bogus wrote:
What I am going to do is get a small 10 port maxifuse panel that I can then convert all my links over with.

GM did this in 94 or 95 with the Vette anyway, and all cars today use them...

I will keep searching!

gman35 wrote:
Does anyone have or know of any images of a x frame brace that are installe on c4 corvette convertibles.

corvetteronw wrote:
No harm meant. That's what you get when you are ex Army and don't know squat about the Navy.
I already had a quote on the part from Vette2Vette of $23 so I didn't want to bother Dino. I think I have met him at Corvette shows and he is an intense dude who does not like to put up with people wasting his time.

corvetteronw wrote:
Sending PM.
Thanks Boats I will just buy Andy's.

corvetteronw wrote:
Congratulations. Now we need to hear some war stories. Except I know many of them are still classified.
If you, in any way, had something to do with the demise of Bin Laden then we thank you !!!!

rklessdriver wrote:
I absolutely think reinstalling the spare tire carrier woul be better.... just look at the underside of the rear bumper and quarter pannels.... nothing but a big box.
Will

jesters94 wrote:
Mike, thank you for your service! May you have fair winds and following seas and my your transition go smooth!

Good luck in your future endeavors!

BTW I have 9 months until I can retire!

BrianCunningham wrote:
[ahem]assuming this is for sanctioned events[/ahem]

there are things you can do for lower drag, some of which also reduce what down force you already have

I've actually worked on land speed Bonneville cars
I've also word on a car that did 85mph on 5hp (electric)

You need to take a look at the rules as to what you can do
you're better of with a more aerodynamic coupe

Here a Bonneville C4 ZR-1 that did 224mph

http://m.corvetteforum.com/c4-zr-1-di ... e-project-up-date-23.html

bogus wrote:
Well... this is a good question.

Aero mods are not really designed to make you go faster, they are designed to make you stick to the road better... which increases cornering speeds and stability.

And F1 car so much downforce, that the drag is killer! The act of letting off the gas has the effect of 1g worth of braking.

If you want faster, then you need to think about drag removal... Lowering the front end, deeper front air deflectoers, some kind of REAL rear diffuser, a real rear wing that will push the car down in the back.

You will also have to get rid of the air in the front. A high rise hood will help with that.

And if done wrong, you will slow down...

Aero control is as much about moving air, but where you want to move the air too.

Having listened to a lot of Doug Fehan's presentations over the years, they get aero advantage when they can improve cornering speed and such...

There are some good books are aero considerations... I will check my library for titles.

BillH wrote:
For high speed Mike?

First I have to ask (no offense), How often do you plan to go over 130?

Kudos for wanting to improve your car but the areo stuff doesn't work without doing the whole package. I.E.. putting an air dam or spoiler on the front will reduce the air going under the car but it will also increase drag,
And putting just the spoiler on will have the affect on the rear of taking weight off (stability loss).

Are you looking for faster MPH at a given RPM or are you looking for stability at higher speeds?

If it's stability, work on the suspension, you'll get way more bang for the buck.

The areo stuff that's out there isn't going to do much, doubtful that you'll even be able to notice the difference.

An example would be my 92, soft,base suspension with KYB's.
I run 125 on the straights, tap the brake and turn into S-bends at 110-115. The car floats a lot, a lot.
Areo mods won't help that at all, suspension mods will.

bogus wrote:
lotsa work just to get to that point.

Almost makes taking the engine out easy.

Calm wrote:
Quote:

woody3882 wrote:
I can see doing it with the alternator off if you have an electric water pump, but doesn't the water overheat with no belt on the water pump.
Woody

No, that's the thing with our LT1's....the pump is gear driven.

bogus wrote:
And $1400 to swap an opti seems steep to me.

CentralCoaster wrote:
I'd have to get another C4 and steal any good parts off mine. But I might pick up a '58 Chevy del ray first. Basically a poor man's impala, and a better/unique looking car compared to the 55-57.

BrianCunningham wrote:
He's talking about the clocking of the mount, not the actual balancer

bogus wrote:
Brian...

You mark the arrow on the hub to the balancer.

Remove the balancer and then mark the hub to the timing cover.

.

bogus wrote:
sorry... you can mount the balancer on the hub anywhere... Unless the bolts are different, I was able to spin the balancer all the way around the hub.

I mark both, it's easier to see in the dark!!

Matatk wrote:
Quote:

1Fast04Vert wrote:
Pretty sure the 96 knock sensors are not compatible with earlier year ECM/PCMs. I am positive the LT4 sensors are one year only, not sure about LT1 sensors.

I have no experience with them, but read that the LT4 is less sensitive because GM put in roller rockers, etc, and it seems to be a common upgrade when changing to noisier components:

http://www.ls1.com/forums/f37/lt1-lt4-knock-sensor-129128/