Cadillac Owners Forum banner

pig in slop

131K views 704 replies 43 participants last post by  philistine 
#1 · (Edited)
Weekend just isn't long enough...

 
See less See more
1
#449 ·
I want to preface this with "good news/bad news." The good news is that the Forstener bits that Philistine recommended worked spectacularly, cutting beautiful holes in the lid, and a simple 12AN feed/10AN return will work (clearances are good everywhere). The bad news is that a practical, easy-to-install twin-pump 12AN/10AN system that includes check valves will not fit through the hole in the fuel tank.

So, I have to eat about $150 in parts. On the plus side, I'm certain that a triple 10AN (dual feed, single return) lid design will work, and be easy to install. In case you're wondering, the twin 10AN feeds will exit the bucket, run a couple of inches away from the gas tank, hit twin check valves, and combine into a single 12AN feed line. So it'll still be a 12AN/10AN system, albeit with the check valves out in the open--available for maintenance should the need arise.

So, with that, I've got a bunch of pictures of me constructing a 12AN/10AN lid design that I will never install.


12AN (blue) and 10AN (black) 90 degree bulkhead connectors, plus nylon crush washers

As you'll see in a few pictures from now, I learned to use a small drill bit to pop a tiny guide hole for the Forstener bit when my first hole was off by a little bit. That's why this 12AN hole is slightly oblong--I had to drill a second time with a slightly larger bit. Thankfully, I used a smaller one (slightly too small, actually) the first time.

Since the AN nut for the bulkhead adapter will be underneath the lid, you have to carefully check to ensure that it can rotate all the way around--otherwise you won't be able to tighten it down. Because of the plastic ribs on the underside bucket make it hard to use a Forstener bit, it's better to start by drilling your guide hole up through the bottom, flip the lid over, and come down with the Forstener bit from the top. Then, flip it over again and Dremel the plastic ribs flat where the nut and nylon crush washer will land.


Slight oops on this 12AN hole, as described above


Flip side on the 12AN hole


If you have the right bit that gives you a nice, tight fit, you don't need a crush washer on the top. One on the bottom is enough.


Alternate view of the 12AN bulkhead adapter


Preparing to drill the guide hole for the 10AN bulkhead fitting


Here's the guide hole on the other side--look for it in the purple portion of the sticker


Preparing to drill for the 10AN bulkhead adapter using the guide hole


10AN on the left (got it perfect the first time), 12 AN on the right (mild d'oh). Note how I had to Dremel the supporting ribs around each hole.


Flip side. Obviously, I need to deburr these a little bit, but most of the roughness that you're seeing is actually the remnants of the plastic ribs on the underside of the lid.


10AN and 12AN bulkhead adapters connected. You'll have to take my word for it that each can freely rotate.


Flip side on the bulkhead adapters


Again, no need for a nylon crush washer on the top, assuming you have the right bit.
 
#450 · (Edited)
The Racetronix electrical bulkhead connector took twice as long to install as the 12AN and 10AN bulkhead fittings combined. Two reasons: first, my Porter Cable PC1014 Forstener bit set is English and doesn't have a bit that is slightly smaller than the electrical connector's O-ring. If you just go with it, you'll end up with a hole that's either way too small or way too big. Philistine's pictures showed something similar--the connector on his bucket didn't sit flush against the lid--probably because the hole was too small to admit the O-ring. Fortunately, each DW300 pump comes with a thicker small O-ring that you can use instead. Once make the swap, you should have more luck bitwise.


Measuring the diameter of the O-ring


This Forstener bit is too small for the O-ring


This one looks too big, but...


Once you replace the standard O-ring with the O-ring included with any DW300 kit, you're in business. 0.1mm overlap.


Snug as a bug, minus the effing metal clip

The second reason why the electrical connector took forever was this blasted metal clip, which serves to lock the connector in tight, and provides that crucial positive lock for the pumps' power connector. It takes a ton of force to engage it, which I couldn't muster with my fingers. I finally got it installed using a couple of short, 12-13mm sockets and my bench vise. Sorry, I didn't take a picture, but you'll figure it out. On a positive note, once it's totally on, there's nothing short of a saw that'll loosen that electrical connector.


Not the best angle, but the metal clip is flush with the plastic


All done. My electrical connector doesn't sit perfectly flush with the lid either, but it makes an airtight seal.


Lower angle


Alt angle
 
#452 ·
I took a different approach with the electrical bulkhead connector. I kept the o-ring on the surface and manipulated the metal clip to clamp it in place - squish it. I ended up using Goop around those connections as a precaution but no fuel vapors leaked through.

You have to watch the angle of the fuel bulkheads - they have to be at a proper direction to mitigate tension when you run your lines. There is only a small area for the exit of the fuel lines and you have to be within that parameter. I had to mark the bulkhead connectors then drop the tank, yank out the bucket again (just a mock run) then get those nuts really tight on the under side - I emphasize tight.

Just to recap:


That pic shows the path of the fuel lines in that very narrow area and you don't want any additional tension on those fittings.

I like the progress you're making and the different techniques you're using (electrical bulkhead). I also only used the washers on the underside of the fuel bulkhead connections.


I know this was directed at Fuzzy but I remember in this thread where he mentioned his reasons. It is on post 93:
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/2004-2007-cadillac-cts-v-performance/363017-pig-slop-7.html
 
#458 ·
Perhaps the greatest misconception that exists in fuel-delivery systems is in the relationship between pressure and volume. To state it simply, pressure is inversely proportional to volume. In other words, as fuel pressure increases, the volume of fuel decreases. We have included a fuel-pressure chart that shows the effect of pressure on the amount of fuel delivered to help illustrate this point. If a fuel pump did not have to fight the forces of acceleration in a vehicle, fuel pressure could be as little as 1 to 2 psi to push a sufficient volume of fuel to the carburetor. But even street cars can muster sufficient power and traction to propel a 3500-pound car from a standing start at 1.4g acceleration, gradually dropping off to perhaps .70g in the first 60 feet. The same acceleration force that pushes you back in the seat is also pushing against the fuel in the line that the fuel pump is attempting to push (or sometimes pull) forward from the rear-mounted tank.

According to SuperFlow’s Harold Bettes, a rough rule of thumb is that the fuel-delivery system requires 8 psi of system pressure for every g of acceleration to maintain fuel flow. You can therefore see that, given a low-pressure 8-psi fuel system pushing against a 1g launch, there could easily be no fuel flow in the system during the time the car is experiencing that g force. The engine is forced to pull fuel only from the float bowl, dropping the float level and leaning the air/fuel ratio. HOT ROD has data-logged a 12.5-second carbureted street car that experienced this situation, producing wildly fluctuating air/fuel ratios from 10:1 to 16:1, all within the first 60 feet at the dragstrip.


Quoted the first link that I Googled. This specifically explains carbs, although the forces imparted are the same...http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/general/fuel_system_tech/
 
#459 · (Edited)
You could put the secondary fuel pump on a Hobbs pressure switch sensing low fuel pressure from the regulator.

I know of a build for a Challenger that used 10 AN lines. Triple pumper but I don't know how many were being used on a pressure activation with boost.

***Edit***

12AN supply, 10AN return
 
#460 ·
You and I were thinking about a different scenario. If you delete the first four sentences of the article, I guess I'm generally okay with the article. The part that you quoted in red is a useful point that I never previously considered. Essentially, it's saying that the static head in the system may quadruple or even quintuple (depending on the length of the horizontal fuel lines and the G-forces created by the car) during peak acceleration.

But without running an AFT Fathom model, it's hard to say whether any fuel system will perform adequately under all conditions. If worst comes to worst and I have to build something rivaling S-Cam's system, a 12 AN fuel line is readily adaptable to a surge tank / 1000 LPH Aeromotive 11104 Eliminator pump combination. FWIW, peak acceleration in the Bugatti Veyron (0-60 in 2.4 seconds) is 1.55G, but that force is directed 40 degrees from horizontal.
 
#462 ·
Inertial loads is an interesting topic. This is something a chassis dyno cannot account for while tuning WOT. I have never heard of this element ever discussed specifically with EFI cars - haven't messed with carbs since I was in high school.

I believe there is a lot of back pressure on fuel injectors. Depending on your injector duty cycle, you get larger injectors or more pump. I know a guy that does professional drag racing dealing with EFI/carbs and has augmented countless fuel delivery systems - I put in a question regarding this and will share his answer.

Btw, same guy running that triple pumper on his Challenger is using triple 450lph fuel pumps. 1 pump is running continuously and the other 2 are triggered at 4-6 psi. This is a drag car. He is running -12AN supply and -10AN return. This is a ~1k whp Challenger. Also he is running 10awg wire directly to those pumps all on a relay from a 6awg distribution block and 8awg ground.
 
#463 ·
Got a response regarding inertial loads from a guy who races, builds, and tunes drag cars for over 30 years:

I have not experienced the effects of g-force on a fuel system on an EFI car but that doesn't mean it can be ignored. It absolutely occurs on a non-EFI car and must be accounted for so I suspect it also happens on the EFI cars but it's just not as apparent possibly due to the higher line pressures.
FWIW, he keeps a sharp eye on fuel pressure during a launch. So I'm glad this question came up and I am going to draw my own conclusions - extraiga usted las conclusiones oportunas.
 
#464 ·
Warning: rambling post ahead! :bigroll:

Man, what a disappointing two-week break. Between holiday shipping snafus and the cold, I got almost nothing installed on the car. I was hoping to have the Geforce 9" IRS and RacingBrake/SKF X-Tracker system finished, but pieces of them are still in the mail. Philistine, as you expected, my air compressor wasn't powerful enough. It couldn't even make the impact wrench turn over. On a more positive note, I was able to take measurements for the fuel system, do some preliminary work on the bucket, re-lubricate my Revshift upper control arm bushings with PTFE-based grease (more water-resistant), and sand/repaint my spindles and MightyMouse wheel spacers for the SKF X-Tracker hubs. I also made a couple of interesting discoveries.

Prime amongst the discoveries was a 2nd gen CTS (normal CTS) brake retrofit thread, where the author pointed out several V2 "splash guards" that we might want to consider using. This is especially true if/when you replace your OEM "closed" front hubs with "open" SKF hubs. When I say "open," I'm referring to the fact that all SKF hubs are machined to allow axles to pass through them.




Note that the big round shield is from the normal CTS--the user replaced this shield with the V2 version




For the front hubs, there are these little caps that go on the backs of the hubs and prevent crap from getting into the hub. For the rear, there's a big shield that protects the various ball joints on the knuckle from rotor heat. Although this slightly degrades the natural cooling capacity of the rear rotors, they are already far less hot than the front rotors. I can support that with measurements from my own car--in the interests of possibly selling my used DRT rotors, I measured their thickness. As it turns out, my front rotors are at about 50% life. My rear rotors, on the other hand, are at 80% life. That means that the rear calipers burned off a lot less rotor material over the last year.

Anyway, here's the linkage:

http://www.cadillacforums.com/forum...s/311106-diy-install-cts-v-brembo-brakes.html
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forum...s/311098-diy-install-cts-v-brembo-brakes.html
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forum...s/311082-diy-install-cts-v-brembo-brakes.html

You can get all of these parts, other than the little rear center caps, on Amazon for next to nothing ($14 for the each front piece and $60 for each rear piece). Luke @ Lindsay has the rear center caps for about $12. Even if you don't care about the rear brake shields, I bet your front shields look like crap. Here are mine:



You will want to note that these shields do not include a mounting point to clip the ABS sensors onto. I'll let you know how that goes when they arrive this week. Amazon Linkage (there is one left and right P/N):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0055ABY9G/ref=oh_details_o02_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0055ABZ2C/ref=oh_details_o02_s01_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007QB7PFE/ref=oh_details_o02_s02_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007QB7PYU/ref=oh_details_o02_s02_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Moving right along, I took a yellow Scotch-Brite Reloc bristle disc to my spindles and MightyMouse spacers to clean them up. I use two 3/16" spacers on each front wheel to improve my V's stance with the Forgestar wheels.





While the contact surfaces on the spindle looked great, the rest of it looked like crap. So I hit it with POR-15.



After reading through the SKF manual, I noticed that they recommend some kind of anti-seize lubricant to fill airgap between the spindle and the hub. I picked up some copper Permatex anti-seize lubricant, which is good up to 1800°F. Hard to see in this picture, but it sparkles:



Philistine, I have no idea how you managed to get that second, shorter fuel pump strainer to bend into the bucket without putting a ton of stress on the pump connector and the bucket itself. I had a couple of extra strainers, as pictured below, but they all had straight connectors. So, I wound up buying a smaller Delphi FS0091 strainer for the secondary pump. I'm hoping that the angle on the connector will allow me to improve on the way the pumps sit in the bucket.



Because of the way I clocked the T-bolt clamps on the fuel pump outlets (see above picture), I do not need to hold the pumps above the strainers using a worm gear clamp. The T-bolt acts like a stand-off--similar to the plastic standoff on the OEM pump/filter assembly. On a semi-related note, I bought a slightly smaller 15mm (19/32") Forstner bit to increase the force on the O-ring in the extra electrical connector located on the fuel bucket lid. I'm hoping that this ensures a great seal against fuel vapor.
 
#465 ·
Lastly, I took more Geforce 9" center section pictures. It appears that Chris forgot to send me enough studs for the pumpkin, so I wasn't able to assemble it. According to the instructions, you also have to have the axles on hand (waiting on those too) because they help to align it internally. Btw, the welded steel Geforce pumpkin weighs 24.0 lbs on the nose. This is going to be one heavy center section--almost 100 lbs without axles or oil!


Chomping at the bit here


Geforce recommends using Permatex Ultra Black instead of a gasket, because their pumpkin is machined to fit precisely


The vent port is shielded from windage by this diagonal plate. Torturous path ventilation FTW.


Pipe dope, like RectorSeal #7, seems to be a better choice for intermediate users. You don't have to worry about applying the correct tension and getting the overlap right, like you have to do with Teflon tape. It also looks better.















 
#466 ·
Nice pics! My 2 week break suffered due to the enormous 'honey-do' projects around the house - I do a lot of remodeling & have an elaborate wood shop. My 'V' is still on blocks waiting parts as well - back ordered another week.

Anyways, regarding the strainer on the secondary fuel pump...I have it at a ~45 degree angle and follows the contour of the return. The strainer articulates enough to allow that fitment - I felt comfortable with the position. The worm clamp served 2 purposes:

1) To give clearance so it does not sit on the bottom of the bucket - gave the support needed for the secondary pump to relieve some stress on the strainer.
2) To clamp the bucket together for a more secure fitment.

Once thing I did not do that I am curious now that I see you doing the fuel mod - is the horseshoe component needed? I understand the original purpose was to support the bucket as it is 'squished' into the fuel tank. That thing really gets in the way when installing. Eliminating it if at all practical would greatly improve installation. Might be something to investigate when you get to that point. The added components underneath do a good job holding it into place - few would even know what I'm talking about.
 
#467 ·
One thing I did not do that I am curious now that I see you doing the fuel mod - is the horseshoe component needed? I understand the original purpose was to support the bucket as it is 'squished' into the fuel tank. That thing really gets in the way when installing. Eliminating it if at all practical would greatly improve installation. Might be something to investigate when you get to that point. The added components underneath do a good job holding it into place - few would even know what I'm talking about.
I figured what the heck and roughly cut the horseshoe brace off the lid I'm not going to use. Obviously, my primary concern was unwanted twisting and side-to-side wobbling of the bucket due to the fact that the brace (which provides lateral and torsional support) was not present. What I found, however, was that you couldn't tell that the brace was gone. The poles are held securely in the top of the bucket, and as long as you don't over-trim the horseshoe side, the wide plastic pieces at the bottom are fit closely along the sides of the bucket, preventing you from accidentally over-stressing the connection at the top.









Depending on the routing of my 3/8" Gates hoses, I may have to do this for my final bucket build.
 
#469 ·
That's hard information to find, surprisingly. Some of the housings and differential options vary in weight by an incredible amount. It's probably fair to say that if you keep the materials the same (e.g. iron to iron, or aluminum to aluminum), a 9" IRS weighs 25% to 50% more depending on case and axle options.
 
#470 ·
Since my V is down for so long, figured I'd purchase those Swift springs you recommended. I can find the thread where you give the info on what/where to purchase but what isn't clear is the settings you recommended for bump and rebound on the KW V3 coilovers.
 
#475 ·
This is all interesting stuff!

Through all this I never saw, but may have missed, any reference to the dewalt 1/2 drive electric impact. From my lengthy tool experience, It's the closest thing to an air driven impact I've found and would consistently remove Honda crank bolts which are rated to 140ft/lbs. less than $200 bucks at the orange store and worth every penny!

good luck with your builds!!
 
#476 · (Edited)
Second generation bucket...replete with triple 10AN connections and a smaller, 15mm metric hole for the electrical connector. The third 10AN bulkhead adapter went right through the molded plastic feed line hole. The return hole was sealed with Permatex Ultra Black.









Took a lot of pressure from my bench vise to get the fatter o-ring (taken from the DW300 kit), attached to Racetronix electrical connector, to seat in the 15mm hole. The bulkhead connectors on the sides have about a 210° range of motion, thanks to shaved down lid clamp supports and careful spacing.





The only nit I have with this design is that my usual supplier changed his 10AN bulkhead vendor on me (to Fragola Performance Systems...bleh), and I don't like the finish on those two outer bulkhead adapters. But it's perfectly functional.



A huge thank you goes out to odthetruth, who gave me an awesome deal on a great spare bucket. I should have more pictures later, once my other fittings arrive. :thumbsup:
 
#477 · (Edited)
i have to admire your persistence here but if this doesn't work, it might be easier to move on.

at these power and mod levels, one next step would be to remove the stock fuel tank altogether, cut out the spare tire well, rebuild the trunk floor and put a fuel cell in it that could support whatever you throw at it.

any half decent race car shop could build and install a new trunk floor and hang a fuel cell in no time and it would probably have been the easiest thing they've done in a year. fuel cells aren't hard to find and the level of safety it would bring to the car would be comforting at these power levels and it would help weight distribution as well. is it time for mini tubs??

as i live in NASCAR country, it might be easier for me to say this because i hang around people that do this kind of thing for a living. some stock platforms may be able to handle higher levels of fuel delivery demands but i'm beginning to believe that the v1 isn't one of them.

i hope this works for you.....
 
#478 · (Edited)
i have to admire your persistence here but if this doesn't work, it might be easier to move on.
It'll work. This second design was required to support the installation of twin check valves.

Today, I'm going to be lining things up in the bottom of the bucket to determine if 45 degree or 90 degree 10AN fittings off the 10AN bulkhead fittings are more appropriate when tilting the bucket. All told, I'm about $600 away in terms of parts from commencing installation. I still need the Aeromotive 13110 regulator ($300), 12 extra feet of 8AN braided PTFE hose (it's been on backorder at FrozenBoost for months now), the second Aeromotive 15107 check valve, and ten 8AN-12AN fittings of various types.
 
#488 · (Edited)
Quick update: STS-V spindles are in. Phew are they light. And the best part is...drumroll...they should support a 10" front wheel. If you haven't noticed, the stock spindle has a LOT of clearance to the KW Variant 3 shock body, because the OEM suspension was almost 5" in diameter. As a result, I will be getting a new, full set of 10" Forgestar F14s in either the Viper spec offset (+40) or CTS-V offset (+42).


Photo credit: AAIIIC.

Viper spec Forgestar F14 10" wheels protrude 13mm inwards and 13mm outwards, relative to the normal CTS-V front F14 19x9 +40mm. CTS-V spec protrudes 15mm inwards and 11mm outwards. I already run twin 3/16" spacers (9.525mm) in the front because the trackwidth with the Forgestar F14 is narrower in the front. An extra 2mm will be an improvement, but I wouldn't go any further for fear of having to worry about fender clearance. And I'll have to maintain 1.8 degrees of negative camber in the front (not a problem).

Ultimately, this means that both the front and the rear will be deep concave, instead of having shallow concave in the front and deep in the rear. 275mm front tires and 295mm rear tires. Or 285s all around. And here's another thing: the Viper spec wheels come in 20" versions. Theoretically, I could choose between 19x10s and 20x10s. What do you think? 19" or 20" wheels? Personally, I'm leaning toward 19" because I think that 20" wheels are a net negative unless you can fit a 390mm rotor in there (and we don't have that option).

FWIW, 19x12 and 20x12 Viper rear wheels are out because they stick out 19mm more in the rear than the 19x10 +42mm CTS-V F14 wheels, and Forgestar will not consider designing another set of CTS-V1 wheels with a +58 offset. Shame. If I could flare that fender an inch more... the idea of running 345mm tires makes me giddy.

 
#490 ·
No. By my estimation, it requires STS-V ($70 apiece, used) or CTS-V2 ($125 apiece, used) upper control arms. However, you should be able to reuse your lower control arms. This cuts the total cost of doing the upgrade by one-third. The bottom hole is machined to accept a ball joint bolt from below, whereas the CTS-V2 spindle requires the bolt to be inserted from above. That eliminates the concern about sway bar mounting, and holds open the door to the possibility of upgrading to a 4130 or 4340 tubular lower control arm from either Creative Steel or Revshift, which (if they appear) would probably be designed for an unmodified CTS-V1 spindle.

I have one STS-V upper control arm in the mail--once it arrives, I'll reserve a block of time to check fitment, caster angle, and camber angle relative to the CTS-V1 spindle. I plan to swap a rear Forgestar F14 onto the front spindle to confirm my assertion about wheel clearance. Just looking at them, they have a much more pronounced bend in the upright section. As a result of that, and the fact that they are aluminum, they have almost 2.5 times as much material behind the bend region.
 
#496 ·
I ordered this filter which should solve my fuel priming issues. This filter is by Fuelabs and has a check valve incorporated into the filter which is 10 micron suitable for EFI and rated for 1000HP systems. I took measurements and this filter should fit perfectly in the stock filter location with the OEM filter holder - I came up with the exact diameter with the OEM filter. These filters are very custom with so many different options with the inlet/outlet ports and sizes etc - even colors. I ordered red to give a little flare for the very few who would even care - haha!

Bicycle part Bicycle hub Hub gear Product Auto part
 
#497 · (Edited)
I ordered this filter which should solve my fuel priming issues. This filter is by Fuelabs and has a check valve incorporated into the filter which is 10 micron suitable for EFI and rated for 1000HP systems. I took measurements and this filter should fit perfectly in the stock filter location with the OEM filter holder - I came up with the exact diameter with the OEM filter. These filters are very custom with so many different options with the inlet/outlet ports and sizes etc - even colors. I ordered red to give a little flare for the very few who would even care - haha!
Nice. Personally, I would've gotten an 858 series with a pair of 8AN/10AN adapters for the 5" filter element. But you know me by now. ;) I've been contemplating writing a post today, but I don't have a lot of progress to show yet. Been sick all weekend because my boss decided to try to play hero and came to work with the flu. Here's what I got done, between bouts of shivering and sweating:

  • On Saturday, I was trying to figure out why the twin pumps wouldn't fit side-by-side in the bucket when I realized that I forgot to shave down the tabs/stiffeners (?)--that have no apparent purpose--on the insides of the bucket. On my first attempt, I trimmed one down nicely:



    Then, I decided to try to shave it down to the bottom of the bucket and realized that I just made a huge mistake. God only knows why they molded an inset into the outer side of the shell, and I went right into it.



    Fortunately, I was able to use a shard of plastic from trimming and good old Testors plastic cement (harkening back to my model rocketry days) to fill the void. Tested it, and it's watertight. I'll probably fill it with gas this week and leave it in a 5 gallon bucket to verify that the cement isn't susceptible to gasoline. As far as I know, it's impervious to everything--I believe it literally melts plastic pieces on contact and "welds" them together.

    Prior to the cement adventure, I did look up the application guide for Permatex Ultra Black, it isn't fuel resistant. So no using it on the lid to seal holes (as I did earlier). For that, either use Testors plastic cement (if you can fashion a plug), or Permatex Permashield. I will use Permashield to seal the holes in the bucket where the twin hoses exit, and the interface between the bucket's two clamshell halves. The objective is to retain as much fuel capacity as possible.

    After I fixed the lower half of the bucket, I tried assembling everything again and I found that I wasn't done yet. A couple of parts of the upper half of the bucket also need to die. I've marked the things people need to kill in red. You might think that the long, stalk-like piece provides some kind of support, but it's another a case of "Where is this vestigial s**t on the CTS-V coming from, GM?"





    Micro PSA: be wary when buying Gates hose. There are a couple of vendors out there, and while I've never received a hose without the required J30R10 rating printed on the side, there are two versions floating around. One of them has a smooth shell, and is almost impossible to crush, stretch, or pop. The other one, pictured below, has a braided look and less mechanical strength than a piece of licorice. If you get the latter, send it back. I can't identify a particular vendor that is good or bad--I'm literally batting .500 when purchasing Gates hoses on Amazon. Which wouldn't be so bad if they weren't $20 apiece.


    100 PSI working pressure my ass--I could probably fart it in half

  • Another thing on the list was to prepare for the aluminum spindle overhaul. I received one STS-V upper control arm (UCA) on Friday. At a glance, I don't like how far the ball joint sticks out. Less camber and more caster for any given ride height. I believe the CTS-V2 UCA will be better, but funds are short right now. So in the short term, I'll test fit one spindle/UCA, take measurements, and compare against stock. Once my slush fund rebuilds, I purchase a CTS-V2 UCA. If I don't like the looks of that, I've got a STS-V compatible, threaded ball joint in my Amazon cart ($40) that we can use to modify our CTS-V1 UCAs.

    (I just remembered that I need a nut for the STS-V UCA... reminding me again how valuable these posts are for exposing oversights and stupid ideas!)

  • In the "funny for you, not so funny for me" department, here's what happens when your fever-addled brain commands you to grab a hot ARP lug stud:



    On the positive side, I now have marginally more grip in that finger. ;)

    In the past, I've mentioned the ARP 100-7709 and 100-7708 wheel studs as a potential upgrade. You may or may not recall that I've broken something like 11 OEM lug studs using short (2') 1/2" drive socket wrenches. My antics aside, as our cars increase in power, those OEM wheel studs become a liability. Given the low upgrade cost, there's really no excuse to show up on Youtube when your wheels fall off. If you skip to 1:34 in the first video, you can see how the wheel studs sheared at the hub flange.





    The problem, from our platform's perspective, is that the 7709 is a little short and the knurl is a little narrow, whereas the 7708 is too long for anything other than open-ended "tuner" lug nuts (which I hate). However, once you cut them down, the ARP 100-7708 is basically "the" ultimate stud.


    From top to bottom: ARP 100-7709, ARP 100-7708 (shortened), and ARP 100-7708 (unmodified). Note the larger knurl diameter on the 100-7708, as well as the wider threaded section. This provides a much more positive fit when installing rotors.

    A Dremel and two EZ456 cut-off wheels later, my 12 rear wheel studs were ready to rock. I didn't need to cut the front studs, because I use two 3/16" spacers made by MightyMouse. If the STS-V spindle allows me to run a 10" Forgestar F14 in the front, I'll have to remove the spacers and cut the studs down. That'll be the only way to avoid destroying more McGard Spline Drives. :crybaby:

  • The axles--the last part of the Geforce 9" IRS kit--are going to be arriving late this week. I've been chomping at the bit to get the center section built, and having the axles on hand will finally let me do that. One of the things that the printed instructions--and Lollygagger8's pioneering install thread--neglected to mention is that you're not given enough double-end threaded studs to fill out the entire center section, as shown below.



    After talking to Chris, the reason for this becomes apparent when you fit the two halves together. Basically, Geforce found that the Strange Engineering differential doesn't provide enough clearance to use studs/nuts in two of the three bottom positions. Instead, they give you a couple of short, hex head bolts. Because I tripped up on this, and none of the pictures I've found online show those two bolts, I'll bring it up again when I write a full install thread.

  • I'll leave you guys with a picture of some CTS-V brake hardware:

 
#500 ·
I actually have the original set of Ferodo HT1000s from my car...they have about 8,000 miles on them, if you're interested. I could take depth measurements... it's been years since they've been out of the box. If you're looking for new pads, I would look up a Ferodo dealer or call Luke @ Lindsay if you're willing to pay the Cadillac surcharge.

Another, perhaps better option, would be the RacingBrake ET500. Based on the reviews I've read, it seems to be the newest, best pad out there for street and cold weather usage. It's essentially a HT1000, but with less dust. In fact, it sounds like an obvious contender for OEM fitment, except that Ferodo has the OEM/Brembo market nailed down. I briefly considered them as a replacement for my Hawk HP+ pads (aka: the wheel-annihilating cement dust machines), but their temperature range is too low and I dislike pads with a muted initial bite. But it's probably great if you share your car with someone that lacks a deft touch.

Most relevant ET500 review I have: http://www.rx7club.com/suspension-w...-new-brake-options-605463/page53/#post8230927
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top