PhoenixINX

Per this comment... mind I ask how much TRACK experience you have?

Doesn't sound like much honestly... Let's add bigger this, bigger that... more weight here, more weight there. Seriously, do enlighten me with what experience you have to warrant your claims. FIX the end that is screwed... don't add here and add there trying to fix an already existant problem.

Oh, btw... all the guys adding WIDER front tires to their stock setup STILL push!

As for high speed stability... I was shooting 136+ down the straights FELT great! More so ran 150+ down the interstate on the way back to TN... STILL AS STABLE AS STOCK.

Geeez tater... ur killing me here...

PhoenixINX

The rear is stiff enough as it is... "up top"...

Remember, if you want to do this right... stiffen down low. You will NEVER feel the difference in a strut tower bar, unless you're out on a road course with r compounds. Stock rubber just DOES NOT create enough rolling friction to enduce a great enough load on the chassis for that much flex to be noticable.

What you WILL notice is the suspension geometry. USE of a swaybar can drastically change the way a suspension acts. The best swaybars I've gotten the chance to play with have adjustable end-links. Dial it in tight and enjoy the push... loosen it up (thus decreasing the effect of the bar) and hang on as the *** WILL come around.

FLY BY Z

So you think that we should save weight in the sway bars? I think there are much better places for that. I have been road racing of some sort since I was 8 yrs old in go-karts. However, since I was 16 I have been focused primarily on NHRA/IHRA. But common sense overrides the fact that your argument of saving weight does not hold water. You even said, Doug said, fix the end that is having the problem. If the rear isn't coming around, make it come around. I would not loosen the front, I would tighten the rear. Two or three pounds added to the sways is counteracted by lighter wheels, tires, body parts, etc. Your philosophy would have us just removing parts until we just run around the track in out driving shoes. I don't think we will win many races this way. All I am saying is by removing a part from your FRONT suspension to correct an aspect of REAR suspension you are taking a step backwards with your front setup. I don't want to get into a pissing match with you Evil350Z. I know you love pissing matches. Different philosophies make for better competition. I guarantee you that if you look at any roadrace setup car, they will not have removed the strut tower bar so they can save some weight with the rear sway bar. The body flexes under heavy load and the bar helps counteract that. To me, that is more important as this is a street driven car that I would like to still love in 10 years without squeaks, rattles, etc. Saving weight is no excuse to remove the strut tower bar. I will agree with anyone who says that the strut tower bar IS indeed a minor part. It is not a crucial part in the handling characteristics of your car, but, some people are like me and wish to keep things how they are in some areas and change only what they want to change. This is not meant to be an argument with you that I want you to drag out. This is my opinion, my perspective and I am quite certain that there are a million others besides yours and mine. This means that I don't wish to carry on with this pointless conversation. But I will however say that it is my view along with others that the only REAL and NOTICABLE benefit to removing the strut tower bar is to fit the Crawford plenum. It just amazes me how you guys dance around that fact. If nothing has changed with your high speed stability or other parts of your handling characteristics, I can't be convinced that removing the bar has changed any over/under steer condidtion. Anyways, who cares really.

FLY BY Z

And this more or less backs up what I am talking about. Thanks, Evil. And be clear that you are talking about a FRONT sway bar in your example. I love, "if you want to do this right, stiffen down low." Meaning change the sways and leave the strut tower bars alone. Removing the strut tower bar will not alter the under/oversteer properties very much. That is not what is is there for.

eskimo

Just curious, why is the front strut tower bar there on a stock Z anyway? I mean, if even an ultra thick one vs. none at all doesn't even show a noticeable difference off of R compounds. I mean, I know car companies like to have understeer stock for legal purposes, but if it dosen't do anything.... I guess it provides about as much cornering ability as the aero wing provides downforce, eh? aesthetics.

Balls

lock pls....
i keep coming back to this thread looking for updates on the "new aluminum intake manifold plenum" but all i see are rants and raves about suspension setups.... =\\\\\

FLY BY Z

Structural integrity. I put in some NISMO sways and my understeer is gone. The strut tower bar is not there to purposely induce understeer.


No don't lock this thread on our account. Keep it open for discussion of LSD's intake. I am done posting about suspension and I hope others are too. Let's get back on topic. I agree. It wouln't be fair to LSDunique to close thread. In the length of this thread only a page or two are wasted. Keep it open.

little_rod

Well, I like things stiff in my car for the street cause I plan on having my car for a long time. Maybe the 350evo with there adjustability will solve the problem of understeer with setting the fronts to med and rear to firm.

As for the strut bar, well, I am sure the replacement by Crawford is fine too. Appears to be a quality piece. If I bought the Crawford, I would buy their strut bar. I wouldn't run without a strut bar, but that is just me.

PhoenixINX

EXACTLY! Quit adding MORE to the rear. The problem exists in the front. Turn off your VDC and give it throttle. Our backend has ZERO problem coming around.

Our car PLOWS... Please start understanding this. Remove the plow first, THEN focus somewhere else.

Give me your car... I will give you FIVE runs around a test track. Then FIVE blasts down the interstate.

I will NOT tell you which runs have the front strut tower bar, and which ones don't.

I GUARANTEE YOU that you will NOT be able to tell the difference.(I'll bet my OWN Z on this)

There is no debating it... I'm **** about the way my car handles. I was VERY against taking the bar off. Then I just DID it. I can't tell a DAMN bit of difference.

Furthermore to end this... saying I like to debate? Not really... I just have something against your negativity on this board. As does a LOAD of other members. The reason I'm speaking up is because of the LOADS of INACCURATE information you are saying and uninformed owners here on the boards are reading it thinking you're correct. Just remember, when you're right... I haven't said a word.

On that note... end of suspension discussion.

Back to the plenum!

FLY BY Z

No you just don't reply unless it involves headers, plenums, STB's, hi flow cats or other things Crawford makes. That is what I have noticed and if you think my posts are negative then you simply don't understand my sense of humor. Some do, some don't. I am def. not changing for you or anyone. As far as being wrong, I beg to differ, obviously. A philosophy different from yours does not warrant bad information. Done here.

all_bark

iTrader: (5)

blah, blah blah blah blah blah blabbity blah blah

back to the plenum that will allow us to keep a stock strut bar.

GrandmaCR

You nice boys need to settle down. They served my rice pudding in a Crawford plenum at the old folks home tonight. It went down fast and smooth.

Mr. Potato Head - you named yourself aptly.

P.S. -- I found my teeth. Raceboy was the culprit. He rode off on his go-kart with them.

FLY BY Z

I have read your other 4 posts. They are about as substantial.

GrandmaCR

And you have the sense of humor of a fence post.

GurgenPB

iTrader: (2)

so any news on the new plenum ? Are the Dyno's out or did I miss them?

Gurgen

FLY BY Z

He found a better way to manufacture the plenum so he hasn't gotten that far yet. Personally, I can't wait!

GurgenPB

iTrader: (2)

THanks for the info!

Gurgen

Buub

iTrader: (1)

Re Mr. PH post earlier: it made perfect sense to me: the Crawford is potentially an inferior product to the lsd plenum. It's also a potentially superior product. His point was, and it makes sense to me, we don't know yet whether it's better or worse. The Crawford rocks. Will the lsd plenum rock more, or less? We don't know...

The strut tower bar is there for structural rigidity. It's not there for understeer or oversteer purposes. It's there to make the chassis stiffer. This results in crisper, more precise handling response, and less squeaks and jiggles over time as the car ages.

If you want to balance under/oversteer, do so by adjusting your anti-roll bars. As for Crawford's strut bar vs. Nissan's? I don't care, they'll both work fine. If I have to replace the strut bar to get the benefits of the Crawford plenum, then I'll replace it.

OK, now back to the lsd plenum, please...

wileecoyte

First of all this is the worst thread ever. Ok, maybe not ever but it's pretty bad.

I spent all that time reading 10 pages of this stuff and now at page 10 I know exactly what was on page 1. Ugh. New plenum, no dynoes yet, no pricing, no dates..... all very helpful.

And we had 7 pages of strut bar controversy to boot.

FLY BY Z

that is one reason I always read the first and last page of huge threads like this. if what is on the last page is very different from the first then I will probably scan the pages for key words.