74_5.0L_Z

What type of distributor/ignition do you have? I have had similar problems to yours when using an old optically fired ignition. The problem was caused when the rotor tip was not properly aligned with the contacts in the distributor cap. At idle it would run fine, then as the engine was placed under a load (and the distributor advanced) the engine would run terribly. You can get into this scenario with crank fired ignitions and other types of ignition that use a distribitor. The way to diagnose this is to rotate the engine by hand with the key ON (ignition energized but not the starter), the distributor cap off, and find where the ignition fires. Mark that point on the distributor housing, and verify that the center of the desired cylinder's electrode on the cap is properly aligned with the leading edge of the rotor tip. If the trailing edge of the rotor is at (or slightly past) the edge of the electrode, then you will have problems when then distributor advances. On small diameter caps, the advancing distributor can cause the distributor to fire the wrong cylinder. Have you checked your timing at 3500 rpms? Is it stable?

When I built my replacement frame rails, I moved my T/C pivot up 3/4" and out 1/4" to mimic the relocation of the LCA pivot point. I replaced the entire front frame with 2.5" square tubing per the original frame dimensions (except the T/C pivot point. I made my clevises from 2" x 3" x 3/16" rectangular tubing. I scribed the outline on one side and located the holes, and had my buddy at the machine shop cut them out. The part that overhangs the inboard side of the frame rails is gusseted from above. I made a fixture to locate the clevises for welding. My reasoning was the same as yours: I didn't want to design an anti-anti-dive front suspension:)

The problem that you are encountering is one of the reasons that I don't like using the lower control arms to adjust camber. I use the camber plates for that. On my car, I have done the front crossmember mod(relocated the hole for the LCA up 3/4" and out 1/4"). This, with the stock length lower control arms, pretty much eliminated bump steer. As a side effect however, it also pretty much decoupled the camber and toe of the car (when adjusting using camber plates). By that, I mean that I can change the camber with very little effect on the toe. On a car where you adjust camber using the lower control arm, you have to realign the toe for even a slight camber adjustment. At one time, I had the eccentric bushing to adjust my front camber. I replaced them after one of the eccentrics rotated during an autocross event. My car all of a sudden went from 2 degree negative camber and 1/8" toe out to 0.5 degrees positive camber (on the RF wheel) and 3/4" toe out. These of course are my own personal opinions, and as such are no better than those of anyone else. Dan

I am glad that you are making some progress, but I see at least one thing that would spoil the final product (for me at least). That C-4 transmission will drive you nuts because it has no overdrive. If you are going to be driving this car on the highway at all, find a transmission that has an overdrive gear, or you will HATE it. My car has the 5.0L and T5 from an 89 Mustang cop car. I am running 3.55 gears, and 245/45/16 tires all the way around. With this combination, 2500 rpms in 5th gear (0.68 to 1) equals 76 mph and 5500 rpms equals 167 mph. In 4th gear 2500 rpms is 51 mph and 5500 rpm is 114 mph. Do you really want to rev that high on the highway? Do you want to be limited to about 120mph? If not, find a transmission with an overdrive. The overdrive will also save gas and reduce the wear on your engine.

My current set-up is pretty mild. I have Edelbrock Performer 5.0 Heads, 1.72 roller rockers, 24# injectors, C&L 73mm MAF, Cobra Intake, Crower 15511 hydraulic roller cam, BBK 65mm TB. The bottom end is bone stock as I recieved it out of a junk yard in 2000. I only replaced the oil pump. I have never even looked at the bearings. On the shelf, I have a PerformerRPM intake and some 30# injectors. I am wanting to put together a 331 stroker with some more compresion and a small solid roller cam (~.600 lift). Before then I am building some custom long tube headers and possibly a custom upper intake. I am contemplating a chip or getting the tweecer RT set-up. By the way, where in central florida are you? We ought to get together. Dan

I am running the stock 5.0L computer(A9P)and wiring harness from a 1993 Mustang. It was really not very hard to wire up. I had expected the installation to be difficult, so I bought Charles Probst's book about Ford EEC-IV fuel injection (great book), and learned all that I could before attempting the install. In hindsight, hooking up the fuel injection has been one of the easiest parts of building my car. If you look back at some of my earliest posts(circa 2000), I gave many of the details for the installation. I love my fuel injection set-up. The Mass Air version from 1989-1993 adapts automatically to most engine modifications.

I too use the Tilton hydraulic TOB and King Cobra clutch. I have about $400.00 in the TOB including a Tilton 7/8" master cylinder. You can see the specifics of my clutch set-up here: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=87797&highlight=Tilton Mike, how have you been? I haven't heard from you in a while. Are you still in the brake business?

Spend the money for a good set of heads. You get more bang for the buck on heads than any other modification. When I upgraded from my stock E7TE heads to the Edelbrock 6037 heads, I gained 10 mph in the quarter mile and dropped nearly a full second (13.20 @ 103 to 12.42 @ 113). I wish that I had spent a bit more and got the AFR 185 heads. The ported explorer heads won't get you the results that you are after. Heads are the first and most important choice for making power. Without a good set of heads, the rest of the modifications are pointless.

I built my tube front end with two criteria: First, I wanted it to be light and strong. Second, I wanted to use the stock (sort of) suspension attach points. Here is my take on it as stated in this thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=102715 " My strut bar and the two tubes connecting the main hoop to the strut bar are 1.625 x 0.083. The main hoop, the diagonal, and the bars from the top of the main hoop to the strut bar are 1.625 x 0.120. All of the tubing is 4130N (normalized chromoloy) and is TIG welded. My door bars are 1.625 x 0.120, the hoop at the firewall is 1.625 x 0.083, and most of the front end tubing is 1.625 x 0.065. My subframe is 2.5" square x 0.085 mild steel. All of the tube not specifically designated in this picture are 1.625 x 0.065 " I like to use several thin wall tubes arranged in triangles rather than put a thicker tube in bending. When I cut off the front of the car, I weighed all of the pieces (frame rails, inner fenders, strut towers, radiator core support, etc.). The stock pieces minus the fenders, hood, and headlight buckets weighed 95 lbs. The structure that I replaced it with weighs 45lbs, and is much stronger and stiffer than the stock front end. If you are interested, there are more photos of my cage/front end in my album. By the way, I was inspired by the work of tube80z when I began my tube chassis design. I have since lost the link that showed pictures of his tube chassis.

John, I am building a front belly pan that (so far) looks very similar to yours. I have a few questions. Was your pan level with the ground? Was the pan even with the lowest point of the front crossmember? What would you do differently to prevent it from producing lift? I do know that the latest vettes redesigned their front pan with holes in front of the tires. In the initial design, the high pressure in front of the tires was causing lift. In the redesign, they put the inlets for the front brake cooling ducts in the pan in front of the tires and killed two birds with one stone: they ducted the brakes from a high pressure area, and relieved the pressure from below the pan (reducing lift). I was thinking of starting with a pan similar to yours and adding vents ala C6 vette. Any opinions or suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks, Dan

Why would you ever need to launch at 3000 rpms unless you have slicks:shock: . My wimpy (300rwhp) car gets launched at ~1600, and then feathered to keep from losing traction. A 3000 rpm launch is like taking a sledge hammer to your gears, and will only result in spinning tires if you don't have slicks. That being said, my best friends NHRA superstock leaves the line at 4500 on the transbrake, and runs high 1.3 seconds 60' times with the front tires in the air. To do that you will need slicks, and something stronger than an R200.

When you put your hand over the carb you are choking the death out of it . As the piston goes down you are creating a heck of a vacuum at the carb and pulling in a bunch of fuel. After 3 or 4 pulls you have enough fuel in the exhaust to combust, and it goes boom. This would also suggest that the ignition is firing on the exhaust stroke, or late in the power stroke after the exhaust valve has begun to open.

My 260Z with 300+ rwhp and a 5.0L EFI motor gets about 21 mpg on the highway. My engine has the stock 1989 bottom end with a bazillion miles on it, has edlbrock aluminum heads, Crower 15511 cam, Cobra intake 24# injectors, 73mm MAF, Ford Motorsport 1.72:1 roller rockers(E351). The key to getting good milage is an overdrive transmission (T5), and reasonable gear ratio. I have the 3.545 gear now and will soon be running the 3.36. With the rear current gear ratio and 24.7" tall tires, the car runs at 2300 rpm at 70 mph in fifth gear(0.680:1). Without the overdrive, my rpms would be 3400 at 70 mph(ugh!). After I switch to the 3.36 rear gear, 70mph will be at 2200 rpms and 160mph will be at 5000 rpms in fifth:twisted: . Right now, with the 3.545 rear end, I never use 1st gear on the street. It is too short, and the torque of the 5.0L makes it very comfortable to take off in second gear. The 3.36 rear gear should make first gear more streetable.

What if we declare HybridZ a religion? Can we get tax breaks? Does that make SuperDan the pope(or head shaman)? JohnC, BlueOvalZ, Mikelly, etc... can be bishops. What do you think? Donations are being accepted to my Temple of Z:)

I love Fords, but I am slightly biased. I have owned the following: 1966 mustang fastback 1965 mustang coupe 1970 Mach 1 I currently drive a 1995 Ford Ranger (2.3L) that has never given me any problems even though I abuse it like an ugly step child. My wife currently drives a 2005 Mustang V6. Even though this is a V6 it runs very strong. Of course my favorite Ford is my 1974 5.0L powered 260Z. The engine came out of a wrecked 1989 highway patrol mustang with a bazillion miles on it. Since installing this engine 5+ years ago, I have never even looked at the bearings or rings. I have installed Edelbrock aluminum heads, a crower 15511 cam, FMS 1.72 roller lifters, Cobra intake, 24# injectors, 73mm MAF. The car has made ~75 1/4 mile passes (best of 12.42 @ 113), has made several hundred autocross runs, and has been driven several thousand miles without any engine related problems. Do I love my Fords? HELL YES:-D

When I made my new front frame rails, I retained the stock sway bar mounting point. I want something a bit more resilient than the stock nut plate so here is what I did: I drilled 1/2" holes through the entire frame, then inserted a 1/2" OD (3/8" ID) tube through the frame and weld it flush on both sides. Then I inserted 3/8" Grade 8 bolts and washers all the way through the frame to hold the sway bar. You can just see the heads of the bolts in this picture.

We discussed this at length in this thread: http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=102881

Scottie, On my buddy's superstock, we found that the cheap shoes held much better than the more expensive ones on the line. We still sometimes had trouble with the car creeping through the beams. We have since switched to a trans-brake. Didn't you use a trans-brake on the old Z? Nothing beats them for launching the car, but they are hard on parts.

I have been toying with the idea of building a front crossmember as described by TUBE80Z, and toying with anti-dive. When I relocated my LCA pivots up 3/4" and out 1/4", I also relocated the T/C pivots by the same amount. Unfortunately, I am near the limit for relocating the T/C upward without interfering with the frame. I wish that I had designed my front frame differently. If I were to do it again, I would have the frame rails below the LCA pivot until just forward of the crossmember. But alas....

I looked at the page that you referred to and sure enough it states the following for cars 2001-3500 lb: 1.750 x 0.120--------------mild steel 1501-2500 lb-------------1.625 x .095------Alloy Steel BTW, I have looked at the pictures of your cage. NICE WORK! Some of us are just anal about weight. My main hoop and other "required" tubes are 1.625 x 0.120 (4130). All of the optional tubing is either 1.625 x 0.083 or 1.625 x 0.065. If I had it to do again, I would have used 0.095 rather than 0.120 for my main hoop. One of my favorite things about this site is the way each of us arrive at different solutions to the same problem. I look forward to watching the progress on your car. Jon had a concern about using 1.5 x 0.120 and wall thickness. Section 18.1 allows for 0.010" below nominal thickness. So as long as you stay above .110 you're golden. Dan

I just looked at my SCCA GCR (2004) section 18.1. It states: Minimum tubing sizes for (all shoroom stock, Touring and Improved Touring Category automobiles registered after June 1, 1994) for all required cage elements (All dimensions in inches): Up to 1500 lbs--------------------1.375 x 0.095 DOM/Seamless/Alloy 1501 to 2200 lbs-----------------1.500 x 0.095 DOM/Seamless/Alloy 2201 to 3000 lbs-----------------1.500 x 0.120 DOM/Seamless/Alloy ------------------------------------1.625 x 0.120 DOM/Seamless/Alloy ------------------------------------1.750 x 0.095 DOM/Seamless/Alloy It also states that ERW is not allowed in any car registered with SCCA after01/01/2003. Weights are without driver and fuel.

Here is how I removed the stuff from the inside of my car: I used a wide metal scraper and a hair dryer. Simply put the scraper against a free edge of the material at a low angle of attack, and apply a little force. Simultaneously, heat the material just ahead of the scraper until it just begins to soften. As soon as the stuff starts to soften, the blade of the scraper will easily slide between the metal and the black goo. Using this method, I was able to remove all of the material from the inside of my car in about two hours. Things to remember: Keep the blade as flat as possible. Don't heat the stuff to a liquid. Just apply enough heat to soften it up. If you liquify it, you will have a gooey mess. After you are finished with the scraper, you will still have a light residue of the black tar. This will wipe off quite easily with mineral spirits. After you wipe it with mineral spirits, rewipe with a paint prep solvent, and you will be ready for paint. PS. This method also works for removing under coating.

My strut bar and the two tubes connecting the main hoop to the strut bar are 1.625 x 0.083. The main hoop, the diagonal, and the bars from the top of the main hoop to the strut bar are 1.625 x 0.120. All of the tubing is 4130N (normalized chromoloy) and is TIG welded. My door bars are 1.625 x 0.120, the hoop at the firewall is 1.625 x 0.083, and most of the front end tubing is 1.625 x 0.065. My subframe is 2.5" square x 0.085 mild steel. All of the tube not specifically designated in this picture are 1.625 x 0.065