blueovalz

Interesting. If and when I change my clutch out to a diaphram type, I bet I'll need to go with a larger MC as well. My guess is that the diaphram type is easier on the foot, but requires more movement, hence the need for a larger MC.

Kevin, The HP/Tq range I'm expecting is based upon some HP calculators as well as 1st hand experience from the guy that sold me the camshaft. The camshaft was a back-up (duplicate) cam for the Jegs Engine Masters annual challenge (who place 2nd in his catagory). With the components listed, and based upon his performance during the competition, and based upon his 408 CID motor, the participant felt strongly that I should be able to stay above the floor of 500 lb/ft of torque from 2800-5800 RPM using my parts and components. He said the cam was not designed for peak torque, but instead designed for peak average torque. It's kind of a different direction than I'm used to (small,lighter displacement using high RPMs), but after doing a lot of reading, and listening to a lot of folks, I think the torque route is going to be a better path. The guy that sold me the cam told me that I shouldn't have a problem with pulling all the way to 7000 if that was what I wanted to do, but said it would work better to shift before 6500 with what he knew about my configuration. In answer you your question, based upon expectrd torque and RPM, the it does appear the HP figures of mid 500s will be possible.

I would tell your friend to check out the Comp Cams web site. They provide the recommended spring and its specs. The link below show cams, followed by recommended components for those cams. http://www.compcams.com/technical/Catalogs/106-07/64-71_230.pdf

So, was it the pushrod, or the bore diameter that fixed it. I was a little confused on the solution. Good job!

Jon, I've considered such (foil and such), but found it easier to simply remove the foam, and lightly sand the inner surface than deal with the complex or compound curves that the foil, or tape, or anything else rarely covers smoothly.

Looking good! Keep the pictures coming. This stuff will require a small amount of effort to remove and clean up from the inside after the glass has kicked, but nothing you can't handle. If you need larger pieces, I always used a hot-glue gun to joint pieces. As you've probably already determined, this stuff is very fragile, and can be damaged easily prior to the glass if you handle it too roughly.

Have you tried tapping over the area with a good masking tape prior to drilling. I've found this helps keep the gel-coat from chipping it. Other than that, I've not had issues with normal twist drill bits.

I've made some pretty complicated brake ducts (as well as cold-air induction scoops) using the foam/fiberglass method. The foam I used was floral foam (wet type). It is a very brittle, yet soft, foam that can be damaged easily simply by squeezing it between your fingers. This foam will not react to the resin, which means the resin can be applied directly onto the foam. It can be sanded extremely easily (too easily, so be careful), and will not ball up, or tear when sanded. The brake scoops are on either side of the radiator opening. The scoops are split top and bottom (top for cold air induction, and bottom for brake air). In the "finished" photo, they are painted red. In this image, I used the foam/fiberglass to create a ram-air system on the 240SX. The scoop and the canister (which houses the K&N filter and AFM) are all made out of fiberglass.

I second Jon's commments. With that spring rate, a 1" will work fine up front, and a 3/4" or smaller in the rear.

It won't matter at this point, but this was one issue that I looked into on my Ford heads, and that was an acceptable exhaust bolt pattern. Currently I'm running the old Alan Root (J302) heads on my 289. They have a dual pattern, one OEM, and the other similar to a Cleveland pattern, which is the one I use. When I chose a new head, the AFR 205, I made sure it also had a dual bolt pattern as well. The factory pattern simply will not allow a wide tube right off the exhaust.

There are some differences, but I consider them very minor (I believe perhaps .030 deck height difference, and the roller lifter difference) in regards to weight. I think the largest weight difference (It may be only a pound or two) is between the early and late 302 cranks (28 oz and the 50 oz). I believe the later cranks are a little lighter. It's a little conservative as well. It is a 246/256 at .050", 110º separation, and a .660" lift solid roller. The pistons were cut on a lathe for a 3" x .100" dish to reduce the SCR from 11.8 down to 10.3. I'm thinking (and I'm not much of a thinker sometimes) that this should pull well up to about 6800, maybe to 7000.

Yeah Pete, weight (mass) is everything when it comes to performance. It killed me to put the heavier pan and girdle on the engine, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. One thing I wrestled with was a comparison of added weight from a super or turbo charging system, its complications, etc verses the added weight of a N/A motor. Then there was the issue of how this added weight will effect the handling of what I consider is "very good." Who knows, but I'll find out before long. Kevin, the heads I decided on was the AFR 205 model. I considered the 225, but I was concerned the 225s would be too big for my goals of nice torque on the lower side, the cam I had, and other parts. It appears that AFR has a nice head that promotes good flow and velocity with a seemingly smaller port volume. Well see if they were a good choice.

I finally got the 289 out of the Z and compared its weight with the 383 (351W stroker) that will replace it. These weights include everything a running motor needs (except for the T-5 transmission itself). This includes entire induction system (carbed), plugs wires, water pump, pulleys, damper, flywheel, pressure plate and disc, starter, and headers. For information, the heads are aluminum on both engines, the intake is a Victor Jr on both engines, the headers are medium length 1 3/4" headers on both engines, the flywheel is aluminum in both engines. What is different is the 383 has a heavier oil pan (9 quart baffled road pan verse the OEM 289 oil pan), and the 383 has the heavy (5/8" thick) Canton main girdle which the 289 did not have. Both of these added about 14 lbs over the comparable equipment on the 289. Engine weight: 289 (or 302) = 454 lbs complete. 351W (383) = 513 lbs complete. My expectation was that the Windsor motor would add about 75 lbs to the car, but it looks like it will in reality will only add 60 lbs. 94 additional CID for a 60 lb penalty. I'll get a photo and some transmission weight and have Paul insert them into this post after the edit option drops off.

Just a note that seems obvious, but I'll not assume everybody knows. The 289 is comparable in weight to the 302, and can for practicle purposes, be considered identical weights in terms of the long block.

I finally got the 289 out of the Z and compared its weight with the 383 (351W stroker) that will replace it. These weights include everything a running motor needs (except for the T-5 transmission itself). This includes entire induction system (carbed), plugs wires, water pump, pulleys, damper, flywheel, pressure plate and disc, starter, and headers. For information, the heads are aluminum on both engines, the intake is a Victor Jr on both engines, the headers are medium length 1 3/4" headers on both engines, the flywheel is aluminum in both engines. What is different is the 383 has a heavier oil pan (9 quart baffled road pan verse the OEM 289 oil pan), and the 383 has the heavy (5/8" thick) Canton main girdle which the 289 did not have. Both of these added about 14 lbs over the comparable equipment on the 289. Engine weight: 289 = 454 lbs complete. 351W (383) = 513 lbs complete. My expectation was that the Windsor motor would add about 75 lbs to the car, but it looks like it will in reality will only add 60 lbs. 94 additional CID for a 60 lb penalty.

If only to radius the entrance. If you were to cut much material at all, the 18-16 gauge tubing would be long gone if you went back into the tubes any appreciable distance.

My is the "long" style Ram PP that has a 2500 lb pressure. Now that's what's on the disc, and I'm guessing a 4:1 ratio on the leverage for lifting the PP off the disc by pushing on the "long" fingers, so this means I probably need about 600+ lbs on the fingers to release the disc. I would guess I'm pretty close on these figures because I can put my 160 lb weight on one of the 3 fingers, and if I bounce on it, I can get it to give a little.

It's also interesting to see the dimensions in this string in that my 3/4" MC on my McLeod HTOB works great, but with your combination, it requires a significantly larger MC. So it appears that.. 1: Your PP requires much less pressure (50 lbs) than mine (hundreds of lbs). Just to hazard a guess here, but with that low release pressure you quoted above, I'll bet you do need the extra movement compared to my high pressure/short movement), and... 2: Your HTOB piston area is much larger than mine.

I like this process of improving a really good idea into a great application. And knowing what I've seen you do, it should be a very nice piece when finished.

Very nice to see this. I'm building a 383 (Ford version though), with comparable components. My cam will have similar specs with the exception of about 10º more duration. I can't wait to crank it up. Right know the current 289 is completely unhooked from the chassis, and I'm waiting until tomorrow to yank it out and put the 383 in it's place. Let us know what your "tuned" version turns out.

In you situation, you'll increase the pressure at the pedal by about 77%, and the stroke will be close to 1/2 of what it was with the 3/4" MC.

This is very puzzling. I wonder if the .4-.5" (I can only assume) is at the MC? The reason I say this is that once the TO bearing makes contact with the PP, it takes very little movement to release the pressure on the disc for a shift or release (usually less that .1" at most). The 1.26 and 1.40 diameters are for the inner hole of the HTOB. I am making an assumption here (looking at the HTOB in my hot little hands) in that the piston is actually a donut configuration, so you'll have an ID and and OD of the piston itself, and the cross sectional area must be determined from this figure (the ID and OD of the bore, not the dimensions shown in the drawing. If you indeed have a too small a MC with the 3/4", then consider the "feel" of the pedal, and consider the change in this feel by switching to a 1" MC, which will be almost double the pedal pressure you'll have with the 3/4". Being you're not releasing the disc at the current state, you really don't have any reference "feel" to go by to see if doubling the leg work will be appropriate.

Of the different sizes I've had on mine, 16 inch wheels were what I considered the best choice provided you've got brakes that will fit under the wheels. This opinion is based upon the use of smaller diameter tires which lower the CG and provide a great final drive ratio. All of this could be overcome with suspension mods, etc, but it was just too easy when I stayed with the 16s.

Yesterday my wife bought a “ladies” tool kit (the abomination of parts and pieces on the right side of the photo below). This isn’t a woman’s average attempt to acquire tools to have around the INSIDE of the house. Nope, this kit is the beginning of a full-blown campaign at placing small, weak, tiny tools under the laundry sink PEMANENTLY!. This affront to Man-Law goes one step further with their little pink handles, with their little two-color coordinated pieces, and their little 10 oz hammer with a pink handle. Even the level is pink (I believe I was boldly corrected in this color being “salmon”???). This attempt to possess our Man-Law icon even includes a pair of safety glasses. These are actual, real live safety glasses though, and don’t have the leopard print or fashion logo on them (somehow these turned up missing from the kit later). Between the real safety glasses, and the fact that the bag holding the tools is actually quality sewn, heavy canvas bag that rivals my “Grizzly Tools” tool bag (on the left side of this photo), I have chosen the high road, and allowed it to remain in the house.

My plan is IF I find a reasonably priced TKO600, I'll go with that. If not, I'll install the G-force T5 upgrade (supposed to be good for 600 lb/ft) in the current case and be good with that. I'm wanting to retain all the mounting and external fitment parts I currently have, and the TKO would require more changes in this realm than modifying the T-5.