Jump to content
Joseph@TheZStore

KONI Sports for Classic Z's

    Recommended Posts

    I guess I don’t understand your logic . Variance in parts is why you provide a cushion . Also, these shocks were designed to drop in a tube so they need to fit the tube- regardless if it was designed for oil 50 years ago . These shocks were designed or engineered in the last year - at most ? 
    Yes it’s a 9/71 . 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    The engineers in 1971 probably would not even have set a spec on the bottom inside corner of the tube.  There was no need, there was no part that needed to fit there with the original application.  That's my logic on why some have a problem and some don't.  The variation is great, because there was no measurement spec.

    But, you're right that Koni should have considered that fact when they produced a part for old 240Z's.  Somehow they overlooked it, and, apparently, assumed that they would all be "the same".  They messed up.  Surprised though, that they gave up on you.  That's not good.

    My other logic is that griping at Koni isn't going to get the part in to the tube.  That's why I offered the Nissan gland nut solution.

    • Like 1

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    They probably should have used a shorter shock and a standoff, of smaller diameter, at the bottom.

    image.png

    Edited by Zed Head

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    37 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

    They probably should have used a shorter shock and a standoff, of smaller diameter, at the bottom.

    image.png

    I mean - KYB thought it thru . They have a small standoff at the bottom. You give up a bit of shock length , but they fit . I have a pair of old red Koni’s that came out of a 70, I’ll pair them up and see how they compare . Those shocks the gland nut and shock were one piece insert . 
    Im going to cut down the gland nut a bit more because I don’t see MSA or Koni doing anything more . I’m hoping if I do anything I will give someone else heads up of the possible headache 

    • Like 2

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    I recently stripped down a pair of strut tubes and I took this pic down the tube. With the right reflected light, you can get a decent look down there. Enough to see the center portion convex outward and the weld bead around the perimeter of the dome:
    P1170406.JPG

    So any idea how much interference you have? Is it something that you could "workaround" by chamfering the bottom corner of the strut body? Take a little material off the OD at the bottom? Just a little? Maybe? Without creating a weak spot and blowing out the strut on rapid compression?

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    2 hours ago, madkaw said:

    So disappointed that the modified gland nuts do not get the job done . Even modified I only have 1-1/2 turns on the gland nut . Still showing 6mm of nut . They only machined off 2mm when they should have done 4. 
    Called MSA - and it’s basically my problem . It’s my fault that the strut tube has a factory weld bead at the bottom . I could somehow grind the weld down at the bottom of the tube - yeah . So these modified glands are not a guarantee that these will fit your early Z . My car being a 9/71 isn’t that early - but early enough I guess . Now I get to pay a machinist to modify the modified gland nuts that are supposed to fit my year car - woohoo. 
    Not much sympathy from MSA , they just sell the shocks .

    228D26E6-2D57-448D-A03B-1F9FC8E7467D.jpeg

    Sorry if whom you spoke to sounded as you describe. We're all a bit hair-on-fire trying to keep up with short staff, but that isn't an excuse.

    1. Please private message me about who you spoke to here.
    2. Before I (and/or Lee) respond to the rest, I need to confirm that the image you included is torqued down; and using the diagram I included below, you're saying on that strut the same gap is 6mm? It is hard (for me anyway) to tell from your image.
    3. Well over 90% of the 240Z's, including many 70-71's, have been within the 4mm gap tolerance with the original gland nut. So far, of the very few single digit numbers of anomalies we've heard of, the modified KONI gland nut has brought the gap back into their prescribed tolerance of 4mm just fine. Yours would be the first to not be solved.
    4. Please do not grind anything until I (and/or Lee) get back to you.

    Thank you for your patience.

    spacer.png

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Joesph, 

    I will PM you about who I spoke to. 
    Yes my measurement was 6mm. Looking at the pic you provided is not representative of a properly torqued nut . If it is the same as what I was provided them the diagram is showing a nut with 1 thread engaged. My nut Has only 4.5 threads . To get to 4mm after torquing ,  there would only be about 2 threads at most showing . 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    8 hours ago, madkaw said:

    Joesph, 

    I will PM you about who I spoke to. 
    Yes my measurement was 6mm. Looking at the pic you provided is not representative of a properly torqued nut . If it is the same as what I was provided them the diagram is showing a nut with 1 thread engaged. My nut Has only 4.5 threads . To get to 4mm after torquing ,  there would only be about 2 threads at most showing . 

    Definitely not 4mm in my image. Just made that to be clear and confirm to everybody what the measurement was supposed to be measured from and to. I think Lee may be back but I'm sure is trying to unbury himself. I hope to get some confirmation before the end of the day (I'll try anyway).

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Man, Koni has a lot of events! Lee had to go back on the road to another one before he could finish catching up on all requests and so forth. I believe he gets back mid next week, but I gave the impression here that he was back and soon to be jumping in, which was inaccurate. My fault, sorry for the confusion.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...

    Important Information

    By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.