Wow a comprehensive answer - Thank You I wonder what Steve Millen would of thought of the spec 8, hold on your not THE Steve are you.
Even better - Here is a Wheels review of September 1995. Here is the article: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Have a close read of the bottom left of page 4. The answer you need is there! This is still not the article I remember (sure it was Modern Motor) which I think has more details. I'll find that and scan & post it too!
Yes, finally located the article in the Sept 1995 "Motor" (they'd dropped the "Modern" by then). I have only scanned the specs page so far, but I'll scan the rest later as it's a good read. 17 x 9" wheels both ends are confirmed as standard, yet again! Page 6
OK - here's the rest of the Sept 95 Motor article comparing the 1969 240z against the Australian market 1995 25th Anniversary Stillen special. Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 (repeated for convenience) The history of the 240z tested is quite interesting.... Enjoy
Thanks for the articles John, the biggest difference to my info is the amount of lowering - which may mean that the original US spec Z32 was lower than ours to begin with. The American article I have states the SMZ was dropped by 3/4", backed up by Steven's SMZ info, while the Wheels article states ours was dropped by 35mm, about double.
Thanks also, It just doesnt look that low in the pictures (35mm), maybe I'm comparing to cars with sagged suspension
Probably because Noltec (and others) copied these adjustable arms(a brief SEARCH should reveal a huge number of threads concerning this subject)and unleashed a string of very serious metal fatigue failures ranging from bent arms to completely broken in half items(here in Aust), hence the switch to alternate styles, and the ongoing research being carried out by the boys at UAS in Sydney.
i'd heard of noltec before but never searched for them or saw a picture in my brief time. But I had heard about the metal fatigue and subsequent failures, though for some reason I presumed these arms that were spoken about were the same as current designs (with the exception of the new UAS pivoting arms). I stand corrected. For some reason I thought these would be more effective, although the adjustable bit looks weak I guess. :zlove:
There were reported failures in both the Noltec "Stillen style" arms and several "Midori style" copies as well. When JP at UAS entered the contest(as a result of several failed Noltecs that were returned to him, and subsequently to Noltec) his early arms also showed signs of distortion on some cars(mine included). This is what set him on the path to building what hopefully will prove to be a much needed and improved trouble-free adjustable upper arm. This is the path we follow when trying to improve on "stock/factory" items.:zlove:
It is also interesting to note that the current style available from Stillen is also a different design. No idea whether this was prompted by failures. Whilst I was an unfortunate victim of the Noltec failure, I had not heard of any failures of Stillen units.
I have a set and have had them on the car for around 8 years now. Never had a problem with them, but did find them a little tricky to adjust.
Well it has reappeared with a fresh paint job but with a price much lower then I expected. Windscreen stickers the same, battery the same all be it a bit cleaner http://www.carsales.com.au/all-cars...&tsrc=allcarhome&__Nne=15&trecs=139&silo=1011
Does anyone know anything more about this car like its history or anything? By the looks of it it has previously taken some damage to the back right end. Also I noticed in the magazine review they are reviewing a red 95 anniversary moel. With only 40 coming into the country, what are the chances that is an ex-press car (ie. been flogged for the first 100 000 or so kays of its life)?
The ausspec version did but we never got the TT version and most of the suspension add ons or interior carbon fiber pieces.
