blueovalz

The SonoTubes came from Home Depot. My personal advice (what I would do if I were in your shoes) is to purchase a G-nose front end, and then modify it the way you want. The only reason I made my front end from scratch is because by the time I made all the modifications I wanted to an existing G-nose, I would have been better off starting from scratch. My hood is an example of what I speak of. It started out as a stock looking fiberglass hood which I then modified. The original G-nose was too long for what I wanted, and I needed a descent dam up front under the leading edge, which would have left little of the original G-nose left. But this can be a good thing because it allows a tenderfoot (in working with fiberglass) a firm and proper piece of body with which to start, even if the final product is vastly different from what it started out as.

Boy, that sounds like a mess you've got there. I may be lacking in understanding what is happening, but the uprights where this bar's brackets are supposed to mount is supposed to be well below the mustache bar, which confuses me why they would not work in your case. Also, I would think engine torque, through the rear end (and mustache bar) would cause the bar to preload, and visa-versa. Also, any high G turn body roll would be resisted directly with a normally mounted bar, but in your case, the roll force would transfer to the differential mustache bar bushings instead of the chassis. This in turn would twist the differential, but allow the body to continue to roll (at least until the mustache bar bushing are completely compressed. In essence you've pretty much negated any effect of installing the rear bar.

And if your engine back-fires, then the filter element melts. It only takes a couple of these before it's ruined.

I'm using a "Transadapt" remote filter assembly, but using Russell (or Earl's as I'm not sure which) 10-AN fittings and braided line. The aluminum adapter is 1.5" thick, and the two 90 degree curved bend AN fittings are a total of 3 additional inches. I believe the Transadapt parts use a 90 degree fitting that is brass, and is drilled, which makes it much more compact (closer to 2" long instead of 3"). Thus mine is about 4.5" long total. But remember, on mine the fittings start turning before the full 4.5" which allows a closer fit than this if it's just slightly above the frame rail (which mine is).

I’d forget about using the 3/16” or ¼” angle iron because it would not be as rigid as thinner square tubing, and would be a good bit heavier to boot. What I used, to tie the frame rails together after removing the core support, was a piece of 1” X 3” rectangular tubing (thin walled). Then I used ¾” square tubing for the rest of the core support; one piece on each side of the radiator vertically, and a top crosspiece over the radiator (I’m using a Griffin aluminum radiator with side tanks). If I was to do it again, I’d use 1” square tubing for the top cross-piece, main due to the fact that I use the top bar to press down on the frame of the radiator, and the ¾” gives too easily when the brackets holding the radiator in place are cinched down. If using the OEM radiator, the top crosspiece could instead be placed in front or behind the radiator instead

Nice ZX!......what was that about a Porsche?

Yeah, but who among us has NOT used construction barriers as a slalom at one time or another. Leaving them up in an "inactive" area begs for abuse. I can see the flames headed my way

Mine quits siphoning (on an empty fuel line) above about 6" above the fuel's level from what I gathered as I re-shuffled all my cell/pump/filter equipment around earlier this year. Once the fuel line is full though, I can pump fuel from a pump that is at least 16" above the fuel level (and drawing through a filter). The few times I emptied the fuel line for further work, I simply took a deep breath, and pressurized the tank momentarily with a lungful of air while the pump was running, which was all the help that was needed, then everything was back to normal. Beware; when one does this, one needs to remove one's mouth from the fuel filler quickly WHILE EXHAUSTING the air from ones lungs as any fuel cell or tank expands slightly under pressure, and consequently contracts back again when that pressure is released, blowing gasoline vapors out the filler and into ones mouth, YUK!!!!

At the time, I don't think it had the coverage it now has in the US, but I kept up every day with the results when Eddie Merx was the reigning champion.

Awesome car. I love competition oriented looks. I attended a local Z car club meeting a couple of months ago. One of the members had a 350Z in which an additional 26K worth of parts were installed on it (I don't believe this owner did any "hands on" work on any of these parts that were bought, which included everything from headers to speakers). He had a very nice car, and lots of trophies, but what I saw was a lot of money spent to buy a 1st place win at the shows he attends. Somewhat discouraging in that there should be a "dirty fingernail check" prior to issuing a win in any car event. Yes, I realized not everybody is blessed with the skills needed to do or perform modifications themselves, but to take a win with a fat wallet just seems wrong.

The accelerator pump/nozzle size sounds like the problem to me. Some remedies if so: 1) 50cc pump and diaphram (but this is usually an overkill); 2) larger nozzle (#25 I belive is OEM, and I've at times had to go as high as a #40 to fix off-line stumble; or 3) Swapping the cam that operates the accelerator pump to one more aggressive (Personally, I've not had a lot of success with this method as it needs to be well coordinated with both of the above) ramp or profile. All 3 of the above will have an affect on each of the others, but changing the nozzle (IMHO) will give you a quick and easy idea if the lack of fuel at this transition from idle to WOT is the problem.

Thanks John! Knowing this means I may need to narrow the resolution in mapping the temperature distribution and any changes.

Excellent photo comparison! One for the archives.

Thanks guys!!! The M/C panel meter with a 10' lead appears to be the answer in regards to economy and function. It only has a peak temperature of 300 degrees F, which concerns me, as it seems a bit low for under hood use, but I'm going to give it a try. Again, thanks for the suggestions. John, I had thought about this as well, but the vents in the hood (I feel sure) will provide little incentive for high flow through the engine compartment. On top of this, the fender top-vents will bleed off any pressure and airflow as well. My main goal here is to see what kind of under hood temperature-to-speed correlation I can observe. Obviously, the faster the car goes, the more load will be placed on the engine, thus raising header temperatures, but I'm expecting an increased airflow as well. So I'm looking to see if the temperature drops, remains the same, or increases with speed. With multiple probes, I'm going to attempt to map out where the temperature rises, falls, or remains the same at speed verses at rest. These locations, and their relationship to the primary heat producers in the engine bay, should provide me with some kind of rough picture of how much air is coming from under the splitter, and where it's going once it gets into the engine compartment.

I understand Tim's thoughts well. I built my car originally for the sole purpose of racing, and the mechanical parts fabrication were simply an exercise in engineering and fabrication, and the bodywork was my expression of "what if." Consequently, I've quit racing (money needs) and set my sites on using the car as my weekly motoring "vacation" by making it as legal as necessary to be able to drive it on the street periodically. It's hot, it's noisy, rough riding, and drives like a race car, which is why I enjoy removing myself from reality by strapping myself in it and enjoying a bit of time in it. No, it's not a "driver", but it does meet my needs in regards to design challenges, and quiet evenings in the garage fabricating "something" to make it better than it was the previous week.

Any thoughts as to what I could use to measure (dynamically) the under-hood temperatures? I want to direct some cool air to the air filter, but before I do, I'd like to get an idea of what kind of airflow, and temperature distribution, I have under the hood in its present configuration. No air enters the engine compartment from the radiator (because it's vented up and out over the hood), but I do have rear exiting venting on either side of the hood to vent out the hot exhaust header heat. What I'm looking for is some insight into how much air flows from under the front splitter (loose interpretation here), up past the motor, and out the two vents in the hood. I presume that some kind of dynamic sensor arrangement under the hood would provide some of this information, but I'm at a loss as to what device would work best in this situation. Something electronic (solid state even) that could be powered by a battery would be ideal. Any ideas here would be greatly appreciated. I'm Radio Shack savvy, so anything built would be fine as well.

Alright, I've only recently grasped the idea that a "sick" kit is really supposed to be an awesome thing. For the 40+ crowd, am I to assume that a "pissed-off" kit is the same? Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

This also (and I'm sure you've realized this) goes for the horizontal plane as well. I found that with the tailshaft centered in the tunnel (or a centered engine), I was just at the recommended limit on U-joint angle due to the fact that the pinion on the differential is shifted sideways within the tunnel due to the design of the case (otherwise, the half-shafts would be of differing length if the pinion was centered in the tunnel). Parallel centerlines (in both planes if you wish to look at it as two separate planes) are the important thing here. I did not realized the pinion was shifted toward the passenger side until I had the engine/tranny combo set permanently, and now wish I'd shifted it toward the passenger side as well to reduce the U-joint angle displacement. Normally an inch or so displacement is no big deal, but with a short driveshaft as the Z uses, this small amount of displacement becomes important.

Metal would be nice, if not ideal, but much more skill (IMHO) is needed to do it this way. Fiberglass can be anything but flimsy if you make it thick enough. My "standard" on all my parts is around .130" to .200" (I usually stay on the thinner side of this window). At this thickness, it takes a lot to damage or move it around on anything but a purely flat surface. Urethane, can't address that medium.

Looks good. Next step; a more life-like proportioned drawing (or photo) that has the modifications you wish to make inserted into it, so that a more realistic idea of what this design will look like emerges. This will be where you will find yourself making small (and sometimes big) changes to keep the theme of your design probable. If I had another life to live over again, I'd attempt another "blueovalz" on an S130. There seems to be a void of "highly modified bodywork" on the S130 verses the S30. The few S130 customized bodies that I've seen are striking, and I would like to see more work done in this area. Let's see now; it's July, so by October I figure you'll have the raw bodywork finished for us to see?

Looks great. Welcome to the site, and a special welcome from the Ford contingent. Anytime I see another Ford conversion, the first thing that pops up in my head is what mounting method did you use. We Ford guys are such a varied lot in this matter, so curiousity begs me to ask.

I considered this as well, but I found out that my tubes were thicker at the top, then stepped down to a thinner gauge for the remainder of the tube. This thicker top "step" made sense in that it allowed a sufficient amount of extra material around the cut threads. My best memory makes me think that this thicker portion was about 2" deep, but I'm not sure.

Wow, over a 1/4" off. Quite a difference! If you've got a 280, then I'd stick with the same strut housing being the 240 housing has a slightly smaller diameter, which would cause fitment problems with strut inserts. Out of curiousity only, is this difference shown in your photos attributed to a bent tube or bearing housing, differnt dimensions in the cast bearing housing, or some other reason? I'm assuming this difference is due to a bent tube, thus changing the angle and consequently, closing the gap at the top where you're measuring it. I wish it was sitting on my bench where I could study it.

The advantages of the belly pan are a reduced positive pressure increase under the car. This can be about the best that can be expected in a street car, especially a front engine, rear drive set-up. Any small amount of pressure increase, over a large area, will creat a large effect. Obviously in full racing applications, the pan is capable of a negative pressure, creating downforce. In the sense of wings and ground effects, this is true. Increasing the downforce, and stability (by creating a higher pressure on top of the car) results in higher drag, which is what you are saying (can't have one without the other). Reducing the high pressure results in decreased drag, which is what you are doing under the car with the pan (flat pan, no diffuser, etc).