all_bark

iTrader: (5)

easy guys.

as an independent observer I do not think he was bashing crawford at all. I think he is patiently waiting for this new plenum, hoping it will be good and wanting to keep the stock strut bar. If it turns out not to be as good as the crawford, which one do you think he will purchase? I know which one I will!!! But as I stated, I am waiting and hoping for this one to be better!

I too am getting impatient and have seriously thought about getting the crawford but I WANT TO KEEP THE STOCK STRUT BAR!

Evil has stated over and over that the stock strut is useless, a waste of space, etc. etc. (excuse me evil if I over stated your opinion, no harm intended) but even though he (and others) have stated it is not necessary and the crawford is fine etc etc I still do not mind waiting just a little longer for the potential of an equally good (or better) plenum that allows the buyer to keep the stock strut.

I do have a question on the subject. Evil, if the stock strut is really not that necessary, why did crawford make a replacement? Just so people like myself can get something? I just do not like how it is mounted, I believe it could be a potential problem. I have no facts on this, its JMHO.

Please guys, there are plenty of things in the world to fight over, which plenum to buy is not one of them.

play nice!

Jspec350z

iTrader: (3)

Guys who want to keep the factory strut tower bar should think twice. The Crawford piece is a thing of beauty!! I just put my intake on last night and the bar is waiting to go in. I cannot wait to drive!!!!

Hraesvelg

iTrader: (1)

Have you driven a car with it?

Glasgow Smile

iTrader: (1)

Vic has one on his Z.

350ed

iTrader: (17)

Do the cars with the Crawford bar exhibit any different driving characteristics? From the way it's described it's a beefier composition and might induce more understeer. Thanks.

FLY BY Z

I was using "inferior" in a comparitive sense as opposed to a label. Sorry if I was not clear. I thought the word potential would allow you to infer that. And Kinetix being a sponsor has nothing to do with Crawford being a sponsor. They are mutually exclusive. It is not you protecting Crawford against other vendors it is you protecting vendors against all of your members. I guess we could all go to a different board and you could just let vendors srtoke each other on this one. As I have stated before, I have nothing against Crawford or their "advertisers." I know some people are happy with the product. For others, it simply does not meet their evaluative criteria for a plenum. I would just like to see that accepted rather than fought against by Crawford supporters. You can't please everyone all the time. Let LSD design and come out with his offering and then start fighting about the products. This is a LSDUNIQUE PLENUM thread and of course it has to be overrun by Crawford people saying oh no go Crawford "because this thread is too long." That just bothered me. And yes it does mean a lot to me to replace ONLY the part I want to replace and not have to change any other parts because of it. Just like if I get a supercharger I don't want to buy a damn hood. Many people feel the same and this is not different at all.

Anyways, I don't want to argue with a moderator because I know you can click a button and have ultimate power so lets just leave this be, eh?

shil01

i think you mean oversteer

FLY BY Z

actually by tightening up the front it reduces movement and makes the tires the ultimate factor in traction. there is no give or roll in the body or suspension and the tires become the weak link.

shil01

True, and if theres better traction in the front, that would induce more OVERSTEER. Not understeer. Understeer is when the ft pushes out. Oversteer is when the rear pushes out. If you tighten up the ft too much, more then the rear, the latter results.

Ultimateone

Lets just let this thread fade away and have LSD post up his new info when he's ready to drop the hammer.

eskimo

No actually, stiffeing the front anti-roll bar will decrease oversteer, and softening the rear will also aid in the decrement. Softening the front anti-roll bar will decrease understeer. Same as with spring rates. If you want to check it out yourself for cheap, play some Gran Turismo 3, and try it.

Source: BFGoodrichTires.com

PhoenixINX

My initial feeling on the strut bar from Doug, was that people WOULD want a direct replacement. Per if its there from Nissan, it must be there for a reason. In keeping the front end "tight" you will in fact keep it a safer car.

What questions arise... is why does the mounting plate for the OEM bar look like it was added AFTER the fact? Take a look, the bolts are NOT part of the original design. A plate was added, welded in place for the bolts. More so, why does the G35c NOT have a bar? Questions I WISH NISSAN could answer.

Needless to say I felt ZERO difference when I took off my bar. Do I car about having one? No. Period.

You're exactly correct... As Doug would say, you work on the end that needs to be worked on. Per say if the front end is pushing, you LOOSEN it up. Doug has modified both mine and his front sway bar, which proven at Roebling Road at Savannah a few weekends ago... his car and mine exhibited near ZERO push. While he and I both trounced the stock Z and how badly it pushed.

Whichever way you want the car to rotate, THAT is where you put the stiffer bar. Want to understeer? Put a HUGE front swaybar... Want to oversteer? Either a) reduce the stiffness of the front swaybar OR increase the size of the rear.

------

As for my personal position on this whole matter... I am VERY excited lsdunique's plenum. My opinion holds true with Crawfords, we like to make Z's go faster... case in point if a new part comes out to do just this, why would we NOT like it???

Here's to making the Z that much closer to perfection!

little_rod

I would LOVE to hear anyone say how we could increase the size/strength of the rear bar. Haven't seen anything for sell.

nonmature

I will comment on the stock bar I will say that normal driving does yield little or no difference. I think that nissan put that bar in there for higher speeds... when I ran the silver state which is like 140mph for like 45 minutes on an actual road... we noticed the car seems a little tighter during these speeds... however I think a lot of the autocrossers have taken the bar off... which would make sense because it seems the car without the bar seems to be able to kick out the back end a little easier

anyways my 2 cents...

-non

shil01

ok..now im thourougly confused

Anyways, were doing a good job in hijacking this thread.

With the prototype (as seen in the first pic) has this been dyno'd yet? There is one working plenum right?
Do we have any HP numbers?

eskimo

All this makes me wonder if taking off the front bar alone will get rid of the Z's understeer problems, Evil?

But yes, the plenum, turning into a Greddy TT scenerio isn't it?

PhoenixINX

God, it would have been nice had it been that simple?

I'll talk to Doug and see if he is interested in marketing a front swaybar.

MY350Z.COM

iTrader: (2)

I have one.

FLY BY Z

Don't confuse the swaybars with the strut tower bars. There are both in the front and rear. Strut tower bars on top, swaybars on the underside of the car. The Crawford eliminates the front strut tower bar that goes above the motor. The strut tower bars strengthen the rigidity of the chassis from side to side and the swaybars try to counteract the leaning of the chassis on the suspension to keep the car flat around corners. The end result of all four parts is the same but the strut tower bars have a much smaller impact compared to the swaybars.

There are a TON of companies that make aftermarket swaybars, front and rear. There are a few that make front strut tower bars. There are none to my knowledge that make rear strut tower bars for the Z. This is obviously because they are cloaked in plastic and not really a bar but an extension of the chassis iteself.

As far as the G35c not having a strut tower bar, I think the question should be why WOULD it? It has softer springs, shocks, longer wheelbase, a back seat, a trunk, etc. Everything about that car was designed to be a softer, more comfortable ride compared to the Z. If the question is, Since removing the front strut bar helps to induce oversteer, which is a desirable aspect of handling performance, why does the G35c already have the understeer inducing strut bar removed and the Z does not?

The strut tower bar also stengthens the front end for high speed stability and conversely allows more vibration/rattles/noise into the cabin just as stiffer anything on your suspension would. This is contradictory to the G35's purpose - sport luxury as opposed to the Z's sport. The proper way to acheive the desirable oversteer characteristic is not to remove something that serves another purpose, but to change the parts that directly affect that characteristic. Install bigger rear swaybars or wider front tires, etc. Don't compromise.

little_rod

Potato, I was talking about the rear strut bar. I do know the difference between the two, and I was refering to the strut bars. I know that it is hard to get to, but there has to be some way to strengthen the rear strut bar. I would rather tighten the rear than loosen the front. Of course, the only solution I can see right now that semi-accomplishes this is a stronger rear sway bar (as far as understeer). As far as a stiffer rear, I guess there is no solution (ie. stiffer rear strut bar).