Recent content by 540ZCar

So does this mean that changing caster can also change antis?

Can anti-dive/squat be measured on McPherson Strut suspensions? Is the force vector drawn the same as it is when finding the roll center?

So what I'm gathering is that as long as the tubes are the right length and diameter, that the style of the header only give marginal increases?

What about the theories of fluid dynamics with the different designs? I always been told that having the companion cylinders connected together will increase scavenging which is why I started thinking about 6-3-1s.

I don't know much about exhausts but I've read articles on L28s built in Japan making 400 naturally aspirated horsepower using the 6-1 design so I thought there was something with that.

I just would like to know if a 6-3-1 header would be more efficient than a 6-1 header or better yet, how different would the torque and power bands be with the different set-ups? Not for a particular project or anything, just in a theoretical mood and wondering why I never see any 6-3-1s for...

You make it sound like off the wall ideas are bad, I believe there are no bad ideas because even if they don't work for what they were thought up for they can at least serve as a muse for something/someone else.

I didn't even think of that. That would be interesting.

I got the idea from reading a book about big-inch Chevy small blocks where the guy talked about having some cylinders running a bigger diameter primaries and others running smaller diameter primaries to broaden the powerband. I was making the design around the idea of using sequential fuel...

I want to build a Ford 302 with a redline of 6750 that has peak power at 6000. I rather have a broad powerband instead of high numbers so I want to fabricate intake and exhausts with different diameters and lengths for different cylinders. Right now I'm thinking of setting up cylinders 1,4,6...

Sounds to me like a glorified droop limiter.

What I'm getting at is that the lower control arm is mounted to a crossmember that in most cars bolted to the frame. I think having the frame going to the lower arms and have the upper arms on a crossmember would be better.

Think double wishbone suspension with the springs and shocks mounted to the lower control arms. That means most of the suspension loads will be going through the lower control arm right? Does it make sense to have the frame rail stay low and go to the lower control arm mounts and then have a...

Actually mathed it out? That's pretty cool, I don't have any formulas that deal with MOI. The closest I have to that are ones that tell how much weight is transferred from left to right or front to back based on weight, CG, wheelbase/track, and Gs.

If you don't mind, I'm just going to sit back and observe the the discussions that arise. I don't really have any questions at the moment but I love reading stuff like this.