rudypoochris

I'm working on this. It will probably be a -13 RB-R. I will get the alignment sorted today. Also, I hope to increase the dish considerably instead of having them simply add material to the back. I will try my best, there are a lot of different angles this group buy can go. I will try and maximize our options and minimize any compromise. We will know a lot more after I meet with the representative on Monday.

I do know some one with a 280z local to me with (I assume) stock suspension. It will take a while for him and I to match schedules, I will work on it. According to my calculations 1.75" from tube, with a 51mm OD tube, that results in an absolute maximum perch size of 5.507" diameter, AT the rim lip which is naturally 17/2" away from the wheel's axis of rotation. As for the RB-R, RB current, and RB new style - I will talk with the rep. on Monday and try my very best to accommodate everyone. If the -13 offset works fine (I think it will once I get my alignment sorted), then the RB current can go straight to production. Any re-edits will naturally take more time (RB deep dish and RB-R deep dish). Hang in there guys.

Please do explain. Why is this? Any advise on how I can tell if the alignment is "correct" short of taking it to a shop and getting it aligned using a machine. The fact that there is .75" of clearance between the T/C and the tire at full lock on the passenger's side and none on the other would make me think I have the wheels at about 0 toe (I had rolled it around before just fine and 'eyeballed' this) but the tie rod on the passengers side is threaded higher up (less distance) where as the tie rod on the drivers side is thread out more (more distance). The alignment was never set since I last worked on the steering, it was merely adjusted so the wheels were both pointing straight at the same time.

Okay I took more measurements. Apparently there is no T/C interference on the right side of the car, this is very good news. This means my alignment is garbage and I need to mess around with it. Tomorrow I will head out again and play with it. Basically I think the -13 offset will be perfectly fine, but I will confirm. At a loaded position I had .75" clearance on passengers wheel and the T/C rod! Averaging the two out .750" and around -.125", I think the clearance should result in ~.3125" which is sufficient. Can any one advise on how to get this alignment reasonable with out a machine? Just adjust the tie rods until I get the same distance at full lock between the two sides and the wheels do not toe in or out? Some of the questions posed earlier: To Bjhines: The bottom of the ball joint to the tie rod is 1.587" in the vertical direction, 1.135" in the horizontal direction, and 1.028" at the closest point from contacting the wheel. As for brake clearance: Using my 12.2" Wilwood setup I have 1.970" of clearance between the outermost (from the center) protrusion on the caliper to the spoke. The inner most protrusion to the spoke is 2.220" clear. The mounting surface extends ~3.25" from the axis of rotation. Immediately after it provides 2.2" of clearance between spoke and mounting face, at 3.75" from the axis 3.11" clear, and at 5.75" it provides 2.5" clear. All those measurements are on the 17x9". For those of you using the JSK setup, I recommend grinding down end of the LCA. I just found out it contacts the rotor in a loaded position. As for the tires being on the correct wheels: I took a look, it is correct. Basically they both have 3" of dish to them and the offset is compensated for on the back side by adding or removing material. This is less than ideal and not in keeping with my original goal to make a wheel similar to the Watanabe. I will mention this to the rep for the RB-R molds. For those of you wanting the RB setup (the one I currently have prototypes for), is this acceptable? As for the stock suspension clearing these wheels: I have the dimensions posted. I would very much like for anyone who can to comment on clearance. These are the offsets Watanabe runs and I believe they clear stock suspension. I cannot be sure though. I no longer have a car with stock suspension, I will try and dig around Hybridz and find the spring perch diameters and such. Lastly, I will get back to you guys on manufacturing times on Monday. I plan to meet with the representative in person as a lot of this new information is hard to communicate over the phone with him. I will try to have the RB-R spokes recessed and ask him to lighten it up as much as possible with out compromising integrity. Pushing the spokes back and increasing dish MAY make the center caps un-useable depending on how far back the mounting surface is pushed. Just letting you guys know.

What I don't get is how this 5 seconds a lap results in about 17.5 seconds over a ~7:30 race like the Nurburgring... So what, this car goes 7:25 around the ring with the others running 7:42? I know times can't be transfered like that, but I am just wondering here...

The main issue with that is that I only have 2 prototype wheels and the lug nuts can't be bolted on. The best I could do was compressing the suspension as much as possible with the coil over set to the lowest setting. For the rears I am going to try and get the suspension all back together today. I will try and remove the spring from what setup and compress it further, but no promises as there is quite a bit to do back there. I know it isn't the same, but if you like I can raise the wheels on a couple of wood blocks to a simulated height. --------- On Monday I will attempt to meet with the representative again. I plan on asking him to merely make the bolt holes bigger on this design. I will also request and RB-R mold with larger holes, a -17 F offset and then give him some minimum (+1/4"-1/2") brake clearance drawings. How does that sound to everyone? This DOES mean that inevitably the RB-R will take longer to produce... the RB's should be available "right away", but there may be T/C contact at full lock (it is possible there will not be - as my alignment was not set on a machine, just by eye - also a 245mm tire probably will not rub) on the fronts. Worse comes to worse a 2-5mm spacer will be needed.

It is probably an angle thing 200sxdatsun. Never the less I will check today with the micrometer and confirmt he right tire is on the right wheel. I am 100% positive the 255/40/17 wheel was mounted on the front, I just have to make sure the right tire was on the right wheel, which I am 98% positive of.

Great questions EMWHYR0HEN, exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. I believe we can split it into two different things. One exactly the way they are now with bigger lug holes, and the other the RB-R's with the -17 front and -19 rear with larger lug holes. There was PLENTY of brake clearance - at least for the Wilwood setup. I will measure the exact clearance for you tomorrow. I will contact the representative and talk some of this over with him, get production dates, that sort of stuff. Also, does any one know if the stock brakes require more or less clearance than the Wilwood setups?

Thats nuts. 5-6 seconds!

Does this help: I can get you that dimension when I go back tomorrow with the micrometer. Are you looking for minimum distance between rim and ball joint?

Alrighty! I got them mounted up, took dimensions, and took photos. There is some good and some bad. Here is a summary: The bad: -Right off the bat, the bolt holes are physically too small to fit a socket into! I will let Rota know of this and it is a non-issue. -The front wheel rubs the tension rod at full lock left (on the driver wheel) or full lock right (passenger wheel). The good: -The rears fit perfectly fine. -The fronts look like they will fit pretty well with an air dam or valance trimming. First things first I took measurements on the front using the 17x9" -13 at full droop (pictured below) with the 255/40/17 tire. Some back ground on the car, I have bump steer spacers and coil overs. I am using 280z hubs front and rear on 240z struts. The distance from the closest part of the wheel/tire to the actual body of the strut is approximately ~1.75". Can someone with a stock suspension chime in and let me know if this distance is sufficient? Shown below: The distance at full lock right (on the drivers side) to the flange of the frame rail is ~.600". There is a slight interference at the lower valance, but it just barely touches. Installation of and air dam or trimming of the valance should make this a non-issue - the problem is only apparent where the valance starts to turn in. Both the rail clearance and valance interference shown below. At full lock left (on the drivers side) the letters on the 255mm tire contact the tension control rod. This would make me think that I should advise an additional 4mm spacing of the wheel outwards. This will provide more clearance between the spring perch and the wheel and should also ensure that the T/C rod does not contact the tire. My alignment has not been done and I merely "eyeballed" the straight position, but even if my alignment is a bit off, I think this spot is a bit too close. I would recommend a -17 front offset instead of the -13. Any thoughts? Pictured below. Additionally, the clearance between the frame rail flange and the tire is ~.750" which is more than sufficient since when loaded, the control arm will push the wheel farther outward. Clearance between the wheel and the fender is sufficient to be run with out ZG flares - there is no issue there loaded or unloaded. Below is the wheel at full droop, massive wheel gap (I am hoping the ZG's are approximately in the right area). Now onto the compressed photos. I compressed the suspension as much as I could with out removing the 200# front spring and Suspension Techniques front sway bar, this lifted the entire front of the car. Note I have bump steer spacers though, so the angle of the control arm is still pointing in the "down" direction, with out them the angle would probably be about flat. Picture of the remaining travel shown as well. At this loaded setting, the wheel contacted the valance a significant amount more. With an air dam or trimmed lower valance this should no matter though - even if the -17 offset is used instead of this -13. The available steering angle is less than full lock shown above. At this loading the tension rod still contacts the lettering on the wheel, that aspect did not seem to change. The clearance between frame rail and tire is increased both full lock right and left. Below is a beauty shot showing the approximate alignment of the outside of the tire with the ZG flare. The second figure shows the wheel gap in the "loaded" position. On to the rears... This was much less eventful. Basically I believe the offset of -19 to be correct. The first picture illustrates the wheel gap at full droop, unfortunately my LCA's for the rear could not be installed and thus a loaded position could not be obtained. There really isn't any issue here though when it comes to clearance. If only the fronts were as simple as the rear. The 275/40/17 tire looks to be the perfect size for this 17x9.5" -19. The spacing between the strut tube and the wheel/tire is ~1.75". Please advise to stock suspension clearance here. Conclusion: 1. I will tell the rep. we need 30mm bolt hole diameters which should be enough to fit a 13/16" or 21mm socket. (The current holes at 27.8mm) 2. The front wheels need to be spaced out an additional bit. I recommend 4mm more which makes for a 17x9" -17 front wheel. Using a 245/40/17 this would probably not be an issue, but I really feel like that is cutting it too close. I also think 255mm looks appropriate for this width. Feedback please. 3. For those of you running stock spring perches, advise as to whether or not there is enough clearance. Mine were removed long ago, so I really can't comment here. 4. I will talk with the rep. a bit and find out what it will take time wise to get the RB-R's as well. I think these RB's look great, but I like the RB-R (flat spoke) much more. I will also ask the rep. to see if he can get the RB-R made lighter (since it will need a new mold any way) while maintaining safety for the street. Any questions, comments, etc. Very much appreciated! BTW: For those of you still wanting to run a 17x9.5" 19 front, I do not recommend this. There was the same TC interference as with the 17x9" but a little worse due to the increase bulge of the 275mm tire. The TC rod could be ground down to fit this setup, or a small spacer could be used, if you are really determined in running the 9.5" front. I also tested for valance interference and it was considerably more (~.5"), with a spacer it would increase as well. This PROBABLY is not an issue with an air dam, but I cannot make an educated guess that far out. Hope that does not disappoint. If it does, let me know and I will see if I can work something out, take more measurement, and such for getting the 9.5" front to fit.

Thanks for the offer! Lets wait until the deal is sealed though. Okay, so I am now at my place in Oakland and I got the wheels weighed on the bathroom scale ~20lbs for the 9.0" and ~21lbs for the 9.5" wide. The design is the Rota RB, which means it doesn't have the flatter spokes I thought it would have. Apparently there are two designs - RB and RB-R. The RB-R has flat spokes and looks more similar to the Watanabe R-Type. I have spoken with the rep. and I believe he is willing to do the RB-R's also (he is inquiring with the manufacturer about timing), but that will only be a matter of waiting. The RB-R in my mind should be about ~1lb lighter, but I will ask him if there is any way to lighten them up. In any case, the samples are here. A 17x9" -13 and a 17x9.5" -19. I am off to the tire shop right now to get them mounted. Then driving back to Davis ~60 minutes to fit them to the car, take pictures, all that good stuff. Heres a couple pictures, they are un-painted samples. Note the extra curvature on the spokes. This and the RB-R should end up being options for us, as well as the 9" front and standard 9.5" rear. The RB's will be available right away provided there are no offset/fitment corrections.

I called yesterday around ~4pm and the representative thought he had the wheels come in, but he wasn't sure. So today I called and he confirmed two box's with the samples came in! I am going down to Hayward right now (1:30) drive and will pick them up - hopefully they are correct - get the junk 255/40 and 275/40 tires mounted at a local shop, then drive up (1:30 min) to my cars location and take pictures, mount, etc. I will TRY to stop by my house in the Bay Area along the way to bathroom scale them, but not promises. Wish me luck! Well lets first hope they are right!

Well, here is a quick 7 spoke - kind of like the BMW wheel, except not.

I just got one for $114 from Kragen after returning a core.

Thanks!

I am now working on my R200 and need to remove the front pinion seal. I do not want to damage it as the seal is new. Can it just be popped off with a screw driver? If so, do I pry it from behind (the carrier side) or do I wedge the screwdriver between the seal and the housing? If not, can someone recommend a seal puller? Thanks!

Heres another product of boredom. 17x11" 73mm hub bore 4x114.3 pattern, -40 offset. ~20lbs in aluminum.

Search "reaction disk".

I would think not. I believe the engine needs to reach operating temperature (160-190 degrees) ideally so that the water in the oil (from condensation and such) vaporizes out - thus preventing sludge. At least that was the reason I have been told that vehicles that make frequent stops and never really reach heat have engine issues. Its not that big of a deal to replace a thermostat. I would think a 160 degree thermostat is fine if it is working, doesn't sound like it is working. Might want to just replace it as it is relatively cheap and easy.

Is it me or does that valve on the supra forum completely block exhaust flow for the first 3 cylinders?

Nice! I am going to pick up a semi-auto shot gun and a Swedish M96 soon. I have my 1891 Argentine too which I love. I just started reloading it which is interesting. My roommate is sitting right next to me right now building his first AR15 and laughing. Hahah.

My hybrid Ceramic ball bearing came back. I am pleased with it. It has a different retainer, and the black ceramic balls. The unit rolls much easier than before (that could just mean larger tolerances though - although I feel no difference). So far, so pleased.

Lol. Ironically the A/C on my 92' has been the only thing to consistently fail. I think maybe the dealer that we take it to doesn't know how to do it properly. Also the lumbar supports usually leak, which is a bummer.

I hear the transmissions are the weak points on these cars. Especially the auto. I know 3rd gear gets a little loose on the 5-speeds, but this rebuilt 5-speed runs just fine (the original 5-speed I believe was abused).