74_5.0L_Z

Go to this link and scroll down: http://www.kevko.net/ford.htm They make about any pan you like. I had them make a custom 6.5" deep front sump road race pan for my car.

The weight transfer worksheet is an implementation of the Total Lateral Load Transfer Distribution (TLLTD) material presented in Race Car Vehicle Dynamics (RCVD) by Milliken. In the text (chapters 16 and 18) Milliken states the basic relationships between spring rates, motion ratios, static weight distribution, track width, and other vehicle variables to the TLLTD in a steady state corner. Within the text, are some suggested starting points for setting up a car that will be driven on a road course type circuit. On page 605, the following recommendations were given: (begin quote) Ride Frequencies: Non-Aero Sedan________________1.6 to 2.0 Hz (with front higher) Aero Cars _____________________3.0 to 5.0 Hz (with front higher) Roll Gains: Sedans________________________1.0 - 1.8 deg / g Aero Cars______________________0.25-0.5 deg / g TLLTD's To insure initial understeer, calculate the TLLTD to be 5% more than the weight distribution at the front. (end quote) What this is telling you is that if you have 50% of your weight on the front tires, then the front suspension should supply ~55% of the total roll stiffness. Remember, these are only suggested starting points for road racing cars. Cars intended for other purposes (like autocross) will use slightly different values (My car is set up with 2.5Hz frequencies, and Cary and others are exceeding 3 Hz frequencies). There are a couple of weight transfer worksheets available. The one that we keep referring to is marketed by Smithees out of Australia. As far as I can tell, this worksheet directly implements the gospel according the Milliken. The WTW provides a very user friendly worksheet to input the vehicle parameters. The worksheet then provides a "magic number", which is the difference between the static front weight percentage and the percentage of the roll resistance provided by the front suspension. If the number is greater than 5%, the prediction is that the car will tend more toward understeer, and if the number is less than 5% then the car will tend more toward oversteer. Although this tool isn't exact (because of inaccuracies in user measurements), it is a great tool for visualizing the effect of suspension changes like spring rates and roll centers.

Black plastic. It comes in 24" wide rolls. I got mine from Coleman Racing.

Thanks, The car cools very well. It never gets hotter than 190 F. When I dynoed the car a few months back, the car was on the dyno for two hours and never got hot. Here is a link to the bodywork construction thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=121617&highlight=emulates&page=3

As promised, here are some photos showing the fender installation: The first picture shows the car as it is today (with the hood removed). In the picture, you can see the 1 x 0.058" tube that connect the two fenders. The brackets on the end of the tube are constructed of 1/8" plate welded to 1.125 x 0.058" tubing that slide over the transverse tube. The next four picture show the hinges and front structure during the construction phase two years ago. In this picture, you can see the hinges of course. The hinges were made by slipping two pieces of the 1.125 x 0.058' tubing over the transverse tube and welding two lengths of 1 x 0.035" tubing. Each piece of the 1 x 0.035" tubing has two dzus bracket welded to retain the hood. The small diameter black tube with the rod ends has since been deleted (it was only there for alignment during welding). In these pictures, yo can also see where I had to massage the inner mounting flange of the fenders to clear the strut tower structure. I only removed enough material to clear. When I was making the front fender supports, I was trying to come up with a structure that could be used to pull the car off the track if required, but that would also give in that event of an accident without affecting the suspension attach points. I apologize for the size of the pictures, but it is easier to see the detail in the bigger pictures.

When I finished mine, I added some lightweight tubes (1 x 0.058") that have mounting tabs at the front of the headlight buckets. When I get home tonight, I'll see if I have any pictures. Basically, the rear of the front fenders mount to the stock locations at the cowl and rocker panel, the front of the fender is attached by some light weight tubing, and the middle of the fender lip rests on the structure of the strut tower (with a piece of rubber sandwiched between).

The machinist did not make any comment with regards to the harmonic balancer. He balanced the rotating assembly by taking some weight out of the center counterweights and a little weight out of the flywheel (I didn't notice the flywheel until I got home). The balancer runs true, and suprisingly the "0" mark was perfectly aligned with the pointer at TDC (I checked the alignment using a piston stop). This is actually the second Romac balancer that I have had. The first was an 0241SA/50 which has a 50 in-oz imbalance to match the stock 5.0L engine. It was on the stock bottom end for about the last 2500 miles or so and was a huge improvement over the stock balancer. When I built the new bottom end, I required a balancer with 28 in-oz of imbalance to match the new rotating assembly. So, being happy with the Romac on the old engine, I purchased one for the new engine (P/N 0241SA/28). If anyone is interested, I have the old Romac (P/N 0241SA/50) for sale for $200.00 + shipping. These are $350.00 new from DSS.

If I remember correctly, the koni 8610's are self limiting in droop. I don't think any shock is designed to bottom out in bump.

To some degree yes. In my front setup, the koni 8610-1437 struts are all the way in the bottom of the strut housing, and the strut housing has been sectioned to fit. Now, with car sitting on the ground at nominal ride height, this places the strut at about mid-stroke (~3" exposed). With my 450 #/inch springs, they will be compressed about 1.5" while sitting there. So, when I jack up the font of the car, the strut will extend 1.5" before the spring comes off its seat, and then another 1.5" before the strut limits travel. If I had softer springs, lets say 225#/inch, then the spring would compress about 3 inches under the weight of the car, and the spring would not come loose when the car is jacked up. For my application, I want the 450 lb/inch springs, and I want to have 3 inches available for bump travel (even though I will only use about 2"). So in order to keep the springs from coming loose when I jack up the car, I have straps on my front suspension that limit the droop travel such that the springs remain lightly loaded at full droop. On the rear of the car, the struts were sectioned a little more than they should have been. The result is that I lost about an inch of droop travel. So at nominal ride height, about 4 inches of the strut shaft is exposed. I have more weight on the rear and 425# springs. The result is that the rear springs are lightly loaded at full droop, so I do not need a rear limit strap. If I were to up the spring rates, or lower the nominal ride height, I would need rear limit straps. There are other ways that I could have accomplished this. Namely, I could use a light weight tender spring.

For the sake of comparison, I weighed the doors from my 260Z while they were off. Complete with glass, regulator and inner door panel they weighed 68 pounds. I just cant bring myself to gut my 260Z doors because they are in perfect condition, and I also like being able to wash the car without washing the interior at the same time. I have often pondered finding some early 240Z doors and putting them on my 260Z. Just switching to the early doors would save 40 pounds off the car.

The rod you are referring to is called a turnbuckle, and it is composed of several parts: 1. The ends are called spherical rod ends. For a turnbuckle, you need two. One has right hand threads, and the other has left hand threads. 2. The central tube is threaded. One end is threaded for right hand threads, and the other for left hand threads. 3. Two lock nuts, one with left hand threads and one with right hand threads. These keep the turnbuckle from rotating after you get it adjusted. Typically, the only places to get this stuff is through racing and aircraft supply businesses. I typically order my rod ends through Aircraft spruce, the Chassis Shop, or Coleman Machine Racing. Each of these companies can supply all of the parts you need to make your tensioner. Once you buy anything from these companies, you will start getting their paper catalogs in the mail. Their catalogs are just filled with parts that will let you do just about anything that you can dream up (and afford). It is apparent to me from your posts that you are fairly new to the fabricating parts and/or playing with cars. Do yourself a favor and read some of the following: Design to Win (Carroll Smith) Tune to Win (Carroll Smith) Bolts, Fasteners, and Plumbing Handbook (Carroll Smith) The last book is especially useful for showing you the proper way to bolt things together (and have them not self destruct).

There are several problems that you run into when trying to mix and match pulleys and water pumps from the older 302 and the newer 5.0L. First, the older 302 used a different bolt pattern for the crank pulley. The 1968 through some time in the 1980's used a 3 bolt pattern, and the 1982 -1995 5.0L used a 4 bolt pulley. Unfortunately, you can't just get a harmonic damper from an old 302 and put it on a 5.0L because the two motors are balanced differently (the 302 had 28 in-oz imbalance, and the 5.0L has 50 in-oz imbalance). There are aftermarket harmonic balancers available that let you use three bolt pulleys and are balanced for the later 5.0L. Second, the older 302 has a different timing chain cover. This you can get and put on the newer engines. You would then also get the matching water pump. Actually, there are a myriad of water pumps of different lengths and varying inlet positions to choose from. This sounds like a good thing, but it just complicates matters. The trick is to find pulleys that will bolt up to your water pump, harmonic damper, and alternator, and bracketry that will put everything in proper alignment. This can be a real pain. Here is the point: Buy a complete pre-engineered set-up. You can go junk yard shopping if you want. You might get lucky and find a late model (~1988 I think) Crown Victoria that had a forward rotation water pump, the correct pulleys, and bracketry (good luck). If you find a car that has the set-up that you want, make sure that you get everything (all pulleys and all brackets) Or, you could call a company like March Performance and buy a complete set of pulleys and brackets that will align everything properly and look good. Unfortunately, their stuff isn't cheap (but sure is pretty). You asked the following regarding the valve covers, "also would drilling a hole in the stock valve and putting a breather work?" The problem with just drilling a hole is that there will not be a baffle between the breather and the rocker arms. The baffle acts as an oil/air seperator. Without the baffle, you will have an oily mess.

When you are done you really want to end up with one of the two types of set-ups: 1. PCV in one valve cover, and breather on the other. or, 2. Breathers in both valve covers. Since you are in California, I am guessing that you need to opt for the first option. As far as a tensioner for the belt, you can get away with making your own. I did just that with my set-up, and it works great.

The EFI 302 has the PCV valve at the back of the intake, and the breather plumbed from the passenger side valve cover to the throttle body. The older carbureted 302 engines had the PVC valve at the rear of the passenger side valve cover and a vented oil filler cap on the driver side valve cover. In both cases, vacuum from the intake pulls vapors from the crank case while fresh air is drawn in through the breather. This is a good thing for emissions and for the longevity of the engine. There are a variety of valve covers available. Try and find a set that has a PCV provision on one side and a breather provision on the other. Also, a quality set will have baffles below the holes for the pcv and breather. The baffles reduce the amount of oil that get into the intake through the PCV valve prevents the breather from getting saturated by oil thrown off of the rocker arms. I am kind of fond of these: http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=6147 Also, if you read this thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=139751 we discussed water pumps and belts.

It is just a plain old Ford EEC-IV (A9P) processor with all of the factory sensors. The only changes are that I am using a C&L Mass Air Meter with a calibration tube that matches the 30# injectors, and an adjustable fuel pressure regulator.

One of these days, I hope to find out how this engine responds to more cam and some better heads. First however, I want to back up the current dyno numbers with a trip to the quarter mile. Dyno numbers are just numbers until you see a matching mph in the quarter.

Here are the specs on the cam that is installed: http://www.crower.com/misc/cam_spec/cam_finder.php?part_num=15511 The specs listed are for 1.60 rocker arms, but I am running 1.72:1. Therefore, my lift is 0.522/0.503, and my duration is a little increased. This cam is on the small side for my engine, and, I would like to replace it one day. If I stick with a hydraulic roller set-up, I was thinking of using one of these: http://www.crower.com/misc/cam_spec/cam_finder.php?part_num=15512 http://www.crower.com/misc/cam_spec/cam_finder.php?part_num=15513 Even better, I would like to ditch the hydraulic roller and switch to a mechanical roller set-up. Unfortunately, that gets into a lot more money.

No, I am just using a stock 5.0L block. For the power that I am making and am likely to make in the forseeable future, the stock block is sufficient. Also the stock block is considerably lighter than any of the sturdier replacements.

Old engine: 1989 5.0L engine from highway patrol mustang. I got this engine from a junkyard and installed it and the T5 transmission in my car in 2000. When initially installed in my car, the engine was completely stock and had at least 100,000 miles. In completely stock form, the car ran 13.50's at 100mph. I started adding parts after about a year of daily driving. First, I added Ford motorsport 1.72:1 roller rockers, 24# injectors and 73mm MAF. This got the car to 13.20's at 103 mph. Then I added a Cobra Intake, Edelbrock Performer Heads, Crower 15511 cam, and 65mm TB. This got the car to 12.40 at 113 mph. All of this on the stock (100,000 mile plus) bottom end. I drove it this way for about 6 years during which the car saw ~10,000 street miles, ~100 drag strip passes, and about 250 autocross runs. This is the car with the old engine back in november: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HrbHKZyRNo&feature=channel_page Lately, the engine was starting to sound like a lot of loose parts flying in close formation. It rattled a little on start-up, but still ran well, still had good oil pressure, but was starting to smoke a little. So I thought it was time for a new bottom end. New engine: New Ford 5.0L block with stock 4.000 bore. Scat cast steel 3.25 inch stroke crank and 5.400 rods. Mahle 10.3:1 compression forged pistons, rings and pins Fidanza aluminum flywheel Romac Light weight Damper main stud girdle The whole rotating assembly has been dynamically balanced. The heads, cam, and rocker arms are the same parts used on the old engine. I replaced the cobra intake, 65mm TB, and 24# injectors with a Performer RPM intake, 70mm TB, and 30# injectors. I replaced the calibration tube in my 73mm MAF to match the new injectors. The engine is still breathing through the same crappy block hugger headers and exhaust as before. The heads, cam, and exhaust are probably restricting the new engine from making more power, but I don't know that I will be able to use much more for autocross anyways.

It will be a little more interesting to autocross than before (it was already a handful). My goal is to have a car that kicks butt in Autocross and that will run 120 mph in the quarter mile. I'll find out soon if I can get the 120 mph run. With the old motor and ~300 whp I ran 113mph through the quarter. With the new engine's dyno numbers, I'm predicting 121 mph in the quarter. The car was already a pretty good autocross weapon with the old engine, and lack of power was never a concern. I will have to adapt to the new engine and also get some bigger tires. Sometime around April, I plan to switch from my current Hoosier 245/45/16 A6's to some 275/35/15 A6's.

The "search" is your friend. This thread is a sticky in the Drivetrain section of our site: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=113179&highlight=pull+type+slave