blueovalz

The longest running string on in Hybridz.org happens to be about custom tail lights (over 300 posts long). Take a look, then decide.

The only reason I don't have problems with the headers is that when I built them, I curved them forward off the heads, and then rearward prior to the collector. This way they sit even with the front axle centerline (instead of behind it), so the headers never see the ground unless I go stupid fast over speed bumps.

Awesome, now I can feel like HybridZSX. Ohhhhhhhh Hybrid^2

As have mine.

5 1/4" front and rear on the rocker, and 4" on header collector (oil pan is 1/2 inch higher, so it is safe)

I'm having difficulty in understanding this issue, but are you saying you are attempting to use the narrower caliper (for non-vented rotors) on a wider vented rotor?

It certainly sounds as though you've done a thorough "hybridz" job. The only thing left out was perhaps the booster. I may be off base a bit here, but when I did this job, I gutted all proportioning valves completely. My rationale (and the brakes were balanced well enough for the worse situations when I was finished) was that the rear drums have a better leverage than disc brakes do, and with the large difference between the front and rear pistons, the Z's weight distribution, and other factors, I decided to eliminate any proportioning valve. Later, when I used a much larger caliper and rotor assembly in the rear, I was required to add a proportioning valve. My experience has been a pretty firm pedal and responsive brakes with this upgrade.

There are different diameters for the Maxima front rotor. Several years ago I change my old ones out for newer model ones that were about 1/2" larger. The (and this is a guess at the current time) latest rotors I have on the car are 2000 year rotors, and they are roughly 11" in diameter (I could provide exact data later when I get back home). Pictures are worth a thousand words, and would help us solve your problem.

Piston bore area (or piston area) is what is important. An you'll find very little difference between 1, 2, and 4 piston caliper effectiveness if all pistons have the same total area (except for the single or dual floating piston arrangements that must have their piston area multiplied by 2 in order to compare to "fixed" calipers).

The gland nut was my first thoughts as well.

Yeah, I'd say you've got enough info there to where any potential buyer should be able to make an "informed" decision.

Looking quickly through your calculation, they look correct. Now for the important thing. Is the weight on the spring correct? The sprung weight at the corners is vastly different than the corner weights. When you remove the weight of the wheels, brakes struts, etc, you'll find a lot less weight is on that spring. You can get a pretty close verification of this by measuring the compression of the strut. My 200 lb/inch spings had about 2" of compression on the front of my 240, which was about right after I removed the unsprung weight.

It's the small, seemingly insignificant details that turn a run-of-the-mill piece into something worth spending time looking at.

Well, at 50 my memory could (is) be failing. It seemed the 3% was in my head on this

I believe it is 3% per number change.

Jon, could you send us some photos of these parts when they arrive? I've got questions that don't seem to be answered by the vendors photo are site information.

Correct Jon. Strictly from that point of view, there is less force applied to the inner than the outer, but where the kicker is is in the length of the CA (centerline of inner bushings to the contact patch of the tire). The longer this distance, the larger the lever is to twist the inner bushings out of position. On a wheel with a lot of negative offset, the same condition exists for the outer bushings. The further outboard the contact patch is from the centerline of the outer bushings, the larger the lever is to twist these bushing out of place. But a highly positive offset wheel will help reduce this twisting force on the outer bushings. Unfortunately, the changes in offset will affect the twisting action more on the outer bushings than the inner bushings. Without doing a lot of measuring, I am going to assume the forces on inner and outer will be about equal. I say this because a neutral offset wheel will present a certain amount of force on the two narrowly spaced outer bushings (spaced only 5.5") apart, and the ratio of those distances may (MAY) be close to the ratio of the inner bearing spacing-to-contact patch distance as well. Just a guess without the car to measure with. Hence, reducing the spacing between bushings can have some troubling effects as this increases the ratio or lever action on those bushings. Not anything showing values, but the drawing below shows this relationship:

We would need to measure the arm. The 5.5" of outer bushing spacing verses the 16 or so inches of inner bushing spacing, and then take into consideration wheel offset for the outer bushings, more so than for the inner bushings and then the distance of the tire to the centerline of the inner bushings. I'm sure there is even more to look at.

I wished I could remember the string, but there was a good one quite a while back dealing with this issue (owner wanted a IC in place of the upper core support. What Jon said is correct, and this problem can be resolved. The 8-point cage is important only in how the towers or front frame rails are connected to it. Any twisting forward of the firewall will need to be reduced to near zero flexing. This can be accomplished through very thorough bracing of the towers, but this then leaves the effects of the swaybar which is slightly forward of the towers. My approach was to triangulate the towers, firewall, and the engine block (which along with the tranny, is solidly mounted with front and rear engine plates). It makes for a very rigid chassis (along with the cage). Lastly, I used a firm rubber foam to isolate the radiator from the fabricated core support, and during the 17 years I've had this set-up, I've never had a radiator failure.

This would seem to make a bad situation even worse I am a bit puzzled as to why such a piece was created. In a lowered car, an OEM length insert in an OEM tube results in the car always riding in the lower 50% of strut travel. With this piece using a shorter insert in an OEM length tube, the car is always riding at the upper 50% of strut travel. What I want is access to 100% of strut travel. I finally pulled an SX strut today, and found these struts are not very conducive to the type of modifications that I was looking to do. First, the case is only about 1/2" longer than the shortest 8610 insert. Second, if I were to raise the spindle mounting point (which would lower the body relative to the axle), then the lower spring perch would rub the top of the tires. A coil-over setup would not help in the second issue because the tire rides just under the 6" wide spring perch, and runs very close to the strut tube. The spring would need to be very short in order to work. The OEM spring has only 3 live coils (this small number helps prevent the coils from binding), but a coilover type of spring, with its many more coils, would most likely bind. So...I looks like no solution at the present time is to be found. I'll continue looking.

I know it's not in the "spirit" of the string, but I couldn't help myself

Jon just added some detail I left off due to the very late (waaay past my bedtime) posting. The good thing about the 8610 inserts in the 240 tubes is that the tube and the insert are almost "one" in that gland nut is almost unnecessary in centering the insert in the tube (obviously it is needed none-the-less to afix the insert). With a tight fit like this, the entire tube length is used in spreading out the side loads and the weld becomes less of an issue. In a tube where the insert is a good bit narrower (smaller diameter), the gland nut is taking a lot of that force, and this force is then focused on the top of the tube,through any welds, to the rest of the tube.

My take on forces acting on the strute tube can be broken down into 2 forces. Shear and tension. The weight of the corner is on the lower spring perch. if the weld is above this then the only forces in-line with the new weld is a tension force from shock rebound. From the viewpoint of this single force, I'd feel more comfortable with the weight of the corner on the untouch tube (below the spring perch). The second force is the shear or lateral forces. The top of the strut tube is constantly being pulled in all directions (braking, and cornering action) as the spindle attempts to pull the tube, along with the tube insert in what ever direction it can. The only thing keeping the top of the tube in place is the rod the extends out of the strut into the tower. So from this aspect, I would want the weld to be as high up the tube as is possible as well, which should reduce the shearing forces presented to the weld. Tapping new threads would be an ideal solution to shortening the tube, but I do not know of a single instance where a welded tube failed at the new weld. I am going to the salvage yard tomorrow and see about getting a couple of SX front struts and see what is needed to shorten them, insert the 8610s and then install them under the SX.

I want the full stroke (an assumption of about 6" is what I'm guessing here) of my strut, but at its present lowered ride height, the strut is compressed to about 75% if its normal operating window. So now I have very little bound, and a lot of rebound. If I shorten the strut tube and use a short body strut insert that still has the 6" of travel, then I can lower the top of the strut tube to a point that puts the present ride height at about 50% of its operating window, which now leaves me with plenty of up and down travel without binding. All of this is true no matter what kind of spring configuration you use. Yes, I use a high rate spring and a stiff strut insert to prevent the current set-up from ever hitting the stop at the top, but the ride is not what I desire for the street. Shortening the strut would allow a softer ride with full compliance in the suspension.

Which kit is this Jon (the elaborate one in the ClassicZcars link on page 4?)? I've been thinking about the 5/8" bolt idea, and like it. When I measured the difference between the spindle pin and the 5/8" bolt, the differnence in diameter was about .007", BUT that was when I realized all of my 5/8" bolts were .620" in diamter, not .625". So then I start measuring a bunch of different bolts and find all of them are roughly .005" less in diameter than the nominal size (and yes, I considered that my caliper was off, but it zeroed out correctly, and has alway been acurate in the past). SO... If a bolt could be found that was actually 5/8" in diameter, this would be an excellent fit and option.