blueovalz

I had an aluminum tank fabricated last year and it has worked out very well (I needed specific dimensions and shape that were unavailable from mass produced tanks). I had an issue with a few welds not sealing up where the bead was terminated, but that was resolved and so far its been well worth the time and expense.

My Fototime photos are the only documentation I've done. With that said, I believe the rotors are the same width (thickness) as the 300ZX (but you should verify this first) which would mean, that with the appropriately fabricated bracket, you may be able to us the 280ZX front calipers (if you couldn't locate good Supra calipers). The pad area, and piston diameter are all the same between the two calipers. I had a machine shop opened the center hub hole, and drilled 4 new mounting holes on the new rotors for $30/rotor. The only concern about doing this is that the rotor needs to be a fairly snug fit (but not too snug) over the hub. I had mine machined so that the bolts would draw the rotor down onto the hub. I believe it is 81mm in diameter (3.1907 as the machinist measured). This kept it true with no run-out. The Supra caliper's mounting bracket also spaces the caliper further out from the mounting bolts (as seen from the photograph) which may benefit those attempting to fabricate an adapter plate) than the ZX caliper does, and this increased offset looks to be by the same amount as the increased diameter of the rotor over the ZX rotor.

Jon, thanks for takin' care of business while I was out of town! When I did the 300ZX rotor/280ZX caliper upgrade, it was better than the OEM brakes in performance, but not yet what I was comfortable with. Then when I upgraded again to the Supra brakes, the improvement was another full step upward. So much so that I've decided to call it quits on any further upgrades (even though I've got a Cobra rotor bolted onto the Z hub) until I see any need for more heat dissipation.

Good question, and it's the primary reason I've decided to stay with the 240 stubs. Even with slicks (road, not drag) I never broke anything (except the U-jointed shafts). Some pictures show the break before the splines, and one past the splined area. In the most technical sense, the 280 stub will be stronger only in one particular area (base of the splines), which if you'll looking for all you can get, then it's reason enough. My little ol' 289 ain't never gonna torque the 240 stubs in half, so they are fine for me.

Good article in that it makes one think. These issues of rotational mass verses the need for additional cooling was the issue I raised in a very recent thread about brakes. This is the primary reason I have backed off going to the Cobra 13" package in that I feel I've reached that balance (if not crossed over) of having plenty of mass to absorb heat, but not too large as to make the unsprung and rotational mass excessive. After all, the brakes currently on my car were well designed for a car that was 30% heavier than my Z. Reference the holes? I've seen a lot of racing with non-drilled and non-slotted rotors on real race cars (in fact, rarely would I ever see drilled rotors, but this was years ago), and this would seem to be the group of users that would have pushed this issue (if it really were an issue) of outgassing through holes. If I'm not mistaken, proper pad break-in will reduce this problem in the first place, wouldn't it?

Increased vaporization. Hmmm, this accounts for the layer of ice that surrounded my plastic bucket (that I mix fiberglass resin in) half filled with acetone. Very cold to the touch due to the evaporative cooling effect.

My personal experience in this realm was that the socket (so to speak) at the end of the ZX MC is different from the Z MC, which does change the depth of insertion of the rod. The piston stroke though should be no different than the Z stroke.

http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?p=490250#post490250 Here is a string that should help some. In essence, the sectioning requirements revolve around the strut dimensions and the car's change in ride height. Springs do not come into the equation at all. A car that is set up to ride at a specific height (hopefully at the midway point of strut travel) will use the same strut dimensions, whether using a 100lb spring, or a 500lb spring. Probably most important is this: In general, you will need to lower the top of the strut housing the same amount as the chassis is lowered (e.g. lower the car 2", then you'll need to lower the top of the strut housing 2" as well, with all other things being equal).

Until such measurements are made, you're only guessing. When I replaced the OEM Z calipers with the ZX calipers, the single piston caliper had approximately 12% more piston area than the Z calipers (measured on one side only). This made the move to the 15/16" very attractive. One would assume that any OEM 4 piston caliper (or Cobra for that fact) is going to have an increase in piston area over a typical single piston floater, but I've found very few set-ups actually do. Many high performance vehicles use floating calipers, which do have their own advantages, so I'm not upset by keeping this design on the car verses the 4 piston type. Going to a 1" MC would firm the pedal up even more so than the 15/16", but will require more muscle to produce the same degree of clamping force on the caliper end. This would be a questionable improvement (just a guess at this point), and a 1 1/16" would be way to large. The diameter of the rotor plays into your decision as well. If you increase the rotor size from 11" to 13", you've increased the braking leverage by 18%, which then would make up for the loss of leverage produced by going to a too large of bore MC. My goal was to keep the OEM "feel" in regards to brake pedal pressure, stroke, and moderation. I've found this happy medium with the current set-up that I run ('87 Supra rotors and calipers). I've experimented a bit by putting some 13" Cobra rotors on some Z hubs, but the Cobra caliper's lack of piston area, and the narrow pad pattern (1 5/8") would result a marginal increase in performance (from my analysis) than my 12" rotors with a 2" pad pattern and larger bore calipers. I believe this is so because the Cobra calipers and rotors would have about 12% less swept area (even with the larger diameter rotor than my current 12" rotors), but does have about 11% more leverage (again, due to the larger diameter). But this leverage would be cancelled out by the smaller piston area of the Cobra calipers. In the end, the greater heat dissapation of the Cobra rotors would be better, but I don't need that much extra heat dissapation any more, and the added rotational mass would decrease performance in certain aspects. So in the end, you've got to look at everything if you want to make an intelligent decision on brake parts.

Neat stuff here. Enjoying all the photos and information, so keep them coming!

I hope I understand your question here: The ZX Turbo CV jointed shafts are "double slip." I've never heard this term before, but the inner and outer ends slide in and out. The ZX Turbo CV shafts use a coil spring on the outer joint to push the shaft itself inboard toward the differential. Is this what you were needing to know?

I thought I'd replace the very effective, but uncomfortable aluminum racing seat(s) I've got in the Z, but after looking at the dimensions of the typical "racing" seats (padded and comfortable) I'm begining to change my mind. So far, the seats I've looked at are roughly 2 feet across at the widest point, and about 21" across at the front, which means a tight fit in the Z and about 1" between the two seats, and about 1" between each seat and the door edge (where a window would normally be). I'm afraid if I put these seats in the car (they look nice as well) that the two seats will look like a dang love seat being they will be so close together at the widest point (shoulder side supports) Any suggestions on an affordable aftermarket seat that will look good, be narrow enough to fit easily, hold me in place, and be comfortable?

In a nut-shell, yes. But then the low rpm response would not be as good as the smaller carb's response. I see examples of this in testing air flow characteristics of intake ports. Clay is used to round off the edges of the intake port opening when no manifold is attached. A 2" round hole in a plate flows differently than a 2" round tube, and the longer the tube, the greater the change, so obviously drag, is envolved in this issue. Turbulance around the sharp edges, the thicker throttle plates and rods, and flashing as well. I suppose you could compare this to intake port changes that allow more air simply by cleaning up the ports without any porting. I also suppose that removal of any material would constitute "porting", but configuration of the port can have as much to do with air flow as the actual diameter of the port. Many examples are known where opening specific areas of a port hinder flow, while other locations help it. I'm sure someone more knowledgable will chime in later today to offer a more scientific approach to explaining this.

Not an expert on this, but I understand it as like this. Take the example of: A flat plate with a 2" hole will pass a certain amount of air through that hole at a specific pressure drop across the plate. Now place an air horn around the hole, and even though you've not increase the area of the hole, the amount of air passing through the hole will increase for the same pressure drop due to reduced losses. So a factory carb, rated at 500 cfm, may now flow 530 cfm without losing any vacuum signal on the low end of the air flow scale (low rpm range). But to do this you've got to stay away from opening the ventury or reducing the size of the booster. In other words, keep it to carefull cleaning up of casting flashing, and mismatch of parts (base to body, etc).

These secondaries (the flaps covering the secondary) are opened by air flow. The secondaries (or flaps above the boosters) are counterweighted (provided nothing has changed with the basic design in the last 20 years or so) so that air passing these upper flaps will eventually tip them open, allowing more and more air to pass through the venturies, which will then pick up more fuel. Unless the carb is too big for the motor, you should see a slight bit of opening movement on a WOT blip, but it won't be much.

It will definitely increase the RL/S ratio (over the OEM 280Z), which should be of benefit at the higher RPMs, but my understanding is that (and again, someone more knowledgable needs to chime in) the crank is the weak link with high rpms, and not necessarily the piston speeds.

He may be writing about the typical smoothing of the bore, cast flashing, slight mismatch of mated parts, thinning of the throttle rods, and smoothing of the sharp corners above the venturies. It's said to increase the CFM without losing any of the signal. As far as a finish on the carb, you'll never see any difference months down the road. I've done this to several carbs, and the exposed metal (it's not aluminum, but instead some kind of zink alloy I believe) will develop a patina the makes it unnoticable after a while. It will not corrode either unless it's constantly exposed to moisture, which it shouldn't be with all the heat and filtering.

The the stroke, by itself, will not be affected by the rod length. The longer rod (5.3 mm) will require a custom piston if used on the 280 crank that allows the pin to be moved higher up the piston by half this amount. Not knowing much anymore about the L6 motors, I'd say you don't have 2.615 mm of room to push the piston up using stock pistons.

Why couldn't you use the typical 4-point harness, minus one shoulder strap? With this configuration, you'd need to adjust the lap belts so that the latching mechanism would be riding over the right side of your right hip so that the left shoulder strap comes over the left shoulder, crosses the chest, and is attached to the latching mechanism on the right side of your hip.

Exactly Jon, so don't those bonds (used to pull money out of the SS fund) draw some interest (albiet, a small amount)? I mean, why isn't this issue being scrutinized more than the minimal (at best) coverage it has received. Everybody is hammering SS as a concept, when the real issue is the use of it for general revenues. Am I missing something here?

And even though this will not count toward my total, you're still the top post whore.

This was done last year as well if my memory is correct (which each year it becomes less acurate). My count dropped by about 500 as well. I am surprised I responded to that many "non-techs."

Yeah, I just notice that too (not that I watch that kind of thing)

The bantering taking place here has only briefly touched on the issue of government using the SS monies as general revenue (I am somewhat surprised this issue seems to be of little concern), which to me (perhaps through a lack of understanding) appears to be the crux of the "shortfall" facing recipients of SS. If these bonds were cashed out, (This is probably not a realistic conclusion), where would SS be in terms of meeting its promises? Is not the real issued here the issue of government spending, and not on the issue of social security? From the viewpoint of the uninitiated, if the financial history of SS has been a vastly positive pay-in/pay-out ratio, then in itself, SS should be financially sound, but it's not. If my credits exceed my debits (in a savings account at the bank) during my entire life, then I should expect the balance to be in the black. If it's in the red, then a crime would appear to have taken place, and the discussion with the other account holders would be "when is my money going to be replaced." Instead, this string seems to be responding with this: "We should get rid of the saving's accounts and the banks, and put our money in the pillow case."

Well, if your good with balsa, bondo is a breeze. Take the blinders off now and step toward the car!