blueovalz

Unless I've missed the obvious, how does one pass bolts through the frame rail, and tighten it sufficiently without collapsing the box structure? I've wanted to to something similar, but instead, reinforce the box with a couple of tubes for the bolts to pass through, which would require a lot of work. Are these rails strong enough to resist the collapse and if so, then would they not also resist any flexing in the short length between the tower base and the sway bar attachment point (especially in light of the sheetmetal on the engine bay sides connecting the tower's sides to the top run of the rails)

Dan, the E-brake is what adjusts the rear brakes. Without the adjustment, you will soon find that the rear is not doing much at all in braking. Also, when you said you may swap left to right, if you meant the calipers, then remember that the bleed screw will be at the bottom when you do this. Also, one last item to ask about: did you resurface one of the front rotors but not the other recently?

Kevin, I made up for any VE losses in my L6 by clubbing it to death with more volume - V8 MAN!. Seriously, Grumpy had some very nice in depth comparisons not too long ago about VE vs cam timimng, CR, rpm, and such. Very interesting read.

Kinda like this I think? img

I welded a 1/8" steel plate that was 1.5" x 6" in the center of the firewall at the top. Before I welded it to the firewall, I welded 3 flange nuts on the back side, over holes drilled in the plate (the brace bracket then bolts onto the plate via bolts that screw into the flange nuts on the back side). I was a little worried that any flexing would cause it to rip or crack eventually, which is why I went with such a large plate to distribute the loading. It has never shown any weakness yet.

I never saw any heim joints. Perhaps I did not look at all the photos.

Please do as there have been questions in past postings about the comparison between the two.

I'm with Lone. When's the other shoe going to drop?

This is heavier that I would like, but I finally weighed the entire front clip at it's present condition with the modifications made for the street car (front lip or splitter, headlight tunnels, additional bracing and strengthening). It comes out to 85 lbs. This is everything forward of the A pillar.

Why would anybody place a course in a mine field like that? Yes, even our course several years ago resulted in an old Cuda slam into tree too. But it was well off course, and the guy never lifted the throttle.

The problem stems from the fact that non-floating calipers that use pistons on both sides of the rotor take up a lot of space to house those pistons on the outside of the rotor. Floating calipers have no piston on the outside of the rotor, thus the amount of space or room needed on the outside of the rotor is much smaller. So if you have a rotor designed for a floater (it will have minimal offset), and then install non-floater calipers (which use rotors with larger offsets) on it will require (for the most part) either a spacer between hub and wheel to keep the spokes of the wheel off caliper, or the use of wheels designed for such (which spokes push outboard to clear the calipers. Basically you want to get the floater and non-floater calipers with their appropriate rotors.

CC was the ONLY entity to say that the lower spring pressures would be fine. All others strongly recommended the higher spring rates. The primary concern was not whether the valve would close at the correct time, but also to prevent the valve from bouncing open again. This particular situation is harder on the valve train that if the stronger springs are used in the first place. I went ahead and went with a stronger spring. The extra pressure was also added insurance being I do not have a rev limiter.

For the 300ZX rotors to fit most easily, you will need to use the 240Z hubs. If memory serves me correctly, the wheel flange that the rotors bolt onto is 17mm. The later model hubs are thicker on this flange, and thus push the rotor inboard too far for the calipers to be a simple bolt-on arrangement. Yes, I'd advise the increased bore size of the ZX MC also. Otherwise, the firmness of the brake pedal will diminish somewhat when you go to the larger calipers (piston).

Well Pete, normally I would never start a motor without an oil pressure gauge, but in doing some welding in the engine bay, I accidentally severed (melted) the plastic oil pressure line going to my gauge. I guess I need to step back, take a deep breath and give myself another month to do this without trying to rush through it.

Just when you thought you knew it all (how humbling is this that phrase!) I was awakened to an oil filter lesson. Purely by accident I was reminded that oil filters pass oil only in one direction. I knew of the anti-drainback valve some had but had my head "up and locked" on this one. I was about to attempt to bump my new motor off, and was pre-oiling it. As usual, the pump started increasing it's resistance (which happens every time the oil finally fills all the filters and galleries) and I was ready to start it up, but was troubled at the lack of "the dripping oil noise" in the pan that I usually get upon doing this. So I pulled one hose of the remote oil filter arrangement, and oil came out it fine when I spun the pump. I re-attached it, and removed the other hose going into the motor, and only a slight dribble occured when I was spinning the oil pump (damn, I thought!). Then after scratching my head, I realized I swapped the hoses under the headers at the block adapter. After swapping these hoses, I spun the pump again, and as usual the pressure (resistance) built up, but this time I could here oil dribbling inside the pan. I could just see it now, spun bearings, but I'd rather be lucky than talented any day.

It says it's "The File You Are Looking For Is Inaccessible".

The guy who balance my engine cringed when he saw the Clevite77 bearings. He said he used to swear by them, but not any more. Then he showed me some 4 year old "King" bearing from a race motor. They looked very good (of course, that doesn't mean a lot in itself). Then he told be about two separate cases where different brands of bearings were used on motors he was asked to rebuild(Clevite77 on rods/King on mains, and visa versa)in which either the rod bearings all failed or the main bearings all failed, and each time the King bearing where still intact, but the Clevites were wiped (and spun in one case). That was enough for me to go out the next day and buy the King bearings (about $140 for the whole set). I hope they are worth it. But as the previous info so obviously states, unless it's clean and well machined, nothing is going to hold up very well.

Yeah, I'm bored, but I just had to share this with you guys. Tonight, before I headed to bed (going there next) I went under the house to drain the compressor tank (lots of rain these last few days and the humidity has taken its toll). I drain the tank via a 3/4" PVC tube about 2 feet long with a valve midway. Well, I opened the valve (sounds like a F15 on AB) when all of a sudden (it's dark down there when I did this) 5" to 6" racing sparks circled around the end of the PVC pipe. I only lasted for a couple of seconds, but it was awesome. I looked like Luke Skywalker when the old man was shooting him with lightning just prior to Darth saving is life. It wasn't as good as my Tesla coils, but it was a neat experience (It never shocked me though).

I've just installed my one and only roller cam (solid) in my engine. After speaking with CC techs, and then with the cam manufacturer, along with several racecar mechanics, I'm somewhat confused on how much spring pressure I need. I planned on using 200#/525# pressures, but after talking with the CC tech, he indicated my 175#/475# pressure springs would be adequate up to 7K. As far as solid rollers go, this one is fairly benign (.593" lift with 60 degrees overlap). My goal is to go with the mininum needed to safely operate the motor to 7K with a little extra insurance for missed shifts. Any comments or experiences? This is only a weekend street/strip car. No serious racing any more.

One other comment (and I hope any metallurgist can verifiy this) I'd like to add is something I read reference cylinder wall wear verses temperature. If I remember correctly, it was stated that cylinder wall wear was increased with cooler temperatures, and visa versa. The reason this caught my eye when I read it was because I've always noticed that whenever a piece of stock that I am machining starts getting too warm, it seems that that I have to work harder at getting the material off (grinding and drilling, etc). After reading the cylinder wear data, it clicked.

I've communicated with a couple of folks sucessfully running the U-joints with some descent power. I think the key to keeping U-joints under the car is perfect alignment of the shafts. This takes into consideration ride height, spring rates, strut dampening, swaybar size, tire width and compound, engine torque rating, etc. One thing that helped me on a lowered street Z was that I raised the differential up 1" to straighten out the shafts again. Things to think about are what do the shafts do under squat on takeoff (weak springs and shocks exasterbate the problem). In a sweeping turn under power, the car squats and is rolling a bit, which complicates the scenario even more. If most of your torque is applied in a straight line, you will be able to find a good height for the car/differential that will let the U-joint live a faily long and happy life.

The SBC will have more documentation on what to do verses the SBF. If you are a fabricator at heart, then it won't matter which you choose. As far as weight is concerned, the SBF very closely matches the L6 if you have the aluminum heads, intake, and water pump. I just weighed the 289 before installing it into the car today and it weighed 538 pounds WITH the T-5 tanny (clutch, PP, and flywheel too). This was a complete motor with the starter and PS pump, dry with no oil or water. The SBF is a little more compact than the SBC, and the T-5 is a good starting point for a transmission.

I'd like to add one more comment about my approach to where the section should be removed from the OEM strut tube (when shortening the tubes). My approach or thoughts on this is that the section should be as high up on tube as possible, or at least above the new spring perch location. This is because the weight of the car then rides on a spring that sits pretty much on unmodified strut tubes. With the weld under the tube, then the weight of the car rests on what is hopefully a competent welding job.

Mine are 4.24" from the bottom of the threaded tube, to the top of the cast steel boss that holds the strut tube, on the FRONT. On the REAR, this same measurement is 5.5" (all tubes had about 2" removed from them). Now with that said, I am using 200 f/r, and at the above spacing, I am currently riding on the bottom most threads of the threaded tube (my car sits LOW). But, this set-up was designed for no rubber spacer at the top, as your picture does have them. My car only weighed about 2160 in race trim. The ratio of sprung/unsprung weight on these cars is not real good. With 200lb springs, I only had about 1.9" of compression on the springs (avg). Your car will probably be heavier. Just to get you in the ballpark, I'd assume a 2.5" compression with the 200 pounders and 3" with the 175's (I'm assuming your car will weigh several hundred pounds more than mine). Then find out the mid point of the strut movement range (if strut movement is 6", then midpoint is 3"). Now measure down the fully extended strut from the bottom of the upper spring locator, down 7.5" (front, and 7" rear)+ 1/2 the amount of strut movement (assuming 3" in the example above) possible + 1/2 of the length of the threaded tube. This will be where the bottom of the tube should be located. At this point, the suspension will be setting midpoint on the threaded tube, and midpoint in the strut movement range. Things that will change this, is weight of the car (mine is a stripped bare 71 240), and your intended ride height. Somebody double check my post here to make sure I did not leave anything out.

A hi-po (real live OEM hi-po) 289 is not something that is given away. They command a fair dollar for the purest restoring an old K (is that correct) code Mustang. Anyway, I've run both the 289 and 302 motors in my '66 fastback, and in the end, always liked the 289 better. The 302 has a slight torque advantage, but the 289 would twist to 8 grand consistantly with the old SPS 5/16" rod bolts (inferior to the ARPs now days) and cast pistons. I wouldn't try that in a 302. The differences are slight, internally, but they to change the character of the motor.