blueovalz

http://www.roadsquadron.com/Cars/Hwing/

When I was paying more attention to the 240sx.org site, this engine was very popular with the turbo crowd. My impression was 7-8lbs boost was possible and reliable without any internal work and without an I/C. Some guys went as high as a full atmosphere with more work.

So what is it you want to do? One-offs, batch runs, etc? There are several folks here that dabble in custom parts.

Well, I can't agree more but hopefully you've gotten the first, and the last word in on this string (so far), and with that said, your point has been pressed home. This is one of those issues that parallels the Purest/Hybrid argument in that it cannot be a won debate. Because of this string though, I think everyone has become more aware of the impact of their language. Perhaps now we can go about our more technical issues.

I believe this is correct. All my -8 fittings (fuel) use 3/8" pipe and my -10 (oil) fittings use 1/2" pipe fittings. Like TimZ said, -10 will work fine, and most remote coolers and filter fittings are 1/2" pipe. Short runs work fine with this. Long runs would probably need -12.

I love this kind of query. No, I've no formal education in structures or their design in fabrication. An uneducated response (because no question is a stupid question) is "shouldn't it be 90/-45/90/+45/90? I'm assuming from the description that a 90 is nearly parallel with the boom whereas the 0 is wound axially? In your question, are you saying a tightly wound helix (a 0) is structually stronger than the long parallel strands (a 90)? Instead of a Car Talk puzzler, let's have our SEs provide a weekly HybridZ puzzler! OH, What a GREAT IDEA

I was helping a friend stab his 4 speed tranny yesterday when I noticed the tube that the throw-out bearing slides in and out on was loose and wobbly. I told him I didn't like it and we proceeded to take the bellhousing off to investigate the problem. With the bellhousing removed, it appears the front input shaft bearing has a thin round metal ring (like a shim) that loosely fits between the bearing and the back side of this tube (the tube is in the belhousing) in question. It also appears that if another shim was added to this, then the tube would be pushed forward against the tube's front stop, and thus rigidly secure the tube in place. As it stands now, the small gap (about .020") between this bearing/shim combination and the backside of the tube is allowing the tube to become loose in a fore and aft movement that then allows it to rock side to side slightly as well. I inspected the snap-ring around the front bearing to make sure the bearing had not been pushed rearward, but the snap-ring and the bearing appeared to be in their correct locations. One last thing. If the bellhousing gasket is removed, it would allow nearly all of this gap to be eliminated. I must assume though that this gasket is a requirement. Any comments or suggestions for those in the know? He stated the tranny worked fine when he pulled the engine/tranny combo.

I was making reference to the (short) length of time the damper would take to expand fully until the full droop point (or loss of spring compression) of the suspension was reached. The stiffer the damper, the longer this length of time. Yes, I'm talking about a short length of time, but I don't think you're expecting a lot of "air" time on the front end.

From my small world point of view, this is what I'd call the MTV syndrome. I see my 15 year old daughter listening to programs on MTV (I loved it in the '80s, hate it now) in which every other word is "beeped" out. When I try to explain my disagreement to such programing, she asks "what is wrong with it? No bad words are said actually said." I had to think on this point and realize that it's not what's said, but it's what's implied. And if what's implied offends others, then out of courtesy for others (which is still a virtue even in this day and time), we should try to avoid it. Unfortunately, most members on this forum only have a single means of interaction with the other members, and this is solely through written communication. This single method leaves much to be desired and leaves a great deal of room, for both the sender and receiver, for misinterpretation. In short, let's review, proof read, and consider each post as being "my" one and only shot at showing you the best of who and what I am.

Knowing that the dampers will retard the rate that the suspension drops should help as well.

If memory serves me correctly, the 351M (modified) is a long rod version of the Cleveland. I believe deck height is taller (which goes without saying), making it a larger version of the Cleveland. The bad side, it's heavier, and the aftermarket intake support is lacking. The good thing is I believe this is the same block as the 400. So if your'e going this route, then I'd look into the extra 50 cubes and try that instead.

Wished I could help, but the NF threads makes it a tough one.

Who would have thought that these "mult-car" lists would be so long. I guess we truely are living in "the land of plenty." '92 240SX (which will be run into the ground before I get rid of it) '01 325i '71 BlueovalZ (the one I'm most proud of)

I'm glad you're having fun with this. Actually, I thought it was in the box on the passenger seat

I knew it! There ARE some more pictures of Dan's car!

Mike? Hmmmm, don't remember that memb.....oh yeah! where ya been?

Looks like you saved the day!

Thanks for the explanation. I was searching all over this site trying to find the "albums" (our firewall won't let me see the photo) and I was about to pull my hair (what little I've got left) out trying to see this picture.

Make the "was" unbelievable BTW, John's looking over my shoulder.........crying Any risk is worth it if you put the time to get just what you want. Looking forward to see it when its done. Anyway, it sounds like you chose a good method in patching it up.

My experience was it will be CLOSE! I ran 8" wide wheels with 245s with a 4.5" BS and I had a finger's width between the fender lip and the sidewall.

Well, I finally got fed up with the poly cell I had (only 12 gallons and it changed its shape depending on how much fuel was in it) and had a local sheet metal shop fabricate aluminum one. This new cell is 17 gallons, and has a rigid top. With the panels I've fabricated to go flush with the top of the cell, the entire rear tray of the car is complete. Yes, the fuel pump and filter are on a panel between the towers. I had to removed it from under the car where the exhaust was overheating the pump (causing it to shut off at red lights and slow traffic). A cover will be made for it later.

Hopefully this illustration will help this seemingly confusing subject. In this illustration, the initial position of the "grey" control arm is horizontal (but as John pointed out earlier, this is not necessarily the best set-up). This control arm (CA) is attached to the strut (thick black line) at point "A" which will be the spindle pin. The spindle pin follows the "red" arc as the wheel moves up and down through it's range of travel. As can be seen here, negative camber increases as the wheel moves upward along the arc only until it reaches point "B", which is perpendicular to the line connecting the strut mounting points. At this point the camber stops becoming increasingly negative, and reverses itself to start in a positive direction. The thin blue line shows the increased negative camber resulting from the CA movement between points "A" and "B". What confuses most people though is that even though the camber is still going negative as the spindle pin rises from "A" to "B", the same pin is also moving inboard at the same time. This is initially counter-intuitive because most folks think that if the wheel is moving inboard, it must be going positive in camber, but not so! Now if the strut were perfectly vertical, then yes, this would be true, but the kingpin inclination is what mucks this up, but only for movement between points "A" and "B". The relationship of inboard/outboard movement and its related positive/negative camber connotation holds true everywhere else along the compliance arc (red arc) except for this narrow range. One last thing to add is this is for the rear only. The front suspension holds these same principles as well, but then you add caster and turning angle, and then everything gets mucked up even worse than it already is here. One of the reasons John stated that a drooping CA is good is because the lower the pin is in relation to the arc on initial set-up, the greater the rate of camber change for the same compliance, along with the roll center advantages.

With everything on it, it will tip the scales at about 425. This is well within the range of every engine stand I've ever seen.

I personally like the rear mounted bars better because you can use a smaller diameter wire (because the center section of the bar is shorter) to give the same resistance to twisting compared to a front mounted longer and thicker bar, which also translates to a lighter bar as well. On a rear bar I used, I increased the bend angles on either side of the center portion just a bit so that I could lop off the ends and weld new pieces on that would accept the current factory design of bar links present on todays cars (Stanze for example). Eliminating the bushings on top and replacing them with this type of link provided the clearance I needed to keep from tearing boots throughout the entire suspension travel range. Here is a picture of the finished ends:

R230? I was making a bad assumption that you were using the R200. The halfshaft assemblies on the R230 will be slightly different from what I remember in posts I've seen showing photos of the boots. IF the problems with the 230 shafts are the same, then the remedies posted by shortening the end links of the sway bar may provide some clearance. I chose a more "complicated" option of modifying the ends of the sway bar itself (to allow a longer link) because I feel the longer the links are, the better the sway bar will work (reduced binding and friction at the links). An ideal sway bar link has no resistance to link rotation in any direction, and a swaybar link with little to no spacer has a great deal of resistance built into the link due to shearing motion as the suspension moves up and down. A link (especially a long one) turns this shearing into a lateral rotational motion of the parts, which results in much less resistance, and thus, better suspension control.