JMortensen

That is a good price. Get the axles. Even if you don't want to install them now, you may want to later. I was a dumbass and had to buy them later after turning them down for FREE when I got the LSD.

This does make sense. Ground control did say they are sending me "top spacers" and "bottom spacers" for the monoballs. I was wondering why they would do that, but it makes perfect sense that you'd need to move the monoball up the shaft in order to lower the 30mm part of the shaft in relation to the top hat, which is the part that interferes.

This should be in the brakes/wheels/suspension/chassis forum. Rear strut bars have nothing to do with the L6 engine. I'm moving the thread. That said there are many ways to flex a chassis. Stiff springs, hard cornering, engine torque, rough roads, angled driveways, etc. Torquing the REAR strut towers with the engine is not really all that likely in my opinion. The mustache bar mounts that take the engine torque seem much better designed to deal with it than the front crossmember. A strut bar on a 134whp car makes perfect sense. The first thing that comes to my mind is the vinyl on the strut tower. Is it pretty thick right there? Could that be the difference? I seem to remember the strut tops had the same studs front and back, so that wouldn't make any difference at all. You might be able to cut the vinyl around the strut bar.

I just used a couple bolts and washers and nuts through the ring gear holes to draw the pieces together and then installed the screws. Wasn't a big deal with shims or without.

More weirdness... I got the correct nuts when I ordered the B30-629 A1's, so thanks to Jeff on that one. I called Ground Control because I thought they had monoballs that had the correct size hole in the center and didn't need an adapter. Turns out that is wrong, but they do have the adapter. So I got those ordered. I was talking to Mike over there, and he said he ran these exact struts in his Z racecar back in the 80s and had nothing but problems with them, failure after failure. I relayed Keith's ideas about them, and he basically had a "that's not my experience" type of response. So I guess we'll see how they work out. In addition he said that the top hats need some machining to fit. I was imagining that the 30mm strut shaft could be a problem and I could see that needing to be opened up, but he also said that the inner shoulder (I think he was talking about the inner hole's shoulder also needs to be cut back about .120" to fit the shape at the top of the strut shaft. He said he thought he had some instructions on how to install them and he was going to try and send them. If I get them I'll post them up. I haven't heard anything like that from anyone here, so I'm a bit confused as to who is right and who is wrong. I suppose I'll figure it out when they get here and I go to install them. I'm thinking another option might be to find a different top hat, there are quite a few different ones available from Coleman Racing, for instance. Does it never end???

Received my replacement parts from Juan, and they look great. I appreciate the fact that he was willing to fix my issue over a year since the original transaction took place. Thanks Juan!

So then its a turbo. The turbo listing would apply.

You said turbo, right?

I haven't ported an EFI manifold, but just looking at one I think it would be very difficult to port the plenum side of the runners. Presumably the way around this issue is to cut the plenum off, port the runners with access to both ends, then weld the plenum back on. For all the hassle, a $325 manifold that is known to be an improvement would be a much easier solution. I haven't seen any testing on Lonewolf's intake, but I wouldn't expect it to be hard to improve on the factory intake. As always, if you have the tools and the desire to port the stock piece, go for it. Extrude hone is done by forcing an abrasive through the manifold. It will clean up rough casting areas, but won't make the ports substantially larger and can't really be controlled to match port size to the gasket or to shape the port in a particular way. I suppose if you wanted the super port and polish, one could port the heads in the traditional way and then extrude hone it. That would give the right shape and a super smooth finish. Here is a short and to the point critique of extrude honing: http://www.tmossporting.com/tabid/3717/Default.aspx

The Z32 300ZX has a shortnose R200. Search, read my sticky thread in the drivetrain section, check the Techno Toy Tuning website as I think they have released their mount, and you'll find your answers. The LSD carrier will fit in the longnose R200 housing, but you'll need to use the VLSD CV joints. This is covered in my sticky thread and Tim240z's thread and Modern Motorsports sells the parts you need to make it work. DAMN IT--now you got me second guessing myself. I think you'd need the Z31SS VSLD shafts... better un-tool shed this until someone can figure it out.

Let's keep it civil guys. My understanding is that Keith is an aeronautical engineer, so not the kind to talk out of the wrong hole...

It's not about keeping people from posting. It's about keeping the information clean. We're not saying don't ask questions, we're saying search before you ask questions and don't ask redundant ones. We're not saying don't answer questions, we're saying don't GUESS, and especially don't make it sound like you're not guessing. There are still plenty of opportunities for younger or less experienced members to jump in and participate without being redundant or passing bad information. We have not done it all or seen it all, and there are plenty of questions to ask and answers to give.

I think strengthening the rails behind the strut towers is not the best idea. There is no suspension attaching back there, and that area will function as a crumple zone in an impact (I can dig up some pics if you want to see what happens when a Firebird rear ends a Z at 50 mph, the jist is the back end pushes in about a foot). You could make a really strong frame if you wanted, but it serves no real purpose. I had my fuel cell frame front to back and cut it out and switched it side to side after 2manyZ's pointed out that any contact in the rear was going to mess up the cell and possibly the frame rail that does locate the suspension. Side to side makes more sense in my opinion.

I know there was mention of at least one in the thread that was on the first page in the brakes/wheels/suspension/chassis forum when you posted the first time. Here is a link: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=101797 You should keep searching though, as I know there is more info than what is in that one thread.

Yes you did. That subject has been covered many many times, which is why I referred you to the search engine, gave you a quick answer, and tool shedded the thread.

You need the one that REPLACES an open diff, not the one that REPLACES a VLSD.

I did the test again and I'm still not satisfied with the results. I could see the cherry picker lifting ever so slightly as I put weight on the bar. What I measured for 1/2" of movement at the end of the bar was 110, 135, and 152 lbs respectively for the different adjustment holes on one side of the bar, with the side on the scale in the last or softest setting. When I tried to go for a full inch of deflection I was lifting the wheels of the cherry picker off the ground even with my wife standing on it. I think I may just back off and rely on the spreadsheet at this point.

The bench stiffness was tested with the same mounts. I still disagree with you on that one though and don't think the rate would be much different if at all and in actuality might be lower due to the lack of stiction. What we will be able to do is check the measured rate vs the calculated rate, compare to Dan's result and see if there is a significant difference. In the interest of getting as much info as possible I'll try to get the biggest measurement that I can in terms of deflection. I might be able to get 1" out of it the way I have it rigged...

A: 8.25, 9.25, 10.25 B: 30 C: 9 3/8, 10 5/16, 11 1/4 D: 25.4 A and C are given for all available adjustments. EDIT--Based on that guy's spreadsheet the rates should be: 474.7761 in/lbs 373.7793 in/lbs 301.2005 in/lbs respectively. I'm still a bit confused about the weight transfer worksheet though. You say it shows 2" of wheel movement, isn't that right? So then that makes the required front spring quite a bit smaller than what it would be for 1" of movement. Just trying to get all my ducks in a row before I order springs...

Brake actuated stability control is not my favorite. Might work just fine on the street but if you take your car to a track day and the brakes are coming on before and during every corner they tend to burn off really fast. I've heard reports of this happening with the older 3 series when they first introduced traction control.

Tried to redo my experiment and it went like a Buster Keaton movie. I tried a different workbench with a stiffer surface and as soon as I put leverage on the bar it started cracking like the lip of the bench was going to snap off. So I looked around for something more sturdy... my extra cherry picker should do. So I welded onto the back of the cherry picker and as soon as I put pressure on the bar the thing tipped. Better move to the front legs. That was better, but when I put enough pressure on the bar to move it 1", the rear was lifting up. Added some weights from an old barbell set, still lifted. So I'm going to wait until my wife gets home and have her stand on the thing and only move the bar 1/2" instead of the full inch. Preliminary results look like my previous experiment was wrong (must have been due to the bench flexing), and the rate looks to be pretty similar to what Dan had found in his experiment. I'll report back with a final number. This will probably make a really big difference in my spring rate choice, so thanks for checking my work Dan.

Crap. Now I have to go measure mine again...

I had a friend in CA who bred shelties and had a whole agility setup in her back yard. It was almost all PVC pipe and looked like it would have required a couple hours to assemble, if that. She had hurdles, weaving poles, a tire jump (used a dirt bike front tire wrapped in duct tape hung on a PVC frame), a ramp up to a platform and back down, and a teeter-totter. The teeter-totter and ramp weren't PVC, but everything else was. I took my border collie mix over there a couple times and she loved it. Couldn't get her to do the weaving poles, but I didn't really work with her on it, it was just something to do when we were over there really. The other one that I think is really cool for border collies is flyball. Might be harder to set that up in the back yard, but it suits their personalities pretty well.

Speculating back atcha: If you want to drop the car just a little bit, you can do it by cutting one coil off the bottom vs let's say 3 or 4 off the top. Yes cutting the bottom will make a difference in the spring rate but I don't think it will change it as much as cutting the top, since you'd be removing more coils at the top and taking away more of the lighter spring rate. Best thing to do would be to do the math like Dan did, and figure out how much the spring rate will actually change. I'll leave that job to someone else.