JMortensen

Shackles actually flex quite a bit, as do leaf spring bushings. If you take care of those issues with bearings and sliders instead of shackles, then I would agree that the watts link is pretty redundant. Can't tell what type of hangars the leafs are on in that pic though. De Dion is interesting. Competition Car Suspension by Staniforth actually says that Ferrari tried putting that suspension on a Formula One car in the 70s. I think the original concept was to reduce unsprung weight by attaching the diff to the chassis, and then using the tube in back to hold the spindles, and driving the hubs with halfshafts or CV's. Since more modern IRS setups have evolved it seems odd to mount the diff to the chassis to remove unsprung weight and then add a full width tube back in to hold the spindles. Not to mention why go to all that trouble and not have independent rear suspension?

I think your title sucks. We want users to be able to look at the title and know what the thread is about. I'm changing your title from "What do you guys think?" to "78Z What is your opinion?"

Sure it was a condition issue. Would there have been a problem if the wires were new? I don't know. I'd guess not. I can say with absolute certainty that the likelihood of misfire lessens when the wires are separated. So why not separate them? Is having them tie wrapped together so important that you'd risk misfires for it? If you're a neat freak there are other ways to keep the wires orderly without having the heightened risk of cross firing.

This is why I added the last paragraph of my first post. Expecting carbodyparts.com to have an EXACT replacement for a 240Z seatbelt is not realistic. I'm sure the person he talked to had some cross reference chart that said that was the correct seatbelt for the application, and it is entirely possible that the seatbelt he got can be used for a 240Z. If that's the case, is it then the "wrong" part? Who is responsible for the shipping then? My opinion is that Justin is responsible IF the part can be used. If the part cannot be used in his application, then the vendor made a mistake in saying that this part works in a Z, and the vendor should pay shipping both ways. The way I read the original post it wasn't about whether or not the part would work, the problem was that it wasn't EXACTLY like the belt he took out of the car.

I have a real world example. Porsche 944 came into the shop I worked at and it would turn over 2 or 3 times and then fire at a REALLY wrong time and stop. It was like kickstarting a bike when the cylinder is in the wrong position if you know what that is like. Anyway, we searched around for quite a while trying to figure it out, finally I turned the lights off in the shop and sprayed the plug wires with water. Sure enough there were crossfires everywhere. With the lights on and without the water you couldn't see them, but the wires were old and were laying on each other for about 12", and that's where the crossfire was happening.

I think it needs to be said that when you make a mail order purchase it is usually expected that returns will be less s/h. Many companies artificially inflate the s/h charge and that is a crooked thing to do. You seem to indicate that this was the issue in this case, and if so that is a problem that should be reported to the BBB, or you could dispute the charge with your credit card company. On the other hand many customers expect that they won't have to pay the shipping charges either way if they return something that was as advertised. This is also unreasonable in my estimation. I've changed my policy in my own mail order business, so that I give free shipping, but then deduct the s/h charge from the refund if the customer returns at no fault of ours. That seems to work for most people, but still occasionally you get someone who doesn't want to pay shipping in either direction. It just doesn't work that way in most places. One more thing, there isn't ANY generic parts dealer that is going to have a direct replacement part for a 35 year old Japanese car. It just won't happen. So if you want an exact replacement part you're going to have to go to the dealer. If they don't have the belts anymore then you're going to have to get an old seatbelt rewebbed, or use a generic one.

It just seems to me that you've got the WHOLE hood to modify or cut holes to get rid of pressure, the last place to cut holes would be right at the back. Just because it was done that way on those cars doesn't mean that it is the best way to do it. They might have had rules to follow that necessitated that compromise.

Looking really good Cameron. I'm jealous.

There is a difference, you're right Ron. My point was more that if I had a machine shop at my disposal that still would be about #947 on my to do list. Add the clutches from the group buy and get rid of the spacers, shim it to a reasonable degree and after that you're talking about some pretty fine tuning in my opinion.

Instead of repeatedly asking this question, why don't you just tell us what the problem is?

I still think that you guys are wrong. Look at the picture again. If a smaller carb was used the runners could be smaller and then they wouldn't interfere with each other, or possibly the same carbs could be used but the runners arched higher so that the tubes missed each other. Let's try another way: The part of the runner we can see: OK, complete the runner guys. Here's mine: The way it looks to me would have me trying to find a ITB or downdraft weber manifold instead.

I think the warning against snap oversteer is an old one and it comes from people sectioning the rear struts to fit the front insert. If you take out 3.5" out of the rear and don't have the car sufficiently low you may very well be riding at the top of the strut's travel. Couple that with a lightly sprung and damped car and you have a situation where you could really smack the top of the adjustment range in a bumpy turn and cause a problem. On a stiffer sprung car with more rebound damping that runs lower in the travel I just don't see this being an issue. Nowadays you also see guys like Cary running closer to zero droop, but they are running seriously stiff springs and the damping to match, and I think that is the difference between the days when that warning was more applicable and today. That's my take anyway...

It looks to me like the issue is where the runners cross in the middle, but really it doesn't matter what the reason is. If the manifold necks down as much and as sharply as it looks in the picture, it's not good. If the round and rectangular holes are roughly the same size then fine. If they're really far off then I'd say use a different carb or a manifold with a better taper. That one just looks crappy, at least from that picture. One other thing is that the ad says it can be used with 45, 48, 50, and 55 carbs. In triple carb land the manifold needs to be at least as big as the carb size. I had a 40 manifold that some moron had run with a set of 44's bolted to it and you could see how much of the carb opening was blocked. So I wonder if that manifold has a 45mm hole or a 55mm hole.

Congratulations. That was a long time coming. As an aside, you do realize that it's spelled aspiration, right? Maybe the asspiration goes with the "punisher"...

If you're going off the course, go off the course in a straight line. Slow the car down and then wait for a corner worker to tell you it is OK to get back on course. If you drop a rear wheel off the track at corner exit and try to get back on, the likely result will be a LONG 180 across the track where there might be other newbies who don't know how to react to you spinning off in front of them. I've gone around at 100+ mph because I didn't take my own advice. I know Mike Kelly has done the same. My other suggestion is maybe start with a track that has a lot of run off room. Laguna Seca or any track that has walls on both sides all the way around is not an ideal place to learn. EDIT--one more: Cool down laps can be done at about 85-90% of the speed of your fast laps, barely using the brakes in most places, unless there is a hairpin at the end of a long straight or something like that. Even if there is a hairpin, just the fact that you're coasting into the braking zone instead of keeping your foot in it will still allow you to get around without putting a lot of heat in the brakes. If you cruise around the track at 40 mph it takes a lot longer to get the track cleared for the next group, and I had someone give me a little talking to at my first or second track day about that...

Did you look at all of the pics?

Yes, but the manifold looks pretty retarded in the runner area there.

Used slicks is definitely the way to go fast cheap. If the Formula Atlantic or Toyota Atlantic series run in your area you might check when they are at the track practicing. I was running TA take offs, I only used the fronts which are a 250/45/15 or so. The rears are a 350/30/15 I'm guessing. HUUUUGE tread width, but the Toyota Atlantics have a spec tire and it's roughly like a Kuhmo Victoracer in terms of compound, meaning fairly hard. I always heat cycled them to death before I wore out the tread. The Formula Atlantics run slightly different sizes, but the Goodyears and Hoosiers are supposed to be fast. They are a 22 x 9.5 x 15 front and the rears are a 22.5 x 11.5 x 15.

I think it's assumed that the bottom will be blocked off, and then they are working on the top. Doing the bottom only makes a lot more sense than doing the top only, but doing both keeps all the air heading through the radiator and that's what you're after. I don't think your tiny wing idea will work because the air inside the grill (if ducted) is moving very slowly. It's a high pressure area and the radiator effectively keeps the air from flowing through at high velocity. The thing that makes wings work is air flowing over them. That high pressure area won't allow the air to flow over the wing, and so it won't produce much if any lift (downforce).

I'd be inclined to try the smaller ones first because of the type of course you are running. If it was a really tight course you might make use of the wider tire, but with a fairly wide open track with high speed corners I don't know that the traction benefit in the corners would outweigh the detriment in acceleration and braking and aero everywhere else. I don't think you'd really want to keep the same alignment settings for both tires either. And spring choice will vary as well, figure on stiffer springs with the wider tire. Neither is a small tire so it's not really a black and white thing, I'll be interested to hear what other people have to say. I assume this is all in prep for the running the IMSA flared car? I can't imagine fitting those tire sizes under much less flare than that...

If I made 24K the last place on earth I'd want to live is the bay area. I have quite a few friends who grew up in my hometown of Agoura Hills, CA which for a long time had the highest rate of plastic surgery per capita in the world (read as buttloads of $$$ there), and some of my friends make the kind of money you're making. I keep telling them to get the hell out of there as a cheap house is $800K in the "crappy" part of town, but for some reason they can't bring themselves to leave. They can barely afford rent, but they won't go somewhere else. Look at rent and car insurance costs in Reno and you'll see the advantages of moving. It's called not living hand to mouth. The only downside I can see is the gambling. If you're a gambler, it's not a wise move. Otherwise I'd be Nevada bound if I were you.

The factory 240SX LSD is viscous. With that in mind you can find the info you're looking for, but the bottom line is not without a bunch of hassle compared to installing the aftermarket 240SX LSD insert that replaces an OPEN carrier.