new aluminum intake manifold plenum pics
#161
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,721
Likes: 0
From: Copacabana, Rio de Janeiro BR
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!
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!
#162
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!!!!
#166
Originally posted by Mike Wazowski
Why would it even be "potentially" inferior when it's already out and the owners of the piece are happy with it and none have complained about it.
And I did read before I commented. You are trying to put something negative on Crawford when it's not even warranted. You haven't had the pleasure of driving a Z with the piece.
You don't even know if the Kinetix unit works, so why are you already trying to defend it.
Also, Kinetix is a sponsor of this site too, so don't start telling me about "protecting interest".
I would have protected a company even if they weren't a sponsor. It's not right to talk smack about something you don't know about.
Victor
Why would it even be "potentially" inferior when it's already out and the owners of the piece are happy with it and none have complained about it.
And I did read before I commented. You are trying to put something negative on Crawford when it's not even warranted. You haven't had the pleasure of driving a Z with the piece.
You don't even know if the Kinetix unit works, so why are you already trying to defend it.
Also, Kinetix is a sponsor of this site too, so don't start telling me about "protecting interest".
I would have protected a company even if they weren't a sponsor. It's not right to talk smack about something you don't know about.
Victor
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?
#167
Originally posted by 350ed
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.
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.
#168
Originally posted by shil01
i think you mean oversteer
i think you mean oversteer
#169
Originally posted by Mr. Potato Head
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.
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.
#171
Originally posted by 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.
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.
Source: BFGoodrichTires.com
#172
Originally posted by all_bark
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by 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
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
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!
#173
Originally posted by Evil350z
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.
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.
#174
Originally posted by Evil350z
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.
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.
anyways my 2 cents...
-non
#175
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?
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?
#177
Originally posted by eskimo
All this makes me wonder if taking off the front bar alone will get rid of the Z's understeer problems, Evil?
All this makes me wonder if taking off the front bar alone will get rid of the Z's understeer problems, Evil?
I'll talk to Doug and see if he is interested in marketing a front swaybar.
#179
Originally posted by 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.
I would LOVE to hear anyone say how we could increase the size/strength of the rear bar. Haven't seen anything for sell.
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.
#180
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).