rudypoochris

Ya, sorry I spelled it wrong...

Thats all great... But would YOU hybridize it? I would.

So I guess the 300zx hubs are alot stronger? I know the people running low 9's on the IRS are having problems with stock 280z diameter aftermarket billet alluminum stub axles failing. Would these be more stout?

Is the altima really on the Z platform? Does that mean it has a Z33 chassis code? Or do differing chassis codes fit on the same platform?

It does look a bit heavy. How much power are you guys trying to support? I know the 280z rear stubs are a weak link, are the 300zx stubs alot stronger?

I am rebuilding a 15/16 Nabco 280zx MC (seperate reservoir). It has been sitting fluidless for over a year and had a bit of corrosion on it. Most of that came off with a bit of penatrating oil and fine steel wool. Anyway, to the point. I am sitting here now with a disassembled master, and a rebuild kit. I start feeling around in the bore and notice that there is a spot about halfway down the master. There is slight pitting in the bore in a 1/4" diameter patch opposite the first reservoir. I am basically wondering if this pitting is typical and not to be worried about or if it is acceptable and par for the course. The spot was mostlikely created from metal to metal contact at the end of the first piston. If it is typical there is no point in going to the JY for another used one, I will just cough up the money. Also, my MC bleeders are rusted and need to be replaced. Are they a standard size, is there a metric and an inch version? Where does one order them? Thanks.

Looking from the 3/4 view it is plain to see (at least to me) that the cabin is far forward and that the front side lines look very economy car with an accord/civic style hood angle.

Just tring to guage interest. How much would you pay or consider reasonable for a used R200 ring and pinion in a 4.375 ratio, a 3.36, or a 3.7 ratio? What is reasonable for a brand new copy of one of those ratios if a copy existed? Talking about just the gears. Thanks.

Why is a homedepot 140amp welder made by lincoln different than from a welding shop out of curiosity?

Lol grumpy is getting frustrated. How difficult is oxy acetalene for a begginer, my brother seems interested in that. I think I will probably just scrounge craigslist for a used 140 to 180 amp MIG right now.

Alright. I will see if we can pull 220 volt single phase. Recommendations between the three (hobart, lincoln, miller) or are they all a wash? In which case I would get the cheapest.

I plan on using it for the 240z primarily and light house work. Nothing more than 3/16" to 1/4". I think eventually I have a feeling Im going to want to go TIG so that is why I am not interested in investing in a more powerful welder. Still suggest the 180?

Oh my. It looks backwards lol. I thought that huge welder was a hood, haha.

So the consensus is that the Lincol 140 or Millermatic 140 are the way to go?

Well in that case, forget about alluminum and MIG. Recommendations for a welder a little bit less powerful than the 140C that is still a quality inexpensive unit? Thanks.

Well aluminum is a minor thing. Big scope, I am just looking for a more economical MIG welder that is quality and what I need 24ga to 3/16". Also, if I do weld alluminum it wouldn't be anything more than thin sheet so that would work fine. I should have specified, sorry!

Today I went down to the local welding supply shop and let the guy know I wanted to get itno welding on up to 3/16 maybe 1/4" steel. He recommended the Power Mig 140C by Lincoln. This seems like a sweet welder for what I need as it can do alluminum, has plenty of power, all that kind of stuff. It was $770 at the store though (way high imho). I see them on Ebay for $550 ish, but I am wondering if there is anything more economical that you guys would recommend. I was under the impression that there are cheaper welders out there that will serve my needs (24ga to 3/16"). Am I wrong? I like the aluminum capability though and I haven't had much luck finding it in other MIGs. Any pointers in the right direction would help.

I would imagine a small diesel would be your best bet. They are often more robust than gasoline engines, they are more efficent, and they make more torque down low. That means you can run the engine slower than you could a gas engine -> greater reliability. If your going to be using it to generate power you might as well also let it generate shop air and all that good stuff. Sounds like a decent amount of work though. Also, cooling might be a pain. If you were very clever you would make it modular. So that the engine was one unit, the generator was another, the air another, and so on. So you could arrange them in any order and remove things you don't want/need. But Im just taking the idea too far now.

Might try a magnet too.

I think the guys with wats run 245mm tires, not sure though. I went to my brothers today and put the mock up wheel on: Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image 4 Image 5 Image 6 So I set the mock up wheels with one side a 275/40 sizing and the other a 245/40 sizing. I did not try the fit on the back. I started with a -6 offset testing the 245/40/17 combination, it did not clear the rails at full lock, there was interference at the fender as well. Image 3 illustrates the contact with the frame rail and the coilover perch. I then spaced out the wheel to a -19 offset. This looked the best and seemed to work pretty well. Using this offset I achieved 3/4" to 7/8" tire to rail clearance at full lock to the right (image 4). Also note in Image 4 that this setup yielded 5/8" to 3/4" of space between the wheel and the coilover perch. The coilover perch is ~3.5" OD, can anyone tell me the stock perch OD? In Image 5 at full lock to the right again, one can see the tire did not clear the stock front valance. It interfered 1"-1/4 maximum (max interference appears to happen at full lock, I checked other angles). Can someone with ZG flares chime in about how much more space they add in that region. Does an airdamn remove that turn in on the lower valance entirely? I think this amount of interference is probably acceptable with a car setup on flares and possible air dam. Not sure though. Image 6 shows full lock to the right, the clearance is approximately 1"-1/4 tire to rail. Nothing to worry about imho. There is no fender interference stock at the back. It is only at the front where the valence is located. All of the testing was done at full droop. The car has bumpsteer spacers (don't think this matters). The alignment is setup by eye and ruler right now, it is straight enough to roll with no noticeable increase in resistance. The width of the cardboard to simulate the tire is the section width. The section being the widest part of the tire (the buldge) thus in reality there should be increased clearance as the outside of the tire is skinnier. I would think a 255/40 tire would work fine up front with this -19 setup provided the front valance to tire clearance is not a pinch point. The 275 tire won't fit with out major modification or pushing of the wheel out excessively far. The -19 makes sense and I think the tolerances should clear stock springs. The watanabe 16x9 fronts use a -13 offset. Considering our wheels would be 1/2" = 12.7mm wider this works out. 12.7mm/2 (two sides of the wheel) + 13mm. That would make a -19.35 offset. 240hoke said there was plenty of room with his 16x9 -13 offset fronts on a ZG flared car, this 17x9.5 -19 offset should work.

Yes, but unfortunately the first group needs to be 25 people. LOL I currently am making a 17" "wheel" out of cardboard with an adjustable measured offset. I will make 2 or 3 cardboard tires. Probably 3. A 245, 255, and 275mm tire set each with a "40" aspect to slip onto said mock wheel. This weekend I will fit them to my S30 with coilovers to find the optimal size. That way i can atleast get an idea. I will probably ship them to someone with ZG's currently installed for final measurements and backup gaurentee of fitment.

I think I am just an unlucky group buy starter. These wheels should really be flying out of here, but guess not. Give it some time. A 73mm bore sounds more like it. I am talking to Kim I believe she told Justin any size and offset, but I want her/him to confirm that. EDIT: Kim replied that any offset or bolt pattern is a go as long as there are 5 people (20 wheels) for that given offset or bolt pattern.

I used a file and about 2 hours of manual labor on my Rota Grids, glad to see these fit with out modification.

I don't have a Chevy 350, but in my 4.0L explorer I just don't let the RPMs exceed 1000 until top gear (this is FI though, a carb might not meter well at under 1000rpm). Really helps alot on the mileage. I floor it below 1000 and get decent acceleration with little consumption. Went from around 18-19mpg combined to 23 combined. I can hit 24 or 25 if I really try. It foulds up your chambers a bit from what I hear though, so blow em out every once in a while. And yes, taller gears help.

List is growing slowly. Yes it is a smoking deal. I agree. As for the weights, I am not really sure. The 16X8 Rota grids were around 16-17lbs IIRC. 15x7 RB's are 14.4lbs. So I guess you could try and scale up from there... hell, I'll try for you when I get home (at work).