JMortensen

I don't think that will work based on the attempt at the rear. Maybe I'll mock it up just to try it real quick, but I think that in the rear it limited me to about 3" of travel total. Actually, this one doesn't seem to move as much fore and aft as the rear did. I'll try it tomorrow, shouldn't take more than 1/2 hour to mock it up to test it. You're probably right about the droop, I just don't want to start another project right now. I've already got 5000 things on the to do list, and I'd really like to get the damn car sealed up and rust proofed this summer. Just for curiosity's sake though, do you have any links for the droop limiting straps that you're using?

I set my spring perches so that they touch top and bottom with the strut fully extended, so theoretically I could use all of the droop, although in it's last iteration I generally ran with the perches almost all the way down, which probably gave about 2" compression and 4 inches of droop. I'll be closer to the middle of the stroke at ride height this time with the struts sectioned. The suspension is so much different now I don't know exactly where it's going to be running at, but I imagine I'll have something like 3" of droop. If I put the channel on top of the TC mount then the end link would hit the strut, unless I really gave it a severe angle inwards. I suppose I could do that and see what happens, but it isn't as easy as moving it around on the arm itself, because there are the bolts that hold the TC rod on and all the rest of that crap in the way. Either the sway bar bracket would have to bolt on, or the TC rod wouldn't be able to be disconnected later on because it would all be welded together.

As a loose and general statement, I think less pressure is more grip. Reason being you can put more heat into the tire with less pressure. It's been my experience that with a stockish Z you need to run more pressure to keep the tire from folding over and driving on the sidewall when cornering. Once you dial in enough camber to prevent that from happening, you can reduce the pressure and that heats the tire up and that's when the tire really starts working. BTW thanks for that info Cary.

I went ahead and set the wrenches down for today. I'm getting frustrated and need to come back to it later. I got some unsolicited advice from Cary (thanks man!) about how to do the mount for the control arm, so I'm back into trying that again. I'm using some 1x1 square tube with the top cut off so that it's basically a U, and letting the tube hang off the ends of the control arm. It's a good idea, but I'm still not having any luck. The problem appears to be the angle that the control arm sweeps through. Just too much angle change on the control arm end. I even tried setting the U on the control arm at an angle to match the sway bar's angle, and still can't get enough angularity out of the rod end, particularly the one that attaches to the control arm. Then I tilted the U channel itself. Still not enough. I tried longer end links, no dice. I tried changing the angle of the sway bar. Nope. I think I'm pretty much stuck. The bar moves fine, its just that control arm rod end that isn't cooperating. My best alternative idea so far is to use a poly bushing on the control arm with a 3/8" bolt and then screw that into a female rod end on the swaybar. That would at least be 1/2 bitchin and free moving. I could do Cary's famous droop limiters, but I'm still concerned at the angularity. This is just moving the suspension up and down, there is no twist on the bar at all. I'd hate to set it up so that there is just a gnat's *** clearance with it like this, then find out that when it's actually doing it's job it's way more twisted than this. You can see the problem from these pics: The second one is not full droop, because there was another issue going on, but at full droop the rod end is maxed one way, and at full compression it's maxed out the other way. Suggestions appreciated. Again.

There was a guy a few years back who made a hood, front fenders, and maybe a hatch from carbon fiber just by laying them out on top of OE pieces. If you aren't really picky about fit and finish then go for it.

Cary, do you think that that info can be extrapolated to using them on a Z? The only other feedback I've been able to get was from Clifton, who used them on his track car and ran right in the same neighborhood with pressures. All I can tell you is that if you went down too far from the 26 the tire would start to feel floppy and if you got over 30 it wouldn't grip.

A005 250/590/15's. They're Toyota Atlantic front tires. The compound is really too hard for autox, more like a Kuhmo Victoracer tire than a Goodyear or Hoosier autox slick.

Keith, I've seen your dyno results on zhome.com. Always wanted to ask you: Is it that the headers don't flow better, or is it that the ITS engine can't utilize the increased flow? The engines that I've put headers on certainly seemed to respond, but they were triple carbed or at least cammed 2.8's with 2.5" all the way back.

I did the Home Depot stuff, as previously mentioned it stains. I did white which I figured would reflect more light, and it worked GREAT. You could really see under the car pretty well. But again, it stains, so if you're really anal go for something dark. If you don't have a NEW, perfect floor than you can expect the results not to be perfect. My garage floor had an oil spot about 2' in diameter. I cleaned it as the directions stated about 10 times, then prepped as stated, and the one area where the oil spot was did peel a bit. Also it did chip in a few places when I dragged a jack over it sideways. I talked to the landlord for the business I worked in at the time, and he told me they did "food grade" epoxy there, and the only way the epoxy would come off the floor there was if you chipped the concrete underneath. It was insanely tough! Also very expensive to buy, and requires a full rebreather to put down.

I don't know where the point is at which you have to start worrying about debeading tires with low pressure, but I'd be a little cautious about running under 20. I don't know where the danger line really is, but Tune To Win which was written in like 1980 says don't ever go under 18 even with beadlocks. It's nearly 30 years later, so who knows how directly that relates to today's tires, but I'd still be concerned that you're getting down to the point at which debeading starts to become an issue. I always shot for 26-28 hot on my tires. It does vary quite a bit from tire to tire, so my Yokohamas might want more pressure than your Hoosiers. I always got a lot of pressure change, probably because I usually had 2 or 3 drivers, so what I'd do is start about 5 lbs shy of my hot pressure and then bleed off pressure between runs as needed. I must have had a lot of water in my air, because it didn't take more than 1 or 2 runs to get the pressure up there, then I'd still have to bleed off between runs.

Agreed. Hurts to think about it too hard... Gained some useful skills along the way though!!!

Read some articles online, and that certainly looks like a better way to make ethanol than growing corn and then using electricity from burning coal or natural gas to refine it. I don't think farmers in MI are going to be able to grow sugarcane, but maybe there is another plant that would be a better choice than corn. Thanks for the tip though Brandon. Very interesting stuff.

If I recall correctly, it's been a few years so I may not, ethanol produces less power than oil gallon for gallon, creates more NOx and you'd have to have more than the entire square acreage of the US planted with ethanol crops to power all the cars. Also you need power to convert the corn to ethanol. I guess if you're using a still that could be some firewood, but for mass production you're probably heating the mash with electricity, so how much power are you wasting to get power out of the corn or whatever you're using? Seems to me that it's a stop gap measure at best. I also seem to remember that running diesels on vegetable oil is a better solution as far as how much fuel you get for your crop, vs running gas vehicles on ethanol. Probably the best alternative to oil, and there isn't too much of a need for an alternative IMO, is nuclear plants powering electric cars. Just work on the battery technology a bit and you might actually have something, but that's not likely to be a popular option with the greenies who are so worried about our "Mother". I also like the locomotive idea, where you have a diesel running a generator that powers an electric motor, but no diesel drive to the wheels at all. Unfortunately that's not the best for constant acceleration and deceleration, which is probably why you see it on trains and not cars as it is.

I am digging that rear spoiler speeder! That is much better than the BRE one you had on there before, looks as aggressive as the rest of the car. Looks like fastzzt73 is making those? What was the cost?

Try again.

It is a pain, I used a couple c-clamps to mash the bushings down, then hammered the strut housing in between them. I just found a trick for this on zhome.com which is much better and uses the spindle pin tool to spread the end of the control arm. I guess it's been known for a while, but new to me. http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/SpindlePinTool.htm

I gotta wonder how much of a favor you'd be doing yourself to run a 2 liter with a 4.44 rear end vs a 2.8 with a 3.36 (for instance) too. If we weren't talking about existing engines, I'd love to have an oversquare 3 liter L6 that revved to 9K. But withing the confines of reality, the 3.1 is going to make more power than the 2.0, regardless or r/s ratio or ultimate rev capability, and the rev limiter isn't the r/s ratio, its the crank itself, and the valvetrain.

I don't think most people even know what brake bias is, let alone identify the fact that it is way off. They put huge brakes on the front and they're all proud of how cool it looks in their blingy 18" wheels, but they don't realize that they've actually increased their stopping distances from stock, at least before fade sets in on the stock setup. At least you can pat yourself on the back for realizing what the problem is. Now you just need to figure out how to fix it. Good luck with that.

It is easy to trim the backing plates and they protect the rotors from getting splashed with water or rocks from lodging themselves between the pad and rotor. That said, most race cars are required not to use backing plates, and I ran my car with no backing plates for 8+ years with no problems.

I always thought the balance on that 13" front and 11" rear setup would be way off. You'll need to play with different pad compounds front and back, or get dual masters, or get the Extreme rear brake setup. Probably the Extreme rear would get you the best result.

This ought to help: http://www.atlanticz.ca/zclub/techtips/suspension.htm. Read the whole thing, and you can do the whole job. Actually just realized that doesn't include info about the spindle pin puller. You can read this thread for that info: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=84230. There is a guy on classiczcars.com who makes them, I just bought all the parts from him, and I can vouch for his stuff. He uses a 5/8" threaded rod instead of the usual 12mm, but I can't get onto their website so you'll have to go there and search for it if you want to buy one from him. On my own project I used the Hybrid Z loaner tool, don't know if it's still going around or what.

OK so you mean you run 3 degrees neg in front and 2 degrees neg in rear for example.

OK so you mean you run 3 degrees neg in front and 2 degrees neg in rear for example.

Have you ever heard of anyone else doing this to fix a warm running issue? You're chasing your tail dude. My final suggestion would be to try the JetSol and maybe a new thermostat before you go to all this trouble. It'll cost you maybe $15. And with that I'll bow out because I'm beginning to sound like a broken record.