blueovalz

This may have some effect on the feel. I believe that the mechanical advantage is greater with the drum brakes verses the comparable disc brakes based upon cylinder size and the fact that pressure is being applied to only one end of the brake shoe. This then would indicate to me that a larger MC is not needed with this conversion. Weigh that with the fact that the rear brakes contribute a smaller fraction of the stopping force when compared to the front brakes, which may also need the smaller MC advantage. I don't think you could go wrong either way (Z or ZX MC), but I don't see the need for the larger MC with the components you've described. Just some considerations to muck up your thought process.

I don't have a set of Cobra calipers in front of me, but I believe that when I measured the diameter of the pistons, I found that they were comparable to the piston area of the OEM Z. With that said you may want to: 1) Use the OEM master cylinder (avoid going to a larger ZX master cylinder) to maintain the OEM feel. Or... 2) Measure the OEM caliper piston bore (one side only and don't depend on the exposed portion of the piston being the correct diameter at the bore) and compare that value with the combined area of the pistons (bores) on the Cobra. Doing this will let you know what changes are needed to maintain a factory feel at the pedal.

I've been lucky so far. So far I beaten all of the modified Cobras I've run against. The most challenging was an overdriven 2003 with 4:11 gearing. I could outpull him until the higher speeds (~ 120 MPH or so) where air resistance became a bigger factor than weight. At that point I could not pull away any longer. Later we talked and he claimed 450 HP and about 480 lb/ft. True or not, I've no idea, but it was a well matched run.

I think I know what you're talking about, but let's make sure. When you say spindle, I assume you mean stub axle (because there is a "spindle" pin on the rear strut, but that does not need to be removed to change brakes) due to the fact that the spindle pin nuts are very easy to remove, but the stub axle nut is very hard to remove. There is a wealth of information on this subject under SEARCH. Stub axle removal is not required for this conversion (I did it by Sawzall'ng the backing plate in half). Below is a small portion of what can be found in the search function using the key words of "axle stub remove" http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=96854&highlight=axle+stub+remove http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=112397&highlight=axle+stub+remove http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=70805&highlight=axle+stub+remove

I've corresponded several times with your company per the V8 application. Sounds neat and promising. I just need to be patient.

This "group buy" is solely for the inline 6 applications, is that correct?

This is my set-up. Very light and not very rigid, but with the strut tower bracing that I currently use, this has successfully held my radiator for 15 years.

Looks to be aftermarket, which means it could be anything.

Great discription. Thanks Pete. I suppose I will continue building up the bottom end and get this thing in the car the Summer (or Fall...Winter?)

I believe the machine shop that did these per my drawings still has everything in their files, so there shouldn't be any reason these cannot be duplicated. Again these are for the large joints (930 joints), which are some tough CV jonits designed for the widest allowed working angle. You can see the difference in the amount of the CV outer race that extends from the adapter plates in the two photographs. My guess is that the ones under the 510 are "type 4" joints, which are lighter than the 930 joints. Everything in this assembly is easily found except for the flanges that hold the rubber boots. I'm sure they are available from Porsche, but cannot imagine the price (mine were from a salvage set that I used for templates/practice/fitment). But there are cheaper ways around this.

I'd like to try and help, but what emblem, and "fingers to the top" of what?

I think I found a suitable answer to my concern today. An old race engine builder told me that it is not uncommon to see wider clearances at the sides of the rod for increased oil for the bearings and have the top/bottom clearance to be normal due to the push/pull done at this portion of the bearing.. He said it allows the oil a chance to pass from the crank to the rod and on around it. He as seen several cases of .025" and one time had a customer request .040" ellipticity (I think that's the correct word) for a really high RPM motor. I couldn't believe what I was hearing and had to ask him to repeat that. He seemed to know what he was talking about and I trust him, so.... Oh, here's the rods.

Was this an isle at the typical auto parts store, or typical grocery store? Thanks for the much needed tip!

Though you guys would get a chuckle out of the following. The left side chuck came with the drillpress, and was for practical purposes useless. The right side chuck is the Jacobs chuck, and it's a beauty. Whats hard to believe here is that BOTH of these chucks, despite the large size differential, have the SAME capacity (1/8" - 3/4"). Live and learn.

8 months, with limited driving will not "bring out" the typical shock, vibration, and especially the thermal stresses that cause bonded pieces (especially glass to metal) to start cracking at the joint (unless the job was of extremely poor quality). Some times this takes up to 5 years or more to develop. It just depends on quality and use. Value?...Boy, that's a tough one. I woul'd presume to be able to answer that one.

The "bonded" bodywork as described in the exterior would be my main concern as all other things appear to be fine. How long have the parts (hood and body trim) been on the car? My personal experience is that bonded seams eventually start cracking sooner or later. Depending on what lies under the bonded bodywork determines if rust stains follow the cracks. It looks like a really nice job.

I'm in the process of assembling a 383 (Ford stroker, but don't hang up yet), and have noticed something unsettling about the rod bearings. First, some background; the rods I'm using are 6.250" long rods (I believe they are a Chevy rod), and the crank rod journals are 2.10". These rods are perfectly round on the big end at 2.227" in diameter. The issue is that with the bearing shells installed, I get an oblong hole that is ~2.107 wide and ~2.102 tall. So I removed the shells and measured the thickness of the shell at the ends and in the middle of the shells and get: About .058" -.059" on the ends of the shells, and about .061" - .062" in the middle of the shells. Are these bearings trash, or is this common? This is the first time I've really come across this (or noticed this), and it was just out of a whim that I checked the bearing clearance 90º to each other on a new parts re-build (yeah, I know, you always check regardless who does the work).

I've done a lot of thinking on getting this exact set-up. Currently I'm runnning 17 x 11's all the way around, but am seriously looking at increasing the backs to 12" (which is what I ran when I raced). So with the 6" backspacing: how much room is between the section width and the strut (spring, perch, or whatever is closest)? My measurements indicated about 1/4" clearance (which was about what I had during racing, and this was not enough to keep the tire from rubbing the strut through the corners).

Funny you say this. The "quality ball bearing chuck" has to be CAREFULLY tightened onto the bit or else the bit will wobble around off center. 1 of 6 attempts at this will get a centered drill bit. So now I've bought a good quality chuck (which cost close to $100) and installed it onto the press. Overall, I'm somewhat happy in the end, but "buyer beware".

Harbor Freight had their big drill press on sale last week. I try to avoid buying Chinese if I can readily find US made tools (which is nearly impossible these days). I purchased the drill press, assembled it and then scrutinized it. It needed some bit of adjusting, which was not a biggie, but I immediately noticed a lot (A LOT) of grit in the rack gear and quill area. So I decided that while I was tightening everything up and making sure it would operate smoothly, I would dismantle the stuff that was "pre-assembled" from the factory and take a look-see. I was horrified to find the grit was sand from the sand-casting process that had not been washed out of the interior of the case. It was mixed in with the lubricating grease on nearly every moving part in the head. I spent 4 hours cleaning this crap out of the head so that this press would last longer than 6 months. Below are some photos of what I had to clean up: These are the grooves that drive the spindle that have the grease/sand "cocktail": Looking up inside the bore of the quill. Sand everywhere (quill bore, spindle bearings, etc). The pepper looking specks are the sand particles: Just a small sample of what came out of the head once I pulled the quill out: The head is finally clean. Now to clean the afterbirth off the table:

You don't have a bleeder valve. Did you only open the system downstream from the MS? If so, simply bleed it from the slave cylinder. The purpose of bench or bleeder valve on the MS is to get the MS primed and full of fluid on the internal bore. If you've not disturbed the MS (did not replace it), you should be able to proceed with a normal bleeding process at the slave cylinder, even if all of the reservoir fluid drained out of the MS while doing the work.

Have you considered using your current sized tires as a comparison in what your new speed/rpm ratio would be compared to what it is now? it woud only be a 100 or so rpm difference between these two above, but I'd shoot for the shorter tire. They look more suited on the S30, and if your shock valving is good, the shorter sidewall difference won't be noticable.

I'd say neither has a big advantage over the other for the use you describe. The liner you describe necessary for the larger bore hole (non-vented rotor) is not a big deal. And re-drilling the larger bolt pattern to a smaller 4 lug is not a big deal either (I did this on mine). The first few times I did something similar to this, I did weld up the slop on the single oblong hole (that results from the two overlapping patterns) that you spoke of, but omitted this step in subsequent conversions and have never had an issue arise from it. The heat generated by the rear brakes will obviously be less than the fronts if equal parts were being used, so the non-vented rotors would not suffer for this (IMHO) being there comparable outer diameter. I would pick which ever one is most convenient at this stage.

Interesting photos. Good info! Thanks for verifying this. I'd never seen any as well, and to me would defeat the purpose of an accurately machined spacer between the bearings.

This is pretty close to what Two40MuscleZ has under his S30.