blueovalz

I have it on my posts, old and new.

Nice. When I get the 289 swapped out for the 383, I plan to eventually stick the 289 into my S13.

Nice job. Finally, another Arky. I'll need to look you up when I visit a friend of my this fall (I think he lives in Farmington).

Unless I've misinterpreted the above quote, the symptom you're describing (appears to be oversteer) will only get worse if you install a rear bar. It sounds to me like you need a stiffer front bar instead.

I've done the same thing from time to time, and simply removed and swapped the ends with perhaps the addition of a little more lubricant to ensure the threads do not gall and that the hose stays in place while tightening the nut.

Sometimes it's not as intuitive as one would think, but this piece will not change your ride height or spring/shock relationship. All the RCA does is lower the pivot point (ball joint), and thats all (BlackBeaut said it all). Also, I'm confused on the camber issue. I cannot understand your description of how you'll achieve the camber change by using angles (also, what is mto?). The spindle is solidlly joined to the strut tube. The installation of an RCA will increase the POSITIVE camber a slight amount, and the thicker the RCA, the greater the positive camber increase will be (this is because the lower arm's length is fixed, so if you lower the balljoint away from the tower mounting point, the spindle will move inboard a small amount as the arm's outer pivot point drops down - depending on current settings, it could be 1/8" or more). This issue can be resolved by machining the upper portion at an offset with the lower portion of the RCA, but then you'd need to have the fasteners be studs in the upper portion, and threaded holes in the lower portion. This piece is extremely critical to the integrity of the suspension, so I would not recommend that. Study the RCA, roll center theory, and the Z suspension, and you'll see these issues.

That makes sense. A purposefully designed diffuser is to SMOOTHLY increase the channel(s) cross-section area. That could be horizontally or vertically. To rapid of an increase in area will result in turbulence, and reduced effectiveness. And has been noted, all surroundings must be taken into consideration as well. Outside of all of this I think it would look cool. Last year I contemplated the same for the rear of the BlueOvalZ, put I hate putting anything on it that is non-functional, and as yet I can't determine if it would, or would not, be functional. On a side note, I've found it extremely interesting lately about how the theory of lift on wings appears to be getting "edited" so to speak. It seems that the theory now includes air displacement rather than solely in a difference in pressure as a primary force. Interesting to note that the new thoughts on this match exactly what the F1 wing does in the rain, which is that it creates a huge rooster tail as water (air) is forced upward quite dramatically behind the wing.

The leveling out of the lower control arm through the use of the RCA or relocation of the inner pivot point can be used to correct what I would describe as excessive geometry from a severly lowered chassis. I've got my arm pivot point raised 1", along with a 1" thick RCA installed for a net gain of 2", and it barely gets the arms horizontal. There are many opinions on the correct configuration. With the ouside of the arms pointed at an upward angle, the roll center is so low that a heavier swaybar is required to perform as well as a smaller one with a higher roll center. If you get the roll center too high, then you risk the effects of "jacking". Also, I found I needed to modify my steering arm/tie-rod configuration to keep bump-steer at a minimum with all of this stuff done to the front.

I've always be amazed at the lack of ANY room to work with on the OEM TT set-up. You've got a nice project there and I like the fact that you'll probably not notice any loss of performance, but gain a lot of reliability, and room!

I'm building the early block. Some sources report there is a slight difference in lower end webbing between the early and later 351W blocks (early ones being stronger). I'm fitting a roller cam in the early one, with AFR 205 heads, 1 3/4" headers, and the usual other stuff. In essence, I'm increasing the stroke by almost 1" over the current 289 motor (2.87 to 3.75), along with an improvement in the cam and heads. All reference point me to the low 500 range in torque and power over a preatty broad range.

The larger MC will decrease the pedal travel, and stiffen it up just a tad. IMHO, the smaller MC provides better modulation because it takes a little more stroke for the same brake pressure. For me, this allows me to ride on the edge of lockup more predictably. With that said, your choice of brake pad will provide a lot of this as well, but I've not played with enough differnent compounds to recommend a specific application.

T T T ?

It's alive (again). The red x is on some of the older pics that probably have no valid link any longer. This was a popular string, but relied heavily on photos from whatever site.

One advantage which stood out for me on the S130/Z31 front set-up was that it would work with just about any wheel combination without spacers, and work well. The only reason a larger MC would be needed would be to keep the OEM pedal feel (keeping the MC/SC ratio the same) with the larger diameter S130 caliper piston. Confusion: Perhaps I'm not understanding the statement. It tells me that brakes become less important the more speed you carry into a corner. My experience shows the opposite. The faster I enter the turn (later braking), the harder I must apply the brakes. Yes, it will be for a shorter period, but total energy expended by the brakes is more. The only way that I got away with less braking (after a good line was found) was with better tires or set-up on the chassis.

The Mexican blocks have the larger caps, but are they any more robust above the caps in the webbing? Power and RPM appear to be a sum game in determining a block's durability. My N/A 289 is a 376 HP/325 lb torque motor, but I rev it to the 7200-7500 range all the time (stock crank, block, rods, with no girdle).

First time I've heard of Simmon wheels. So I checked a site that has them (the Simmon site did not work), but no price was published. How do these compare to the CCW or Kodiac wheels in terms of price?

With seven inch springs on the rear which helps get the lower perch up and away from the tire's section width, I can only run a 5.5" BS using 17" wheels. Reduce the wheel diameter, and you've got to reduce the BS due to the strut tube getting closer to the wheel the further down you move the rim edge. In short, I'd say "no" is the answer.

I've got a bottle of aspirin with "Grumpy" written on it next to my computer. Another two tablets please!

Yeah, my goal was to have a semi-decent design as far as flow, performance (focus was torque), clearance around the steering rod, T/C bushing and box, wide oil pan, and frame rails. Add to that being able to install these from above above was the next priority, and fortunately, I managed that as well. The current set-up has the headers within a couple of thousanths of the steering rod, which must be removed for installation. On the new ones, the steering rod stays in place and the headers go in without removing the rod.

I would suspect the booster. You could remove the vacuum line (then plug the line going to the motor) from the booster, and if nothing changes, then I'd focus my attention on it.

Finally finished the driver-side header. The 383 can now be placed into car (if the headers clear everything surrounding the motor)

That nine inch is going to be heavier, but you can get it in an aluminum center section though.

I recently had a friend purchase some of this equipment, and base upon the very minimal information you've provided, I'm going to assume that it is the overall "kit" you're talking about, and not specifically the lowering springs. I BELIEVE what you're talking about is the upper assembly (camber plates) that allow the user to lower the car without shortening the strut simply from using the additional clearance gained on the upper end of the strut rod when you remove the OEM parts.

With a fiberglass body (about medium build thickness), I was able to get my '71 down to 2160 (with a cage). The cage added about 100 pounds to that figure. Completely gutted, fiberglass door skins, and all unused brackets removed (no hinges or latches anywhere). I was also using a 289 Ford with a T-5, and this combo was lighter than the OEM combination.Getting it down to 2000 or less will be a formidable challenge.

I've enjoyed watching these two strings on this car. Awesome work and stunning final product!