blueovalz

Correct. I'm looking at this project from a different viewpoint than you. My point of view is reduced weight, and especially anything excessively forward or rearward of the axles (e.g. reduce polar moment, or at least don't increase it). Most everybody on this site (myself included) provide opinions based upon their point of view, which is why I hesitate so often in adding any comments at all on other's projects unless the owner's goal it is perfectly aligned with what I see for the car. Regardless, I am always facinated when new ideas come to fruition, and if any site exists that illustrates "out of the box" thinking, it's this site, and this group. Keep us informed of your project, and please photodocument it.

Plus, (and I don't have the bow-tie stuff under my hood), the LS1 has a very low profile, and this helps a lot over the carbureted stuff in regards to hood clearance.

Nothing is impossible, but there will be quite a few unusual challenges with the S14 front swap. The advantages of the S30 set-up is the weight of the TC rods and its reinforcement is behind the axle. If the frame rails are "gone", the you'll need some really stout framing way out in front of the axle. The floor and rail issues you've mentioned will still need attention regardless which direction you go, but we (Hybridz) thrive on unusual solutions to unusual problems.

Yeah, To put it in perspective, I've added (edited) a photo to the original posting showing a comparison between the two tube sections.

Don't over-emphasize the gelcoat. First of all, you'd be sanding on the inside edge, which is not visible (the top and bottom would still have the gelcoat on it. Secondly, the primer and paint will seal the bare glass. Lastly, 90% of my Z has NO gelcoat on it at all and it turned out fine.

I do not know how far these bumpers extend past the normal surface of the quarter panel, but why couldn't you carefully grind off enough material on the inside edges of the new fiberglass bumper so that it has the correct gap around the "indent-less" panel?

Like this perhaps: Not obvious in this photo are the shims above the differential. These can be increased or decreased to lower or raise the nose of the differential. Whatever amount is removed from the top, must be inserted at the bottom between the aluminum bracket and the differential itself. These pieces are attached to the differential with 9/16" bolts. The front two (of the 4 holes on the front of the long nose differential) were tapped for 9/16" threads. Then separate bolts held the differential to the RT mount, and another set of bolts held the lower part to the OEM crossmember through a separate aluminum bracket. The main reason I went through this was to have the differential solidly held in place while still being able to completely remove the rear suspension. And yes, the rear mount IS solid as well (aluminum plate).

I bought the steel brake line, some adapters and fabricated the bypass myself. Bleeding went fine after that.

I was never able to adequately bleed my clutch hydraulics until I completely bypassed the damper (or what ever it's called or supposed to do)

The web site for the vintage wheel works is http://vintagewheelworks.com/ There seem to be reletively well priced for a custom wheel. The http://vintagewheelworks.com/products/wheels/v48 has photos and prices of the Watanabi/Panasport looking wheel. Prices range from $250-$350 depending upon size.

I walked into the local speed shop today and saw what appeared to be Watanbe/Panasport wheels. Found out they were "Vintage Wheels" (but not the vintagewheelsus web site) 2 piece (center is welded to the outer shell). They are available in any offset as previously describe in this string, any pattern, and up to 11" wide. The 11" X 17" wheel I looked at was $375 (the most expensive size), and I weighed it on their scale and it came out to 24.8 lbs. Very nice wheel. They also have the old '66 Shelby Mustang and Cobra replicas as well.

Sounds fine. I would suggest the use of multiple bolting points per side. My thoughts would be a minimum of two bolts per side, with these bolts spaced out as far apart from each other as is possible, and keep the bolt holes as small as possible (minimumize the slop around the bolt shank or threads).

A lot of work went into that. I can see where it would help a lot, but I quess my question is about the fore and aft reinforcement. It appears a great deal of this work was done to prevent the top of the towers from moving fore and aft, and less on lateral movement. My impression of a Z unibody that this is opposite to what is needed for front suspension reinforcement. I would like to understand this better because this is not the first time I've seen this emphasized. I am not picking this set-up apart, only trying to understand and learn from it.

I cut my core support completely out, and replaced it with a more usable, but much weaker support designed solely to hold an aftermarket radiator in position at an odd angle, and nothing else. I did this though in conjuction with the stiffening of everything from the strut towers rearward. With this done, anything forward of the towers is inconsequential in regards to chassis rigidity and suspension tuning. Even with the proper tower bracing, the front swaybar mounting is forward of the towers (by only a few inches) on boxed frame rails, does influence the twisting of the tower area, but I don't THINK it is significant by any means. The OEM chassis (front strut tower area) benefits from a good core support, but once the towers are beefed up, the core's support for the towers is negligible, and now becomes a primary supporting structure for the radiator, headlights, bumber, and other necessary things for the street car. If I were to do it over again, I would "bolt" the core support in place rather than have it welded in as is the current set-up. With that said, I would still weld the lower part that connects the two framerails together (I used 1" X 3" rectangular tubing)

I was (am) puzzled by the design as well. I would like to hear from the designer to understand what is being specifically addressed, and why. Almost like large gussets, and clearance around parts may have been one goal.

Addendum to the original post: I found another difference between the 240 and the 280 control arms today as I was modifying them for spherical bearings at the inner bushing location. The difference was the thickness of the steel pivot tube that runs through both front and rear inner bushings. The OD of this tube is the same for all models 25mm (~1”). The differences lie in the ID of the tube. The 280 tubes have an ID of 16mm, while the 240 tubes have an ID of 19mm. My first shot at this modification was to drive ¾” studs into the tube, which worked great for the 240 arms. But the 280 arms require something smaller such as a 5/8” stud, which is too small for my requirements. Anyway, thought I’d pass this on.

Well, I just sent in a "holiday" donation and would like to send out a challenge to all you guys to see if there is a small something we can send Dan's way to help defray the costs of maintaining this great site. I hate it when he finally has no choice but to ask for help (or someone in lieu of him), so if we get ahead of it this time, it would speak volumes for us as members, the site (the membership is the site), and the value we hold for this service.

When you say "solid", are you referring to a live axle (non-independent) rear end?

This was my very first Z car project. Here are the side skirts:

My opinion on side skirts (yeah, I know what opinions are like) is that they make the Z car, one that already has height/width ratio appearance issues, worse. The Z is not known for having a wide and low visual appearance. The addition of side skirts, in my eyes, tend to make the car look even taller and narrower than it already does, and does not promote it's sports intent. I installed skirts on a previous Z, and later realized that I would not do it again. Skirts, in their own right do add a degree of uniqueness to any car, but for the above reason, the Z just doesn't "accept" them well. I feel this also goes for the additions to the rear of the car as well. ZR8ED stated that the new addition will not extend any further down than the OEM panel did, and I think this will look better this way. I know that his diffuser will be re-attached under it, but the separation of the two as two separate parts may mitigate much of the effects of "stretching" the car vertically. As with any body "design" discussion, it is mostly subjective and ultimately, the owners viewpoint is all that matters.

So true. As much as this has been discussed, it surprises me to still see it in practice, especially on the high torque applications. UNLESS it is ALL solid. The half-and-half stuff is a recipe for failure, whether it's motor, transmission, or differential.

Very nice. I like the design.

Always like photos of the ZG front. Great looking cars!

I see the mustache bar in the photo. Can I correctly assume that the front mount was solid and the rear was rubber or urethane?

Looks like a proper job done there!!