blueovalz

I'm not sure on those (not even sure I like them). There was a thread not too far back that had the 944 (or was it a 924) flares for sale. Now those looked like they would fit, AND they looked good.

Now I'm confused. From the photo shown, the left and right side are vastly different, but if one side is supposed to be 3/4" (then this is very close to 19 mm), then it looks like a lot more than 1 mm difference between the left and right side in the photo?

Here is what I consider the strong points on any Z (or ZX), and you can do what you wish with my thoughts. One point that makes the ZX look as nice as it does is the front end, in that it is not blunt or rounded. I am concerned that if the angles are decreased too rapidly on the front, you'll loose what I consider an important characteristic of these cars. If you want to shorten the overhang, then my suggestion is lower the fender/hood line (bring the wheels up toward the silhouette of the fender) line so that you can then shorten the overhang without the loss of the aggressive angles used on these cars. Or, you might actually move the front wheels forward a bit (like I did to increase caster, but it helped aesthetically as well), or a combination of both. All of this is easier said than done, but it keeps what I consider essential for the ZX look.

I think it's neat what can be done in design and the tools available. In regards to the design, what was the motivation of the new design verses the old (originality, blending with custom body and hood, just something different, etc?). The OEM bucket appeared to blend well with the curve in the hood. The new design appears to break away from the OEM curve, and being so, how do you bring th two together (custom hood?). I like the squared off look though. Somehow it needs to integrate into the round light, otherwise I feel the "void" between the squared headlight opening, and the headlight will be too obvious.

You guys are having too much fun! In answer too the question about the steering arm, yes it is the OEM arm.

It did help. I eventually went with a spacer that was "two and a half nuts long" as my final setting.

This was a temporary step in getting the correct spacing. Once I found the right length of the spacer, I had one-piece spacers made. I did move the inner CA pivot point upward 3/8" (that's all the room I had with the crossmember I was using)

There are changes to the toe even with the use of camber plates as well. Not to the extent that would happen by moving the CA in/out, but still enough to warrant toe adjustments in some cases. The adapter I fabricated was the end of a Ford tie rod end welded to a 1/2" bolt. The Ford end screwed onto the rack, and the 1/2" threaded portion screwed into the rod end.

I have fabricated adapters for mine (which in essence was a spacer as well) and have had no problems.

Any 240 transverse links?

I had the same issue, so I assembled all the parts that screwed, bolted, and slid into place, tightened it all down just as it would be on the car, and then tacked everything in place. The only risk here is the splatter getting on the threads, which will gall the you-know-what out of the bolt if you don't find it and remove it before threading a bolt over them.

Bla bla blaa bla bla. Quit procrastinating!

I considered the impact of what you're saying when I was looking at the concept of this design (fixed points for the bearings). At an agressive (1/4") toe change setting (at the inboard bearings), the distance between bearings will change by .00085". On a more conservative setting (1/8") you're obviously looking at a much smaller change of .00021" (Thats with three zeros!). The fact that the rear bushing is maintained in "sheet" steel uprights whose orientation allows some degree of flex fore and aft makes this very small amount of change inconsequential (my assumption only). If indeed I knew that the bearings were mounted so rigidly that no amount of flex between the two took place (which is the safe way to go), then perhaps a very thin sheet of compressible material (rubber for example) placed between the bearing race and the bearing retainer housing it, on the rear bearing only, (e.g. a rubber washer of such) allowing the race a tiny bit of movement to compensate for the toe changes would prevent premature bearing failure. PFTE lined bearings may also help in this sense in that they offer built-in fexiblility. How much is not known, but certainly better than metal-to-metal.

Submitted for your review. I have updated the design very slightly in that I added large washers on both sides of the bearing as a backup guard in case the bearing itself fails. This way the washers will keep the control arm under control if for any reason the bearing or retainer should fail. Also, I added seals to keep debris out of the bearing itself (I found a variety of shaft seals that would fit inside the retainer's ID). 10º of misalignment angle should suffice being the only real misalignment would be for specific applications such a my toe adjuster.

In regards to simplicity, has anyone considered a design using ball joints. They are ubiquitous in any racing circle, very stout, and should easily be adapted to a design for the inner bushings. Obviously their degree of movement or swing is less than the sperical bearings, but this large swing is not necessary, and proper orientation could fully eliminate that problem anyway. Just brain-storming here.

Zlalomz: Fascinating idea, and very similar to one I considered when I fabricated the toe adjuster. My concern/issues were the shear forces placed on the neck and shaft of the rod end. With no sway bar used at all, there would be none in an up and down plane, but I was too unsure of what forces were involved in the fore and aft plane. Until I have a very thorough understanding of what forces work on the bushings, I will try to avoid any "extended" (such as rod ends) mounts for the control arms and remain with those that are fully enclosed, or close to it. I realize that the rear bushing mount is a little "wierd" in that it's a flat plate that could flex fore and aft, but be very rigid left to right (which is why I began wondering if the forces on the bushing were all lateral, and not logitudinal). What I wonder is if DATSUN designed the front mount to be so rigid in every plane, that it would provide the needed rigidity (through the CA tube that connects the front bushings with the rear bushings) in the fore/aft plane that the rear mounting system could not provide. Many interesting questions that I could never resolve. Ultimately, I tried to keep as much of the OEM design (a well proven design) intact knowing that it was overdesigned from the beginning and allow me to use the rubber bushings until I felt comfortable with another option. Perhaps the time has come for another option. I just love building things...

As I see it this gap should not have any impact in strength on the "carrier". The gap will allow the bushing retainers to squeeze the two halves together, thus ensuring a clamping of the bearing, which to me is a good thing.

This is one reason why I am so adamant about trying to use the OEM arm verses redesigning the wheel so to speak.

OxCart Racing's BlueovalZ

Yeah, I wished I knew more about the forces on the CA. For example, intuitively, on would think that fore and aft forces only are a majority of what these bearings/bushing experience (in regards to acceleration and braking only), but I'm re-thinking this in that I believe it is more a twisting force on the bushings. I now believe the strut and control arm would rotate around some common point whenever force is applied to the axle, and not pull straight forward or backward (in braking). Thus, I think nearly all the forces the bushings/bearings see are lateral to the bushing/bearing axis, and not longitudinal.

That's a good point Jon. A concern I have, thinking about it now, is that I might need to turn the outer ends of the spindle pin down from .629" to .625" in order to use the 5/8" bearings. The metric sizes were unusable due to a very large OD of the race. This fact would require that I remove the bearing prior to removal of the spindle pin. Welding the inner sleeve in place instead of the outer sleeve could be one way to get around this. But another thought is why not use plain old roller bearings. For me anyway, this is an option because any toe adjustment will be performed away for these bearings. Thus these bearings will always be aligned with the axis of the tubes welded to the end of the CA. Then I could safely use the spindle pin to push/pull the bearings out of the tube, and used sealed bearings as well.

And the outboard bearing would be done a little different being the bearing OD is so close to the bushing retainer ID.

Jon (and others), Here is a drawing of what I've come up with as far as using the #12 spherical bearing you mentioned. I would have it machined as a single piece on the lathe with the 3/4" (#12) spherical bearing pressed into it, and held in place with a circlip. Shims or spacers on either side would be carefully fitted to compensate for OEM tolerance differences to ensure no pre-loading of the bearing took place when it is finally assembled. This would then be used with the stud inserted into the OEM CA tube as pictured below (the rod end would be replaced by the sperical bearing).

Well, it looks as if I've been beat, It's bad when 6" just don't cut it any more.

I don't have them handy, but when you get them, consider this: I recently replace my rear rotors with some new ones that were about 1/2" larger. I cannot remember if they were 2000 Maxima, or 2000 Altima (I suspect Altima as they were 4 lug). The Altima rotors are identical to the Maxima as best as I could tell in offset and thickness. What all this means is that if you've got a small mismatch in the rotor diameter in regards to a caliper bracket, there are several diameters out there with all other things being equal. As best I remember, the thickness was about .9", diameter was about 10 3/4", and the offset was about 1 1/4" (outside of wheel face to outside of rotor face). It's a pretty common offset.