blueovalz

I cannot remember whether the long end of the bushing faced forward or rearward, but with the new bushings installed, it won't be hard to figure out which side is which because the bushings will not give enough to allow the wrong arm to be bolted up to both the crossmember, and the Tension/Compression rod, at the same time.

Then it sounds like you took some good steps in getting these flares on! Good news.

This is not an answer to your question, but instead a comment on the S13 front suspension. I've got both cars, and my current dilemma with the S13 is that it is (has been for years) lowered to what I call perfect ride height for a street car (not excessive by any means), but there is no "short" struts for this stuation (the top of the strut is about 1" from the top of the upper spring perch. Currently I am looking at a way to insert the 8610 or 8611 into the tube and thus shorten the tube to gain some extra compliance. Most of us have lowered out cars, and this is something to consider in your decision.

What I really like about the Outlaws is (the 3000 and 4000 series any way): 1) The bolt placement. This caliper uses 3 bridge bolts (plus the top 2 smaller bolts) on the 3000 and 4000 series (total of 8). The caliper is long enough so that the outer bolts are placed in an optimal position to prevent asymetrical expansion under pressure. 2) The bolt desing allows plenty of air to flow out of the vented rotor 3) The SS shields provide a good thermal barrier 4) Not a typical attribute, but the bolt spacers that surround the bolts can be machined (or replaced by different length spacers) to different lengths allowing easy modifications so that these calipers fit other than 1.25" or .81" wide rotors. Lastly (now that I driven it, and done some pad bedding), I love the modulation and feel. But this could also be attributed to the large diameter rotor as well. No fade... and ya got to love that!

I think overall, this is the best solution to "fabricated rear control arms" in regards to the outer bearing issue. Again, only an opinion, but strength wise, it should never fail, it was fairly simple in its design and construction (yeah, it took a bit of work to get it to this final simple form). I like it, and will consider the same for mine now that you've got all the kinks worked out. Good work Jon.

I hate it when someone does something and then someone else comes along to poo-poo that idea after the fact, so I'll be one of those people I hate: Your choice of aluminum raises a concern for me. It has been my experence that aluminum is a risky material to bond to. The right adhesives must be used, and the oxide that develops on the surface usually requires removal just prior to the bonding. As an example, I use alumumin as a mold sometimes for my fiberglass simply because the hardend glass part will easily pop off the alumimun it is bonded to. BUT, this is not the case for adhesives designed for aluminum.

Dang, Mike and Van have a full sack on this one! But I do agree. It seems that this situation of the consumer "accepting" a certain amount of sub-standard quality is the norm rather than the exception any more.

Interesting info on the hub bearings. Keep us informed on how this turns out.

Don't think this has been done yet (at least here on this site).

All good comments! The welds on the back side don't have the penetration I desired, but were mainly to seal the gap. The welds on the front are good welds with great penetration. I've welded on several Z spindle bosses (front and rear) and both take a weld very well. I originally designed this to be bolt-on only, but after bolting them together, I felt (after past experimentation and destructive strength testing experience) that welding was a better option (I never intend to change these anyway). This bracket ain't coming off (but yes, I did install a single bolt on each strut) The material is 1/2" steel, and the rotor machine work consisted of opening the hub to 81mm (with a chamfer), and drilling four 10mm holes on a 103mm bolt pattern ($55 worth of work). Because of the wheels I'm using (I only have a 5/8" difference between the wheel mounting plane and the spoke plane), I moved the rotor further inboard by 1/4" with a spacer between the rotor mounting flange and the rotor. This gives me about .200" gap between the caliper and the spokes on my 17" diameter wheels. One other thing (as some of you have wheels with a larger gap between the spokes and the caliper), you may be able to use any other Z or ZX hub as well. In my choice, I had to have the thickest possible wheel flange (because it then pushes the rotor further inboard), which ends up being on the 280Z hubs (25mm thick). As with some of the Wilwood conversions, I had to grind some material off the control arm in the area surrounding the ball joint opening due to rubbing on the rotor when the suspension was a static ride height. Use of roll-center spacers aggravates this situation.

In the never-ending saga of the BlueovalZ (I get bored easily when this car sits with no work being done on it) I finally installed the larger (and final) upgrade to the front brakes. I used the C5 rotors with the Outlaw 4000 series calipers. Some might wonder (as I have at times) why use the C5 rotors when Wilwood and others are available. My rational was I will be able to get these rotors anywhere and any machine shop can do the minor work needed to bolt them onto the Z hubs. The rears will be done next month which will use the front '87 Supra rotors (12") with the same type of calipers (using smaller 1.25" pistons for .81" rotors).

Just in time! I've got a 289 in mine, but have the 351W block at the machine shop, and the 383 stroker kit ready to be assembled. Please keep this string updated on your progress with photos and write-ups.

The key is to make sure the loop is as tight around the driveshaft as is possible without making contact during normal suspension movement. With the IRS suspension, this is made easier because of the minimal movement of the differential as compared to live axle cars. And if the tranny and the diff are solidly bolted in place, the safety loop could have as little as .100 gap around the driveshaft (must take chassis flex into consideration). When you leave too much room between the loop, and the shaft, the beating the loop takes is increased dramatically. In regards to the U-jointed shafts, I believe one key to longivity is to set the suspension up so that you have the axle shafts in a straight line during the transition to the infamous "squat". Obviously this is a compromise, and any Z that is lowered a good bit will already show angularity in the shaft joints, and then a high torque squat coming off line will make the situation even worse for the U-joints. One thing I did was raise the differential by about 1" (the upper subframe above the differential is an issue here) which helped straighten out the shafts.

I don't see the 3/16" material to end of the tube being an issue. The important point is that the weld-in bushings cover the "boxing" enough that the tube will not collapse if a heavy side-force is presented. This issue is well covered from what I see in the photographs.

Well, I just finished the insertion of the 8610 into the 240Z tube, and yes it was initially a tight (impossibly tight) fit. After rolling the 8610 body around through a caliper to measure diameter, I found the body was very consistant in diameter at about 1.72" (Just what Koni told me), BUT, at the bottom of the strut where the part number and identification stamping was, the diameter would jump up to about 1.74 to 1.75 (which is the ID of my tube). Needless to say, I couldn't get the insert beyond an inch or so into the tube. So I filed (with a course file) the paint and some of the high spots down on the case where the stamping was to get it down to where the strut would now slide down into the tube (with a little bit of a push). If the Koni size is correct for the 8611 on the OD, there is no way it would fit into my tubes.

Well, I just finished the insertion of the 8610 into the 240Z tube, and yes it was initially a tight (impossibly tight) fit. After rolling the 8610 body around through a caliper to measure diameter, I found the body was very consistent in diameter at about 1.72" (Just what Koni told me), BUT, at the bottom of the strut where the part number and identification stamping was, the diameter would jump up to about 1.74 to 1.75 (which is the ID of my tube). Needless to say, I couldn't get the insert beyond an inch or so into the tube. So I filed (with a course file) the paint and some of the high spots down on the case where the stamping was to get it down to where the strut would now slide down into the tube (with a little bit of a push). If the Koni size is correct for the 8611 on the OD, there is no way it would fit into my tubes.

So IF this tube replaces the OEM tube, how do you get more ID out of it (being it is still inserted into the OEM spindle boss). Is the tube of thinner wall thickness, or must the OEM spindle boss be bored to a larger diameter, or does the insert only drop down as far as the boss and no further?

So IF this tube replaces the OEM tube, how do you get more ID out of it (being it is still inserted into the OEM spindle boss). Is the tube of thinner wall thickness, or must the OEM spindle boss be bored to a larger diameter, or does the insert only drop down as far as the boss and no further?

I suspected that, but this info on there being a difference (albeit a small difference) came from the Koni tech. I carefully measured my tubes and I found I was going to be about .005" too small for the 8611 based upon what Koni told me, a within a couple of thou of slack on the 8610. I hate to leave something like this open-ended. I think I call Koni again in the morning and see what their response is.

I suspected that, but this info on there being a difference (albeit a small difference) came from the Koni tech. I carefully measured my tubes and I found I was going to be about .005" too small for the 8611 based upon what Koni told me, a within a couple of thou of slack on the 8610. I hate to leave something like this open-ended. I think I call Koni again in the morning and see what their response is.

Well, I ordered my 8610s today. I wanted 8611s, but this body width (according to Koni) is 1.8 inches, and the ID of my 240 tubes are only 1.75". It appears the 8610's width of 1.72 is gonna be close, but work. Does this sound correct by other's out there?

Well, I ordered my 8610s today. I wanted 8611s, but this body width (according to Koni) is 1.8 inches, and the ID of my 240 tubes are only 1.75". It appears the 8610's width of 1.72 is gonna be close, but work. Does this sound correct by other's out there?

Dang, it sounds like us, err, the Arkansas folks just trippled there presence! Awesome!

I'm a bit confused (but that's not unusual any more) about this. The control arm will not move in and out as the suspension moves up and down. My understanding (again, based upon my use of REAR eccentric bushings) is that once the bushing is adjusted, it is then tightened into this "set" position, and then remains fixed as the suspension moves up and down. To the best of my recollection on my rear pieces, the aluminum eccentric rotates, which then positions the Delrin bushing up, down, left, or right. I am also guessing that once this adjustment is made, then tightening the large bolt that goes through the bushing will clamp it between the two sides of the cross-member and thus fix or "set" the position. I eventually replaced mine due to wear issues that allowed some slop to develop. I am guessing that the part on the eccentrics that is supposed to rotate, is the part that allows some means of turning it (e.g. hex pattern for a wrench).

Thank you for the proper introduction and welcome on board!