blueovalz

Then I'll opine that perhaps a 6mm offset pushing the wheel out will be that "perfect" number you want. I ran an 8" wheel that was virtually a zero offset and it gave me about 3/8" between the OEM springs, and the fender lip. But you will need to measure the clearance yourself knowing the specs on the tires you want to run. Potential interference will be with the tire, and not the wheel.

Kinda like a bad train crash, I want to avert my eyes, but I can't help but look at it.

In short, No. The 300 rotors are vented, which requires a wider caliper (e.g. the 280ZX caliper). I'm assumining from your post you are using the OEM Z rotors on your 280Z. The 280Z hubs have a thicker flange which sets this vented rotor too far inboard to be a "bolt on" swap, but using the early 240Z hubs (with their thinner flange) will allow this swap to work.

Most all of the tire manufacturer's web sites have tire height, and a "loaded" ground-to-hub centerline height (which will affect the speedo). Just find this dimension for your current tire, and then find a 16" tire with the width you want, that has the same dimension or height. I'm guessing here, but I think a 225/50R16, and a 205/55R16 would be about the same height as your current 205/60R15 tires which would keep the speedo pretty close to your current accuracy and give you some wider tires in back, but allow all four corners to be the same height. You'll net an increase in understeer with the wider tires in back. I had an unfortunate experience when I was using this very same set-up. One day when I temporarily had to run the same size tires front and back while waiting for new tires (I did not change the rear sway bar back to the smaller rear OEM bar). I did my usual "spirited" cloverleaf run and neglected to anticipate the drastic increase in oversteer with the smaller rear tires (that now matched the width of the front tires). I corrected appropriately, but my cleaning lady quit the next day. With 225 sized tires, a zero offset should work using a 7" wheel, but regardless of what's said here, always measure this yourself to make sure you specific tire and wheel combo will fit. Always!. BTW, I based this on the assumption that when you said "stagger," you only meant you wanted wider tires in back and not necessarily taller tires in back.

A drawing of what I will do with my link showing OEM uprights, and a combined version and with my aluminum plate upright as well.

I used to run the car for about 30 minutes without an alternator at all, but now the fans really add load to the battery. Do date I've had no problems with the way my alternator charges, but I rarely get stuck in really slow traffic, so I really can't answer your question. After racing it for a few years I ran out of discretionary funds, sold the trailer and truck, and set the car in the garage for 5 years. Then my wife asked me one day, "why I don't do something with the car! You should sell it, or drive it, one or the other, it's not a hard decision, one or the other, either drive it or sell it." The car seemed to be pretty popular, so after playing with selling it a few times (nobody wanted to give me what I thought was fair), I decided to drive it, and thus the "street legal" phase came about, and hopefully the "car show" phase will follow some time soon. The only "tube frame" car I nearly completed was my "formula Subaru" project. I took the boxter 4 cylinder and tranny from an '80s Subaru, and mounted it behind a single drivers seat (was a mid engine now), fabbed up the uprights, arms, pushrods, brakes.....really just about everything but the body, and then just quit. It weighed about 900 lbs, so with even the weak Subaru motor it would give impressive performance. I'll get it going again some day, but this time use the newer motors and an autobox tranny. I learned a lot with that project and look forward to starting it up again.

I see. The set-up you describe then simply integrates the new link, and the adjuster, into "one". I want add that I thought your idea of somehow bracing the two uprights as one with some kind of sheet bracing between the two has a lot of merit as well.

I could use either type. The 1/4" plate that I use is straight, so it made sense to use a straight link, but the curved would work as well. Even though the plate is flat, with it up against the cover, I still do not require a curved link. This makes me think that a straight link would work even with the later set-ups because my differential is positioned no differently than the normal late version position (pushed reward 1"). The Control arm bushings are again, in the same, OEM position, as is the link between them. I feel, without the benefit of having a curved link to look at on a car, that this curved link was designed to allow access to fill or drain the differential fluid, or something, because I see no requirement for a curved link if the only reason is to clear the cover. Otherwise, this flat plate and straight link on my car would not work. I don't understand then, how will you move the bushings left and right without slotting the bushing retainer's mounting holes? The uprights are fully rigid, so the only way to gain any adjustment is to slide the bushing retainers left or right across the face of the upright. Is this not correct?

Correct, and the same as the 240SX VLSD, but the spline problem will still exist.

Jon, here is what I've tacked up so far. The left side is left-hand threads and the right side is right-hand threads. I'm using 1/2" bolts and nuts with the inside nuts tacked onto a piece of 2.5" long tubing to act as a turnbuckle. The angle brackets hold the turnbuckle onto the transverse link. Further work will entail separating or cutting the transverse link in half somewhere in the middle section and then welding some sheet steel onto one half only, so that this new sheet will overlap the other half of the transverse link so that both halves will be able to slide against one another, to and fro, while adjustments are made. Then I will drill an elongated hole (or several depending on the situation) through the welded sheet and opposite half tranverse link so that a bolt (or bolts) can go through both halves and be tightend, for added rigidity and strength. Total cost so far has been about $20. The left-hand bolts are pricy in that a 1/4" bolt is about $4 and then up to over $6 for a 1/2" bolt (all are 2" long). The nuts are fairly cheap though.

I've seen these, but couldn't justify the expense, number 1, and 2, If something went wrong a year or two down the road, replacement would be a cast iron bitch, so I chose the combination of easily accessible parts and the joy of successful hybridization.

The only down side is enough rubber radiator hose must be used at each end of the tubes to allow the normal amount of engine movement when one uses stock rubber motor mounts. My engine is solidly mounted to the chassis, so this was not a concern. Other concerns were the cost of the tubes, and the welding, plus the time and patience to cut them correctly. The plus side is a neat, sanitary job that looks great. Below is an example of the work needed to get the angles correct and in place prior to welding the lower tube's segments together. In the photo below, two of the segments had to be done twice to get it just right.

What ever it takes. Some designs in the smaller racecars mount the radiators completely horizontal, so mount it in whatever position fits. Mine is about 45 degrees to the horizon (or to the vertical, either way). The further you tilt it though, the more the position of the radiator cap becomes an issued. On mine, the cap on top of the radiator was positioned so that I would not be able to get all the air out of the system with the radiator tilted like I had it, so I installed a 2nd filler cap in-line between the engine and the radiator, at the high point to eliminate this problem.

I can get the bolts locally and I think I've purchased the taps as well around here.

Cool

Ah yes, the mysterious 6th Grand Sport is on its way.

That's possible, but a lot of work. Have you thought about removing the differential instead, pulling the driveshaft out of the tranny when doing this. Or are you removing the engine anyway?

I'm happy for you as well Merry Christmas

Serveral reasons brought me to this unusual solution. When I raced the car I had no alternator at all, so I knew that none was needed "full time". On top of this, I have invested a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears in a design of a hood that lies within 1/2" of many parts of the front of the engine. To add another device, and its subsequent blister to cover it, was not something I did not look forward to. So by pushing the alternator back, I eliminated the hood problem, put the weight close to the rear axle, and provided more elbow room in front of the engine. Some of these issues can be trivialized, but in the end, "it was there", and I wanted to conquer it. It has a 2:1 ratio, which with the 4:11 rear end, is too high. At 70mph, it turns about 7k (driveshaft is turning 3300 rpm). My rational for the sizing of the pulleys was the many examples on motors that I saw that were of 3:1 ratios or higher, off the crank, so I felt this was safe. The alternator "turns on" at about 15mph to 14vdc and has happily charged my battery (electric fans, fuel pump, etc) for a couple of years now. It makes a nice whine when it "turns on" or off, so I am always reminded whenever I slow down or speed up enough to charge the battery.

I guess it depends on the height of the deck above the water . I believe the catapult force is set for each particular type (e.g. weight, or more acurately, mass) of aircraft and the minimum safe V for that craft (stall).

Here is a view from on top of the uprights (as I would use them with the OEM uprights). The turnbuckle would use one left-hand and one right-hand bolt. The bolt's heads would be welded to the angle brackets that would then be bolted to the servered transverse link halves. In this case, being the amount of adjustment needed is very small, I'd cut the turnbuckle in half, section it and then weld the two shorter ends back together. A turnbuckle any longer than 3" would seem unnecessary. This way the 2 bolts holding one of the two halves of the transverse link could be loosened, the turnbuckle adjusted, and then the bolts would be re-tightened.

As with my setup where I use a large single plate instead of two smaller uprights. But in reference to the amount to be adjusted, I don't think you'll need as much as you think. If there is, for example, 13" between bushings (and I have no idea the exact length here) and you want a 1/4" difference in toe-in adjustment, then a 1/8" change at rear bushing mount would give you this 1/4" change at the tire (based on a 26" tall tire and based on my assumption that toe is a measured difference between the front and rear treads of the tire). According to my rusty trig, that's about .55 degrees change (.125" by 13")

I've seen exhausts within a quarter inch of the tank before with no apparent problems. As long as no contact is made you're safe, but rubber or bushing mounted exhausts allow a lot of movement, and rubbing is where the trouble starts.

True, but I don't think the amount of change is going to be visually apparent. Being the arm is about the same length as the distance between the two supporting bushing, then an 1/8" change at the turnbuckle should only push the wheel forward or backward by about the same amount. Mike, I think his idea using the turnbuckle was simply for ease of adjustment and that once the adjustment was made, then the bolts holding the bushings would be cinched down tight. If I understand the direction of this string, he wanted a screw type of adjustment when the bolts were loosened instead of having to tap it left or right with a hammer until it was "right", before re-tightening the bolts.

Thanks Pete.