xcarguy

Excellent, Skip! Thanks for sharing. :cheers:

I'd lke fries with that order, please . . . .super sized. :jester:

. . . . . . . . :ack:

Must have missed it.

The rear calipers (Gran Am GT) have been on the car for seven years as well, and no issues. Whether needed or not, the brakes are thoroughly bleed prior to every track event; this ensures they are air-free.

Garanimals . . . . Batman crocs . . . . getting quite the rep there, toedrag. :jester: On a serious note, the build in looking great, Brit. :cheers:

Yeah, but what fun is that? . . . . . . :smash: . . . . . . :banghead: . . . . . :jester:

Dan, I put quite a bit more repetitive (and agressive) pressure on the brake pedal when on track than I ever do when I set the pressure to hold the car in place. Typical brake pressures for an automobile can range anywhere from 800 psi for normal, day-to-day driving to up to 2000psi for maximum application. At NJMP, coming off the straight at Lightning and into turn one, I'm applying maximum brake pressure (right at the edge of skidding the slicks on a 1900lb car) from around 140mph down to around 85mph. At MSR Cresson on the 1.7ccw course (longest straight), I'll max brake from around 130 down to 70. The valve, rated to 1,500 psi @ 70° F, has been on the car for seven years and has performed as expected with no issues. With most of the brake bias on the front, I don't know if the rear brakes have ever even seen 1500 psi. And I still want to hear your story, preferably with something cold in hand. :cheers:

Mine is a simple 1500 psi inline ball valve from McMaster Carr that's plumbed in with the rear brakes: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=10560 http://www.mcmaster.com/#ball-valves/=tg8hpx Part #4114T21

Roman, are you no long 'evil'? :rofl:

Way to go, subtle!

You had us at lout. :jester:

Perhaps the netting is to limit head/neck lateral movement during a side impact such as these installed on this Stalker: http://www471.pair.com/stalkerv/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=24609

Sorry, clueless on this one.

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: