xcarguy

I run drilled and slotted rotors on both front and back; Wilwood on front and aftermarket Grand Am GT on the rear. After a year and a half of tracking my car, no issues with cracking. Pads are still at 80-90 %. You’ll more than likely NEVER overheat the brakes in these cars . . . . too light. Front: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=9640 Back: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=9345

Hang in there Brit. The first time you step on the go pedal, It'll all be worth it. :cheers:

Brit, Give Scott a shout out tomorrow and have him get in front of his comuter and reference your Gallery suspension file (http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=24553). I've spent a little time tonight studying your photos as well as some others (all M-Spec/XL rear suspension). I'm by no means saying they are, but I'm wondering if the mountinng tabs (as you pointed out) have been machined too short. If so, this could have easily slipped through the cracks on Scott's end (picked up from the machine shop and never noticed). For grins and giggles, measure from the tip of the mounting tab to the rear of the spindle on both the front and rear spindles; see if they are the same length.

jevs, Looking at what toedrag is experiencing with his rear suspension (the toe rod fitment), have you started assembly on your rear suspension? Shane

Maybe these guys will show up at the GRM UTCC at VIR . . . . bring your Storker. :jester:

I'm really liking that S2K motor as well . . . . . . :iagree:

subtle, I wouldn't pull the diff either. Since it seems to be the consensus among the CTS-V owners that the vent leaks, this might even be a better solution, especially for guys with news diffs that have no vent. Install the vent as you were saying and add a tube. But, before adding the tube, seal the area where the vent housing contacts the diff casing with this stuff: http://www.skygeek.com/flamemaster-cs3204b1-2pt-fuel-tank-sealant-pt.html?utm_source=googlebase&utm_medium=shoppingengine&utm_content=flamemaster-cs3204b1-2pt-fuel-tank-sealant-pt&utm_campaign=froogle&gclid=CLWJxYj5rMACFehj7AodnlIATQ I’ve used this on gas tanks, pipe threads, valve cover baffles, etc. and have never had it fail. If you seal the vent housing and add a tube, you should be leak free for life. Okay . . . . :jester: . . . . . back to Brit's build. :cheers:

. . . West Coast group doing after this morning's quake?

That's an easy winter project; won't take that long and you'll buy peace of mind. While it's a different animal (S-10), theory is the same. When I found my rear carrier, the vent tube was broken and I wanted something a bit more substantial (and something I could easily/cheaply replace if needed). Here's what I did to the old S-10 rear. If you decide to go this route, make sure you use a tapered pipe thread tap . . . . and it has never leaked since: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=27057

subtle, Don't be too bummed. The 160, while it looks out of place, was probably purposely picked for a 'fair' comparison. :jester: The 620R is too intimidating and with an SP/300R thrown in the mix . . . . well . . . someone may have gotten their feelings hurt. :rant: Not gonna see a Storker in this hunt. But hey, gotta love the 160 driver's head bob at 1:22 on the video; getty up, he say. :cheers:

Very interesting, ecarte56. And that's a huge WHP deficient. You’ve definitely hit on something with your calculations. In another thread (http://www.usa7s.net/vb/showthread.php?t=9876) I posted an older article pertaining to some wind tunnel testing done on a Caterham. Unfortunately, the article is so pixelated when you try and enlarge it that the text is unreadable. However, here is an excerpt that substantiates your post: “The result is interesting and quite disturbing. At 100mph we're getting 74.1lb of lift at the front of the car and 4.1lb at the rear, which is a pretty big imbalance. . . . . . . . At this stage the drag coefficient measured 0.59Cd, which is about as bad as you’d expect. For the next run we remove the aerodynamic covering from the cage, leaving it a simple rounded tube. The result is that front lift increases to 77.1lb and, surprisingly, to 5.1lb of DOWNFORCE (my emphasis) at the rear.” escart56, there's 'wind tunnel' results of the transfer you calculated. It’s also interesting to note that at the end of 32 wind tunnel runs, those involved in the testing were able to get the car’s downforce fairly well balance with 31.4lb at the front and 31.5lb at the rear. Skip (scannon) if you’re following along, please post the link you have to that article in this thread; thanks in advance. Tom (yellowss7) you getting all this? :jester:

Dave, Congradulations!! Great looking car and awesome color choice! :cheers:

Brit, You nailed it with your last sentence. The threaded portion of the bolt, when coming in contact (under load) with the eye of the support bracket is more than likely going to cause irregular wear over time, especially if you drive the car aggressively (my thought). Where the bolt thread and bracket eye meet, there is essentially no 'grip' to speak of. You could very well end up with an elongated eye and a worn bolt, both of which could, at the very least, cause slop in that area of the suspension. This would, in turn, effect alignment, handling, etc. Using bolts with the correct grip length is a relatively cheap, quick fix for warding off potential problems down the road.

subtle, The link is in a post on the first page of this thread. This is what's on the table for consideration: http://www.uflyit.com/streamline_fairings.htm

. . . . . . :jester: I think more about stress fractures caused by long term driving on imperfect roads and having a bolt fail at an inoportune time . . . such as when you're at the track and running down the straight at 140 +. :ack: And Brit will be seeing a lot of MSR Cresson once the car is finished.

Fire it up! . . . . Whose gonna know? :jester:

Brit, I don't think you're over thinking things by expressing concerns about bolts that have the threads loaded in shear, especially when it comes to suspension components. Having bolts with the proper grip length is a pet peeve of mine. When I built my car, I ordered all my mounting hardware (shocks, A-rms, steering rack mount . . . everything) from Aircraft Spruce because I could get every bolt with the correct grip length. There is a reason aircraft aren’t build using bolts with the threads loaded in shear. :ack: It’s a bit more money to go this route, but I think it’s good insurance against hardware failure. My two cents. :cheers:

Pretty draggy, Dan. Pretty doggone draggy.

It's always 1700 hours somewhere. :cheers:

Here a few photos that easily illustrate the coefficient of drag for different shapes (note the difference in drag coefficients between cylinders and airfoils). Also attached is a photo of a cross section of an aircraft round wing strut (think roll bar tube) covered with streamlined tubing. Theory is that if one can streamline any portion of an exposed roll bar, then that portion of the roll bar will be more aerodynamic and produce less drag. . . . . . .

Tom, That is another area I've been contemplating. I have a couple of ideas, but, my fab skills have to catch up with my imagination. :jester: One idea is to cover the A-arms individually and simply leave the shock exposed. The other is to fab rounded covers that attaches to the 'lips' (fairings) on the sides of my hood and extend outward, and backward, far enough to cover the majority of the suspension components without interfering with steering and suspension travel. Yep, I need an English wheel and a planishing hammer . . . . . and I need to learn how to use both. :smash:

Dan, I was wondering when you would chime in. That's encouraging numbers regarding wrapping round bar with fairing. A couple of us on here are considering rising to the challenge to see if we can indeed cheat the elements. :cheers:

Mike, I've heard/read on several occasions that round bar is one of the worst things you can hang out in the wind. The lack of taper (teardrop shape) on the back side of the bar (when exposed to the relative wind) causes the resultant airflow to stall (in a since) on the back side of the bar. This causes a low pressure area (suction), know to us speed jockeys as drag. Here are a couple of videos that can illustrate better than I can with words. The first is a symmetrical airfoil (watch first) and the second is round tube (cylinder). On the second video, notice the vortices directly behind the trailing edge of the cylinder; that's the dreaded area of drag. Essentially, the faster we go, the more we try to suck ourselves backwards! :ack: Airfoil: Cylinder:

toedrag, The top cover of my tunnel is removable as well as the lower section of the dash . . . and . . . the tunnel cover underneath 'that' section of dash. Down the road, you may find yourself in a position where you need 'relatively' easy access to things such as the drive shaft, the drive shaft safety loop/bar/retainer, shifter, wiring, fuel line, etc.: Note the wiring and fuel liine runnning just underneath the tunnel cover: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=23579 Drive shaft accessed and drive shaft safety bars (safety loop) removed: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=24447 Drive shaft safety bars installed: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=24459 Shifter and forward-tunnel access: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=21280 . . . . . . :smash:

My steering components (shaft, u-joints) are from Borgeson: http://www.borgeson.com/xcart/catalog/Universal_Joints-orderby_0-p-1-c-2.html I think you'll find pricing more to your liking. Give these guysa call. They can help you wtih, and provide you with, everything you need.