JMortensen

I see the merit in that type of system, but for the money I think I can slot the hole and adjust it the hard way. This is probably going to be a lot like the slotted crossmember, where you figure out what works best, set it and never touch it again. I don't anticipate adjusting the dive or anti-dive between autox runs. If something like that were used for the control arm pivot location, that might be a different story... I did some checking and I can get 2x4 tube in .25 wall (can you say heavy?) or .120 wall. I feel like the .120 wall might be too thin. Still thinking about putting the 2x3 tubing up on a pedestal.

Well crap. I think that's a bit cheaper than I paid from JC Whitney and it was on sale at JC Whitney. I hate it when you find a better deal after the fact...

posted to wrong thread.

Found it: http://www.speedwaymotors.com/xq/aspx/paging.yes/dept_id.103/display_id.3393/qx/Product.htm Looks interesting, and I have some 1 1/2" square tube. Unfortunately it also looks really tall, so if it were mounted under the Z it would be a ground clearance issue. Maybe there is a way to shorten the threaded section. Then again... $250??? Maybe I'll just keep working on something else. Interesting idea John. Very interesting.

Unless you're Luke Duke or Bo Duke, you aren't going to see full droop until you put the car on a rack or jack it up. When that happens you just be careful to set the springs on the perches right. I've had coilovers for years and I've only missed once. Made one big BONG!!! sound as I drove down the street. Of course this is probably for drifters who run 800 in/lb springs that are 6 inches long and that being the case they might run into that problem more frequently. They're displaying it wrong cygnus. It has the top spring, then a separator, then a bottom spring, then the perch which screws onto the threaded part.

Are you talking about this Speedway Engineering? http://www.1speedway.com/ I just called them and they said they don't do any panhard mounts at all??? The screw sounds very interesting though.

I really doubt the tire is hitting the frame rail. More likely it's hitting the TC rod. Terry has pics of his stops that bolt on to the TC rod area here: http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?userid={7DC317B0-8EDB-4B2E-A837-F708D07C9769}&ndx=14&slideshow=0&AlbumId={17E71651-3EF8-4704-9954-22956DF10FCB}&GroupId={3B8751D4-D564-4405-8017-F14E1CDA9AF0}&screenheight=768

Yeah that would work but it would limit the amount of adjustability I think. Plus the guy who built the clevises that I used in my previous setup made them too narrow and they bind at a little less than full droop, so I'd be reluctant to use them again, and if I'm going to make a new clevis I figure I might as well just get a taller tube and retain the adjustability.

Anybody else think it would be HARDER to just butt the tubes together and try to fill the 1/2" gaps than to notch the tubes with a $40 notcher?

Don't have dimensions for you, but you realize that you can use a regular R200 mustache bar and that http://www.arizonazcar.com is already making a billet aluminum mustache bar? If you still want to DIY, make sure you use a solid front diff mount as the aluminum mustache bar can't act as a spring the way the stock spring steel bar does. Might also want to search "solid diff mount" and get some ideas from our recent thread on them.

It is technically the angle from the strut top to the ball joint, but yes, when you increase it the wheel moves forward in the wheel well.

I was kind of considering something like that Cary. I was thinking instead of making the angled area of the frame flat like I had originally planned, if in instead made a 1" tall pedestal and then put the 2x3 tube on top of it, then I'd get basically the same effect. Problem is then I'd have to build a pedestal. If I took your suggestion and got a 2x2 square tube, then I guess I'd have to make a mount to put on top... or were you suggesting that I could then put the 2x3 tubing on top of the 2x2 tubing? I guess I don't know what you have in your mind when you say "the mount".

JC Whitney has it.

Thanks for the positive feedback Mat, it is appreciated! OK more stuff for everybody. Took some measurements, and here's what I came up with. Stock LCA pivot height from frame rail: 3 3/4" LCA pivot height after I adjusted out bumpsteer: 3 5/16" Difference: 7/16" (makes you wonder about all those up 3/4" and up 15/16" bumpsteer mods, eh?) Max adjustment allowed by my slotted crossmember: 2 5/8". So the MAX I can move the LCA pivot up is 1 1/8" from stock. Stock TC rod height from frame 2 3/4". This surprised me. For some reason I had assumed that the LCA and TC pivots were going to be level. They are not. Luckily, the TC pivot is 1" closer to the frame than the LCA, so it's pretty easy to do the math to figure out where everything needs to be. The problem is that with the pivots where I had them before at 3 5/16" above the frame, I don't have enough room inside the 2x3 tubing to put the TC pivot in the correct spot. Here's a pic to illustrate the problem: You can see in this picture that if the pivot were centered at 2 5/16" the top of the bolt would be right at 2 5/8" which means it's right where the tube starts to bend. So a sleeve would not fit there. I could probably get away with raised the pivot another 1/8" closer to the frame, but I won't be able to preserve the factory geometry exactly. Also I was hoping to use a cone shaped spacer to spread the load on the box, instead of a 1/8" wall tube which would barely fit if I raised the pivot. While I don't think that this is a terrible problem since none of the other factory geometry has been held sacred in the past, I'm now starting to wonder about getting different tubing for the TC rods. If I got a 2" x 4" tube I could definitely get the geometry right, and also could play with MORE dive as well as less. My concern in using a bigger tube is that the TC mount would be inherently less stiff. The 2x3 tube is HEAVY, so I really don't want to increase the wall thickness past 3/16" to try and make it stiffer. So, what do you all think? Go with the 2x4, or stick with the 2x3?

Oh yeah. I should mention that johnc has repeatedly stated that you should not bother with sliders on a racecar. I just did because my wife occasionally takes the car out at an autox, and even on the big track once too. I can justify spending money more easily if she can still drive the damn thing... The full race brackets are very simple basically just a big piece of angle aluminum. Drill holes in floor, drill holes in side of seat. Done. I think ioport racing has them.

I'm not familiar with the SPG per se, but I had a set of Recaros in my car for a long time. I used the Recaro bracket (yes, they had one for a Z) but it was not so good. The angle of the thigh section of the seat was so steep that my calves would go to sleep after driving for a bit. So I modified it by cutting and welding the front part of the slider and welding that the the Recaro adapter to take some of the angle out. This worked pretty well. Here's one pic: Later I bought an Ultra-Shield racing seat, and to install it I had to build a new seat bracket. Pics of that in these threads -- on the second one check at the end of the thread. I ended up attaching the frame to the subframe connectors that I installed as part of my TC rod modification. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=103817 http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=106974 Anyway I hope one or the other or both help you out. I did check the seat quickly online and it looks like a real racing seat. The thing that surprised me most about my new seat is that since the butt of the seat is solid you don't sink into it. This means you need to mount the seat quite a bit lower to give ample headroom with a helmet. I had problems with headroom trying to mount the Ultra-Shield on the stock seat mounts and I'm only 6' tall.

I had at one time a couple of early small diameter boosters, and some were smaller pin and some larger pin. I think they were all stock. I believe that Nissan switched the size of the pin in the first year or so.

I just put a new Euro damper on when I rebuilt my engine. I'm going to do the punch marks and just keep an eye on it. As far as sure fire fixes, the aftermarket dampers from ATI and BHJ are supposed to be a lot better, so I would consider them as close as you're going to get to "sure fire".

You caught me Terry! I was thinking throw AT THE OTHER END vs the larger master. You are entirely correct that the smaller master requires more throw at the pedal to do the same job as a larger master. Gotta watch me. I make careless errors like that sometimes. Never trust my math either... Sorry for the confusion.

Not enough info. Electric pump? Carbed or FI? For carbed, keep the pump as close to the tank as possible. I used two holes in the front of the tank to mount a bracket that I attached a Carter pump to on my L6. So that's pretty easy. For FI you'll find a lot of people complaining of fuel starvation in corners especially when the fuel level gets low. There are some good threads about surge tanks, and that's what I would recommend for that instance. Low pressure carb pump feeds a small maybe 12 oz tank. There should be a return line going back to the gas tank at the top of the surge tank. Then at the bottom the FI line should attach, then a filter, then the FI pump. That's the way I would do it. If you're going FI do a search, I think Tim240z had a really good thread showing pics of his surge tank.

Here's a different analogy which helps me out that a friend shared with me. Think of master/slave hydraulics like bicycle gearing. If you go with the small sprocket on the front, that makes it easier to pedal, but you don't go as far. Small master = less pedal pressure required and less throw. Large front sprocket is like a larger master = more pedal pressure required more throw. At the slave end the analogy continues: large slave = easier pedal pressure and less throw, small slave = more pedal pressure and more throw. The funky part is when you're talking about brakes, because when you talk brakes you might want to think that more throw = more braking, but that is NOT the case. Once the pistons push the pads onto the rotors or the shoes into the drum the throw part of the deal is over, now its the torque multiplication that matters, and we all know that you get more torque multiplication with the big sprocket on the back of the bike than the small one. So a bigger caliper piston despite having less throw will transfer more torque to the brake pads or shoes. In this clutch situation though what you need is enough throw to completely disengage the clutch, but not too much where you overextend the pressure plate springs.

I've heard of all of them coming apart. I'm not saying yours is bad, I'm saying don't think it CAN'T happen to you. Someone recently suggested putting a punch mark on the inner and outer rings and then you can see if they start to separate. That's an easy way to monitor the pulley and a damn good idea.

Quicky trick you can do to remove the preload in the bar: Start with the control arm touching the bushings and the bushings sitting on the center sleeve on the passenger side. Sit in the car and have a person underneath adjust the drivers side by adding washers in between the bushings so that it is the same, with the endlinks set so that the bushings just touch the center sleeve and the control arm. Then tighten both sides evenly. This trick removes preload from the bar and makes the bar act the same way in left and right turns. Swaybar preload is not really a critical thing, but it's one of those little things that adds up to make the car better overall.

Can you show us a shock dyno graph, or are we supposed to take your word that they're "crazy good"?

Can you show us a shock dyno graph, or are we supposed to take your word that they're "crazy good"?