johnc

The Stahl Model 28 is $775.00 plus shipping. It is a thing of beauty...

Whooo Hoo!

Actually, didn't Tony D weigh a stock exhaust manifold and the MSA 6 into 1 header and find that they weighed about the same?

That is one of the most dented $1,000 240Z hoods I've seen in a while. Looks like Stud Master JJ has been banging away on it.

Remember, this thing weighed 8,500 lbs and was designed to run on a perfectly flat and level surface and never make a turn. Suspension travel, from looking at the shocks and springs, was maybe 2" total. Now, put this single purpose vehicle in a 1965 era trailer and drive it around the country. Its easy to see how a series of frost heaves, potholes, or the 15 miles of expansion joints on I10 around Fontana, CA could make the suspension repeatedly bottom out hard.

Another update.

Measured the inside length of a stock rear 240Z strut tube: 16.750" I don't have a stock length front strut to measure.

I found the VTSs: Acura RSX: http://www.speedvisionwc.com/competitors/vts/05-vts-acura-integra.pdf Mazda 6: http://www.speedvisionwc.com/competitors/vts/05-vts-mazda-6-rev4.pdf BMW 325i: http://www.speedvisionwc.com/competitors/vts/05-vts-bmw-325-rev2.pdf A quick summary... Acura RSX - 2.0L, 2,400lbs w/driver (1,200 lbs per liter) 56F/42R Mazda 6 - 2.4L, 2,700lbs w/driver (1,125 lbs per liter) 56F/42R BMW 325i (E46) - 2.5L, 2,750lbs. w/driver (1,100 lbs per liter), 50F/50R There is no weight distribution penalty for the E46 325i in Touring.

While I don't have the BMW VTS handy and I don't know what the current weight distribution is, I talked with Jim at Sunbelt a while ago (who builds a number of the front running BMW Speed Touring engines) and he said SCCA stepped in on the weight distribution issue when a couple of the BMWs were found to be running a pretty big rear weight bias. SCCA did the same with the Cadillacs this year after they stomped the field at Sebring. Seems that no produciton CTS-V was ever delivered with a 43F/57R weight distribution...

I added a link to the bottom of this page (http://www.betamotorsports.com/benchracing/Goldenrod.html) that will show the work I'm doing. I've been working on the front upper control arms.

Well... maybe the winning car was driven better, maybe it was better preapred, maybe luck played a factor, but the winner of any race is ALWAYS the car that got aound the race track the fastest druing the race.

SCCA tries to restrict the Touring category cars to a standard power to weight ratio. From some of the numbers I know its "around" 12 pounds to each horsepower. That actually helps our discussion of FWD vs. RWD by taking horsepower out of either side's arguement. It also helps that the cars run a spec tire (225 width Toyo Proxes RA1). Since tires and horsepower are basically equalized it really comes down to vehicle preparation, driver skill, vehicle handling, and luck. Drive configuration really isn't a factor in the Touring class, except in how the vehicle is driven. At the end of each race, the BMW's rear tires and the Acura/Mazda front tires are greasy. The winner is generally the driver that conserved his tires the best.

Ah yes, another conspiracy! In reality, US auto manufacturers have been using the revised J1349 since the beginning of model year 2004 because they knew it was coming, so you need to look back a couple years to see the changes in US vehicle power ratings. The German DIN 70020 standard for engine power rating is very accurate and the 2004 revisions of SAE J1349 bring it more in line with what the Germans have been doing. You will see slight changes in the power ratings for German vehicles but nothing really worth noticing. The Japanese JIN engine power standard was a little futher off from where SAE J1349 is now. The biggest horsepower rating adjustments will be on Japanese vehicles.

You can buy your own personal copy of SAE J1349 as revised August 2004 right here: http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=J1349_200408 The revision basically tightenes up the testing process itself and adjusts the correction factors, reference points, and measurement processes. The last revision of J1349 was in 1995 (which you can buy here: http://www.sae.org/servlets/productDetail?PROD_TYP=STD&PROD_CD=J1995_199506). I have no idea why the car magazines are making a big deal out of this revision, its a normal, periodic review and update that SAE does to all of its standards. Actually, I do have an idea - they are trying to fabricate a story out of nothing.

A friend reminded me of trait of the Koni 8610 (and I think 8611) inserts that I had forgotten about. The upper bushing/seal is crimped in place with three tabs off the housing itself. The bushing/seal is not a tight fit and can feel loose/sloppy. Its designed that way by Koni and everything tightens up fine when the gland nut is torqued to spec. If the gland nut loosens at all then the bushing/seal gets a little bit sloppy. Also, the Koni shock oil is only good for 2 years of monthly racing. Upgrading to Silkolene will give 4 years of racing before the oil needs replacing.

A friend reminded me of trait of the Koni 8610 (and I think 8611) inserts that I had forgotten about. The upper bushing/seal is crimped in place with three tabs off the housing itself. The bushing/seal is not a tight fit and can feel loose/sloppy. Its designed that way by Koni and everything tightens up fine when the gland nut is torqued to spec. If the gland nut loosens at all then the bushing/seal gets a little bit sloppy. Also, the Koni shock oil is only good for 2 years of monthly racing. Upgrading to Silkolene will give 4 years of racing before the oil needs replacing.

Koni (and other) shock bushing failure is almost always cased by only a couple things: 1. Bent shock shaft. 2. Binding in the normal articulation of the strut. For this discussion we'll ignore number 1. The strut/shock combination is designed to primarly take vertical loads. Inherent in the design of a strut are some lateral or bending loads but they are not as great as most people think. ANY lateral or bending load increases the bind in the movment of the shock shaft and is a bad thing. Because the length of the strut/shock assembly and the angles of the strut in relation to the vehicle and the LCAs change as load changes, the front and rear strut installations on the 240Z need to have free movement at the top and bottom of the strut. The freer the better because these are the places when most of the suspension bind occurs. If this articulation is restricted then the side loads on the shock bushing increase dramatically. If shock bushings are wearing out prematurely then I would check for binding in the ball joint/steering arm (or the spindle pin at the rear) and at the upper strut mount. A classic failure example was (is?) the Polyurethane OEM upper spring isolator that MSA sold (sells?). The stiffness of the poly restricted articulation at the upper strut mount and it would destroy shocks very quickly. A lot of Tokico Illuminas were killed with this "performance" part. Another example was GC's camber plates from about 10 years ago. They used monoballs without much articulation and these would bottom out near maximum compression, causing bind. Other contributing factors can be (very, very vehicle specific): 1. Rear toe-in beyond about 1/8". 2. Really big caster numbers in front (8+). 3. Shortened TC rods (TC rod pivot moved forward). 4. Excessively shortened steering arms that bind up the tie rod end.

Koni (and other) shock bushing failure is almost always cased by only a couple things: 1. Bent shock shaft. 2. Binding in the normal articulation of the strut. For this discussion we'll ignore number 1. The strut/shock combination is designed to primarly take vertical loads. Inherent in the design of a strut are some lateral or bending loads but they are not as great as most people think. ANY lateral or bending load increases the bind in the movment of the shock shaft and is a bad thing. Because the length of the strut/shock assembly and the angles of the strut in relation to the vehicle and the LCAs change as load changes, the front and rear strut installations on the 240Z need to have free movement at the top and bottom of the strut. The freer the better because these are the places when most of the suspension bind occurs. If this articulation is restricted then the side loads on the shock bushing increase dramatically. If shock bushings are wearing out prematurely then I would check for binding in the ball joint/steering arm (or the spindle pin at the rear) and at the upper strut mount. A classic failure example was (is?) the Polyurethane OEM upper spring isolator that MSA sold (sells?). The stiffness of the poly restricted articulation at the upper strut mount and it would destroy shocks very quickly. A lot of Tokico Illuminas were killed with this "performance" part. Another example was GC's camber plates from about 10 years ago. They used monoballs without much articulation and these would bottom out near maximum compression, causing bind. Other contributing factors can be (very, very vehicle specific): 1. Rear toe-in beyond about 1/8". 2. Really big caster numbers in front (8+). 3. Shortened TC rods (TC rod pivot moved forward). 4. Excessively shortened steering arms that bind up the tie rod end.

An interesting question from Mark Ortiz's latest newsletter:

TiVo is recording it as I work here at the shop. To toot my horn a bit, my customer (Dave Schotz) got the T2 pole in his school bus yellow Camaro. He is running a betaMotorsports exhaust!

Keith, You guys really ran 500 lb. in. front springs on the EP cars? Really? Bumps were not a problem?

Keith, You guys really ran 500 lb. in. front springs on the EP cars? Really? Bumps were not a problem?

For a street car I agree with Jon: any SJ grade 10W-40 works fine. Oils have come a long way since 1970. For a road race car the extra margin of a synthetic comes in handy. Redline 20W-50 is what I ran in all my race L6s.

The Touring category is pretty much for stock vehicles. All emissions stuff working (a CEL will get you a DSQ), basically stock suspension, and the required safety equipment. There are some competition allowances that are vehicle specific and part of the manufacturer's VTS for that car. For the EVO8 they are allowed: 1. Update/backdate. 2. Factory brake ducting kit. 3. Oil and trans cooler. For the STi they are allowed: 1. Update/backdate. 2. Factory brake ducting kit. 3. Oil and trans cooler. Both cars must weigh 3380 lbs. with driver aboard.

Number 1 and 2 are also true with respect to relocating the inner pivot. IMHO, to properly drill the new holes, fill in the existing holes, and weld on the reinforcement washers the crossmember has to come out of the car.