jpndave

Sorry to hear about the problems. If the splines are loose on the stars, meaning you can twist the star on the splines - scrap metal. However, the stars sliding may not be a problem. If you look at the picture I posted above you can see that the splines are long and there is no shoulder inside. On the Porsche 930 style joints, in a non-steering application, at least one or both joints float on the shaft to allow for changes in length as the suspension cycles. The cups inside the joints need to allow for the movement. Basically the shaft floats between the two snap rings stopped from going "in" by the outer ring and going "out" by the inner. As long as lengths and clearances are correct and not binding it should work. On a cv/tripod setup, the tripod takes up the length change and the cv is set ridgid like those shafts you have. Tripods are heavy and weak but necessary in a steering application. Manufacturers sometimes use them as it can be a cheaper/less precise solution in the rear and they will take up substantially more length change. In that style the star needs to be contained as tripod will just slide out. Maybe an inner snap ring would do it if your second joint is a tripod. Food for thought anyway.

It would be minor. Interesting on the DTM cars, I'll have to look at those. I'm interested to see how it works out for you.

That Bosch setup is pretty cool BTW. Oh, and my vote is for hard lines on the brakes, even braided lines will give a bit and the firmer the pedal the better. I'm not sure what bender and flare tool you have but some work much better than others. Judging by the quality of the rest of the build, you'll do fine. Nice work on all this!

There is a lot of information here that's not entirely accurate. A lot of opinions which is great too. The stock late model systems aren't exactly "dead-headed" at least as far as the pump is concerned. There is a return style regulator in the pickup box with the pump that returns off the extra pressure (above 58 psi theoretically) back into the sump the same as Ironheads setup (and mine below) just at a different point in these applications. Later models regulate pressure with PWM which is past what most of us are dealing with at this point. The direct inject engines are just lifting fuel to the high pressure pump so it's not really critical anymore with them as long as the supply is there - pressure that is. The vacuum port does vary the pressure, not sure what that would do to the engine program, I guess if you tune for it there could be an advantage. The big advantage comes with a boosted applications since you need the pressure differential for the injectors to spray properly and if you have say 20psi of boost then the injectors are really only spraying 38psi of difference. Hope that makes sense. The linked Aeromotive doesn't go on the return line, it creates the return by bleeding off pressure above the set point. I looks very similar to the one I have, much more money. Most of these will bleed off pressure to some degree, hence the pre-prime of the pump. It's a good habit to get into of key on - pause then start. I'm in the habit anyway from driving a diesel truck or my backhoe, etc. You want to give the glow plugs there a chance to do their job. Let the fuel pump prime the lines. This photo isn't the best of the regulator and I'll post up a different one if I can find it. Mine is a Russell as that is what I got the best deal on in a decent quality unit. Oil filled pressure gauge directly on the front so you can see exactly what's going on when running. I suppose the heat issue could be an advantage. I like that I can see and adjust pressure if necessary readily. I also like and feel that one big advantage is that the regulated pressure is as close to the demand as possible. It also shortens up the amount of line that is necessary for a burst in demand. You have ~90 psi ahead of the regulator or the capability to have that and then the excess bleeds off to leave the 58 psi. If you stab the throttle, the regulator at the manifolds stops dumping fuel immediately and the supply goes to the engine rather than taking 10 feet of line to get there. I have -8 to the engine and -6 return. I suspect that the in tank regulator has more to do with packaging and $ savings than with performance. I'm sure you can make it work fine but I'm more comfortable with where it's at on this application. I flared the SS fuel rail with an AN nut an backer with the regulator attached directly to the fuel rails. The early LS1 and truck versions actually bleed off at the fuel rail so even later than what I have set here. If you want the absolute best regulation, set it up at the back of those pretty fuel rails on your engine Ironhead. Full pressure in and bleed off the return at the back. Probably won't matter that much, but if your look for "best" there it is.

That looks like nice shifter. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on it. Did you go the 4" back version? As far as "Super" Magnum isn't that just the GM kit badging? I wasn't aware of any upgraded from the factory Magnum - all the Magnums are built to the same strength. 4 choices - wide or narrow ratio set, GM or Ford. I have a wide ratio Ford. I think the GM "Super Magnum" is a narrow ratio GM version. I know some shops REM and Cryo the units, add bronze shift pads, etc. and get better strength/high RPM shifting. I had some inside tracks when I traded/purchased mine and they gave me their specs for the upgraded units. Also, per Tremec tecs directly, the stock Magnum is designed to be pulled from the box, installed and run 700 lb/ft drag runs all day no problem. I'm thinking of opening mine up and give it the cryo (why not, it's pretty inexpensive) and more importantly the REM treatment so it will handle the high RPM shifts better along with the upgraded fork pads. That shifter looks like it would be pretty nice to get the location correct and be faster/more precise than the stock setup.

BTW, any re-spline work is most likely going to be cut, not rolled. Rolling basically forges the spline into the shaft but is for much larger scale production and would be near impossible on the hardened stock. Moser would likely not have the reduced diameter on the shafts but again, price will be great for a custom shaft. For maximum strength, you need to step away from a lot of the stock pieces and prices go up. That's where the 930/934 CV pieces with corresponding stubs to hub and differential come into play. This is what DSS is doing for their super axles for the Mustang. HTH, Dave

@yellowoctupus is correct if they are case hardened. You'll need to determine that before re-cutting shafts. All of those half shafts are very poor designs for strength, lots of stress risers and improper sizing (thought the solid shaft has some elements of sound design which is why you can't respline them). They should look more like these for maximum strength. This design is not only substantially stronger and lighter but adds a "cushion" to the axle as it will wind up like a torsion bar rather than breaking and absorb some shock loads. The smaller diameter may be contrary to common belief of bigger is better but is actually stronger by quite a bit when done right. The production shafts are a for the masses piece that the beancounters dictate design to a large degree. Engineers throw mass at problems because it cheaper than better materials/design. (Photo from http://www.westgarage.co.uk/forsale/kits/shafts.html, just the first image that popped up from a Google search, not suggesting using them at all) Check with Moser Engineering or RCV. I think Moser will be your best price, RCV best quality. I would start with 4340 and use 300M for best strength materials - both are through hardened for proper strength, the 300M quite a bit harder. I'll be using 300M as I just don't want to take any chances. Moser has another alloy they use that would be a great starting point. I wouldn't be surprised if you could get a set of shafts from Moser at about 1/3 of your $1200 price. They will also do resplining. I have used them for both services, and they do quality work at reasonable prices. There are others out there that will do it for you but those are the first that come to mind. You'll be way better off if you get away from the custom car places and into the race and especially desert race crowd for this stuff. The problem is getting from the Ford inner differential and outer hub splines to standard 930 or 934 CV joints. Once you do that the rest is easy. If you want to look at doing the inner and outers that way, @1969honda and I would be in for the inners for sure and possibly the outers if they are compatible with what we are doing. I'll help with the design if you want.

I used a set of uncoated Sandersons, added the Cone Engineering collectors, welded on v-clamps, sectioned and rolled the pipes in tighter for better clearance. That was for the JK project on my avatar. Not having those big flanges helps quite a bit for clearance and the collectors did make a difference on flow/power. I also touched up tubes near the ports and blended them with a burr for better flow up at the heads. Someday I'll fabricate some SS equal length tuned headers for it but this worked out pretty well and was relatively quick for a semi-custom install. Maybe something along those lines would work out for you. Nice build, I enjoy following along. I wish I could get some traction on my project. View of the merge collectors HUGE improvement over the regular ones.

I did cam, valves and cylinder heads myself using Tech Line. I didn't go into the bottom end at that time. The build thread on my Jeep shows some of that. The engine has since been disassembled and the results are somewhat mixed IMO. I'll see if I can get some photos of the parts now. Cam was definitely better with the coating. I'm skeptical that the intake, combustion chamber and valve coatings did much of anything. The cam showed NO wear at all. However, with roller lifters and high quality bearings, not sure it makes much of a difference in the end. Money probably better spent somewhere else. I'm not sure if I will do that on the new engine, not sure it's worth the effort and cost from what I saw on the previous engine. I didn't see any damage, flaking or anything similar on that engine. I just don't know if it's worth the cost and trouble for that application.

I don't want my build thread to turn into a debate on what the Voodoo is and is not. What it "is" at this point is my choice for my build. I'll totally agree that the crank is not as light as some flat plane designs. The arrangement of U-D-U-D and firing order are indeed different to accommodate the single intake plenum which I'm sure was done for packaging in the Mustang and cross compatibility with the Coyote. The intake and heads are now sold as upgrades for the Coyote. "100% about exhaust packaging" is simply not true. The flat plane allows all eight cylinders to breathe close to the same - not so with a cross plane either intake or exhaust. That in turn allowed tuning to an inch of its life (you have to tune for the least effecient cylinder), 12:1 compression - without direct injection, stratosphere 8200+ rpm (from the flat plane too - the similar component Coyote is 7500rpm which is still respectable), not great torque on the bottom and IMO one of the most beautifully intoxicating sounds I've ever heard if exhausted correctly. My thinking is that torque lacking on the lower end will be a different story in a car that's 1200lbs lighter. Better (or maybe better said, more useable) power delivery for the lighter Z platform. Intoxicating sound and high rpms with broad power curve and awesome top end are my reasons for the choice. Easy? Nope! As far as weight goes the only semi official numbers I've seen are from Ward's putting it right at the LS3 430lb mark. One wrecking yard I am considering purchasing one from swears it hit the scales at 297 which is no way correct, maybe 397... I can live with 430 and will hope for less. The crank itself does have much more counterweight than I'd hoped for but I suspect that they are there for a reason on that engine. It it a higher quality forged crank more on par with the 4" Manley I have for my LS and drilled rod pins, etc. make it lighter but they do the same to my cross plane LS. The plasma spray liners make it lighter also - again do the same thing to a 5.2L Coyote. Thanks for following along. I'm hoping to get to the project soon and make some headway.

LOL, isn't that the truth all around! I totally agree that the LS would be MUCH "easier". Love the LS3+ in my JK and can't wait to get hear/feel the 6.8L stroked version come to life. But...not what I'm after in the Z. Totally respect all those that are going the LS route. I originally was going that route and practically speaking (as far as ease and cost one install) still should. I had an '08 LLT - original 3.6L first used in the CTS and base Camaro which is an impressive engine that I was going to use in an abandoned project. Super short but WOW on the width up top and height - freakin huge as you so eloquently put it. Still have a few parts for that one imported from Australia to make it work right.

Awesome build TUME! I found some great ideas in you build that are inspirational to mine. I'll have to follow-up on those and am really looking forward to seeing how you progress. Hang in there!

I haven't lowered one in the bay yet but the dimensions will work. Length is is a non issue. Width will be easy with my planned A-arms and clears stock towers by 2" (1"each side). Height is the big question - stock I don't think will go cleanly and have any ground clearance at the oil pan. There are at least two aftermarket low profile oil pan versions that should solve it (like 4" of extra clearance) or you could always use a dry sump. A new house/shop have prevented much progress but that is nearing the end so hopefully things can move forward shortly. I've been hesitant to grab the engine until closer to needing it for the reasons Tube80z mentioned. Yellowoctopus and bimmota have mod motors in their cars and I think the mod is a little taller. I'm sure there will be surprises and look forward to sorting it out.

To clarify 2 brake master cylinders with a balance bar, one front & one rear going to a late Mustang (probably) ABS box. Then a third for the clutch. Sizes yet to be determined/dialed in to match calipers and clutch slave.

Jboogsthethug, I wasn't implying you are off couse with your posts, to the contrary they seem right in line with the topic. Just because they apply to your car too isn't a reason to leave it out or chat about common interests. I have had people go on a rant totally off course in my JK build thread and that's frustrating. Omar can speak to his preferences but we've talked about ideas for his seat mounts a few times so I expect any input is appreciated. My comment was just about the interior rails. A quick opinion from seattlejester and Omar is appreciated, any more than that should probably get a new discussion thread. On your 1x2 tubing idea, it sounds like a good option. If the metal underneath is solid you can save weight and potential rust spot by cutting off the bottom of the tube or maybe have a "u" channel bent. Structural channel is pretty heavy and rough for these applications. If you are OK with lighter material (less than 16ga) you are welcome to use my brake to bend it. It's rated to 16ga but as you approach the 4' length it doesn't make really crisp consistent bends. If you're in Riverton the drive is not horrible. It's a "box and pan finger brake" so we can even bend up a bit more complicated pieces. Same for Omar's project. We talked about the option a bit but he was pressed for time trying to get the car back up so he can work on it through the school year. For heavier there is a job shop in Logan that is reasonably priced. Any heavier stuff I just have them do. HTH to clarify some, Dave

The plate probably isn't ideal since it's only 2 dimensional and strength to weight would be better if raised up and tied to structural members. How obtrusive are the rails up into the floor? I've toyed with that idea but am concerned with it always being in the way. Strength tying everything together and totally flat bottom underneath would be nice. I'm not sure that the longitudinal rails mess with aero much but they certainly can't if they are not there. I don't want to sidetrack Omar's thread much but thought I would ask as you both have been in the car.

I've never really found a problem with the height of the doors. It feels like your dropping down into a "cockpit" so to speak. The car is just small and low. Other sports cars I've driven are similar, some maybe not quite as much. Just part of the character I guess. The interior door release for example is near impossible for a newcomer to find but once you are familiar with the location it's just right in the perfect place, lay your hand down and there it is.

LOL, no that's just the different sizes I have there will be two spares. I'll use whatever balances front/rear/clutch out correctly. Hopefully I have the correct size...

Helmet to bar clearance I can see being an issue. Setting the bar back far enough would help but the low roofline could make that tight. I haven't tracked my car and the bar is still coming so my experience is from all the years prior to teardown.

Nice progress on the project! As far as room in these cars, my experience ~6' similar to Omar, is that they are quite roomy. For that era from Japan they were definitely made for a US sized market. It's one of the few cars I've owned that I don't just run the sliders all the way back. Seating is reclined but it's a sports car and should be.

You can get faces/needles that are very similar. Even with black bezels they will still show so not an exact match if you really want a "restored" look. That said short of a full restoration, which should be OEM and not at all what this forum is about, this is by far the best option. I've had Autometer, VDO, and multiple other instruments including some high end race pieces. These are by far the best way to go for a Z IMO and for sure what my car will get. We purchased a set from ihiryu for my son's Jeep CJ project (and these are the lower line) his service, prices and the quality of the gauges were outstanding. I'd have already purchased mine but I'm not at that point in the project yet and they may have new features or updates between here and there so I am waiting until I need them for that buy, with any luck maybe this year's Black Friday sale.

Very nice work on the exhaust. While a single can certainly give the output if sized correctly - especially torque. Duals are what I'll be using, easier to route the smaller pipes and the look as well as sound out the back are more what I want. Trying to get a 3-1/2" (that's the equivalent size to 2-1/2 duals) single pipe down the middle of the car with a T56 Magnum and all the rear components sounds pretty daunting to me. looking at the photos of alainburon's car, I don't see a 3-1/2 pipe going down there without a pretty good clearance compromise. My LS3 (now a cammed 6.8L) runs nicely on dual 2-1/2 into single 3-1/2 and sounds good - in the Jeep as more a truck type application. I'll take the duals in my Z.

Nice write-up. Where are you in Saskatchewan? I spent some time up there years ago. Interesting how much different the Mod motor is to the Voodoo/Coyote. Your thread gives me some hope.

Nice work! Great idea on the spray can. How did the pickup tube affect things as you were spraying inverted? Did you just use the full cans for that part? FYI Eastwood makes a paint for inside frame rails. Haven't used it but plan to on both my projects. https://www.eastwood.com/eastwood-internal-frame-coating-14oz-aerosol.html

I did a quick check on ECU compatibility and the earliest Mustang I can flash is 99 - later on other models. You can see the list here. https://www.hptuners.com/vehicles/ I'd be happy to flash one for you if it's possible and you cover costs (credits and shipping). I'm not sure of workarounds and VATS on the earlier models, if other programmers will do it or if you could retofit a newer harness and ECU. It might get more complicated than its worth.