blueovalz

1.58000" - 1.4375" = .1425" wall thickness is really thin if I'm going to cut a groove for a clip. An alternative is two short cylinders clamping the outer race into position. these cylinders, one on each side of the race, would be held in place by the nut on the outside (in front of the front monoball), and on between the inner race and the framing on the arm? Shearing would need to be addressed. Anyway, it's off to work, so I'll look at this later.

If we are gonna do this right, there must be verification and rules. A ruler placed on the rim, such that an easily verifiable measurement can be shown, should be included in the photo. And of course, the wheel must be "on the car." So I'll show you my ruler if you'll show me yours.

Have you compared the diameter of the L6 pulley with that of the Ford crank pulley that was the source of your pump? If the L6 pulley is smaller, good for you, if it was the same size or larger, not so good.

I'll take a look at mine tonight (I'm so pathetic) and see what I can tell about what you're missing (if anything?)

I considered this same issue of the "misalignment" of the bearing verses the casing for the monoball, but concluded that any misalignment could be easily handled by the bearing (much like the sperical bearing on a tie rod which must rotate within a wide range of angles or the TC rod monoball shown earlier). In fact, I would not even consider a monoball if I knew the shaft would ALWAYS be aligned with the axis of the bearing, but instead use a sealed roller bearing (or something similar) instead (they are much smaller and durable, but cannot take any misalignment). This is where the monoball becomes necessary.

Yes, this was the direction I was heading on that.

They should be fine, but anytime one asks a question of this nature, tires (sticky or street), application or use of vehicle (drag or street), and torque (not so much horsepower) are key considerations.

Hmm, more things to think about. Good points Jon. I have looked into the monoball on the inside for some time. and my draft solution was to have a machined block made in which the monoball would slide into a large round slot holding the outer race, and then bolting this "saddle" up into the OEM bushing retainer. Perhaps some degree of modification to the OEM bushing retainer (the upper part that is part that is part of the body) to perfectly match (and overlap at the edges for shear force restraint) this machined monoball retainer. Obviously my bushings are not Energy Suspension! More thinking...head hurting

Throughout the years of reading comments about the aftermarket poly bushing for the outer ends of the rear control arms, I've not heard any mention of the size difference between the OEM steel inner sleeve verses the aftermarket size. Specifically this. The spindle pin OD is nearly identical to the OEM bushing steel sleeve ID. In other words, the OEM bushing slides onto the pin with little to no play (or in other words, the pin would slide snuggly into the control arm's bushings). On the other hand, the aftermarket (at least the ones I have) poly bushing kits use a steel sleeve that has an ID that is .011" larger than the spindle pin's OD. My concern is that IF I ever install these poly bushings (the outer ones), will this "play" or extra clearance cause problems later in the life of the suspension. I realize that when the bushings are installed, that once the spindle pin's end nuts are tightened, that these sleeves are pulled against the strut boss with quite a bit of force, and thus may not move. But intuitively, this play does allow the control arm to move in respect to the spindle pin should these nuts ever loosen (something that would not happen with the tighter OEM steel sleeves), and something I would want to avoid. So the question I ask is: Has anybody attempted to separate the OEM inner steel sleeve and use it with the poly bushings instead of the steel sleeve supplied with these bushings? I have looked into this, and found the OEM sleeve's OD is about .032" larger than the aftermarket sleeve, which means it is a little too tight to slide into the poly bushing, so... I guess I'm having a real problem with "building in" some slop into the rear suspension on something that should be designed better. Bushing data: OEM - Sleeve .629" ID and .785" OD, 1.820" long Control Arm bushing receivers are 1.179" ID Aftermarket - Sleeve .640" ID and .753" OD, 1.833" long Bushing is 1.187 OD.

I don't think it will be so much of an issue as it would be on the front as the front brakes will take the brunt of the braking (and heating). The larger diameter solid rotor has a larger swept area and leverage, but it will not dissipate the heat as effectively as the vented. Unless you get down to the science and numbers of braking forces and heat dissipation, I don't know that the difference is appreciable.

I guess I'm missing the obvious (but I read these postings several times), but have you considered adjusting the clevis back toward the middle of the threaded portion? My rationale is this: Your piston is pushed into the MC too far (due to the cleavis being adjusted to the very end of the rod - too far out) so that the piston is hitting the end of the bore and preventing any further pedal travel. When this is done, and the pedal is retracted, the piston is only drawn partway back, and hence will not draw the proper fluid for the next stroke. But this would mean you would have great difficulty in bleeding the clutch system. I would adjust the clevis so that the pushrod has no pressure on it at all when the pedal is retracted and resting against the stop. Then with no more that perhaps 1/2" of pedal travel, the pushrod should start pushing the piston into the bore.

Jon, would you volunteer as the HybridZ poster child?

In my mind it's hard to reach that point of overkill, but (depending on if your application is for the street) for me, I like the control arm bearing, but would skip the T/C rod bearing (unless I put the car on the track).

Mike, I thought about this prior to starting on these arms but my concern was adding yet another threaded connection (two threaded connections verses the single one) to a point that takes the brunt of the lateral loading on the car. Interior noise should has not been a problem with these joints, but I'm using the lined joints (Teflon?). Now when I had solid mounts at the camber plates on top of the struts, then I had some extra noise. 71LT1Z, I don't think you're going to find any 3/4" NF grade 8 bolts in a left-hand thread. I used right-hand threads on mine.

I'm dubious of any frame rail damage from rubber verse solid mounting configurations. Once the tires hook up, the same torque will be placed upon the mounting area regardless of the type of mount. The only benefit (from the frame rails perspective) is the ramped application of the torque with the rubber mounts verses the immediate application of this same torque with a solid mounting system. In my application, I used front and rear plates, attached with no less than two spaced bolts per corner, and with the rear plate located immediately adjacent to the firewall. This then uses the block to prevent relative twisting of the frame rails to each other, and the firewall/unibody resist the twisting from the rear plate backward. This way, the entire block would have to twist before the frame rails would, and in effect, makes the block a part of the chassis. Important in this though is that the transmission must be solidly mounted as well, making it a 6 point "spinal column" for front half of the unibody in which the engine and tranny act as a solid unit reiforcing the unibody. Add some extra bracing, and you'll end up with a very rigid platform.

Nice change Eric, and I like the way it is presented. Good work (but what else would one expect from your site)!

I did it both ways. The first set was for using male rod ends, very much like yours. The second set I made used a 3/4" bolt (about 6" long) that was welded in place of the threaded tube. I ended up liking the "stud" version better as it was much easier to fabricate, and the end of the control arm that was cut off was spaced out further from the crossmember, which allowed more variability in positioning the rod-end on the crossmember mounting bolt. I simply cut the head off the bolt, and welded the resultant "stud" or shank into the arm the same way that you welded the threaded tube into the arm. I found that with the threaded tube (mine was thinner walled than yours is) a good penetrating weld would require cleaning up of the threads inside the tube, and I had to be careful not to go to deep with the weld. This problem was eliminated with the stud approach.

Yeah, I thought the carrier itself would swap, but the gear on it (which is matched to the pinion gear) will not.

You sound like you need to look over how everything goes together a bit before you start, as well as familiarize yourself with the parts. The front rotor bolt holes do not use the stud pattern for mounting. Instead, the front rotor uses a separate set of bolts (on a smaller diameter) for mounting, and thus the difference between the front and rear rotor mounting hole patterns. Also, the calilper braket mounts to the bearing carrier flange on the strut where the backing plate was mounted (else the calipers would spin around with the wheel if mounted on the studs). Take a look at another car with the disc brakes intact, look over it real good, and you'll get the big picture on what you need to do. When you disassemble the front rotors, it will be obvious why the front rotors have a different mounting pattern than the rears do.

For those that do not have PayPal accounts, how do you wish to handle payment?

Pictures would help, but the OD of the rear rotor sounds correct. I measured the rotor (not a real good measurement) on my 240SX (it's a 300ZX NA rotor as well) and it was close to 11 1/2". The "hat" is about 1 3/8" tall as well. When you say Ross' bracket does not line up, what do you mean exactly? Have you got the calipers on them to test fit?

This is the whole issue I've had with any spacer. The issue is "how to ensure additional tension forces are not introduced into the studs". Ideally, a spacer should have the holes through which the studs pass as close a fit as is possible to the size of the stud. When this is done, the stud no longer can move within the confines of the spacer, thus the only tension forces imposed on the stud are those from the torqued lug nuts. In this configuration, the stud is exposed to shear forces, and not the additional tension caused by a stud being pulled sideways (and this is only if you use a lug-centric spacer). This is why I had spacers machined for my car that must be forced onto the hub due to a very, very slight interference fit on the studs themselves. With the spacer in place, there is NO movement whatsoever, even with the wheel off. In additon, the spacer has a lip to make the wheel hub-centric as well.

2 X Front (small patch)

When I started on my Z, and after investigating this whole mess with caster/camber relationships, I lengthened my TC rod, moved the crossmember forward, and of course, did the usual "adjustable" control arm modifications (and being the body was built around the chassis, I had no problems with the wheel openings from the increased wheel base dimension) The end result was 7º of caster. Braking was much improved with the decreased camber (ran about 1º or less) as a result. The backside of it was, once I put the car on the street, my perception was that it "hunted" (pulled side to side) more than before on uneven road surfaces. Smooth surfaces did not do this. My current challenge is to reduce this "hunting". I experimented with reducing the toe to zero, but the results were mixed and not definitive. Any help from you guys would be appreciated.

This is a fuzzy area for me as well, as some manufacturers wheels/hubs only use a smaller area surrounding the stud as the contact surface with the hub. My biggest concern on this (and I found this out when I was using washers to mock up a brake rotor upgrade) was that there are several thousanths difference in washer thickness, from the same bin, even on the better grades. I had to go through quite a few washers before finding enough of them that were within .0005 of each other so that the runout was acceptable.