blueovalz

Thanks John, Funny story on that. I got the 50th issue in the mail, and started reading it walking up the driveway when I immediately noticed all the full page ads. So, being the anal person I am, I started counting, and found 67 full page ads, not counting the 1/2 and 1/3 page ads, nor the classifieds. So I put the magazine down, went to the computer and asked AW (letter to the editor), "when would we get our free subscriptions due to all the ad revenue generated". As you've guessed: 1) no response from AW (great magazine though) 2) I didn't see the photo until three days later when a local speed shop owner here in town called me about it. My response, "What are you talking about?" Even at 17 years of age, the BlueOvalZ still gets a little bit of attention.

Thanks for the link and tip. After looking a Enecon's site, it appears their product is more oriented for coating (protection) and adhesion, with no reference to high temperature strength. Cementing the studs in place as merit, and I may look more closely at that option, but the temperature issue will cloud that. Perhaps I could find a product that will hold up fine at normal or elevated engine temperatures, but soften at even higher temps (400º or higher) in case I need to remove the stud later.

I need to repair an intake manifold. I want to fill the existing carb mounting holes with a good epoxy, drill and tap new holes in the filler epoxy, but at a slight angle difference than the original hole was (8º off from the original axis of the holes), and then, if needed, helicoil those threads. The problem is that every easily purchased epoxy (JB weld, etc) gets a little bit softer when exposed to the typical engine heat temperatures. Has anybody had experience with an epoxy that stays rock hard when warmed up to typical underhood temps (remember, I get no air flow under the hood, and it gets HOT).

I've always used the OEM rubber bushings. By the time they get compressed to the stops, there is little difference in compressibililty to the poly bushings as it relates to forces imparted by driving even with stickies. The good thing is that these can be tightened up while the car sets at its static ride height much easier than with the poly bushings can.

This is where the caster really makes the argument interesting. Again, it's a compromise, but less of one. Lots of caster helps increase the camber curve on tight runs (solo for example), but may be too much on a road coarse where the same g-force (read: sway) is had with less steering angle. Like John said, compromise... compromise... compromise. This is why one track setting is a different setting than the next track for fastest times.

I've got to queston this measurement (and I may be overlooking something here). Assuming the installed strut is 20" long (corner weight has compressed the strut to normal ride height) from the tower mount down to the control arm mount (vertical distance), then moving either end 1" (arm forward, or tower rearward) should net roughly 2.9º of caster rather than 1.6º (not measured, but using trig). This is rough because the T/C rod is at an angle (which will reduce the extension by roughly 10%), the T/C rod is attached inboard of the strut's kingpin centerline (which would increase the extension by some amount offsetting the angle issue), and obviously, the length of the strut is generalized (but pretty close). The .1º for .1" extension appears to be too small a ratio. You could compare this to the more common camber changes. I can use a 1" adjustment on my camber plates to effect almost 3º change in camber.

Looking good (real good). I assume these can be drilled for a 4 bolt pattern as well? (Yes, I'm still on fours).

Have you considered drilling a hole in a couple of plates, and then welding these plates over the torn sway bar link hole (sandwiching the OEM plate)? As an option of last resort, it would be an alternative to removing the arm, and allow the sway bar to be re-attached. Just make sure you've got plates that are of sufficient material (area and gauge), and don't overlap the welding beads (make sure the plates are of different sizes).

I've never, and most likely never will have problems with mine. The reason I went with Porsche joints was the ubiquity of parts to purchase. You can get these just about anywhere (but that point is mute in light of their great strength and reliability). Pros: The other reason I built a set was because I moved the differential over toward the driver 1" to help straighten the driveshaft. Then I just had new grooves machined to the shorter/longer required lengths of the axles (I started out with a generic pair of 930 axles from Sway-A-Way). Lastly, my joints (and my 930 joints are wider than these) clear the rear sway bar without any rubbing on the boots. Cons: Price (but it's half as much as I paid for mine to get the machine work and parts).

Let me know how it goes with the completion of the 930 flanges. I'm very interested in this, and being your application is identical to mine, it should be pretty straight forward in duplicating another set for me.

It will. It is the same as the Ford filter threads, and will allow the AN-10 fittings to be used to either the single or dual filters. I'm looking at the book as I write this, and it makes little sense to me as well, and even less sense with the simple parts available to simply screw a contempory adapter in place (as you've purchased).

I was getting concerned and felt that perhaps the HybridZ community come by your place and see if you were ok. That was so uncharacteristic of you, but I've done the same thing, and then sit back and wonder, why....why...why.

I'd say the 1" is an aftermarket bar. If you increase the spring rates, this will help reduce the detrimental effects of a stiff bar on the frame rails (tearing and cracking). Oh, and BTW, I'd like to buy a 1 1/8" bar if anyone has one they want to get rid of.

I've seen this happen several times, but each of the times I witnessed this, the inner outside race ended up bonding to the spindle rather than the hub. Lucky you. All you'll need is the hub and not the strut.

What you have there IS a 4.5" pattern IF measured directly across the center of the hub. Measuring across studs is an inaccurate way to measure a 5 lug pattern, and is different than measuring across a 4 lug pattern (the 4 lug being directly measurable and accurate).

That's the magic smoke, that onced released, the part never works again.

I agree with your assessment on this. Just as the 280ZX CVs handled the torque of my SBF (289) with never a failure (which was well over the amount of torque from the OEM turbo ZX), the type 2 should be able to best the ZX turbo shafts by quite a bit more, and should offer great reliability in most V8 swaps. Comparing the 930 to the type 2, the components are larger the 930, so there is more strength there, even without the large angles. I think the 930 CVs I used are a bit of overkill, but with the same amount of work involved in machining the adapter plates, it was not an issue to go with bigger CVs, and I wanted a bullet-proof CVs. I will never have to replace these CVs.

Adding to Jon's post, the spring rate must be factored in as well. A high spring rate, high rate bars, etc will allow the use of a shorter spring, and a lower spring rate will require the use of a longer spring. My experience has been that I get about 4" of compliance in an autocross event, with 275 lb spring rates. My 7" springs work fine for this. But if I went softer on the rate, or softer bars, and other factors, I'd be in trouble.

I don't believe you would be able to do this any differently with these arms than with any OEM arm. The pivot point is still based upont the OEM location that the OEM arms use.

Just a note here. I do not know what manufacturer made my helical LSD (Quaife, Gleason Torsen, etc), but I DO know that when I put my axles into it, I found I was required to swap the driver side and passenger side SPLINED stub from one axle shaft to the other. In other words, the differential carrier itself was reversed from the normal R200. Consequently, I had to use the short stub with the longer shaft and visa versa in order to make it work from the previous single track R200 that was previously in it. I thought I was looking at it wrong, but then I started looking at my spare R200, the shop manual, and other shafts, and sure enough, this LSD was an oddball. That's when I dismantled the untouched CV shafts (280ZX turbo), swapped the inside CV stubs, and re-installed them. Then everything was good to go.

NOW you've hit the mark! My biggest concern in the current aftermarket designs (and even my own work) is the issue of maintaining an EXACT spacing between fixed heim joints. This design eliminates preloading on a spherical bearing that may be only a few thousanths off the dimension of the spindle pin boss. Kills me that such a simple concept evaded me.

OEM, perhaps off a 280z. it is very close to the clutch MC, making it a little larger than the 240z booster.

To add to 74_5.0L_Z's post; I am running the 4000 series 1.75" front, and 3000 series 1.25" rear. The MC is a 15/16", and has a nice OEM type of feel (but without the fade) using Hawk pads. I do NOT use a proportioning valve. After trial and error, I found this size ratio perfect for the current use of the car. Put some stickier tires on it, and I will have too much braking in back and have to re-install the valve. If you go with the 1 1/6" bore, it will make for a pretty stiff pedal that will require a good bit more umph.

Keep us informed with photos as you go along. This is the first one of many regarding air management on the c-pillar that I care anything about.

On a high output 2 rotor RX7, they last for about 5000 miles combination street and autox as witnessed personally.