JMortensen

Cameron, thought you might like to see this; interesting testing using magnahelic guage and manometer to quantify the downforce. It's more about the underside, but note that there is NO tray in the middle, and he still gets pretty awesome results... http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=629051

I am reading "How to Build Horspower Vol 2" and Vizard gives a pretty detailed idea of what the different parts of carbs do, including the emulsion tubes. Made me think of this thread, you guys might check it out. He has suggestions for where the holes should be placed in the tube to change the mixture at different RPMs, etc.

That is MUCHO toe in on the back. If you just want it fixed fast and cheap, camber bushings are the simplest way. If you want to get crazy with it, you can look at making a rear toe adjuster. http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/24100-the-poor-mans-rear-toe-in-adjuster/?hl=%20poor%20%20man#39;s toe adjuster

FWIW I had a friend who also did his rockers like the How to Modify book. Didn't look hard at all and he balanced them too. He was turning 8K on his L4, to me it made more sense for higher rpms.

There is no dynamic toe change on the back of a Z. You might be thinking of a ZX which has semi-trailing arm suspension. But a Z has H arm rear suspension and the pivots are parallel to the centerline of the car, so no toe change. There might be bushing deflection or something else going on or your car may be bent or have some other issue causing a rear alignment problem, but swinging the control arms doesn't result in toe change.

I tried to get the TC rod in line with the ball joint. Had issue with the bolts interfering with the steer knuckle. Since your is simplified you may avoid that situation. Another issue is that you'll lose some of your clearance between the tire and TC rod, so you may have to put spacers in the rack to allow less lock. The reason to get that rod inline with the ball joint is to keep the loads on the TC rod inline, so stressing the rod less. In practical terms I don't think it matters that much, so long as the bracket and rod are strong enough to handle the stress out of line, which pretty much every aftermarket solution does without problem.

I bought some ss nutserts from mcmaster.com and I have also used the aluminum ones from Harbor Freight. Honestly, I'd do the HF ones. Easier to crush and plenty strong for the job IMO.

Weight makes a difference. I traded a set of Carroll Shelby 15x7s to a friend of mine. I took her 6 spoke 280ZX rims (14 lbs each). I warned her that the 15s were 25 lbs each, but she wanted them. She drove home (about 150 miles) and when she got there, she said that the car felt slower and the brakes didn't seem to work as well. I offered to trade back, but she liked the look of the 15s. The lightweight steel wheels really aren't that bad in comparison to alloys, but the heavier ones are noticeable for sure.

If you have big brakes, call them and ask for a "deep bell". That's the trick, and yes, they clear 12" wilwoods if they're done right.

I had the heavier steel wheels (15x8s were 23 or so lbs each) from Paulsen on my Z and I used to crash straight over curbs at the track, never had any issues. I wouldn't do that with the thinner spun shells though. Having recently bought a set of the lightweight Diamond Racing wheels from tube80z and then gotten a set of lightweight Bassetts, I like the Bassetts a LOT better. They have more space between spokes and they have the outer rim lip folded over for strength, which also makes the tires just fall right onto the rims. They just look like they're made a lot better all around.

Looks like "ilikeike1" is using your picture.

I don't know. True-tracs and Torsens don't have any springs.

As the washers wear there will be more movement in the side gears, so more rubbing.

Pics

I'll get a pic of the pan installed on the engine tomorrow. Still not in the car yet. If I had it to do over again, I'd measure how far the bell housing hangs down and make the pan that depth. As it is I think the pan is shorter than necessary. The LS evidently has some oiling issues so I'm hoping this does enough, but I'm pretty well sure that the accumulator will see action. I have a mechanical valve, so I don't know how to tell you it worked after the fact, other than to have a passenger stare at the gauge.

http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/115508-betamotorsportscom-is-no-more/

No more beta motorsports.

Leave the pad in, pry between the rotor and the pad.

Don't we already know that the cabin is a low pressure area when the windows are down? Isn't that why the exhaust into the cabin gets much worse when the windows are down? If you have a reference port and a test port, try putting one of them in the engine compartment and one on top of the hood where the vents won't affect it. That way at least you would be measuring the pressure relative to the hood itself. If you have the same pressure top and bottom, you know that you have no lift or downforce (which would be a pretty big deal). If there is a pressure differential, then you can see if you have net lift or downforce. Two or three other quick easy tests you might try, all involving your existing hood vents. The louvers look relatively small. 1. Put a simple angle gurney in front of the louvers to try and get more turbulence over the vent to improve their effectiveness. 2. Remove the louvers and try the open hole. 3. Try open hole with the gurney in front. Could also test the top and bottom of your splitter. Yeah. I can see how this would get addictive.

Put it on ebay with no reserve and see what happens? Try to see if you can find the last C cam for sale at classiczcars.com? ISKY regrinds cams. You could send that one to them.

That is a damn good idea. I read your last post first, and was going to suggest that the exit doesn't need to be as large as the radiator. Those WRC cars have pretty small rad exhausts. The Ford ones from a couple years back that you and I talked about had to have been something like 2x12 on each side...

Seal it first and see what happens. I'd bet that you lose that pressure. Can't imagine where else could it be coming from. A vent right in front might still be something to mess with, but it may not be as useful right there because the flow is dirty. If you could seal the pressure out, you might find better results with another set of louvers lined up right in front of the ones you have now. Would take some testing. rsicard, I think Cameron has your duct to the rad (sans weather strip to seal air out), but no duct from the rad back out. I don't remember if we were talking about it here or in another thread, but if you duct the rad air out the wheel wells, then you have the issue of losing downforce when a car comes up close on the side. NASCARs do this and they use it as part of their strategy; drive up on the inside to make the outside car lose downforce and force them to slow in corners as the front grip goes away. The alternative is to duct it out the top, in which case you have hotter less dense air going over the top of the car and feeding the wing. Neither is a perfect solution, but since Cameron seems to be doing time trials and hillclimbs, maybe the side duct is the better choice...

If the bolts were just a little higher they'd catch the thick insert at the top of the tower.

^^^What he said. With the surface as is, I'd send it off and have it reground.

So if I did my calculations right, that's .0632 psi lift for that part of the hood. Did you test the other side of the core support and hood? It shouldn't be the same everywhere, especially with your hood vents. Wonder where the pressure is coming from. Interesting stuff...