blueovalz

4" wide by 3" long (stroke).

I'd say you were safe to at least 315. I've got 315's on my 11" wheels and they are a good fit (could go wider if I wanted to). Tire charts usually show 315 to be the widest on the 10.5" though.

I had an entire essay here, but this whole subject gave me the red-ass so I deleted it. All I will say is enjoy it while it lasts, 'cause it's on it's way to another country.

Deep!

I have thought about a monotone paint scheme, but the front clip has several features (deep radiator intake and exhaust) what will be accentuated with the LeMans stripes. Currently my idea is BMW LeMans Blue (deep blue with some mica added) with Wimbleton White (a very slight cream just off stark white) stripes.

I finally found the correct use of my Craftsman laser level. I made a bracket on the ceiling with which to hold my laser level, then positioned the car under it. The 130 degree laser line (referenced to two TRUE centered points in front and at the rear of the body) provides a perfect line to tape along. The originally painted strip was not near this perfect and no amount of "eyeing it up" or stretching of the tape would allow a perfectly straight line down the complex curves and corners of the body. Here is a low light photo of the laser line:

The "shark eyes" as penned by Dan looked good at certain angles (like the side) but from other views in a 3D world, they were just to "beadie eyed" to look appropriate on all the front end surface, especially up close to the car. The "sugar scoops" break up all the area now so it's not so obvious. My photo hosting site (link below) on "head lights" shows how I did this. In short, I used a sonotube (concrete footing cardboard tube) as a form (they are waxed), and then used 280ZX buckets to hold the lights themselves.

On the seventh day I took rest (the job is done). before: After:

I guess I never gave it any thought, but a right-hand drive has the gas pedal on the left foot?

Front and rear engine plates solidly mounted to chassis (was a race set-up)

Once again I've been enlightened. Thanks.

Pardon me for asking, but why.... ?

Yes, I have to admit it, I'm envious. I've never seen this in a Z, and for you to have this opportunity is priceless. A vintage Japanese carbureted V8...how cool is that. Keep us well informed of how it progresses. Alsil, this motor is out of the "President" which from my understanding was basically the Japanese version of a limousine

The reason I felt the smaller lights were not "working" with the rest of the car's design was: 1) The large expanse of surface on the front compared to a stock Z. The front on my Z is a bit over 3" wider and about 3" longer on the front than the stock Z. Add to this the effect of the vertical dam up front and you end up with a front end that "appears" wider and larger than the back of the car, even when my goal was a balanced effect (even a slightly larger rear would have been acceptable). This would have been no big deal with the same 7" lights, but now put 4" lights on the front and now the larger front "mass" is emphasized even more. 2) There are many visual cues to the unique design of the Z. One of the key front end characteristics is the abrupt and sharp hood leading edge with the rectangular grill opening below it, and the other is the scooped out headlights. I tried to maintain a radiator opening that rested below the leading point on the front end (which is not the hood, but it is an extension of the hood). The aerodynamics of this were helpful on the course and the visual rectangular opening was a close enough semblance of the OEM grill to be acceptable for me. But the headlights, round as they were, could not satisfy my need for a primary Z ingredient. My goal was to emphasize or exaggerate key points of the Z's design while at the same time promoting a functional improvement in areas such as track and tire size. To lose the unique headlight arrangement on the Z was more than I could handle (especially in light of all the other work done). The smaller lights would probably look much more at home on a Z with more stock dimensions and parts, but were too small for what was already done to the car. Photos of the car did not show how truely out of place the size and shape of these smaller lights were. Only now with the larger lights is the "smaller" size of the front end becoming apparent. Balance is the key. To answer the other questions, these smaller lights were more than adequate for the job of lighting. In fact, I had to add power resistors in the circuit just so I could dim them on a lower power setting (high/low power switch instead of high/low beam angle).

Using good quality corner scales, my '71 (gutted, but add back 100 lbs for the cage) with some big wheels and tires comes in at 2321 without driver and with 10 gallons of gas (SBF and a T-5 with a lot of aluminum).

Well, I was not satisfied with my hermaphrodite headlights that I had on the car, but at the time I felt they were the best option. The longer I looked at them, the more they hurt my eyes, especially in the sense that one of the defining charateristic of the Z is the headlight configuration and it's telltale "scoops". So, me being me, I decided I was going to go "back home" so to speak and acquire the long lost Z charater I lost when I installed the small headlights. So without further ado, here is a half-and-half of the new (OEM sized headlights) verses old (newer, smaller) headlights (I know there will be a deep sigh of relief from some of you, and I don't blame you). Picture quality is not-so-good making the opening look a little odd, but you'll get the idea.

I've not actually laid hands on one of these panels, but is there enough flexibility in them (quarter panel cover) to bond them in place with the center region pushed outward a small amount until the bonding process is completed?

Thanks for the candy. More to come I hope.

No, couldn't make it this year. Perhaps this next year?

Well Aux, I don't get it. Most of your post pictures have an obvious punchline, so where is this one IF this was my car, I'd be looking for another Z to do whatever you're fixin' (that translates to "preparing" in Arkansas) to do instead of this fine example. Beautiful car. Remind me (us) again what it is your're planning on doing?

Once we bought our first BMW, we (wife and I) were hooked for life. But now the external design of the BMW series being bastardized with the new "humped" trunk lid and head lights with the eyebrows. They are losing the "classic" BMW look! I tell my wife now that she might want to find another car to replace the one we have being I'm not fond at all with the new look (but the engineering is what really sold me, and I guess that is still upper echelon)

My understanding of the control arms used with struts is that as the control arm swings upward from a normal unloaded droop position, the angle (from vertical) of the strut, increases, which provides more negative camber as the arm swings upward. If you were to imagine this arc continuing upward to an extreme angle, you would be able to see a point in which the strut's centerline is on a tangent with this arc. At this point the angular (negative camber) increase has reached its farthest point and will now retract as the arm is swung further upward. Now this should not be confused with the lateral displacement of the axle. Yes, the axle's furthest point outward on the car is at the point in which the arm is horizontal, BUT, this is NOT the point at which maximum negative camber is reached. Once the arm travels upward beyond horizontal, the axle begins moving inboard (relative to the car) once again, but the negative camber increase continues (albeit at a very small rate at this point) until the arm is perpendicular to the centerline of the strut. This is because the strut is shortening (being compressed) during this time. The suspension is basically a triangle with one side's length (the strut itself) being shortened, but it's other two side being rigid in length. When the lower side of this triangle (control arm) is at a right angle to the strut side of this triangle (originally the hypotenuse in my simple triangle), the angle at the top (strut tower) is at it's maximum (equating to maximum negative camber). My front arms are indeed beyond the horizontal position as mentioned above

The 240SX uses an R200, but it is of a different case than the Z, ZX, and 200SX heritage (shorter and wider). One member here has just completed a complete swap of the entire 240SX rear subframe and it's components into the back of his Z (appears to be well done). All the 240SX rear covers are finned, but only a very few were VLSD (HICAS equiped cars). The 240SX R200 can be worked into the Z with work on half-shafts and mounting, but if you decide to take on a project like this you may as well go ahead and use the R230 being it is the same design but stronger (used in the 300ZX).

I'm going to add an insignificant tidbit here as well. If I understand the suspension correctly, the camber increase continues beyond a horizontal control arm configuration. The rate of increase decreases until the control arm is perpendicular to the strut tube and only then does in start to decrease, but no where I know of does any Z have this much compliance in the suspension.

Dang firewall. But I did enjoy a couple of these. Thanks!