TimZ

Just to be clear, I didn't say that you couldn't fix your bumpsteer, just not likely "out of the box" without dialing it in. In fact it appears that the parts you have should allow you to adjust things, but you'll need to put in that extra effort. Try a Google search on "bump steer gauge diy" and do some reading Also, you hopefully won't have a problem with the Heim joints, but you should always check these things to be sure - the consequences of failure can be pretty bad! If you do have an issue, report back and hopefully you can get some advice on how to address it.

This still wouldn't guarantee "correct" bumpsteer. If you think about it another way, setting toe-in is WAY easier than setting bumpsteer characteristics, yet nobody would ever dream of replacing a tie rod and not checking the toe after installation. Why would you assume that bumpsteer would be any different? While we are talking about the tie rods, while running the suspension through it's travel for the bumpsteer measurement, you should also keep an eye on the outer heim joint and make sure that it isn't binding at any point in the suspension travel. Heim joints have a limited angular range of travel. This is normally enough, but if your particular installation and range of travel put the heim joint out of its range of travel at any point you could end of failing the heim joint at some point in the not-too-distant future. THIS WOULD MAKE A VERY BAD DAY FOR YOU. I'm not ragging on Brian's parts in any way, btw - they look like they are well made. As I've been trying to point out, he has NO WAY of knowing what your actual suspension geometry is. When you start making lots of suspension mods it's really up to you to verify things like "Is anything binding?" and "is everything adjusted properly?". The Heim joint binding thing is safety critical - don't f*ck around with that.

I guess what I was getting at was that if you don't have any idea what your starting point is, you can't properly diagnose any maladies that you might notice. Lots of things get attributed to "bumpsteer" that aren't actually bumpsteer. Roll center might be a bit esoteric, but camber gain isn't. Again, I think that this is the main benefit to be gained by the JTR mod or bumpsteer spacers. By your own account if you had moved the pivot point by 3/4" up and 1/4" out (or the 1" up that most spacers essentially provide) instead of he 7/16" that you actually needed you likely would have been as bad or worse bumpsteer-wise than when you started. I'm not saying that moving the inner pivot point won't work - clearly it can work. But it does couple in other factors that would be better if you could keep them separate. For instance, if you ended up needing a different vertical relocation from right to left, now you've got different camber gains right to left, which would not be that desirable. What I would advocate would be to go ahead and do the JTR pivot point relocation or something similar and only pay attention to getting the camber gain where you want it for both sides. Then use the shims on the outer tie rod ends to bring the bumpsteer back to zero. It probably didn't sound like it, but I was agreeing with RebekahsZ - the OP was worried about "screwing up the geometry" by shortening the spacer to get it to clear the wheel, and Brian was going to shorten the spacer by 1/4" to 3/8" to get it to clear but wasn't sure what effect it would have on bumpsteer. My point was that we really don't know what effect it had _before_ shortening it because nobody has checked. For all we know shortening the spacer might very well make things better. If you are not going to check it then just make it clear the wheel and forget about it, as neither arbitrary spacer length is more likely to be "right" than the other, and they are probably both wrong.

It sounds as if we agree - which part isn't true at all? Just to elaborate a bit more, in simplest terms, bumpsteer is a measurement of how much your toe changes over the travel of the suspension. It's not a number, but a plotted curve of suspension displacement vs. toe. This curve is affected whenever you change the relationship between the arc that the lower control arm follows vs the arc that the tie rod follows. Sounds simple enough, but both arcs travel in 3 dimensions, not two, so "eyeballing" the relationship isn't as easy as you might think, and it takes surprisingly little to change the curve from "(" to ")" to "S". Now consider that the front suspension on these cars were only adjustable for toe, and the way suspension shops generally "fixed" camber problems due to something getting tweaked or just the addition of lowering springs was to cut the spot welds on the crossmember mounting points and move the inner control arm pivot point around until they got the camber they wanted and re-weld it. Also consider that the NEWEST S30 is now ~37 years old and very few of us are origninal owners and know the car's full history so if you've never measured it, you don't really know how close to stock your suspension geometry is. There is no way that anybody can claim that there is a one size-fits-all solution that will "correct" your bumpsteer, especially given that they have NO IDEA where any given car is starting from. If you were tuning an engine this would be pretty much like saying "I know you have an SBC and a Holley 4-barrel, so you should increase your main jets by 20%", without knowing what jets you have or the displacement or cam being used. The JTR "up 3/4" and out 1/4" and the "bumpsteer spacers" that relocate the outer pivot point of the lower control arm are in reality used to correct camber gain and roll center on a lowered car, and these are generally desirable things to do. Both of these definitely _change_ the bumpsteer characteristics, but neither is really intended to "correct" bumpsteer. The ZCCJDM piece pictured earlier is intended specifically to adjust the bumpsteer curve, by trimming the length of the spacer. This changes bumpsteer independently, and does not affect camber gain or roll center, so it's really the preferable way to dial in your bumpsteer curve. However, just installing it without checking the actual curve is a total crapshoot as to whether you will end up with a "good" curve or not. Besides, given that you just spent a bunch of cash on this nifty adjustable part and you can make your own gauge for next to nothing, why on earth would you NOT want to get it right? If checking it is too much work then you have picked the wrong hobby.

Essentially zero if you never measure the bumpsteer. If you already have the suspension apart and are modifying it, measuring the bumpsteer isn't that difficult to do, and you can make your own gauge for maybe $5 - Google "homemade bump steer gauge". The kind of spacer that you have with this setup is intended to be used to adjust the bumpsteer by changing it's length to achieve the desired bumpsteer curve. If you just install it (or any "bumpsteer spacer" for that matter) the only thing that you know for sure is that you have _changed_ your bumpsteer, but you won't know if you've made it better or worse.

For the EGT, it's generally preferable to put the probe before the turbine inlet, rather than after the turbine in the downpipe. The turbo can take several hundred degrees out of the exhaust temp, depending on what it's doing at the time. You'll get more consistent readings before the turbine. Closer to the exhaust ports is better still.

Here's another pretty valuable thread regarding engine prep that probably ought to be a sticky: http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/106082-power-drain-from-timing-chain/page-2 Search on PMC raceengines' posts and take a look at the attention to details in his engine builds.

http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/59029-head-cooling-on-cylinder-5-solutions/ Actually there are several posts in this section of the FAQ that should be helpful regarding various aspects of the prep work that needs to be done. http://forums.hybridz.org/forum/90-l-series/ Head cooling is one important aspect, but since you are working with a non-crossflow head, keeping heat out of the intake air charge is critical as well. Xnke already touched on it, but I think one of the biggest reasons that you don't see that many 700hp L-series is simply that at this power level details that you could ignore at 350hp can no longer be ignored, and for most this just becomes overwhelming. The information is out there (mostly), but there is really no cookie-cutter "buy this bag of parts" solution that will get you even close. Yes it's been done, but you are still really pretty much on your own to make sure you've covered everything, and that it all plays nice together, and it probably wont for the first several tries.

Across the board - isn't that ideal? ;P

Yes it does, but only if you know that you need to do it. Most don't. That is why I'm mentioning it. If, like 99.9% of wideband users do, you took your off-the-shelf wideband and tuned assuming 14.4 was stoich "because you have E15", you would _not_ end up with the mixture that you thought you tuned to. Granted, in this case you'd only be a few percent rich across the board, but just saying that you need to tune for 14.4 without explaining the subtle but important details just muddies the water, and is very likely to make things less accurate, rather than more.

Careful - Wideband EGO sensors generally measure lambda (1.0 at stoich) and multiply by 14.7 to get AFR, assuming that everybody runs straight gasoline. So unless your wideband allows you to set a different fuel type it will read 14.7 at stoich regardless of what fuel you are running.

If you don't know whether/how much your head or block have been shaved, then all bets are off. The timing mark on the cam sprocket is just to get in the ballpark, and that's when you have an unshaved, unmodified head. The only way to get what you are asking for is to degree the cam. Read this thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/46043-using-a-degree-wheel-to-degree-in-your-l-series-cam%E2%80%A6/?hl=degreeing

Exactly. Just to put a finer point on it - racing cages are intended and designed to be used in a racing environment, where the driver is held securely in place with a mulitpoint, non-retractable harness and is wearing a helmet. Using all of this safety equipment as a system is what makes you safer in a caged race car. If you you try to use a full cage on the street, outside of the environment it was designed for and without the supporting safety equipment (multipoint harness, helmet, etc), then you are NOT "safer" in that vehicle and will likely turn what would have been a minor accident into a major one when your head inevitably hits the cage. Hard. Frankly I think setups like this on muscle cars are just as dumb - a few years back one of my test vehicles was an Expedition (yes, the full-size SUV) that had been modified with a professionally built welded-in cage because it was intended for limit handling tests. When transporting that beast to and from the track I would regularly smack my head on that frickin cage when driving it on the street. If anyone thinks they can design a full cage that they won't hit their head on in a Z, they are completely delusional.

This worked for me - thanks!

Not for me - I still get the "IIS7" site if I use "www.hybridz.org". Leaving off the "www." does work, but any links with "www." in them will have the same problem. It's been this way for me since Saturday. Perhaps it just hasn't migrated through all of the DNS servers?

I've noticed that since some time last night the address "www.hybridz.org" is not working and goes to some generic hosting site. I just figured out that leaving off the "www." works. Most likely the Google links are having the same issue.

As far as the spindle ping getting stuck, they have this stuff called "anti seize". Once your spindle pin is out, clean the crud off of it with some steel wool and coat it with anti seize before reinstalling. It won't get stuck. Been doing it this way on the same pair of spindle pins for 30 years and R&R'ed the pins dozens of times.

I ran Brad Penn for a while as well, until I saw this white paper stating that it was not compatible with E85: http://www.penngrade1.com/CMSFiles/File/March%202011_E85_TECH_LETTER_BRAD_PENN.pdf I didn't observe the issues outlined in the paper, but this made me decide to switch anyway. Too bad, since I found a local distributor that bought it in bulk for a really good price. Also tried the Valvoline NSL synthetic for higher zinc content, but am now back to synthetic VR1 10w30 as it is only slightly lower in ZDDP than NSL and is MUCH easier to find. No issues.

Seeing as how you've given us no useful information as to what you have or what your goals are, or any actual details on the injectors you are asking about, I doubt it. Frankly I'm surprised this hasn't gone to the toolshed yet.

Just FWIW, I'm 99.999% sure that a 440cc injector can't physically flow enough fuel to hydro-lock a running engine. To me this would suggest looking for faults that would cause an injector or injectors to be open when the engine is _not_ rotating. Sounds like you were already going down that path, just hadn't seen this explicitly pointed out.

I'm using the Isky springs and .536 lift - no issues here. If you want to be closer to the bind height with your cam, you could always shim the springs.

Not to mention the direct injection fuel system and OBD-II powertrain - you can't exactly slap someone else's EFI or a carb onto this...

The projections I've seen were showing 300hp, 270lb-ft for the 3.7 V6 (same as before) 305hp 300lb-ft for the 2.3l 4cyl Ecoboost 420hp 396lb-ft for the 5.0 The current V6 Mustang is no slouch - it gets about the same hp and 31mpg with the automatic. The Ecoboost in this case should give a wider torque band and better fuel economy, though...

Since you are using the Nissan Comp bolt and heavy duty washer, it's worth noting that you _really_ need to make sure that you have proper installed clearance between the washer and the crank nose. As delivered (at least on mine), the washer's round "centering" section was too thick and was contacting the crank nose (I found out the hard way). When this happens the bolt cannot be tightened further, and the washer is providing NO clamping force on the timing chain gear/oil pump drive/oil slinger/crank dampener stack, and the woodruff keys are then the only thing that hold these pieces in the proper position. This will pretty quickly lead to failures. If you add up the depths of the lower timing gear, oil pump drive gear, oil slinger (if you are using one) and crank dampener and compare this to the length of the crank nose, you should find the nose to be shorter than the resulting stack, by more than the depth of that round section on the washer. If this is not the case, you can either machine the washer, or simply flip it over, to ensure that you get proper clamping force. Hopefully that made sense...

Here's mine: