xcarguy

Dressing up the brick. :smash: A few more mods (sans a good test hop) for the Storker Suave Special. A couple more hood mods; closed up the hood scoop and added a dual NACA duct: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=27279 http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=27279 Gurney Flaps . . . . we'll see: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=27347 And finally, something that is actually from the UK for my NAPA nurtured Neanderthal, an aero screen: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=27375 . . . . . :deadhorse:

I'm the king of zip ties. O'Reilly loves me. :jester:

jevs, Thanks for sharing. You just 'uped' the bar on wiring. :cheers:

jevs, My apologies. I do remember you're doing the Classic R XL. If you decide to go with something like mine, here is the part number and a link (seven years and no issues . . . . still using the same bulbs): http://www.powersportsplace.com/parts/ksi-11-2642/overview/vehicle-type/street/year/1992/make/kawasaki/model/en500-vulcan-500

subtle, Great to here you got the car out to the track . . . fantastic! As for the front brakes, I have an idea that might be worth a look. The Wilwood BP-20’s are the ticket for guys like me who are running manual, dual MC brakes with a bias bar. Do you happen to know is you are running BP-20 pads with the power assist? Here’s where my idea comes in; if you are running BP-20 pads, you might try dropping down to the less aggressive BP-10 pad. This might make the rears works a bit harder and possibly prevent the lockup on front. At least worth a shot before changing out your brake setup.

jevs, I used a turn signal from a Kawasaki motor cycle. I chose the light because it was rubber mounted and was a dual filament unit which doubled as a park light/turn signal. At the time (2007), I remember having a difficult time finding a dual filament light that was both small and fit the look of the car. Another part of my criteria was that I did not want a light that mounted to the hood which would require my having to unplug the lights every time I removed the hood (my hood hinges use quick release pins allowing the hood can be removed fairly quickly). To mount the light, I welded tabs on each side of the frame rail forward of the A-arms. If you beat the bushes, I’m sure you can find a light that fits the look of the M-Spec. FWIW, here’s what I did back in 07’ (third row down on the Gallery page). May spark an idea or two: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=9910

The obedience training is because the freezer didn't work.

That's small time stuff. My Storker now has a Westie-wanna-be double bubble wind screen and enough hood venting/ducting mods to get the Donkervoort crowd screaming foul . . . . . . . . Storkervoort, where NAPA meets the Netherlands. :ack:

I use plastic. Here, let me get the door for you. :jester:

The wheels area actually Center Line (corrected in my first post). When I bought my car back from Sharkey, he had the wheels in hand (he was planning on using them if he could source fenders). Let's just say I got the 'buddy' deal. :jester: However, these wheels are only available in widths up to 9.5". But yes, getting a custom offset would illuminate the spaces. FWIW, here’s CL’s site link for the wheels: http://centerlinewheels.com/wheels_detail.php?mw_id=35&sw_id=462 Sharkey originally ordered the wheels through Summit Racing. Here is part of an email he sent me back in 2012: Center Line Wheels 9197804547 - Center Line Wheels Legend Series Lazer II Polished Wheels Wheel, Lazer II, Aluminum, Polished, 17 in. x 8 in., 5 x 4.75 in. Bolt Circle, 4 in. Backspace, Each $269.95 Center Line Wheels 9197954547 - Center Line Wheels Legend Series Lazer II Polished Wheels Wheel, Lazer II, Aluminum, Polished, 17 in. x 9.5 in., 5 x 4.75 in. Bolt Circle, 4 in. Backspace, Each $289.95

I'm not a big fan of polished either (I'm lazy and don't like rubbing on wheels :nopity: ). If need be, you can always powdercoat which took me from this: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=20149 To this: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=21421 You first said you could upgrade to the Black Platinum's for $120 and then for $130 later in your post . . . stay away from those; they're going up as we speak. :jester: On a more serious note, get what YOU want; do it nice or do it twice. Personally, I like your very first wheel choice and would opt for those, if they are the size/off set you want (my wheels, from Center Line, have a custom off set). November isn't that far away, and by that time, you will still be knee deep into the build. A few years ago (quite a few, now) I built a 1926 Ford track T. I wanted a specific wheel/look for the car which meant 15" up front and 16" in the rear. It seemed that nobody in the lower 48 had two of either in stock. I beat the bushes of various wheel venders across the country and ended up ordering the wheels from different places. Long story short, it took some doing (patience and determination), but I didn't settle for something I didn’t want. The end result was I got the wheels I wanted and the look I wanted for the car. That Black Platinum upgrade is probably over $200 by now. :cheers:

Amen, brother! :jester:

I run 60 degree conical lugs and lug centric wheels for both street and track. Wheels are torqued by hand. Track wheel torque is checked prior to each track session.

. . . . . .

Okay, Jim's new forum name . . . . . . . Rocket Man. :jester:

Don, You're basically breaking new ground (in the Stalker realm) with your car by introducing a combination that’s yet to be tried. At the very least, install the pro valve on the front (I'm with Dave on this). If it doesn’t produce the desired results, then you’ve discovered what doesn’t work and you take a different approach. If it does work, then great! Either way, you’ve got valuable information to share with others who may be considering one of these cars. Although we're talking different venues, FWIW, I’m dialed in to 22psi on the front of my car also. Even though I’m running a 16x10 combo on the front, 22 psi illuminated the graining I was getting on the inside edge of the tread at 19 psi, produced an even wear pattern and resulted in the best overall grip. I run a 16x12 combo on the rear and 20 psi; 19 psi was also producing graining in the inside edge of the tread, so 1 single psi in the rear and 3 psi in the front made a huge difference in tire wear and grip. I say this because 16-24 psi is a large psi margin and I feel pretty confident that you’ll find a psi within that range which works well for your application. If you try the front pro valve, I’d experiment with tire pressures and see what it yields. As for pads, I run Wilwood BP-20 pads on front and stock 95’ Grand Am GT pads on the rear. The BP-20’s are Wilwood’s middle-of-the-road pad; better stopping power than the BP-10’s, but not as frictionally aggressive as the BP-30’s which also tend to eat rotors . . . or so I’ve been told. Several owners on this forum run Hawk pads and have had good results with them, however they very well may be better suited for the occasional track day rather than E Mod. Don’t write off trying various combinations of brake pads down the road. Again, you’re breaking new ground with your car. You also mentioned possibly using a 22” tire in place of the 20”. Last year, I was running a 15x10 square setup and getting around 1.2G’s sustained. I moved to the staggered pattern I’m now running and am now gettting 1.5G’s sustained per my data logger. The reason I say this is that by going to a larger tire with a larger contact patch, grip increased significantly. A larger tire on front (this is just a thought for consideration) with a larger contact patch may provide you with additional grip during hard braking. Anyway, the best of luck with getting your car setup. This time next year I’ve no doubt that you’ll have lots to good advice and valuable information to share with others. :cheers:

Dave and Don, My apologies for my last post; sounds like you guys already worked that out.

Dave, Under hard braking, the front tires are locking up while the rears are not. While I agree that the bias is favoring the front wheels, I wouldn't necessarily call that being in the ballpark without some hands-on experience behind the wheel. I also agree that a driver has to learn a new car and that the new car has to be dialed in. However, I don’t think that’s the issue here as Don’s experience, and posts, would suggest he’s fully aware of a necessary learning curve as well as a need to get the car dialed in . . . . Hence one reason for this thread. What I'm getting from Don in his posts is that, based on his level (years) of driving experience, the car simply feels unbalanced in the area of aggressive braking. And it may very well be unbalanced; the car is running a radically staggered wheel/tire setup with the contact patch between the tire and the track definitely favoring the rear tire, and, power assisted brakes are being used to stop a car that weighs less than half of what the power assist was originally designed to stop. I think Don is looking for ideas, suggestions, etc. for getting the rear brakes a bit more engaged in braking. One of the problems he’s up against is that the proportioning valve for the rear brakes is ‘full open’ with no more room for adjustment, thus the reason for tossing the idea on the table of using a proportioning valve on the front brakes in his opening post. Don, Having said all this, what type of brake pads are you running on the front and rear? And tire pressures?

degoetz, I think the issue may very well lay with the different size front and rear tires (that's a stab at best). What tire pressures are you running fron and rear?

John hit 173mph at VIR: QUOTE=midgetracr;58656]The calculation used the following data: 6791 RPM from datalogger, 3.23 rear axle ratio, 0.82 5th gear ratio in the TREMEC TKO 600 5 speed trans, 71.3" actual measured tire circumference from Goodyear 22.5x10.0x13 slicks, 60 minutes per hour and 5280 feet per mile. This yields 6791/(.82*3.23)*(71.3" /12) *(60 /5280) = 173.12 MPH The RPM data was from my AIM EVO3 data logger on the quickest lap during timed session #1, measuring the tire with a tape measure, specs from TREMEC on the trans and counting teeth when I installed the differential gears. The above neglects both tire slip (which I think is minimal because of the downforce at that speed) and tire growth because of centrifical force which I have no way of estimating. Using the above formula it would require 7060 RPM or a larger tire to go 180 MPH if my math is correct. Because the soft rev limiter begins to retard timing at 7000 the engine will actually rev that high even if the limiter was not changed. I think the valve train would be OK to around 7500 but have never tried it. 200 MPH would require a narrower 80" tire to fit inside the fenders.

Looking good! :cheers:

degoetz, Can you post a close up photo of your MC?

I"m assuming the proportioning valve is full open (max rear brake). On the brake pedal assembly itself, do you have separate front and rear master cylinders. If so, do you have an adjustment (similar to this: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=6813)? If so, can you adjust the 'bias only' to your liking and then use the proportioning valve to fine tune?

Can you dial more bias to the rear with the current setup? Also, is one front tire locking up before the other?