blueovalz

I wouldn't go that far. I've run the cv jointed 280ZX turbo shafts since '90 as a track car and now a street car and have never broke one yet (in fact, the original set I installed back then is still under the car). Yes, my powerplant is not a stump puller, but it does have a heathy roller SBF and has never had a tire narrower than 12" on the back in it's lifetime. The Q45 appears to be a much stronger unit, but then you must deal with stub axle strength as the last link in the chain that's not upgraded.

I believe the cowl panel is restricted from any movement by the wiper mechanism? So to open the hood with an attached cowl panel, you would need to modify it in a way that would allow it to open with wipers in place (provided you intend to have wipers). Aside from this obstacle, A cowl panel would not be that hard to fabricate, but could be complicated if you want to duplicate the vent slotting the OEM panel has. I've seen the underside of these panels, and provided you had a good, rust free, panel, I wonder if you couldn't us a release agent and simply use the underside of the cowl as a mold for your panel. Obviously the size will be slightly smaller doing this, but this would not be an overwhelming issue being this panel is of a thin gauge. In 90% of my work, I've used a 2-ounce mat for fabricated parts and find this is a good compromise on a resin/mat (or cloth) ratio for strength and ease of fabriction. Materials for your project can be found at boat manufacturers or any other company that fabricates with fiberglass. You'll just have to look and ask around. I buy my mat by the roll (usually I see a roll were I purchase it) that's about half used up and buy the rest of the roll. Resin is expensive though, and for small projects, I buy the Home Depot variety, which is about 1/2 the cost of purchasing it out of a 55 gallon drum from my materials source. It's a little thick for my liking, but mix a small amount of acetone into the resin and it will thin out fast (which allows it to work into the the mat easier). There is no good reason not to do this (if you've got some spare time and patience). For someone who has even the smallest aspiration to create custom fiberglass parts for his car, starting off on smaller pieces like this (or smaller still) is a great way to learn. And no price can be placed on experience and education, regardless of the discipline.

I've been using an aluminum pulley on both my cars for years, and never had an issue with either. The very oldest one (been on the car for about 8 years) was inspected last year when I had it off the car doing other work, and I could see where the "V" groove was very slightly worn, but it looked like it could go another 8 years with no problems.

I believe his problem is the distance between the installed bushings is narrower than the width of the strut housing that slides in between the bushings. I've heard of this problem repeatedly, but can't remember what the solution was. I believe a stiff puddy knife is used as a "shoe horn" to slide the housing between the bushings, which in effect, compresses the lip of the bushings as the strut housing is forced into position, and then the knife is pulled out from between the two. I'm sure someone will chime in and correct me as this appears to be a common problem with the poly bushings used outboard.

Cool! Send lots of pics please as you proceed through this. The Volvo head is a new one to me, so this really has my curiousity going.

My current wife went through this in her previous marriage and the doctors could not figure out what the problem was, and they too tried everything. Then boom, on a single time with a guy she had dated for a couple of years (later on in her life)....and now I've got a great stepdaughter (the father split fast after he found out, which was his loss)! Ironic, some folks have kids and don't want them, and others that do want kids, can't have them. Anyway, our prayers will be with yours!

Tim, Thanks for taking this on AGAIN. I've been in your position before on situation outside of HybridZ, and it can (and at times IS) be a PITA helping the "collective" out by doing this. When it does come about though, I want everyone to remember Tim AND Dan on this and hopefully we can knock out another year's worth of IT expenses incured for site maintenance and make it worth Tim's effort.

I liked mine initially, but a year later I was removing them and replacing them with the OEM bushings. They started to rattle a bit, and I had to place 40 grit sandpaper between the steel saddle and the aluminum barrel due to the barrel moving around during runs. It did wear on the delrin/aluminum interface to the point that the noise was troublesome (and it didn't take much play to do that), even well greased.

I was running into the same problem as well. To solve this issue (not a direct answer to your problem) I fabricated a filter holder out of fiberglass that conformed around the carb and hood underside enough that a 3" (by 14" K&N) filter will fit into the fiberglass holder. The odd teardrop shape you see here is only due to the fact that the filter must fit between the strut tower bracing "V" going to the firewall, but the jest of the pieces were to allow a reasonably tall element to be fitted under the hood without rubbing it. As you can see, the front of the holder drops down so that the element surrounds the front carb bowl, which was necessary due to the hood sloping downward as it went forward. The wing nut holding all these pieces together (lower piece/element/upper piece) resides in a deep divot centered over the carb stud, thus it (and the stud) protrudes no higher than the element's cover plate. I know, the first question is "how can this hold up to the under hood temperatures?" It does get a tiny bit more flexible at normal engine operating temperatures, but that's about it. It has held up fine for the 10 odd years I've used it.

I see no reason why not. As long as you have all the required information on the parts you are using, it's pretty straight-forward for all four corners. Just remember, this will get you close, but not perfect being the kingpin inclination (the strut's 13º slant) changes things slightly which compresses the spring just a tad bit more than if the strut was straight up and down. Also, vehicle weight is an estimate (F and R bias on top of this) as is the sprung weight (I subtract about 120lbs per corner off the "whole car" corner weight as another estimate). But this will get you pretty close. Just double and triple check everything before welding.

It sounds more and more like you need to roll up your sleeves, don some gloves and fab something up that "shock and awe" all of us old timers.

It's not too difficult to decide on where the threaded tube perch ring gets welded. You'll know the spring specs (rate and height), threaded tube length, strut dimensions, vehicle weight, and what difference, if any, you'll want in ride height. With these numbers in mind, one can get a pretty good guess on where the ring should be welded. Any difference can be easily taken up with the threaded tube. For example: I want to use 200lb/in springs that are 10" tall with a 6†long threaded tube. The strut insert casing is 1" shorter than the OEM strut, and the push-rod of the insert is 1" shorter than the OEM push-rod (for lack of a better term) at full extension, and I want to lower the car 1.5". Right off the bat, I know that I should shorten the strut housing 1" to gain the needed clearance for suspension compliance due to the new desired lowered vehicle height and the shorter insert length. So with this done, and the fact that the push-rod is also 1" shorter than the OEM rod, I know that the middle of travel for this new strut damper will be 1.5" (1" for housing + .5" for 1/2 of pushrod difference) shorter than the OEM damper. So I now know that with the proper spring location, my 1.5†lowering of the car can be handled by this new insert without any special parts or spacers (BTW, all lowering is done with the spring and not the damper, as obvious as this seems, I've seen some folks that don't recognize this immediately). I can estimate my 260z weighs about 2600lbs, which means the sprung weight will be about 2100lbs, which equates to about 525lbs/wheel. This means my springs will compress about 2.5". So now I have a spring that is ~7.5" long while compressed by the car's weight. This means that if the coil-over top spring perch is spaced the same as the OEM perch in reference to the strut tower height, then you can measure down from a point 1/2 the way down the push-rod (while it is fully extended) 10.5" for the location of where the top of your ring should be when welded to the housing (7.5" for spring height + 3†which is ½ the length of your threaded tube). This location should then place the lower spring perch roughly ½ the way up (or down) the threaded tube, and compress the strut damper ½ the way down, giving you lots of adjustment. If you want to bias the ride height a bit then you can modify the numbers to give you more or less room in the up/down adjustment window. The only significant variable not discussed here that should be taken into account is how the new coil-over upper perch (or the top of the strut push-rod) sits in relation to the strut tower height. In other words, if I go to the coil-over set-up, will I be eliminating the large rubber spacer that sits over the upper spring perch? If so, then this will change the ride height in itself.

Shameless plug:

I believe the Ford racks offer different ratios, so keep this in mind if you consider this. I had to reduce the rack movement (with spacers at each end inside the boots) due to the inside of the tire hitting the T/C rod at full lock. With that said, returning to the OEM steering rod (longer than the competition rod), I still have less than 2 turns lock-to-lock. This makes for a bit too much sensitivity on the highway and at high speeds, but for solo and drifting, I'd think it to be ideal.

Very nice TimZ. If extra time were taken with your fabrication, one could eliminate any rear toe-in problems with your "cradle" while tacking it all together. I especially like the bracing from the front bushing retainers with the rear ones (even if using the R200 casing this is a nice idea). Good work!

I tried the "form follows function" theme. This very personal approach is why I shied away from the current generation of aftermarket body parts as most are designed with contemporary views of what's aesthetically "hot", leaving function as a coincidental side effect (if at all). This, and the struggle to maintain some sort of moderation as I would brainstorm through various ideas, testing each idea with how it's function would add to the car's performance, yet still maintain some semblance of "Z" when all was said and done (obviously moderation went to hell in a handbasket on the rear end)

I've not installed a SBF in a ZX (I believe there are a couple of projects like this in the works though from a couple of our members), but a reduction of a few inches in regards to engine bay length will not be an issue (using the core support-firewall length as my reference). The primary concern will be the crossmember position. If it has been moved closer to the firewall on the ZX verses the Z (oil pan clearance issues), then you may have a problem, but I've not measured the two so I cannot speak to that.

It sounds like my assumption is correct: An expanded use of the steering rack gear with a matching reduction in the tie-rod end length. Makes perfect sense. With that said, the T/C rod becomes a problem with too much angle for the Z chassis. When I went to the short steering rods (Ford Mustang rack), and the deep backspacing of the wheels (5"), I found that I had to install spacers at each end of the rack to reduce steering angle simply because the tire was rubbing the T/C rods (and not by any small amount).

Jon, I don't get it as well. A shortened steering rod (knuckle) is the only way I can conceive of a tighter angle unless this spacer allows the rack gear to move further left and right by extending the ends of the gear so that the stops are extended out as well?

And anybody with even a semi-balance perspective knows that the media, in its grab for viewers, will slant it in which ever direction they feel their viewership slants, left or RIGHT.

Right on Dan! My personal experience was that when I attached my fiberglass flares, I addressed the issue of the wheel well by welding sheet metal straight out from the well seam (that runs down the center ling of the wheel well) in a line parallel to the axle all the way around the well. This then made the top limits of tire travel at the OEM well location (the height of the seam so to speak), so basically nothing was changed except the metal lip (or instead, what is left of the OEM quarter panel), which is now the same height as the seam is. With that said, the lowering of the car, in addition to 26" tall tires, has not caused the tires to rub the seam area of the OEM well. Now with the strut support structure resting over this location, it would seem that it too would be out of reach of the tire as well. But just seeing sharp, exposed areas of metal over the top of the tire would spook me too. Is there any way you can tie the back half of the well out to the OEM quarter panel with welded sheet metal to cover this strut structure, AND to replace some of the OEM unibody integrity? I'm afraid the glass is not going to stand up to the stresses created by the separation of these (originally joined pieces of the exterior quarter panel and the inner wheel well) parts as they were indeed a part of the unibody.

The best experience I've had is with a high strength aluminum using the poly (teflon, nylon,?) liner. It remained tight for years. The brass liner type eventually loosened up some after some use. The poly liner helps keep dirt out better than the metal-to-metal joints.

Nope, must have been someone else.

Perhaps I did not understand the last post Raising the car with larger wheels and/or tires will not change the geometry of the suspension. Now, if you lower it back down again after installation of the larger wheels/tires, the geometry will change, but then the car would be: again.

I've made 2 differing sets using 3/4" sperical rod ends. It was fairly easy to do, and the second set was made in one weekend. I won't go into the methods I used on the first set, but instead describe the construction of the second set. Simply stated, the bushing end of the control arm was cut off, a 3/4" grade 8 bolt (about 4" long with the head cut off) was inserted into the control arm where the bushing area was cut off, welded in the correct position (spot and butt welded), and then the 3/4" rod end was screwed onto the threaded portion of the bolt sticking out of the modified control arm. Total cost was around $70 (good quality rod ends and bolts). Resulting harness: none. In all the parts I've replace on the front end in regards to suspension, the T/C bushing area introduced the most "harshness", followed by the lack of upper rubber on the struts (very minor amount).