blueovalz

Very good. This verifies that the 300 hub does push the whole assembly outward. Otherwise you'd have about 1/4" interference.

This method will also prevent the rubber bushings from being twisted (pre-loaded) once the car is dropped down on the suspension. The spindle pins and the control arm pivot tube should be allowed to spin easily inside the bushing until the car is at a normal ride height, and when this is all set and the rubber is still relaxed, the nuts (inner and outer) should be tightened.

Well, I was running a conservative solid roller road cam (112º center) that was designed for a broad (the dyno operator was quite surprised by the flat torque curve) torque curve. Again, a cam can make a big difference.

Amazing. When my 289 measured 300 hp and 260 lb/ft on the dyno (RWHP), I was greatly disappointed, but did not know were to start looking. Yes, the additional stroke would add more torque, but obviously I'm missing something (oh, it was extremely rich on that run and I did not have a fix for it).

Are these rotors ON the car at this time. I'm curious about the rotor offset and where the rotor ends up on the inside of the rotor adjacent to the lower contorl arm (specifically, the area between the ball joint and the rotor. On my rotors it was so close that at full droop, the two (rotor and CA) cleared well enough (about .200"). but once the suspension was compressed to normal ride height, the two made hard contact. Just a heads-up of this in case you've not looked into it yet. Factors to consider that may help or hurt here: My measurements from the outside face of the wheel mounting flange (where the wheel actually touched the hub when bolted on), to the inside face of the rotor (that face that faces the control arm and ball joint) is 3.060" on my set-up. When I ran the '87 Supra rotors on the front (12"), I still had this problem (but much less severe), but because the rotors were only 22mm, the interference was much less. My GUESS is that if you exceed 2.75", then you may need to check for this clearance issue BEFORE you drive the car. It will not be obvious during assembly because of the full droop relationship. ALSO, if you use the roll-center spacers (mine are 1"), this will also close this gap up as well because with these spacers, the spindle is moved inward (or you could look at this as the control arm is moved outward in relationship to the spindle) about 1/4" due to this spacer. Thus, the spacers will agravate this problem as well. Lastly, I used four piston calipers which required lots of space between the rotor and the wheel spokes. To gain this additional spacing I used the thick-flanged 280Z hubs (1" flange), BUT the C5 rotors only have .560" step (or offset) between the flange and the rotor (which appears to be a lot less than your rotors have). Lastly, the lower the car's ride height, the worst this issue will be. So take all of these factors into account on this project.

Excellent link!

Nice write-up. Do you have the torque and RPM numbers as well. I'm working on a stroker SBF and am just curious about what to expect. Thanks

I like home-made solutions. Great job! When I was putting the C5 rotors on, the very first rotor I experimented with had the bore slightly too large (machining mistake), so it was not a tight fit. I took a center punch and peened just next to the edges of the center bore in four equally spaced locations. It allowed the bore to fit tightly over the hub and remained perfectly centered as well.

Lots and lots of years, but NOT SO lots of money. It all was originally OEM salvage from other species of car. Every now and then I get extravagant, and purchase some used stuff on EBay.

Electrical grid (transmission) Reliability Coordinator. My aim is to keep your lights on within the south central US.

My assumption is that most if not all options for swaps will require adapting a wider set-up onto the S30's narrow(er) unibody.

Sometimes just cutting out the whole section is better than piecemeal work. Maybe cutting the entire bottom (floor included) out of an SX and welding it in place of the Z entire bottom may be less trouble than swapping this and that, and adapting this and that.

:lmao:

I'm with Jon, I don't think there is anything out there that will reduce the insert length more that 2" at most (the Koni's length is 11.5").

I'm sure you could get someone else to do the work for you with parts you supply (I would be one of many I'm sure), but the key is having the car in hand so that you can dictate exactly where you want the ride height to be, as well as the spring rate and the corner weights. All of this done remotely makes it a "guess" at best, which is probably why nobody does this. When it comes to lowering the Z with shorter inserts, the one-size-fits-all in not a good prescription.

I believe that the tire dimensions are what is most important. About the max tire height, without rubbing the front of the fenders, is close to 25" before cutting becomes necessary on the OEM sheet metal. Wheel offset and tire width also affect this as well.

Tim the Toolman Taylor "AROOO" So redline is probably in the mid 2000s, so what kind of rear end ratio would one use. Perhaps a 2.1 to 1?

I've seen this headlight, and my first thought was that the Z OEM headlight bucket would interfere with the headlight's lower amber element protrusion out the backside of the headlight. What was your experience in this situation?

Very nice clean-looking job. Very nice! Any information on the headlights?

It's an R200 non-turbo as I see it. The turbo models lacked the 4-bolt CV jointed shafts.

I believe the rubber portion is installed on the forward position (sleeve extends further out the rear end of the bushing) in the OEM position. Swapping ends would cause the strut to be moved forward as the arm is pivoted along the T/C rod mounting position when the inner portion of the control arm is moved rearward. It would be an extremely small forward movement, but it would not move it rearward. Also, the polyurethane bushings allow very little misalignment, and moving the bushing rearward, while still maintaining the OEM length T/C rod would cause some misalignment on this poly bushing causing some adverse effects on assembly. Now, swapping the bushing, AND perhaps shaving the rubber biscuits (and shortening the inner sleeve) on the T/C rod may, MAY, get you some needed clearance, but then you've reduced the caster. One thing always affects another thing, which always affects something else.

I highly recommend the "Machinerys Handbook". Even the real old ones will provide all the information you could possibly need in regards to materials, feed rates, etc. Beware though, mine is an old one and it has over 800 pages. It's an excellent book, and can be found on Ebay for a reasonable price for older ones.

I've got one of their MIG welders, and love it. Very good quality in their products.

huh? :lmao::lmao: The doctor is definitely "out". Oh, I forgot the reason I opened this string in the first place. Before my thought process was so rudely interrupted by the preceding post, I was going to say that I'd thoroughly clean the bowl float valve for any trash keeping it from sealing correctly.

You are correct in the splines being peened to flatten the splines to the point that the center race is locked on. When I replaced mine, I simply pressed the axle out of the race (which consequently straightened the splines). Re-installing the race required only slipping the race back on (it will be a little tight, but will slide on), and re-peening the end of the splines.