blueovalz

Would you want to keep it "bolt on" and reinforce the sides of the saddles with some added thickness?

Being they use synchronized threads, has anybody tried using the Heli-coil taps with the timesert inserts successfully?

If you have the uprights in back, could you not weld the bearing housing to the uprights themselves (and then perhaps a tube welded between the housings if room allows)? All of what you said sounds possible with a caveat. I would investigate any gusseting to areas that are spot-welded or seam-welded to ensure the housing does not flex and break. You will no longer have rubber in these positions absorbing initial impacts acceleration and braking. With a "solid" mounting system such as we are striving for, the stresses must be distributed throughout a larger area that simply 1/2 of a saddle. The main concern I have in this area is that the forces will be sent to the center of the housing assembly, not above it where it would be more equally distributed. Thus, the area where the two OEM saddle pieces usually join must (IMHO) be well gusseted to prevent any tear-out. I think something like a 8" X 2" X 1/8" steel strap welded to the bottom of the housing (at the mid-point of the strap) and then bent upwards on each side, and then welded on the ends to the body would one option or thought.

Can you verify that the SX CV joints are of the tripod design? My understanding was that these were of the same design as the 300ZX ball/cage design.

The appeal for this motor is for those indivduals that want a '70s era Datsun motor in their '70s era Z car. I believe this motor was used in later (SCCA or IMSA) racing being it was of the same manufacturer even though it was not the 6 cylinder (can someone verify this?)

Why could you not elongate the two holes either side of the balljoint hole to allow the ends of the steering rod to be rotated outboard. If nothing else, then weld a small glob on one end of the slot to prevent the arm from rotating inadvertently during normal use. At the angle of the TC rod incident to the front CA centerline, a 1.25" increase results in about 1.08" movement of the spindle forward, which is close to 3º of caster increase. The OEM caster is 3º, so I now sit at about 6º caster. This is based upon a 20" length from balljoint to the top of the strut rod. This increase greatly increases the camber change as the wheel is turned. This is not a panacea for all the issues of camber increase, but it did help a LOT in allowing me to reduce the static camber, which allowed later braking.

I stand corrected (Thanks guys). The arms for a front rack do need to be angled away from the longitudinal centerline of the car for proper Ackerman effect. I had to simulate it and found I was reversed in my thinking. Anyway, this means that moving the rack toward the crossmember would increase the Ackerman effect. The previous drawing has been changed and an EDIT comment inserted. In regards to increasing caster, I lengthened my TC rod by 1.25", which netted an increase (for the ride height that I was at) of just under 3º

If the intention is to change camber or caster, yes. In fact, adding the spacer does much the same thing as the previous discussion about straightening the CA (which in effect makes it longer) in decreasing the amount of caster and camber by a very small amount.

In regards to Ackerman, the factors influencing it are the angles created from the tie rod pivot at the steering arm end, to the ball joint and back to the tie rod inner pivot (at the rack). You could in theory have the usual Ackerman built into the OEM Datsun steering arm, but with the steering rack moved so far rearward that the above angle was 90º (angle "A" in the drawing). In this configuration, no Ackerman affect would be seen in either turn lock-to-lock. As the rack is then moved forward (and nothing else changed), the above angle becomes less than 90º which results in the Ackerman affect. To continue forward with the rack would be increasing the Ackerman affect. The positioning of the inner CA pivot will have no affect on this. EDIT, this drawing was corrected to show correct Ackerman effect (outward angled steering arms per comments by Jon and Olie05. Moving the inner pivot of the CA forward, without shortening the arm ever so slightly will result in a slight decrease in caster. Moving the spindle rearward would decrease the angle "A", and increase the Ackerman affect. This was one of the reasons I chose to move the entire crossmember forward when I lengthened the TC rod. This helped maintain the OEM Ackerman ratio.

Sounds good. I lit a fire under my machinist's a$$ yesterday on getting my bearing retainers turned (he's been putting me off for a couple of weeks). Hopefully he'll have them turned by next week so that I can work with them while on vacation. Maybe next year a lathe will show up at the garage and I can take care of business on my own time line.

I'm assuming you are asking the last question based on the requirement that you grind the saddle larger so that the monoball housing will fit up for a weld? If so, I'd try this: Tack one housing (front or rear, it won't matter) into place, tack it so that it could be removed if things get out of hand on the following. After you've tacked one housing in place, insert a long, straight rod (3/4" in diameter for your case) through this monoball assembly (thru through the bearing) and through the second free monoball assembly. Now, place the free monoball assembly up into position in the other saddle (you may need a second person to help you with this part). Next, using line-of-sight, align your viewpoint so that this bar, and the other side mounted control arm inner mounting tube are aligned. If both control arms have been removed, then place a straight bar up against the saddles of the other side, and then compare the two bars. Any difference in angle should visually become readily apparent (one end of the rod will be higher or lower than the other end as compared to the CA tube that is fully mounted). I'm not under the car, and not sure this could be viewed in the way described (the bars may be hidden from sight being too high up in the chassis), but I'd give it a try. This way you will at least know that the newly welded housings will be parallel to the other side, which should also be parallel to both outer arm spindles. Any misalignment on the horizontal plane can be adjusted with the rod ends. Lastly (and I don't know if any laser level offers this feature as mine does not) you could simply mount a laser level onto the bottom of the opposite side CA inner mounting tube so that the laser points to the long rod in the monoball assemblies in such a way as to provide a very close measure of whether it is parallel or not. Obviously the angles will not be perfect with this option, but it should be very close. I know this line-of-sight is not a scientific remedy, but one that serves me well, and in fact was the way I checked for parallel mounting on my first arm, which did work when installed) prior to fabrication of the jig for the other side control arm. I hope this makes sense, and should take out any factors in how the car is sitting, and where the suspension is sitting.

I had to eventually go with a 2.5 power valve in order to keep it closed during idle. Camming and many other parameters will require different valves.

I made the following jig prior to cutting the lower CA. This insures that the axis of both inner and outer bushings are parallel in both vertical and the horizontal planes My experience has been that the lower CA can be made to flex more than I ever expected (I won't go into how I discovered this), and feel that as long as the rod ends are spaced EXACTLY the correct distance, that there should not be any substantial binding due to a "twist" in the CA. I did find that if the spacing between the rod ends was off by even a few thousanths, that the rod ends (balls) would start to bind once the nuts on each end are torqued down. To alleviate this problem, I am using arbor (shaft) shims to take up the slack of when I positioned the rod ends too far apart. Visually, and during mock up, the distance seemed perfect, but I found out that the "047" thick seals for the Heim joints were in actuality .049" thick. I used one on each side so that is .004" difference, which will show up if one is using precision parts such as rod ends, etc. Rubber bushing can compensate for this, but not rod ends. Long story short, It all is going in as originally planed, but it just took a little bit of shimming and close attention to detail in getting it all to fit correctly and not preload the Heim joints, and that is the primary concern. Once I started putting all of this together, I had to ask myself, "are these kits for rod end CAs assembled to these required close tolerances, and if not, are any of the customers noticing the potential for early failure if not?" I can only assume that there is no deviation between the length of the pin bosses from one strut to the other. If there is, than 'look out".

My experience at that (unless I misunderstood) was that a short side stub in the long side did not "snap" in.

As best as I can recall, I pressed the inner race off with a press. I recall that the ends of the splines were peened. Pressing the inner race off straightens out the peened splines, and once I re-installed the inner race, I simply re-peened the ends of the shaft (near the splines) with a centerpunch. And to answer the original question, no. I've only seen two attempts at welding the axles to shorten them. Both were on very light cars (Formula v and ford) and both failed, the on that lasted longest, lasted about 1 1/2 seasons and it's short success was owed to a 1/4" thick sleeve welded over the butt weld, which helped a lot.

My experience is similar to RedNeckZ's with the exception of the 300ZX rear brakes that I used. I had no proportioning valve in my system either, and it was well balanced after both ends were completed.

Before you go to a lot of trouble finding a model, check (or search) for the string dealing with this issue. Basically it boiled down to compressed air (air density must be inversely proportional to the scale of the model: e.g. a 1:24 model would require a wind tunnel pressurized to 24 atmospheres), or extremely high speed wind to effectively simulate airflow on a small model to obtain a credible Renolds number.

I've never been able to start a carbureted engine without pressing the throttle down to start, so I can't address this as a problem. IF this is a Holley (you've not supplied much information), gasket leaks are not uncommon. These could be the four bolt o-gaskets, the bowl gasket, or the accelerator pump gasket (or diaphram for that fact). Any of these could empty the bowl. The floats should stay empty though, 'cause if they fill up with gas, you've got even more problems. The jets won't leak into the engine.

I "heart" my 289. The small "old ford pushrod" engine is tons of fun in a light Z.

At the airbase here in LIT during an airshow, a demostration was made with a tractor trailer rig (without the trailer) that had 3 jets attached to it. I was in utter disbelief when it took off. No other words to describe it.

Ahhh, I think I see something here that I may have overlooked when I did this job. It appears that there is a metal lip restricting the tulip from pulling all the way out of the grooves. This lip is part of the metal piece formed over the band in the center of this CV joint. I did not recognize this when I did this work because I cut the metal band along it's circumference. As a result, it did not interfere with my disassembly. In the case of the above photo, you still have this lip in the way, so the band still must be split.

Awesome power and a great show, but put why have large slicks on it if the wheels are not "driven" (maybe to act like a trans-brake?). Anybody know what the thrust is on this?

Victoria British (or whatever the new name is) is where I bought mine for the ZXT axles (but I do have two boots left over and I think they are outer boots). Is this the axles you're talking about?

Funny you ask because as I was writing my last post, I was trying to visualize what exactly kept the inner CV components together, and the only thing I could think of was the boot itself. This seems to me to make sense as I believe it was odd that I could not inspect the inner CV for abnormal wear unless I destroyed the boot in the process. The outer boot can be removed and re-iinstalled, but not so with the inner.