NEW car still the same 2jz-gte/rx7 project...
08-31-07, 02:20 PM
#76
Super Snuggles
08-31-07, 03:28 PM
#77
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you know what i noticed Jim?
that the lower control arm and steering tie rods aren't parallel in the diagrams posted by Wanklin. Perhaps your understanding of how bumpsteer occurs is a little different from ours?
https://www.rx7club.com/other-engine-conversions-non-v-8-118/2jz-gte-swap-into-fd-654918/page3/
i really didn't want to point this out, cuz i really rather not participate in another one of your debates. but i hate seeing every 2JZ related swap threads gettting ruined, turning into another useless bumpsteer debating thread.
I'm not trying to tick you off or anything Jim, please don't take this the wrong way. I just think that it'd be nice if for once, we can let the thread starter do his thing, post his pictures, and claim whatever he likes (in this case, the steering rack has not been moved). Us readers should be smart enough to judge for ourselves whether to believe him or not.
I appologize about our first encounter in the thread posted above, got off on the wrong foot. I don't mind having nice, technical discussions with you about bumpsteer or whatever it may be. However I was just a little ticked off when you, without even making an effort to explain yourself, completed dismissed my post with a "Wrong."
Howi
that the lower control arm and steering tie rods aren't parallel in the diagrams posted by Wanklin. Perhaps your understanding of how bumpsteer occurs is a little different from ours?
https://www.rx7club.com/other-engine-conversions-non-v-8-118/2jz-gte-swap-into-fd-654918/page3/
i really didn't want to point this out, cuz i really rather not participate in another one of your debates. but i hate seeing every 2JZ related swap threads gettting ruined, turning into another useless bumpsteer debating thread.
I'm not trying to tick you off or anything Jim, please don't take this the wrong way. I just think that it'd be nice if for once, we can let the thread starter do his thing, post his pictures, and claim whatever he likes (in this case, the steering rack has not been moved). Us readers should be smart enough to judge for ourselves whether to believe him or not.
I appologize about our first encounter in the thread posted above, got off on the wrong foot. I don't mind having nice, technical discussions with you about bumpsteer or whatever it may be. However I was just a little ticked off when you, without even making an effort to explain yourself, completed dismissed my post with a "Wrong."
Howi
08-31-07, 06:14 PM
#78
Super Snuggles
That you didn't leave like you said you were going to? Yeah, I noticed that too. 
I'll tell you three things wrong with your theory...
1. The upper control arms in the upper left picture are just supported in mid-air for illustration purposes only. You don't even know if they're aligned properly.
2. The lines in Rob's MS Paint masterpiece don't even intersect the mounting bolts of the upper or lower control arms, which are their pivot points.
3. The picture is skewed up and to the left. How in the hell could you possibly tell if the tie rods are parallel to the lower control arms unless you were viewing it straight on?
I post a picture of an actual FD (mine, as it so happens) with proper alignment and you think an image that Rob doctored up with a few lines is more accurate?!? Jesus H. Christ.
Believe it or not, there's a logical reason for that. The 2JZ is longer and taller than just about anything else you might swap into the car, and some of us actually have first hand experience with how much room there is. 
Possibly because you were talking about bump steer theory as if that explained everything, not bump steer as experienced by those who have actually moved the steering rack on an FD.
that the lower control arm and steering tie rods aren't parallel in the diagrams posted by Wanklin.
1. The upper control arms in the upper left picture are just supported in mid-air for illustration purposes only. You don't even know if they're aligned properly.
2. The lines in Rob's MS Paint masterpiece don't even intersect the mounting bolts of the upper or lower control arms, which are their pivot points.
3. The picture is skewed up and to the left. How in the hell could you possibly tell if the tie rods are parallel to the lower control arms unless you were viewing it straight on?
I post a picture of an actual FD (mine, as it so happens) with proper alignment and you think an image that Rob doctored up with a few lines is more accurate?!? Jesus H. Christ.
i hate seeing every 2JZ related swap threads gettting ruined, turning into another useless bumpsteer debating thread.
However I was just a little ticked off when you, without even making an effort to explain yourself, completed dismissed my post with a "Wrong."
08-31-07, 06:47 PM
#80
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimlab
Believe it or not, there's a logical reason for that. The 2JZ is longer and taller than just about anything else you might swap into the car, and some of us actually have first hand experience with how much room there is.
Originally Posted by jimlab
Possibly because you were talking about bump steer theory as if that explained everything, not bump steer as experienced by those who have actually moved the steering rack on an FD.
For everyone,
Yes, the car runs, and runs well.
No, the hood has not be modded whatsoever.
Yes, the steering rack has been lowered. It's an issue I'm currently working on, and the goal is to eventually completely leave the rack in the stock position. If I ever achieve this I can let you guys know how I did it.
I'm sorry but for the moment, I will not provide any additional information on the project until I got everything sorted out.
For Jim,
I'd really appreciate it if you could try to give others a chance to explain themselves before you assume everyone's an unexperienced retard and start decrediting them.
I know you're a smart guy Jim. You might want to try to start acting like one.
Howi
08-31-07, 07:23 PM
#81
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to be courteous and civil with you Jim, but you've stripped the privilege away from yourself. I will not back off anymore.
It's not a theory Jim. It's geometry. And it can't be wrong.
1. Learn your geometry Jim. Geometry doesn't know what's supported in mid-air, and if the drawing is illustration purposes only. Geometry knows lines, shapes and pivots. Rob is 100% correct. You can draw any unequal lengthed upper and lower control arm (shorter on top, of course), as long as the upper and lower are sitting at a different angle, with the upper arm more tilted than the lower, the imaginary point will form.
2. The imaginary point is not supposed to line up to anything Jim. As matter of fact, the imaginary point travels as the suspension arms move up and down. Follow my CAD drawing below.
3. I wasn't referring to that picture, I was referring to the first, top left drawing, as you were. Noticed the note "Alternate Tie Rod Location."
You're wrong Jim. Yes, Rob's drawing is more accurate because it's strictly 2D geometry, where as the picture you posted in another thread is some arbitrary 3D view. You can't do any calculations based on that 3D pictures.
Due to the nature of un-equal lengthed control arms, it's difficult to visualize the movement of our suspension system. To avoid using MS Paint so Jim won't bitch at me, I'm using Catia with parametric constraints to illustrate this:
The dimensions for the suspension geometry in the illustration above are made up. All of the dimensions are constraints, which means they can not change. For example, the lower control arm has a contraint of 300mm, because the length of the lower control arm can not change. As mentioned before, the upper and lower control arms must meet at an imaginary point. To set up your steering geometry so you'll have no bumpsteer whatsoever, you must line up the angle of your steering rod to the same imginary poing.
When you do, below is what happens when the suspension travels:
Notice the imaginary point travels with the movement of the upper/lower arms and steering tie rod. Alos note the angle between the hub and the verticle line increased from 1.456 degrees to 7.781 degrees (this is why double wishbone is superior to struts).
Using geometry, you can find the appropriate length of the steering tie rod so that you'll have zero bumpsteer.
Jim, the reason why you thought the lower arm and steering tie rod have to be parallel is because they are located very closely on the FD, hence the illusion that they're parallel. Unless the steering rod and lower arm are at the EXACT elevation, length, and angle, the steering rod and lower arm CAN NOT be parallel.
Howi
Originally Posted by jimlab
I'll tell you three things wrong with your theory...
Originally Posted by jimlab
1. The upper control arms in the upper left picture are just supported in mid-air for illustration purposes only. You don't even know if they're aligned properly.
2. The lines in Rob's MS Paint masterpiece don't even intersect the mounting bolts of the upper or lower control arms, which are their pivot points.
3. The picture is skewed up and to the left. How in the hell could you possibly tell if the tie rods are parallel to the lower control arms unless you were viewing it straight on?
2. The lines in Rob's MS Paint masterpiece don't even intersect the mounting bolts of the upper or lower control arms, which are their pivot points.
3. The picture is skewed up and to the left. How in the hell could you possibly tell if the tie rods are parallel to the lower control arms unless you were viewing it straight on?
2. The imaginary point is not supposed to line up to anything Jim. As matter of fact, the imaginary point travels as the suspension arms move up and down. Follow my CAD drawing below.
3. I wasn't referring to that picture, I was referring to the first, top left drawing, as you were. Noticed the note "Alternate Tie Rod Location."
Originally Posted by jimlab
I post a picture of an actual FD (mine, as it so happens) with proper alignment and you think an image that Rob doctored up with a few lines is more accurate?!? Jesus H. Christ.
Due to the nature of un-equal lengthed control arms, it's difficult to visualize the movement of our suspension system. To avoid using MS Paint so Jim won't bitch at me, I'm using Catia with parametric constraints to illustrate this:
The dimensions for the suspension geometry in the illustration above are made up. All of the dimensions are constraints, which means they can not change. For example, the lower control arm has a contraint of 300mm, because the length of the lower control arm can not change. As mentioned before, the upper and lower control arms must meet at an imaginary point. To set up your steering geometry so you'll have no bumpsteer whatsoever, you must line up the angle of your steering rod to the same imginary poing.
When you do, below is what happens when the suspension travels:
Notice the imaginary point travels with the movement of the upper/lower arms and steering tie rod. Alos note the angle between the hub and the verticle line increased from 1.456 degrees to 7.781 degrees (this is why double wishbone is superior to struts).
Using geometry, you can find the appropriate length of the steering tie rod so that you'll have zero bumpsteer.
Jim, the reason why you thought the lower arm and steering tie rod have to be parallel is because they are located very closely on the FD, hence the illusion that they're parallel. Unless the steering rod and lower arm are at the EXACT elevation, length, and angle, the steering rod and lower arm CAN NOT be parallel.
Howi
08-31-07, 09:27 PM
#82
Super Snuggles
I tried to be courteous and civil with you Jim, but you've stripped the privilege away from yourself. I will not back off anymore.
It's not a theory Jim. It's geometry. And it can't be wrong.
BTW, Rob's example you're so impressed by is 2D geometry applied to a 3D image... not too ******* accurate, except for illustration purposes.
Jim, the reason why you thought the lower arm and steering tie rod have to be parallel is because they are located very closely on the FD, hence the illusion that they're parallel. Unless the steering rod and lower arm are at the EXACT elevation, length, and angle, the steering rod and lower arm CAN NOT be parallel.
Boy, all that work to show me up, and you're still a douche. How do you feel about that?
08-31-07, 10:27 PM
#84
Super Snuggles
You still don't get it, do you?
The point wasn't whether or not the tie rod links and lower control arms are parallel, close to parallel, or nowhere near parallel. The point is that you can't arbitrarily change the location of the steering rack and just assume that you won't have bump steer without also changing the position of the tie rod ends (and as Rob so cleverly pointed out, the length of the linkage), which is what the OP originally stated, and what I challenged.
Furthermore, I don't give a flying **** if the link is exactly parallel with the lower control arm or not. It's close enough for illustration purposes. The picture wasn't posted to be taken as a pure representation of the FD's steering geometry. It was posted to be VISUALLY COMPARED TO A PICTURE OF AN FD WITH A RELOCATED STEERING RACK, if the OP (or anyone else) had one.
So you wasted a bunch of time mocking up a theoretical example, apparently to prove that tie rod links and control arms are never exactly parallel (especially when using highly exaggerated angles instead of a real-world example... gee, there's a surprise) and prove me wrong. Too bad you missed the whole ******* point in your enthusiasm to be right about something. Bravo!
08-31-07, 10:52 PM
#85
Displacement > Boost
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the contradiction in the quoted posts was not obvious, I guess I'll have to state it: you argue for the sake of pissing others off, even if it requires "adjusting" your stance on the issue of just what model of RX7 is considered a shitbox.
09-01-07, 01:00 AM
#86
Super Snuggles
The only contradiction is in your head. I stated that FDs are, with the exception of beat down and/or salvage title cars, usually quite a bit more expensive than FCs, and therefore most people are less inclined to cut them up.
Try reading it again. Use your brain this time.
"you're still talking about a car that you can pick up in decent condition for a couple thousand, five tops. You can't say the same for an FD, unless it has a sad history and a salvage title."
If you were to look through several years worth of my posts, you'd find that I've always considered the majority of the 3rd gen. RX-7s to be shitboxes. This is nothing new, and once again, irrelevant.
Go talk to Jesus or whatever it is you do when you're not wasting other people's time.
Try reading it again. Use your brain this time.
"you're still talking about a car that you can pick up in decent condition for a couple thousand, five tops. You can't say the same for an FD, unless it has a sad history and a salvage title."
you argue for the sake of pissing others off, even if it requires "adjusting" your stance on the issue of just what model of RX7 is considered a shitbox.
Go talk to Jesus or whatever it is you do when you're not wasting other people's time.
09-01-07, 02:08 AM
#87
I have no desire to argue over mundane details. Whether or not you need an extension obviously depends how much the rack is moved; not rocket science for anyone reading this thread. Hinson bump steer kits include shims and extensions, others don't. We all know this, it just needs to be said in plain English in case others don't.
09-01-07, 11:06 AM
#88
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, I expected that a man of your status and reputation would be man enough to acknowledge your arrogance and rudeness for assuming that I don't have the experience or knowledge with moving the steering rack on an FD. Arrogance is not only an act of self-inflating, but also the belittling of others based on faulse assumptions. Congratulations Jim you're a perfect fit. After you were obviously wrong about the following statements:
You conveniently dismissed and stopped mentioning it. That when I realized I've expected way too much out of you Jim, because you're nothing more than a typical forum troll - skipping all the points you were wrong about, not man enough to admit to your mistakes, and argue for the sake of arguing, just so you can get the last words on subject.
That pretty much sums up your maturity level Jim.
These statements shows just how ignorant and uneducated you are Jim. You obviously have never been through any formal math/physics/engineering training, otherwise you'd know that in the world of applied science, everything can be represented 2-dimensionally using simple lines, connections, and vectors. In fact, that's how everything is taught in school, with chulks and blackboards.
That seems to be your solution to everything Jim, by calling others a douche. I'm surprised that you've gotten this far in life with that kind of attitude.
Funny. I'm pretty sure the OP was about a 2JZGTE swap in an FD. Why is it that only you're allowed to change the point to bumpsteer correction, but your're not allowing me to change the point to jimlab is wrong and doesn't understand bumpsteer?
Wow, that is THE MOST childish way to admit to your mistake. Be a ******* man for once and be accountable for your words Jim. Grow the **** up.
Howi
Originally Posted by jimlab
Believe it or not, there's a logical reason for that. The 2JZ is longer and taller than just about anything else you might swap into the car, and some of us actually have first hand experience with how much room there is.
Originally Posted by jimlab
Possibly because you were talking about bump steer theory as if that explained everything, not bump steer as experienced by those who have actually moved the steering rack on an FD.
Originally Posted by jimlab
How about you try eating a nice big bag of warm ****, "Howi".
Originally Posted by jimlab
Oh God, Howi isn't going to be civil with me any longer.
Originally Posted by jimlab
It can be when your lines don't pass through the correct points.
BTW, Rob's example you're so impressed by is 2D geometry applied to a 3D image... not too ******* accurate, except for illustration purposes.
BTW, Rob's example you're so impressed by is 2D geometry applied to a 3D image... not too ******* accurate, except for illustration purposes.
Originally Posted by jimlab
Thanks, Mr. Wizard. I never would have guessed that on my own.
Boy, all that work to show me up, and you're still a douche. How do you feel about that?
Boy, all that work to show me up, and you're still a douche. How do you feel about that?
Originally Posted by jimlab
The point wasn't whether or not the tie rod links and lower control arms are parallel, close to parallel, or nowhere near parallel. The point is that you can't arbitrarily change the location of the steering rack and just assume that you won't have bump steer without also changing the position of the tie rod ends (and as Rob so cleverly pointed out, the length of the linkage), which is what the OP originally stated, and what I challenged.
Originally Posted by jimlab
Furthermore, I don't give a flying **** if the link is exactly parallel with the lower control arm or not. It's close enough for illustration purposes. The picture wasn't posted to be taken as a pure representation of the FD's steering geometry. It was posted to be VISUALLY COMPARED TO A PICTURE OF AN FD WITH A RELOCATED STEERING RACK, if the OP (or anyone else) had one.
So you wasted a bunch of time mocking up a theoretical example, apparently to prove that tie rod links and control arms are never exactly parallel (especially when using highly exaggerated angles instead of a real-world example... gee, there's a surprise) and prove me wrong. Too bad you missed the whole ******* point in your enthusiasm to be right about something. Bravo!
So you wasted a bunch of time mocking up a theoretical example, apparently to prove that tie rod links and control arms are never exactly parallel (especially when using highly exaggerated angles instead of a real-world example... gee, there's a surprise) and prove me wrong. Too bad you missed the whole ******* point in your enthusiasm to be right about something. Bravo!
Howi
09-01-07, 12:31 PM
#89
Super Snuggles
Gee, I thought it perfectly summed up how little respect I have for you or your opinions on this subject. On any subject, for that matter.
No, your response only serves to illustrate just how poor your reading comprehension really is.
Are you quite certain of that? Have you considered the possibility that no matter what you posted, I'd challenge it just to see you rant and rave?
Jesus, you're easily manipulated. Do you understand that I've been jerking you around since the very first post where I told you that you were wrong? Didn't that strike you as a little odd, since you posted a textbook description of bump steer? What I was really saying was "Just shut the **** up. I don't care."
Get a ******* clue. 
These statements shows just how ignorant and uneducated you are Jim. You obviously have never been through any formal math/physics/engineering training, otherwise you'd know that in the world of applied science, everything can be represented 2-dimensionally using simple lines, connections, and vectors.
I'm pretty sure the OP was about a 2JZGTE swap in an FD. Why is it that only you're allowed to change the point to bumpsteer correction, but your're not allowing me to change the point to jimlab is wrong and doesn't understand bumpsteer?
Jesus, you're easily manipulated. Do you understand that I've been jerking you around since the very first post where I told you that you were wrong? Didn't that strike you as a little odd, since you posted a textbook description of bump steer? What I was really saying was "Just shut the **** up. I don't care."
Grow the **** up.
09-01-07, 12:58 PM
#90
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love how you continue to dismiss the posts you were wrong about.
What does this have to do with anything Jim? It's funny how you think this is a valid arguement of any sort.
This is coming from a craddle builder who doesn't understand how bumpsteer works? I'm offended.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
This has GOT to be the best post you've ever made Jim!!! You're trying to convince me, that from the very first time I posted about bumpsteer in the other thread, you purposely made a mistake about how bumpsteer works, then purposely trash talked me, just to **** me off? HAHAHAHAHA!! OH NO!! I've fallen into a great giant masterplan set up by Jim!!! LMAO!!!
You fucked up. Admit it. Your arrogance told you to assume that I have no experience with the movement of steering rack. Your arrogance told you jimlab can not be wrong about bumpsteer because you must be correct 99.9% of the time. Your arrogance also told you to never be man enough to admit to your own fault.
You fucked up.
Howi
Originally Posted by jimlab
Gee, I thought it perfectly summed up how little respect I have for you or your opinions on this subject. On any subject, for that matter.
Originally Posted by jimlab
No, your response only serves to illustrate just how poor your reading comprehension really is.
Originally Posted by jimlab
Are you quite certain of that? Have you considered the possibility that no matter what you posted, I'd challenge it just to see you rant and rave?
Jesus, you're easily manipulated. Do you understand that I've been jerking you around since the very first post where I told you that you were wrong? Didn't that strike you as a little odd, since you posted a textbook description of bump steer? What I was really saying was "Just shut the **** up. I don't care."
Jesus, you're easily manipulated. Do you understand that I've been jerking you around since the very first post where I told you that you were wrong? Didn't that strike you as a little odd, since you posted a textbook description of bump steer? What I was really saying was "Just shut the **** up. I don't care."
This has GOT to be the best post you've ever made Jim!!! You're trying to convince me, that from the very first time I posted about bumpsteer in the other thread, you purposely made a mistake about how bumpsteer works, then purposely trash talked me, just to **** me off? HAHAHAHAHA!! OH NO!! I've fallen into a great giant masterplan set up by Jim!!! LMAO!!!
You fucked up. Admit it. Your arrogance told you to assume that I have no experience with the movement of steering rack. Your arrogance told you jimlab can not be wrong about bumpsteer because you must be correct 99.9% of the time. Your arrogance also told you to never be man enough to admit to your own fault.
You fucked up.
Howi
09-01-07, 09:19 PM
#93
Super Snuggles
09-02-07, 01:41 PM
#95
everyone in here needs to calm down with the insults. and yes Jim, when I say everybody i mean mostly you.
theres nothing wrong with debating or even disagreement but when ppl are intentionally trying to **** others off with thier posts or just flat out insulting them for no reason its gone too far.
so everybody, lets put the past posts in this thread behind us and just continue with a little more civility.
theres nothing wrong with debating or even disagreement but when ppl are intentionally trying to **** others off with thier posts or just flat out insulting them for no reason its gone too far.
so everybody, lets put the past posts in this thread behind us and just continue with a little more civility.
09-02-07, 11:40 PM
#96
Displacement > Boost
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 3,503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"you're still talking about a car that you can pick up in decent condition for a couple thousand, five tops. You can't say the same for an FD, unless it has a sad history and a salvage title."
If you were to look through several years worth of my posts, you'd find that I've always considered the majority of the 3rd gen. RX-7s to be shitboxes. This is nothing new, and once again, irrelevant.
If you were to look through several years worth of my posts, you'd find that I've always considered the majority of the 3rd gen. RX-7s to be shitboxes. This is nothing new, and once again, irrelevant.
1. The only contradiction is in your head.
2. Try reading it again. Use your brain this time.
3. Go talk to Jesus or whatever it is you do when you're not wasting other people's time.
2. Try reading it again. Use your brain this time.
3. Go talk to Jesus or whatever it is you do when you're not wasting other people's time.
I understand the pressure you put yourself under when you talk smack to the sea of dissenters, but do you really have to resort to flinging mud with me? I've been fairly straightforward with you.
09-03-07, 07:48 AM
#97
Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fellas, all this arguing is really pointless. I'm actually putting a 4G63 in FD right now. Here's the simpliest solution; leave the rack where it is and cut the damn hood. I seen hood scoops on ebay for like $30, nice sleek ones too. www.grannysspeedshop.com even sells a nice K member that leaves the rack where it is. Why is everyone so scared to cut the damn hood?
09-03-07, 04:48 PM
#98
Fellas, all this arguing is really pointless. I'm actually putting a 4G63 in FD right now. Here's the simpliest solution; leave the rack where it is and cut the damn hood. I seen hood scoops on ebay for like $30, nice sleek ones too. www.grannysspeedshop.com even sells a nice K member that leaves the rack where it is. Why is everyone so scared to cut the damn hood?
09-04-07, 10:56 AM
#99
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Mississauga, ON
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimlab
No, the words I live by are "in Canada, there are only two types of men; lumberjacks and limp-wristed *******." Do you cut wood for a living?
Originally Posted by classicauto
No. I own and operate a bodyshop called Classic Auto Body Inc. for a living.
I need to come by some time and have you paint my FD too, after seeing the marvelous work you did for our old man...
Originally Posted by SPEED_NYC
everyone in here needs to calm down with the insults. and yes Jim, when I say everybody i mean mostly you.
theres nothing wrong with debating or even disagreement but when ppl are intentionally trying to **** others off with thier posts or just flat out insulting them for no reason its gone too far.
so everybody, lets put the past posts in this thread behind us and just continue with a little more civility.
theres nothing wrong with debating or even disagreement but when ppl are intentionally trying to **** others off with thier posts or just flat out insulting them for no reason its gone too far.
so everybody, lets put the past posts in this thread behind us and just continue with a little more civility.
09-05-07, 05:13 PM
#100
grease monkey
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: sarasota
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
question
can anybody answer this question without ripping my head off for not allready knowing?... ...jk
what is the weight of the engine and trannys of each ?
13b tt-
2jz 6 spd-
ls1 6 spd-
i suppose retaining the 50/50 balance is going to not be possible if the swaps are to heavy right?....not enough things to take out of the front end i would think.
i want my cake and i want to eat it too!!!...lol
...jkwhat is the weight of the engine and trannys of each ?
13b tt-
2jz 6 spd-
ls1 6 spd-
i suppose retaining the 50/50 balance is going to not be possible if the swaps are to heavy right?....not enough things to take out of the front end i would think.
i want my cake and i want to eat it too!!!...lol