LeonV

Thanks Steve. I think so and it's for the better, I just had no time to work on it. Still, it's a little upsetting that I wasn't able to put this one back on the road. Hope to see it rolling again, but she's left the Bay Area for LA. Oh well, now I have a bunch of parts to sell!

Now that the 240Z shell is gone:

Finally waved goodbye to my rust-free 240Z shell...

The ride may be a bit more "pitchy" for lack of a better term. In passenger cars, spring rates are typically chosen for ride quality. A stiffer rear spring makes the rear end settle quicker than the front, after a road disturbance. This decreases pitching motion felt by passengers and makes the ride more comfortable. With that said, I think you'll notice the added stiffness much more than you do the differences in front and rear rate, as the Z has a relatively short wheelbase. Handling-wise, if you notice anything at all, stiffer front springs (all else constant) will make it tend to understeer more. This can be easily alleviated though.

Except considerably cheaper! Buy Chevette springs, paint them red, and they are now Tokicos. No more problems with the Z-police.

Nothing wrong with using non-Z specific parts, I'll second JC. A spring is a spring, sounds like the Chevette ones might do the trick for you. EDIT: Wow, those springs are stiffer than I expected! Looks like a nice solution for those looking for a stock-ish ride height, but stiffer springs.

I don't think my 225s "bow out" and I've got no performance issues to complain about (besides them being old and not as grippy as I'd like). Now when I ran 225s on 6" wide slotted mags, there was some noticeable buldging but nothing to complain about. When talking strictly about looks, I prefer a little too wide vs. a little too narrow anyway. Your opinion may vary. It's not about putting down power, at least in my case. Oversteer can be induced without breaking tires free, in fact that's desired. That has more to do with weight transfer and roll stiffness distribution. If your goal is fast laps, you shouldn't be losing traction at any point. A 225mm section width tire is recommended for a 7" rim, there is no reason to cry foul on fit and performance. A wider tire (on a properly sized rim) will stop better and turn better than a narrower one.

There is a recommended rim width range for each tire size. Using Tirerack.com as a source, a 225/50-16 is good for a 6-8" wide rim. A 7" wide rim should be perfect for that size. I've had no rubbing problems running 225/50-16 on my Z, however the same spec tires from various manufacturers may still differ slightly in size. Wheel offset is also very important, as it laterally locates the wheel/tire combo in the car. Again, my 16X7 Panasports with the current tires on them do not rub at all. FWIW, 225/60-14 did not rub either, when I ran 14X6 slotted mags. I believe the mags had a zero offset and the Panasports are close to zero, if not zero. Also, tire diameter between a 225/50-16 and 205/55-16 is essentially equal.

Can't go wrong with Panasports, however, they're more expensive than Konigs or Rotas. Finding them second-hand is the trick but you'll have to be patient, unless you're lucky. 16X7 with 225/50-16 does the job nicely. If you're set on the Konigs, why go with 215s if you were wanting 225s? Tire selection in 225/50-16 sizes is way better.

Nope, but it's definitely down...

I didn't even end up staying up until 12 last night. Got up early today and finally diagnosed why the speedo doesn't work. I ended up replacing the speedo cable (had one laying around). Now it's clear I need a different speedo gear!

That's what I said!

Are you saying that you added positive camber? If you look where the PO of that Z drilled the new holes, they are located further outboard thus introducing more positive camber. This is what I was referring to. I think what you mean is that you slotted the strut towers to gain more negative camber. What the PO did to that car makes no sense performance-wise.

Looks like the PO was dialing out negative camber in the front, for whatever reason. Usually the front needs more negative camber, at least as far as performance is concerned. I'd set it with the most negative camber you can get (strut top pointing inwards) and then get it aligned.

You're now on the home stretch! Your next rear suspension rebuild will go a lot smoother...

Tokico springs for the 280Z are stiffer and non-progressive. John Coffey has a guide on HybridZ on making them work on a 240Z (cutting).

Yes, if coil spacing is unequal when they're unloaded.

BTW, I'll be selling brand-new 240Z Illuminas that I don't have a use for pretty soon... EDIT: Just saw your recent post. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you like the HPs and they're not blown, I don't see a need to replace them (unless you really want adjustability).

Damn, if only that engine/trans combo made it into production! A factory L24 with triples, 10.5:1 compression, and 175 "BHP" at 6800RPM paired with a close-ratio 5-speed would've been awesome, to say the least...

You don't cut the strut tube to change out inserts. All that's done is the gland nut is removed and a new insert dropped in. The only time a strut housing is cut, is when sectioning to gain bump travel with coilovers. EDIT: It's all in the FSM, FA section.

Why would your struts be sectioned? Do you have coilovers?

Yoshi, That's exactly how it's done, have at it!

Measure at the butterfly end, if the number isn't casted in on the bodies somewhere. I haven't tested them myself, but the mesh filters aren't recommended. They are restrictive, at least more so than the bigger K&N-style ones. Again, how restrictive, I don't know.

Last Saturday, saw a clean red 240Z in the Napa parking lot in San Bruno. Had a ZONC sticker as well. Apparently, I just missed the owner since I saw him taking off as I was about to pull out of my spot.

It's more likely to be M10 studs with M10 deformed nuts. Otherwise, they wouldn't clamp much of anything!