bjhines

That is some nice info Tony D... I forget to plow through the NISMO stock every now and then.. I pretty much wrote it all off long ago... over priced and understocked... but they do have some neat items still... It would be nice to see some pictures/description of the internals of the stock pump if you have them available... the NISMO pump is more than twice the cost of the tilton pump... the tilton pump also has affordable parts available... The NISMO pump offers one HUGE advantage over the Tilton and others... It appears to be the only pump available that was designed for weatherproof, under-chassis mounting... The Tilton types have motor cooling fans... That usually means they should be placed in a protected location...

We can set ride height anywhere we want... We figured we would test ground clearance from stock height to zero... I also planned on mocking up a stock valance to get some stock baseline numbers.

well.... there are some of these ideas that won't get tested... drip rails are tough... The airdams are going to be sealed and installed like any serious race car fabricator would do it... I don't see any real need to test an improperly installed airdam left with gaping holes and flopping in the breeze...

If anyone wants to test vortex generators... I would suggest you mount them on a thin sheet of aluminum or plastic and fit them to your car in such a way that they can be easily removed as a unit... then ship them(insured) to me to get them fitted on the test car...

double sided foam adhesive tape... and a few sheet metal screws so our nice parts don't get crushed against the excluder screens... What we have is a body that we can drill and cut... it is rusty... attachment will not be a problem... that is what will be secured to the test bed... We have these parts to assemble rear lower diffuser, underpans, a urethane front valance/air dam, one type of front splitter for the urethane airdam, we have one type of fiberglass hood (the new one with the trans am style ram air scoop), short MSA style rear lip spoiler BRE(MSA) type rear spoiler custom 6" aluminum rear spoiler(will be built for this test) gill vented fenders (will be built for this test) Type 3 side skirts ZG flares You guys want a G-nose tested??? we will have to work out sending me one shipping prepaid and insured... It should not be a show quality piece... we will need to drill a few small holes and get it to fit up correctly, and it may get a few scratches in all of the handling it must go through...

Well... the Tunnel is in NASCAR town... Mooresville NC... It was designed to test race cars at speed... The real trick here is that we need PARTS!!!!... Mark, Roddy, Tom, John and I are getting together for this event... What we really need is some more aero parts... We all have our own favorites on our own cars... but we need some raw parts that can be mocked up and quickly attached and detached to the test...

I have an announcement... I found a wind tunnel for rent... $700 for 3 hours... The car has to be attached to the base plate.. apparently it is pretty involved... The stopwatch starts when they spin up the turbines... apparently they take about 5 minutes to get up to speed... airflow can be temporarily diverted to allow changes to the spoilers and such... the idea is to use ONE CAR... and have a bunch of parts ready to swap on and off for testing... The system measures lift/downforce per wheel, drag, and stability over a wide range of windspeeds... they also have smoke generators and a smoke wand for airflow checking... pressure sensors can be attched to points inside brake ducts, wheel wells, and engine bay... etc, etc, etc... It looks like a bunch of NC boys are getting together for a real test... get your ideas ready... we are going to resolve these things in a scientific manner...

Hmmmm.... I can say from experience that a V-8 is going to be the easiest to maintain for track use... A high HP L24-28 na/turbo is going to cost a good deal of money and reliability goes down as HP goes up... ======================================================= Any engine swap/hybrid is going to involve a lot more money than you think getting it well sorted out... for instance... a chevy V-8 swap needs a tranny... World class T5s are getting to be >$1000 in any condition from junk yards... that will significantly increase the cost of your swap... Speedo, Tachometer, and ancilliary guages have to be sorted out... clutch parts, hydraulics, back up switches, speedo gears, lockouts, linkages, mounts, hardware can add up more than you think... Most modern swaps are going to need reprogramming and piggy back systems for turbo upgrades... Exhaust systems are often expensive because of the fabrication time involved getting it just right... ======================================================= adding a lot of horsepower can bring handling and braking issues into light... chassis preparation to match... even for street use can get into the thousands $$$.... You really can't put a price tag on it... there are a lot of engine swaps at shows that only do well in a straight line... a well sorted out high performance makeover typically costs $10,000... Bodywork is in a class of it's own....

I used a plate of aluminum to completely seal the upper lip to the radiator lower support... ...

What a great weekend... What a load of fun... It was nice to see you guys... I have some great shots of my car at the track... 1:11.7 seconds ...

I am having these parts machined to allow 3/4" to 1" added length on the stock TC rods... and adding an additional 4 degrees of deflection... I have a date with the machine shop on tuesday... I'll post some more pics soon...

I mentioned I would be cutting the rear side shims/spacers.. the front side will stay the same (I need to space off the front more, not cut it down shorter)... the set up already adds caster with no washers... with the one stock washer in front(as it sits in the top picture) it adds about 3/16 length to the TC rod.. but barely leaves enough room for the NUT on the end... cutting the rear side spacer will get me as much length as I want... up to 3/4" increase... And the front side needs to have the wide end as a safety backup in case the bearing pops...

To start off... I have no idea if I will live to regret doing this... I am using the finest aerospace bearings I can buy... I expect a failure if more than 7000 pounds of pressure is applied to the TC rod axially through the bearing... The design I am using has a backup washer built in so that failure would not cause a toal collapse of the suspension... but it would probably put me off course... ========================================================== I am trying to solve several problems at once... 1. excess movement of the stock rubber bushings causes unpredictable shifts in handling on a race track... 2. harder bushings and/or overtightening the end nuts will cause the TC rod to flex, fatigue, and eventually fail... 3. most TC rod redesigns place the spherical bearing pivot forward and outward from the stock position, as well as shortening the overall TC rod length... ======================================================== I am totally stealing this whole idea from picures I have seen of Ron Carters BRE 240Z replica... I have managed to contact Mr. Carter via email and I can assume he isn't dead yet due to his redesigned TC pivots... Ron credits Design Products http://www.designproductsracing.com/...aspx?tabid=514 for comming up with this nifty design... They have some really sophisticated thinkers over there... we need to find a way to get them some more exposure... ======================================================== I decided not to bother those busy folks a DP for advice... I put my nose to the grindstone(google) and came up with some pretty good parts to start with... http://www.stockcarproducts.com/susp3.htm I purchased the MBA-12 assemblies... Here are some photos of the parts I have for this project... 3/4" mono ball in a housing that measures 1 3/4" diameter.. It has a nice pair of reducer-spacers to accomodate a 1/2" diameter shaft... Here is an overview picture with the urethane bushings and spacer at the bottom... The spacers put together with the monoball measure 2 1/2" end to end... the urethane bushings stack up to ~ 2 3/8" under compression(these are worn bushings)... in any case... The modification with these parts on the stock TC rods in the stock pivot points would add around 1/16" length to the TC rod... slightly increasing caster angle... which is good.... but not much of a change... Here are some pics of the spacers... I will have to trim them slightly to ensure sufficient free movement of the TC rod when the suspension is at full droop or full compression... The bearing arrangement gives me 11 degrees(*) of deflection... giving me 22 degrees of movement... this should be plenty with a lowered and shortened race suspension... but just to be sure I will have the spacers machined slightly to increase the range of motion to ~15*... giving me enough travel to use them at stock ride height with full droop... {{stock suspension full droop needs ~13* downward deflection at the TC rod pivot}}... The rear spacer will also have to be cut shorter to allow me to increase caster angle with washers in front of the assembly(lengthen the TC rod)... and still be able to screw the nut on the end... The housings can be trimmed to leave only the center section that holds the spherical bearing... the housing will be welded intot he TC bucket so that the centerline of the bearing is inline with the plane of the TC bucket... this will preserve the full length of the TC rod and keeps the lateral/twisting loads on the TC bucket to a minimum... The pivot points can also be raised slightly(~3/4") when they are welded into the TC buckets... This picture shows the housing sitting on top of the stock support washer... ...

Well.. the current situation with American car companies shows me that they have not leared ANYHTING from their ordeal in the 1970s... Allison, Cummings, IH and others do not sell ANYTHING in the consumer market... AT ALL... International Harvester is just a trademark now... they have been passed around the world several times... I used to work for North Carolina Equipment company.. the same thing is happening in the commercial market.. IMPORTS RULE the construction equipment world... The very fact that they cannot compete in the world market should be enough proof... Mark my words... without congress backing them up with tarriffs on imports... they are doomed in the consumer market... they are already dead... just on life support... it is only going to be a few more years before someone pulls the plugs...

QUOTE: ""the t56 is not nearly twice the weight. The t56 that comes out of a stock 1998-2002 camaro weighs 108 lbs. The t5 weighs 75 pounds. This information is directly from Tremec's website. www.ttcautomotive.com For those who aren't versed in Mathematics, the t56 weighs a mere 33 pounds more than a WCT5 and can handle 140 more lb ft of torque. IMO the t5 should not be an option when building a fast Z. A tko would be a good option, but not a t5. But the TKO weighs 105 lbs. And btw a stock ls1 would break a WCT5 so I dunno what kind of ill-performing SBC you are talking about that makes enough power to scare your girlfriend out of driving it. My stock ls1/t56 runs 12 flat on the factory sized 195/60/14 tires and I wouldn't hesitate to hand my mom the keys to my car and she wouldn't mind driving it. It idles and runs like a dream, has a perfect 50/50 weight balance, weighs less than stock and gets 32 mpg on the highway. IMO the perfect car!"" It is comments like these that get peops fired up...

Ohhh.. . The T56 is damn near twice the weight of the WCT5... But.. the weight is slung below the hubs(low in the car) and it is rear biased weight which improves balance... adding subframe connectors and a lot of other modifications such as heavy guage replacement floorpans WILL ADD WEIGHT... but again.. it is all added BELOW THE HUBS... and toward the rear of the car... These kinds of things add total weight but can actually lower your center of gravity and improve balance CONSIDERABLY!!! That is a double edged sword.. or a good side to a bad thing(weight)... The SBC 350 with the lightweight WCT5 is adding weight primarily to the front axle... which means you have to relocate the battery and shift more weight to the rear...

Hehehe... Good thread if we can get some weights that represent what the finished product will be like... ie. installed operational 1970-72 S-30 Z car... I have gone to extremes to prove a point... Love you JM... inspirational... My take on this is that there are too many other factors to worry about the differences in engine weights... Stick with me here... No matter what any component weighs... every Hybrid Z is a unique object... they are not comparable the way a factory produced automobile can be compared with other factory produced models... The sub 100 pound difference in engine weights is peanuts compared to the weight differences from modified/missing components in the rest of the car... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You also have to consider that in the early days peops were snatching stock V-8 engines out of the JY with relatively low miles and just stuffing them in datsuns... the engines they used had cast iron heads, water pumps, manifolds,etc,etc,etc... they WERE HEAVY... by any standard... they most certainly added weight to the car... That is exactly what the guys using the modern LSx engines are doing... they are taking a factory V-8 package and grafting/stuffing it into a Datsun... no doubt the junk yard LSx engines are considerably lighter than the junk yard cast iron V-8s(with cast iron everything)... Where this goes astray is that you are not considering that the SBC 350s are functionally obsolete... no one(except in Mexico and Russia) builds a low horsepower completely cast iron motor(cast iron everything)... damn near everyone who has swaped a SBC350 in the last 2 decades has used aftermarket everything.. they built a special purpose engine that weighed CONSIDERABLY LESS that the JY pulled (cast iron everything) v-8 of the old days... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- My personal take on this is that if you want a super performing package that is ~"relatively"~ lightweight, starts and runs beautifully.. go for the LSx JY motors and T-56 tranny... it is relatively easy to use the components in stock form(or nearly so)... your wife might drive the LSx car... If you really want to maximize performance and keep weight to an absolute minimum.. then a fire breathing, built up SBC 350 with a built WCT5 is the money... and don't expect your wife or girlfriend to be impressed... they wont get near it... especially if you start it... I chose the SBC350 WCT5 for my hybrid project... call me thick headed... but I have considered the options... there is very little difference in cost...

They stink... I have owned several diesel vehicles... Mercedes 300TD, VW Jetta TDI, 2 trucks, and a Volvo 240D They were all great cars except the trucks... among the most reliable I have ever owned... but they stink... smell bad stink... American car companies are the ones responsible for giving diesels a bad rep... they never developed a diesel engine.. they just converted gasoline engines... they were idiotic designs... totally unacceptable... but I find any vehicle made in america Totally UNacceptable

Those run in BSP with the 240Zs

How many teeth on the flywheel???

I have one pair of those EMI plates.. most likely they will go up front... I am using a set of poor man's, home-made plates in the rear....

The whole idea here is to get a solid, flex free mounting for the TC rod... and to keep the pivot point as far back as possible(dead even with the back plane of the TC bucket)... and I can use the stock TC rod.. I will have to slot the TC mounting holes on the control arm for added caster angle... Those parts are used in racing to get rid of the rubber suspension bushings... they are made to fit all kinds of cars... they pop into the same holes as the original bushings but they are rock solid and move with very little friction/sticktion... The particular ones I am using are just like the large outer sleeve of a control arm bushing... 1 3/4" OD... they are ~2" long... they have a step machined inside to hold the monoball... the other side has a circlip to hold it in place... The ones in the pictures have been machined down to leave just the middle of the outer monoball housing... then the housing is welded into the TC bucket.. after cutting a 1 3/4" hole first... I will be orienting them soo that the circlip does not take the loads... ie. circlip on the front side...

Here are the bearing specs... http://aurora.thomasnet.com/item/browse-all-products-aircraft-spherical-bearing/m-series-spherical-bearings-ptfe-liners-available-/com-12?&seo=110

That is Ron Carter's work there... I don't know how he drives it... but the assembly I chose houses the largest monoball I could find.. It is not the highest quality either.. I can go up to 36,000 lbs with the really high dollar aerospace pieces... If they fit... I think the ID/OD is fairly standardized... Good point on reinforcing the TC bucket... maybe a formed inside doubler and another outside gusset...

I ordered a set of monoball bushing replacement assemblies from stock car products...part # MBA 12 The housings are slightly less than 2" long, 1 3/4" OD, with necked 1/2" ID spacers/bushings to adapt the 3/4" ball to 1/2" bolt size with 2 1/2" overall width... I will machine most of the housing away and weld it in the TC bucket... The necked bushings with a few washers will work for caster adjustment and allow me to secure the 1/2" TC rod in a realatively large(strong) monoball... I can raise the height of the TC point in the process... I will have to get the parts in hand to see what can really be done for TC height...