clarkspeed

204 HP and 189 Ft-lbs. That's what my butt dyno says. Maybe more if you rev it past 5000 RPM. When is dyno trip planned? I want to watch to make sure there is no cheating.

Somehow I don't think they are rotating but I guess they could be. I used locktite on these already. New bolts, lockwashers, locktite,lock wire or a combination could all be solutions. The last time it almost seemed like they relaxed instead of rotated because they were hard to turn out against the locktite. Of course I could have overtorqued them trying to fix the problem and yielded some threads or the bolts. It just seems strange to me the design would allow movement here.

I did some searching and didn't find anything releated to the problem I have. My car sees only track use so heavy stresses are the norm. It seems the steering knuckles want to move and twist around during heavy braking and cornering. I thought it was bad ball joints at first and replaced them. After some troubleshooting I found that following a good 30 minute session, the 2 bolts that hold the knuckle to the strut housing start to lose torque no matter how much I tighten them. I haven't measured yet, but it looks like there are are roughly .005" clearance on each bolt shank to steering knuckle which ends up being a large movement in the tie rod. I also thought the bolt holes in my knuckles might be worn oversize, but I have a few knuckles laying around and they all seem to have the same hole diameter. I used to run a set of the bump spacers in between but removed them a few years ago. I noticed today that the original setup had an o-ring that goes at the base of the spigot fit which I am missing. It probably doesn't help that ball joint grease had coated this entire area so it's not rusted together like a stock 30 year old car might be. Anyway, whatever I do to fix this needs this to fix it for good. In my mind, cleaning the grease, replacing the bolts, adding back the o-ring might not be enough. I was considering adding a roll pin or some other way to lock the 2 parts together. Has anyone had this problem before?

Yes I forgot, Master Cylinder First! Then far to near corners. As far as bottom bleeders, I can only comment on my own experiences and practices wich may or may not apply to your setup. My AZC Wilwood setup is an older one. I've had problems getting air out after I fully evacuated the system more than once. Bleeding the bottom seemed to make the problem go away. I had to do it again 6 months ago after yanking the rear calipers off and my line plugs didn't hold overnight. All the fluid drained out of the rear MC and calipers. After bleeding the top bleeders twice, I couldn't get a hard pedal until I remembered I blead the bottom out last time the same thing happened. Low and behold, a hard pedal. And yes, the bottom bleeders are pointed DOWN. If only bleeding the top bleeders works for you, that's great. If the pedal is still soft after a few rounds, don't be afraid to try it!

If the system has been fully evacuated, I bleed them all. Starting right rear and finishing left front. In order of inside down, outside down, inside up, outside up. If the system was broken, I only tap the top bleeders inside then outside. If only flushing fluid, I only tap the top outside screw. I always bleed with a friend's foot on the pedal.

I never had a problem with the Wilwood rotors. I'm on my 3rd set, and they last a long time. I kept torqueing them, checking the runout, removing, rotate 1 bolt hole, retorque, check runout, etc. until it went away. They are very sensitive to how you torque them. I use the straight vane rotors (HD I think?) because they are cheap and cool plenty well enough. I've never had turned them. As far as pads, I never liked the Wilwood stuff either. Not track, autocross, or street. I race Hawk blues and also use their street pads on my truck.

Sweet! It looks so much better than the 4 shades of gold you had. Now you have really made my car look bad.

That's a clean installation!

Yea Sparks, that's why I didn't cut the pilars. Scared the hell out of me. But my mechanic friend insists that's the best way to do it and saves time. I will never know.

I cut out a skin from a donor car about as big as I could cut it and welded it on top of the old one, covering the hole. Not show car quality but plenty good for racing. I ground the welds down nice and flat and used a little filler. To get it perfect, I think you need to cut the donor roof at the pillars.

I have 1.75 superlites in front and 1.75 dynalites in rear. I ran at Daytona in November with this setup for the first time and needed a lot of rear bias. Was thinking about changing a MC. But then I ran Sebring in March and had to adjust back close to the middle. In between I made some camber changes and revalved the shocks. I also ran less fuel and the track was much colder at Sebring. I still have the stock front lines running under the frame rails. I suppose a bulkhead connector would give a nice finished look.

Wow that's quite a spreadsheet. Mine is pretty elaborate but stops a little short of that. The problem is my computer was stolen and I only have an earlier version. So I guess I'm sort of recreating it now even thought my brake system is already installed and track tested satisfactory. I will play with yours and see if it predicts the same braking G's I measured with data acq. Jon you are correct again. My MC rod is located at near the stock location which roughly measures 3.25" from the pivot point. That gives a 4.2 pedal ratio, same as stock. I don't know where the other number came from, maybe the Wilwood pedals I almost installed. I am running 3/4 front and 7/8 rear MC's. According to my calcs, and with the corrected pedal ratio input, results in roughly 30% more pedal pressure to get the same results. So instead of 80lb of foot pressure, it now takes 105. That's probably about right. It takes a little more muscle but nothing like a Skip Barber car. All of my calcs are going from 15/16" stock MC to duals wth AZC front and rear Wilwood setup.

I thought I put it where the old hole was. I'm going to the shop this weekend to confirm. Wish I still had pics.

Alright Jon, now you are freaking me out. I'm going on memory here, especially since my computer was stolen last week and I lost some of my data. But I thought the ratio was 6.75 to 1. I also thought I pulled it out of a Nissan shop manual. And I thought I measured it to verify. Either way, I'm sure I used that number for my calcs. It's easy to measure, distance from pivot point to center of foot pad divided by distance from pivot point to MC push rod. My old numbers show 13.5" to pedal and 2" to push rod. Please confirm I didn't plan my brakes the same day I put the new beer fridge in the shop. Yes, you are correct that brake distribution is controlled by weight, CG, track and CF. Sorry I mistated that. I meant to make a point to check where the balance bar ends up after setting the balance. If it is too far to one side, you may need to change MC size.

That is a nice flare tool but I could buy a lot of six dollar pre-fab lines for that cost. Still wish I had it. You do end up with more "foot" pressure when switching to the dual MC setup. The booster added 300-350 lbs of force. No way around it unless you change the pedal ratio. I did the math on a spreadsheet before I switched over. Nothing excessive though, could be street driven if you wanted. I have 3/4F and 5/8R MC's. The stock pedal ratio is 6.75:1. I calculated the applied force on the pedal to go from 80lb to 100lb for the same line pressure I had before with a stock MC and booster. And that's about what my seat of the pants tells me. The size of the MC's you use depend a lot on the weight transfer under braking, which depends on shocks/springs. You have to try it and if the balance bar rides too far to one side, you may need to resize one.

Wow that pedal box looks just like the one I fabbed about 6 months ago. I also bought a laser cut backing plate from Coleman and welded it to the firewall for some additional stiffness. Even with that, you can still see the firewall move slightly when pushing hard. I ended up ty-rapping the adjuster cable off to a bracket about 8-10" away. It didn't need much. As far as brake lines, I prefer the pre-made sections. I haven't had much luck getting good seals with flaring tools. I mounted the prop-valve in the my cockpit along with the balance knob. Tilton has a good article the proper use of both on their website. Adjust balance knob to optimum braking. Then reduce pressure on rear brakes using prop valve as fuel is burned off. It's the best of both worlds.

Its much easier to buy the pre-made steel brake lines already flared with nuts. You can buy metric lines or standard and get adapters to fit them to the metric Nissan parts.

Make sure you bleed from all the Wilwood bleed screws first time through.

Not trying to bust any bubbles. They do look great. Just relating my experience when using race pads on the track.

Here are some pictures of the top hats machined to accept the Bilstein Struts. I had to use a small spacer between the top hat and camber plate bearing to put the spring load on the bearing. I think the top hats I have in the front were sourced from Ground Control with their camber plates and they fit the struts fine although I may have opened them up slightly.

Have you ran the car with the AZC brakes yet? You may find the ducts provide too much cooling. I felt the initial bite of my pads was too soft when running cooling ducts so I ended up plugging them off. I've never had a problem overheating them and my car weighs 2650 lbs and tops out at 135mph on the track. The big rotors soak up a lot of heat already and barely wear at all.

I recently installed some AZC camber plates in the rear. I sourced the top hats from a guy on ebay selling them for $11/ea. I had them machined to the dimensions I needed but you could probably get them close enough with a drill press.

Most people buy the raw hose and fittings and custom build their own lengths. It's not too hard. You might find a local hydraulic supplier that will build them for you if you look around.

Follow the SDS info on their site. Mount the sensor firmly. I fabbed an aluminum bracket that uses 2 of the front cover bolts. I don't have any pictures handy. Set the gap to their specs. Hopefully your magnets are close to equal in height. I think I used some feeler gauges to get it close. Like the above posts, you will not "see" the magnet very well when cranking and engine is running. It will only show as seen every few revolutions or so. It should show as seen when rotating by hand.

I ask for 300/100 and told them the application. I don't think replacing the valves is an exact science so they just approximate. It looks like it hits the 300/100 mark around 8 ips instead of 10.