blueovalz Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Thought I'd highlight the differences between the early and late Z control arms. I do not know when the change was made, but these changes became very apparent when I was modifying these arms for the spherical bearing conversion. Edit 12/20/06 I found another difference between the 240 and the 280 control arms today as I was modifying them for spherical bearings at the inner bushing location. The difference was the thickness of the steel pivot tube that runs through both front and rear inner bushings. The OD of this tube is the same for all models 25mm (~1”). The differences lie in the ID of the tube. The 280 tubes have an ID of 16mm, while the 240 tubes have an ID of 19mm. My first shot at this modification was to drive ¾” studs into the tube, which worked great for the 240 arms. But the 280 arms require something smaller such as a 5/8” stud, which is too small for my requirements. So I instead turned the 3/4" studs down to 16mm (~5/8") for the portion of the stud that was pressed into the smaller ID pivot tubes. Anyway, thought I’d pass this on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB26powered74zcar Posted November 25, 2006 Share Posted November 25, 2006 Great info and pics Terry. I wonder what, if any, strength issues there may be between the two designs?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted December 19, 2006 Author Share Posted December 19, 2006 Addendum to the original post: I found another difference between the 240 and the 280 control arms today as I was modifying them for spherical bearings at the inner bushing location. The difference was the thickness of the steel pivot tube that runs through both front and rear inner bushings. The OD of this tube is the same for all models 25mm (~1”). The differences lie in the ID of the tube. The 280 tubes have an ID of 16mm, while the 240 tubes have an ID of 19mm. My first shot at this modification was to drive ¾” studs into the tube, which worked great for the 240 arms. But the 280 arms require something smaller such as a 5/8” stud, which is too small for my requirements. Anyway, thought I’d pass this on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Juday Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 It would be interresting to see the weight difference between the two. An ounce here and and ounce there and pretty soon... Some of this is unsprung as well. This continues to confirm my suspitions that every area of the S30 was beefed up as the years went by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxilary Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 wow, 1.5mm thickness difference! that's quite a bit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted December 26, 2006 Author Share Posted December 26, 2006 Yeah, To put it in perspective, I've added (edited) a photo to the original posting showing a comparison between the two tube sections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.