blueovalz

The flange comes off easily after the nut is removed. but to install the CV jointed shafts, you'll need to take the inner lower control arm bushing retainers off so that the entire arm/strut assembly can swing away from the differential. Can I assume that you will be removing the nut off of a Z axle and that you know the implications involved in the incorrect removal, as well as making sure you've got the correct axles (or the CV adapter flange)?. Simple questions, but many start a project such as this without all the information needed. The axles will pop out fairly easily out of the differential, but yes, you'll need to pry simultaneously on opposite sides of the input stub (cv casing).

If you are talking about the nut that holds the companion flange on, it is 180-230 lb/ft to the best of my recollection for a new nut.

My lack of comment on the timesheet simply meant that the "wow" was already made obvious and there was no need for another. Text only communication, if not precise, lacks much and can be easily misconstrued . It appears you've got everything working together very well to obtain these quick times.

A general thought here on "how much" to reduce the length of your strut begins with, "what is your target ride height?". I wanted to lower my Z by a minimum of 2" (this was based on the 1.5" drop on my street Z). If I wished to maintain the same compliance in my suspension, then shortening the strut by that same (2") amount seemed appropriate. The insert was shorter than the front OEM strut, so if I was to displace the center of the range of movement only 2", then I needed to find a way to place a short insert into a long tube. This is why I placed a spacer plug in the bottom of the strut tube to push the insert up to the top of the tube (against the gland nut). This way the insert has full range of movement and is placed at a location that lowers the "window" of movement from stock, down by 2", to it's current height. So decide how much the car will be lowered, and this should be a general idea of how much you want to remove from the tube. Then you can go about the menial task of positioning the insert up in the tube.

Thanks for the reply. I was also at the end of the threaded sleeve, and was concerned that the threaded sleeve (engaging too few threads in my opinion for a race clutch) may give way and strip the threads, so in my infinite wisdom, I machined a 1/4" spacer to be added the the factory supplied 1" spacer, so that I could engage more of the threads behind this high force PP. Well, I guess I went too far forward when I did this. Thanks for the specs there, at least I've now got some kind of reference to go by when I pull this and put it together correctly.

I guess I need not comment on the timesheet, so with that already said, I, as well as others here, have put 8" wide wheels under OEM sheetmetal with OEM sized springs. I personally had 16" X 8" under mine, but, this was with DOT low aspect ratio tires. Drag slicks would be iffy in this case as the sidewalls are quite different.

More for archive usage: A pitfall I've run into on my Mcleod Hydraulic T/O bearing is the installed adjustment. Due to the normal wear on the clutch disc, I've found I must now remove the tranny to re-adjust my T/O bearing. Background and recommendations: The T/O bearing is adjusted by use of a threaded sleeve for proper adjustment. I adjusted my bearing so that it was only a few thousandths of an inch off the fingers of my PP at the "rest" position of the clutch pedal. Unfortunately, I neglected to consider the fact that as the clutch disc wears, the PP fingers (those that when pushed, disengage the clutch) begin extending toward the T/O bearing, and within a short time, these clutch fingers actually began pushing on the T/O bearing itself. When this happens, some of the pressure is taken off of the disc and consequent clutch slippage ensues. In retrospect, I see that I should allow a good bit more clearance at "rest" so that the piston itself does the adjusting, thus as the clutch wears, the piston is pushed rearward forcing fluid back up into the MC (much as what happens when new brake pads are installed and the piston is pushed back into the caliper). My problem at this point is that the piston is pushed as far back as possible, and now preloads the PP, which allows slippage to occur. I did measure the amount of T/O bearing movement with my 3/4" MC at full pedal stroke, and it came out to APROX .4".

MIke, if possible please get a measurement (or close approximation) of the length of the strut tube (from gland nut down to the cast steel base). I've got shortened rear struts and 17" tires and do not have this problem either, BUT (big BUT) even though my rear inserts are the same length as my fronts (which are shorter than the OEM fronts), I dropped a 2" plug spacer into the bottom of my strut tube to push the insert up 2", so in essence, even though my strut is overall a couple of inches shorter than an OEM tube, it is still 2" longer than it would have been had I cut the tube to match the insert. It sounds to me that your tubes must be pretty short. Ross seems to have a good handle on this situation from his last post (I still do not know how much was removed from your strut tube).

Thanks for the follow up Bob.

Mike, obviously a spacer will work. It may be nothing more than a 1/8" or 1/4" spacer for all we know. Unless I am under the car looking at it with my own eyeballs, I'd hesitate to say "do this or do that". What you need to do is get the car at the ride height you need for the immediate future, then decide what you need to make this new height "permanent" (with the assumption that you will probably lower it a bit when the quarterpanel work is done). If the spring and perch-nut clear everything at an acceptable ride height geometry, then longer springs will be the best option in my humble opinion. But you are blind with reqards to what you need until you do this, and thus risk more fustration. Re-read every posted so far, think on it, and then decide what you need to do. Unfortunately, we can only make a call based on your posts (which helped a lot), but until I can see the problem, I can't give good advice.

Jon has an excellent point with the spacer idea. The thrust vector will still be from the control arm to the unibody mounting boss regardless of the thickness of the spacer. What this spacer does is move the thrust or compression force off, and away, from the centerline of the rod, which introduces stresses that this rod was never designed for.

jt1 brings up a good point here. The suspension should be characterized without the brakes as far as balance is concerned. My understanding is that applying brakes unloads the rear of the car anyway. I would instead base the balance of the car on a skidpad or series of S's.

Ideally, the tension rod never flexes but instead the rubber bushings flex instead. Stiffening the material of the bushings reduces this intented flexibility which then transfers the stresses or forces into the rod itself. Something that should be kept in mind and is of minor concern here is that all of these bushings (including the control arms) should be tightened into place with the suspension compressed (e.g. normal ride height configuration). This keeps the bushing unstressed at normal ride height. Yes, the TC rods look rather spindly to me too, but remember, these rods are designed around forces applied along the length of the rod (hince the name Compression/Tension rod). Place a slight bend in this rod, and all those forces (mostly compression) can quickly bend or snap a rod. I've seen bent rods before, so I know they will bend before snap, so I have to assume the "snapped" rods are due to metal fatique associated with constant flexing until the rod gave way. I replaced mine a while back with OEM rubber ones.

60 over is not a problem for street duty but it may be a bit unstable for critical racing though.

what size tubing are you using?

I'm not sure what to think here. 240V X 15A = 3600 watts. One horsepower is supposed to equal 746 watts, so this means the 7HP motor appears to be just under 5HP with this conversion, but is listed as 7HP. Obviously I know less then I should about all this. Ernie, this TS compressor: http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?BV_UseBVCookie=Yes&vertical=TOOL&pid=00917650000&tab=specs#tablink has more capability than it's SS counterpart: http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1566662717.1068192143@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccfdadcjlekedmecehgcemgdffmdflg.0&vertical=TOOL&tab=specs&pid=00918419000&vertical=TOOL&com.broadvision.session.new=Yes From what I can see the TS outperformes the SS. I guess I missed something here.

Are the "Max PSI" identical, or is the TS rated CFM at a higher PSI. On my old (OLD) TS compressor, It basically re-compresses the 1st stage air, so in essence, it provides a larger burden on the motor by compressing the air (same air twice) at higher pressures but not higher CFM rates. A smaller CFM rating at 185 PSI may will run tools longer than the larger CFM of air at 120 PSI (based on an appropriate regulated supply). But my big question is this: Is CFM based on volume at comparable pressures. The reason I ask is 10 CFM at 200 PSI is more air than 10 CFM at 100 PSI. So does is the CFM rating adjusted for same pressures? Oh BTW, the chocolate fortune cookies were a BIG hit. Thanks.

I say "let sleeping dogs lie".

These belt lines can be a problem, just as the center crease on the hood, etc. RacerX brings a good point in the cross-sanding. In this example of the door, sanding the upper portion (above the line) in a 45 degree pattern to the edge (upper right to lower left while keeping the sanding stick horizontal). Then the area below the line would be sanded in another 45 degree pattern, only perpendicular to the sanding pattern above the line (upper left to lower right, again keeping the stick horizontal). AT the line, the two sanding patterns will produce a pronounced 90 degree "break" showing the crease and any waves or deviations from the intended direction or location. Periodic changing of the orientation of the paper and direction of the strokes helps ensure even and smooth convex surfaces. In tighter areas of smaller radius, I've found that taking the typical "sticky-back" sanding paper, and folding it in half so that both sides of the new smaller paper has grit on both sides (sticky sides are stuck together now). The paper is much more rigid now and will conform to smooth curves while preventing too much pressure (if used carefully) from being placed improperly (this is useful if a block use is impossible).

This should not be happening (duhh). My guess is you've got trash in your float cut-off seats (I've been up all night and can't think of the correct terminology) causing gas to fill up the manifold. Being the engine is slanted toward the rear of the motor I'm guessing that the gas is really seeping out the intake manifold at these cylinders (instead of the exhaust). Anyway, try pulling out the float adjustment valves to make sure they are clean, and make sure the fuel pressure is not too high for the carburetor, and then insure the float levels are set correctly.

Any inflatable HybridZ's

I'm sure you could just weld it in place as well, but I'm not a big fan of placing the spring so high up on the strut (perhaps my emphasis of putting the weight of the car as low as possible on the strut tube is unwarranted, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it)

Yeah, maybe. You just need to look it over real good before you make that decision. Here is a pic of what I meant by using some schedule 40 pipe as a spacer for a quick-fix to get you going. You just put this under the theaded tube to raise it up a bit if you absolutely need to drive the car. Just make sure the ID of the pipe is as close as possible to the OD of the strut tube, (but not larger). This way you at least won't have to take the springs off, or disassemble anything.

If you order these springs, and find out they interfer with the tires you'll SPAZ again! The only way you will know that the 10" springs will work (based on your set-up in the photos) is to drop (down-screw) the spring perch 2 inches. Then mount the tires and THEN measure the gap between the spring (or the spring perch being this can be the cause of any interference) and the section width of the tire (move the spring around a little bit because it may not be parallel with the tube being it's unloaded). If the tire is pressed up against the spring, you'll need a wheel spacer. But with your situation, I don't think you'll have much choice on that option. One last thing to consider. Suppose the spring in it's current set-up needs to be only 1" longer just to clear the bodywork. Then a 10" spring will allow you to drop the perch one inch AND just barely clear the bodywork. If you are using a 4" threaded tube, then you will be using the upper 1/3 of the threaded tube. This only allows you to raise the car another 1" if needed before you run out of threaded tube again. But with almost 3" available below the perch, perhaps you may want to consider an 11" or 12" spring instead, thus allowing more flexiblily in raising the car (by positionig the perch midway or lower on the threaded tube). Fortunately for me, I have 6" tubes which allow more flexibility. Also, if the spring clears the tire, but the larger diameter spring perch does hit the section width of the tire or rim, then the longer spring will help you by pushing the perch below the section width or the wheel rim. Just some things to consider before jumping to another purchase.

I'm guessing here again based on the photos, but the rubber (poly) bump stop looks as though it could be in the location that the strut pushed it up to while the body was on top of the tires. If this is true, the strut has only moved upward about 1.5" (just guessing here). This means that you would need about 1/2" to 1" more lift on the spring to at least get the car's weight on the spring and not on the tire.