street gas. Shaving a head is cheap, and shimming cam towers is easy, and all of that is unnecessary with the Kameari tensioner and a cam gear. There are good arguments for both heads. For the record I don't see any problem at all with shaving heads and I don't consider it to have any sort of detrimental effect on the engine. Never heard that before, it's not described as a "risky" procedure in any of the books I've read. I'm not pushing 600 hp out of an L either, but that particular criticism just doesn't make sense to me...

No, I'm not sure at all that those are AZC products, which is why I said "I may be totally wrong...". I think you can find out what the ball joint is on the Arizona Z Car arms by searching. I know it has come up before, and it seems to me it was a tie rod end from a 3/4 ton Ford truck or something.

If that makes you feel better fine, but John is right, a person is not going to have problems with the short springs unless they're getting some MAJOR hang time, and if you are jumping your Z that high, the springs coming off the perches wouldn't be much of a problem compared to the damage that was done when the car landed... In short, it's a non-issue.

I may be totally wrong, but I'm thinking that about 15 years ago ArizonaZCar's arms might have looked something like this. This is back in the day when he sold a full tube frame chassis and 12" Wilwood brakes that were for "Z's that regularly see 200+ mph".

Googled "44 Mikuni CFM"

If someone wanted to make a proper roll bar they could do it, but what you've got there is not useful for anything really.

I'm just thinking to myself "How many of these 35 year old cars are going to be exactly the same width?" Might need a port-a-powr to get the thing installed in some cases, in others might need to suck the sides of the car in with the bolts. It might be a good idea to get a measurement off of a couple cars before whoever wants to make this thing just starts building, since there is no way to adjust the width.

I tried to do that with this post Dan: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=114631 The bottom line is that there is no "right" answer and I'm sure Ground Control doesn't have spring rates listed because they don't have a set rate. You call them up and they'll send you what you prefer. Tokico says that the Illuminas top out at around 275 in/lbs. Any more than that and the spring rate will be more than the shocks can cope with. I ran 200/250 front and rear with sway bars and that worked fine for me, but I had the L6. If you have the aluminum heads and intake, you should be fairly close in weight so something like 200/250 or 225/250 should be fine. It will ride fairly smooth on the street if you turn the shocks down to 1 or 2. If you turn them up to 4 or 5 it will be very uncomfortable (in my opinion) for street driving.

I'm sure they are using the FA Goodyears. I can say that running the Yokohama fronts on an 8" rim didn't work particularly well either. You could really feel the tire fold over before the car would take a set. Slaloms were SLOPPY. But it was faster than the DOTs that fit the 14x7's that I had used previously by a long shot.

Steve and Ian in Fresno are running the GY rear radial slicks front and back on their Z. They have them stuffed on 15x10 wheels. I asked Steve about them and he gave me some feedback, but I've since replaced my computer and I don't have access to those old emails anymore. I seem to remember that he was pretty pleased with their performance. They have to have some funky construction though. The 11.5 treadwidth is recommended for a 14" rim...

http://www.canepa.com/inventory/racecar/240z.html# You can see it in the first picture. Don't know if you can still download the .pdf, but I think there were some more pics in there.

I added a tube through the rocker with a plate on the inside and outside. I haven't actually used it yet but I have no fear of it not being strong enough. The Bad Dog plate setup is very similar to what the old Frisselle IMSA GTU car had on it. I'm sure it would also be up to the task.

There is more than one way to change the balance, and making the chassis more flexible would not even be on my list. One thing that Cary (tube80z) has repeatedly mentioned over the years is balancing the front and rear suspensions so that they move relatively equally when loaded. This puts less twist in the chassis. So if you have different roll resistances front and back, more twist of the chassis. Balance them out and the result is less torsion. The offer to drive your car is generous and I'd love to just see your car in person as the workmanship looks so good, but to drive or fly 1200 miles for MSA is not really feasible. I'm not much for car shows anyway, I only went to MSA once when I lived in SoCal.

Sounds like you need to do a lot of reading before you start building. "Bumpsteer spacers" are really roll center raisers, and the reason you need them has more to do with the lower control arm pivot point than anything else. Moving the strut towers outward will reduce negative camber and won't have any effect on bump steer or roll centers.

I think that with 9.5" slicks and 200ish lb springs, he is right at this point. Stiffer springs would be better than the rear bar, but running a smaller front bar with those tires and springs is going to leave him scraping the door handles.

No, but it's been discussed before so you might search. I think Alan posted some pics a while back. I think you could do a lot better than that strut tower bar. The angle to a strut bar is within spec as I recall, and its really not that far from the seat. I've seen many cars set up that way and that's the way mine will be as well. I would have no qualms about your harness bar whatsoever.