jtmny1999 Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Besides MSA where can I buy the Best Camber plates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Arizona Zcar has them, and you can get them from ground control. Do a google on ground control... http://www.arizonazcar.com Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom'sZ Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I bought the ground control camber plates. I'm very pleased with them. They are not cheap. I paid 299 per pair and bought 2 pair, two for the front and two for the back, for a grand total of about six hundred dollars. But as far as I'm concerned it was worth it. For a camber plate that requires no welding, I believe they are the best choice. The strut tower must be modified by grinding holes for the plates to move in. I didn't want to use the weld in ones because my car is being prepared for SCCA IT racing and although you are allowed to add material to the strut towers, it may not be for the purpose of reinforcing the area. The general concensuis in IT seems to be that any welding in the area constitutes reinforcement. But if I wasn't restricted by class rules, the weld in ones would have been given more consideration. The room up inside the towers where the plates sit is very limited. To gain enough room to get the full range of adjustment you may have grind the plates some. The quality of the plates is top notch. Be sure to tell them what strut inserts you plan to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 I sell the EMI Racing camber plates. $595 for all 4, no cutting or welding needed, and you can adjust caster. You do realize that'll you'll also need a coil over kit and new 2.5" OD springs with the camber plates all of us are recommending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtmny1999 Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 I sell the EMI Racing camber plates. $595 for all 4, no cutting or welding needed, and you can adjust caster. You do realize that'll you'll also need a coil over kit and new 2.5" OD springs with the camber plates all of us are recommending? Do you have any pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhadman Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 http://www.betamotorsports.com/products/ Look under "240Z Strut Kit". The pictures show the EMI Camber Plates installed on the struts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240hoke Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 In you guys opions which is a better setup the EMI plates or the GC ones? I need ot get a set sometime in teh near future. Sine they are the same pirce range what are the pro's and cons of each? -Austin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 GC Pros: infinite adjustment, looks cool Cons: have to cut strut towers, caster adjustment doesn't even work, but they keep advertising like it does. EMI Pros: SP legal for autox, don't need to cut to install Con's: Don't have infinite adjustment, camber changes affect caster and vice versa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy 77zt Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 i have had the gc plates in for years -no problems.the mono ball has a little vertical slop in it but with 60k of road use + track days i can live with it.i wouldnt install camber plates on a car that never will be used for autox or track days though.they rattle a little in front.i modified the stock top strut mounts in the rear and have coil over perch between the spring and the rubber insulator.so no camber plates in the rear.if the monoball rattles in bumps on the rear it will drive you nuts on the street since its right behind your head.been there done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Either camber plate works and I honestly can't say which one is "best." I've raced 240Zs with both and from the driver's seat, once the car is properly setup, you can't tell the difference. I will say the the EMI Plates are easier to install but more difficult to adjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 One reason I like the weld in plates by Arizona Zcar is that you get a little more "Free" lowering because you don't have to worry about the added hardware stuffed under the strut tower (Maybe half inch???) . I plan to do the AZC units on all four corners of my car. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom'sZ Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 jmortensen: I can't agree with you about the ground control plates not providing any caster adjustment. Here's why. before I installed mine I searched this web site and read everything I could find related to camber plates. One thread was a guy who had bought a set used, with no instructions, and he was asking how to install them. (they come from GC with no instructions anyhow, at least mine did) A number of members posted with advice about how to install including a few who posted pictures. Well I bagan to install mine as per the advice given on this web site and as I did, it occurred to me that the common method described here wasn't quite right. I'm going to try to post a link to the thread, hope it works. http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=102847&highlight=camber+plate In that thread I believe you posted a pic of your installation. Also Dan Juday describes how to use the plate as a template to grind the required openings in the strut tower. Well if you look at that picture, and you think about how the plates work, it seemed to me that it was not going to allow any caster adjustment. The caster adjustment is provided by the slots in the plates where the four mounting bolts are. (the four around the outside) If you only grind slots for the four camber adjustment bolts and the strut mount in the center as suggested by Dan Juday and shown in your picture, then there is no room for the plate to slid from side to side to provide caster adjustment. Once you widen the slots enough to provide room for the side to side adjustment, there really is very little material left between the bolt slots and the center slot. In fact, there really is no point in making slots for those bolts at all since the bolts have to slid from side to side as well as back and forth. In the end I found the best thing to do was make it all one big hole. In fact you kind of end up with four 'ears' of tower material where the four outside bolt attach to the tower. It's a tight fit, especailly the two bolts closest to the engine, the two outboard ones have more room. Now, like I said in my first post, to get the whole advertised range of caster adjustment (1 deg +/-, 3 degs +/-, I forget) you may have to grind some off the plates on the side in the direction you want to go. If you get up under there while you're installing them, and you put the plate up there, you see there is very little room for it to move (slid) around. It helps to clean off any undercoat that may have gotten sprayed up in there. Maybe I'm wrong in how the caster is provided by the plates. But looking at them, it seems to me the only logical way it could work. And I don't mean to insult anybody's work or knowledge, especailly you jmortensen, I've read a lot of your posts and I admire your abilities. In fact if it wasn't for this site I would have never even attempted this modification on my car, and I love the results. Thanks everyone! A few more notes (sorry long post) from my experience. First off, I think there might be a way to do this and retain the stock rubber insulators, but I think the common method is to eliminate them. Well doing so increases road noise and ride harshness A WHOLE BUNCH! But road feel is greatly improved. The other thing I want to point out is (like I said in my first post) I chose the ground control plates because of my desire not to modify the strut towers by adding metal. Iv'e heard the eccentric control arm bushings can move around under extreme use and within the rules of the class (IT) I consided the plates to be the best option to provide alignment adjustment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 My car didn't have any undercoating in the strut towers at all. The problem is that the top half of the plate is so big it didn't fit inside the strut top at all. I have a very early 70, that may have something to do with it. If you mount it on top of the strut tower you can slide it back and forth. If you install it the way it is supposed to be installed and don't grind the crap out of it, then it has no caster adjustment at all, and in fact in my case it didn't even fit all the way up inside the strut tower and I had to grind on it just to get it in there. Once I realized that it wasn't going to slide back and forth, there was not point at all in leaving room around the 4 cap screws in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube80z Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I have the GC plates and originally got them for a 280Z. When I test fit them they seemed to have room for caster adjustment. So it may be that the older 240 has a much smaller strut tower and that's something I'll have to take a look at as I have friends with just about all versions. The instructions I got were a joke. You'd think GC could supply some instructions drawn on CAD with an acutal size template for drilling and cutting. What I got looks like a fax of something someone drew on a napkin. What I do like about the plates is how the transfer load from the spring to the plate rather than the spherical bearing. I ended up changing how these mount on my car. I put them on top of the tower and made a plate the goes under. My toughts at the time were to come up with a shim arrangement to allow quick camber adjustments while autoxing. Cary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I ended up changing how these mount on my car. I put them on top of the tower and made a plate the goes under. My toughts at the time were to come up with a shim arrangement to allow quick camber adjustments while autoxing. I really think that installing them on top (with a plate on bottom) is the way to go. They do look nice, lowers the car another ~1/2", and then the caster adjustment would work. Why the shim thing though Cary? Is it because you think it would be harder to adjust with the car on the ground? I've found that I can adjust mine MUCH easier when the car is on the ground then when it's up in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom'sZ Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I thought of that... I meant to mention it, mine is a 6/77 280. I was almost sure they had revised the strut tower and gave a little bit more room up there in later years. But I wan't sure and didn't want to talk about something I didn't know about for sure. I think the strut tower area also was built stronger in later years as well. Again... I don't know this for sure. I want to stress, I am no expert, this is the first time I've ever done this and the first car I've ever done it to, your results may vary. I did want to relate my experience and try to relate why I made the choices I did. The original poster seemed to be trying to make a choice between the various options available. One of the reasons I wanted to explain why I chose Ground Control's plates was because I believe the AZ zcar weld in plates are much cheaper and because of the limited room up inside the tower for the GC ones to fit may make the weld in ones a better choice for a street car where racing class rules have no bearing... if you have welding capabilities. While welding in the plates you could do some modifications to the tower and provide all the room you needed to do all the adjusting that would ever need done. In the same manner, I believe for some folks, the EMI plates could be a great choice because they bolt in with no modifications to the tower at all and so the car could be returned to stock later if an original restoration became desirable. (ah... I think... from what I've read... John C. would know better) With the ground control plates, even though you don't have to weld anything, you still do really have to butcher the tower with a grinder. Restoring it back to stock would be... ah ... difficult. (and that's coming from a twenty five year veteran of the paint and body business, most of it doing panel replacement, restoration and collision) Anyhow... jmortensen, your experience was different from mine, it sounds like the ground control plates aren't going to provide caster adjustment no matter how much you grind them. From my understanding there is a bit of a compromise when it comes to road racing a stock bodied Z car. If you use a earlier model it is lighter (always a good thing in road racing) but more flexible. If you use a later model one, it is heavier but more rigid a platform. In SCCA improved touring, where the chassis must remain stock and only limited amounts of reinforcement can be done the later Z might be a better choice. In another class, where more latitude is given to reinforce the platform, the earlier Z might be a better choice. I didn't think about it that much, this one is the car I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Chassis rigidity isn't the only consideration in racing. Seems to me that the 240 has been much more successful in ITS than the 280 and the difference between the two that really matters is the extra 500 lbs the 280 carries around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom'sZ Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Absolutely, couldn't agree more. But I think some things may be conspiring to give the 280 a little better a chance. Last year (I believe) in 2004 the SCCA opened up the engine management rules allowing the fuel injected cars to tinker with their black boxes. The rule change was made (from my understanding) not so much because it was for the benifit of the whole class, but more so because they were aware some guys were doing it and there was no way to easily detect the cheating. So it was easier to let everybody do it and thus level the field. I don't think the guys who still have to run a carb see it that way but anyhow... So with the advantage of the open fuel injection control coupled with the extra displacement the 280 was strapped with what is now considered by many to be a porky min. weight. Jump ahead to the 2005 season, the newly classed BMW gets a restrictor plate because it is considered an overdog. The SCCA doesn't want to mess with the bimmer for at least two seasons to give the chance to see if the plate had the desired effect. So the rumor mill has it the BMW will remain unchanged for 2006. But apparently quite a few other models are going to recieve competition adjustments. Like I said earlier, it's pretty common knowledge the 280 was spec'ed to heavy. So... (fingers crossed) Hey, it doesn't matter to me. The car I have is the one I want to race. I don't delude myself into thinking I'll ever be good enough to get to the front. I just want to do with the car what I believe it was made to do. Go fast! I originally had hoped to find a class it would fit into. Not really one it would be a dominate model in. Just a class I could fit in, so I could go out and have fun. To me, the fact that the Z car is still considered to be one of the best cars for the class all these years later shows that it was a great car to begin with. I don't care if a 240 is better suited then the 280 or not, I just wanna beat the RX7's and BMW's ha ha ha.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mom'sZ Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 oh... to the original poster... sorry for the total thread hijack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Yeah, I guess it will be interesting to see what effect the rule changes have. Good luck out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts