blueovalz

try this then... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=600838856

try this then... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=600838856

If you still have the gas cap, and it's OEM assembly (i.e just lacking a door only), then have you considered the "Bullitt" Mustang fuel door. It can be made to work with fiberglass. It has a very slight curve to it, uses 6 torx screws to hold it on, and is a brushed aluminum appearance. This will require the OEM cap to still be intact though. This one still has the protective film on it.

Aircraft stripper. I used to paint aircraft, and Imron was the paint of choice. It is very resistant to chemical attack, so a quality stripper is essential.

Was using the blue Holley electric with regulator, but it's NOISY!!. Changed it to a Carter electric, and it's much quieter now.

BTW, I could remove the calipers, and break the piston free by twisting it in the bore (just as you would do when you replace the pads with newer thicker ones), but a week later the thing was jammed again. You will know if you have the same problem by twisting on yours. If they refuse to turn in the cylinders, and then all of a sudden pop free and start screwing back down into the cylinder like they normally do, then I'll bet this is the same problem you have.

This is exactly what happened to me on only one of my rears (I was using the Turbo calipers, but they basically are all the same design). What was happening was that the adjusting mechanism inside (a tappered piston that seats against a tappered cylinder) gets jammed up (because the two tappered parts get jammmed together). The relationship is much like the synchro rings on a tranny. They ride on a tappered surface too (but don't jam). I polished the surfaces (no good), then gave them a finely sanded finish (no good either). Eventually I purchased a rebuilt pair, and the problem went away.

I run one too. The only time I never ran one, I ended up with an oil resisdue all over the motor. Even a fresh engine needs one. I run a PCV valve on one valve cover that draws air through a filter on the other valve cover, through the block, and into the manifold via the PCV valve.

In reference to the posting title: only the early Mustang 4 lug patterns fit ('60s and '70s, Pinto, etc). Once the Fox bodied mustangs came out, I believe that was when they made the pattern 4.25" instead.

I can provide a text of what I did for anybody who wishes to read it.

Ross, I quess the key to successful pass-thru spacers is a very snug and well machined bolt pattern. Any amount of play could result in high tension loads on the studs if any of the components slip even a small amount. Kept tight, I can't see any problems. Can't help thinking what an inadvertent bump to a curb or pot-hole could do to a less-than-ideal torquing of the nuts though.

Come on, what's the fun of doing the norm. Take a chance. You can be a big fish in a small pond with the SBF, or a small fish in a ocean with those nicely dressed puffer fish wearing bow ties.

Very good. It appears that no smoke was being blown you-know-where. Thanks for all the comments.

I can't speak to port volume, but the smaller cams appear to be better for a forced induction motor rather than a larger one. And I believe your premise about the less effecient ports holds as well.

You are obviously developing a reputation for our on-line reference material coordinator. Thanks

all a motor is, is an air machine. The more air, the more power. But one thing that always puzzeled me is if 14.7 psi is all that will "push" the air into the turbo inlet, than how can so much more air be forced into the cylinder vs the same 14.7 psi pushing the same air into the carb (which has a bigger cross section opening). Especially with the sanctioning bodies that restrict the turbo inlets to less than 2". I guess it's because while the intake valve is closed, the air is still being pumped into the intake vs a NA motor that depends on the valve being open to draw air into the carb.

I talking to a tech rep at a major cam manufacturer yesterday. It was suggested to me to use a milder 351 camshaft instead of their more radical 302 camshaft (equating to similar power charactoristics) for my 302 motor. His explaination was the milder valve timing of the bigger motor camshaft will "appear" to the smaller motor to be more radical cam timing. My first impression of this statement was "no way" (more acurately "masculine bovine feses"). Being it sounded like we've got some good cam knowledge in this group, I thought I'd ask for some opinions on this suggestion.

Those valve covers look very much like the valve covers on my Pathfinder (VG30 perhaps).

from the bearings point of view, yes, the highly offset wheels toward the hub would negate the stresses on the bearings. However, large spacers using long studs has a separate issue of the stresses upon the studs themselves. Very well designed spacers with tight fits around the studs and or hub will help relieve this somewhat. I would say the worst kind of spacer is one that uses long studs thru holes in the spacer, and depends on the wheel to hold them all tight, and the best design is one that uses two sets of studs (one to attach spacer to hub, and another set to attach wheel to spacer). Another issue that should be taken into consideration with wheel offset, it the amount of static camber. A wheel with excessive negative offset (spaced outward) can "feel" as though it has less offset by the use of camber to bring the contact patch of the tire back inboard toward the zero offset point.

Try posting this to the guys at www.240sx.org . Perhaps they may be able to help you.

Valid point. Personally, I don't ever see anybody repeating my own install. It was set up for racing only originally, and now seems to work good for the street too, BUT, your average do-it-your-selfer will want something more conventional in the way of an install. With that said, I'll repeat an earlier post. Very soon, I am pulling the engine to replace the internals, and when I do, I will be making templates of the engine plates (front and rear). But then, the headers (home made) would need some attention there too, and no template can be made for them.

I understand your plight. I very much wanted to do the same with my old '75. All the reinforcing on the back is tied together with the subframe and the rear valance. A harder impact will transfer throughout the framing, but the smaller will be absorbed by the bumper. Move a smaller, less protective bumper closer to the car, and you may as well just eliminate it completely, as any impact (even small) may push it into the rear sheetmetal (tail lights, quarter edges, etc). Another option would be to find the early Z bumpers and install them instead (would take some body work and some fabrication). They look a lot less intrusive, and will let you know if you back into anything before hurting it real bad. I ended up removing the bumpers completely.

A 245 can fit nicely on an 8" wheel (I had the Comp T/A 245/45 on my 8" with only about 1/8" bulge extending beyond the edge of the rim). But when I installed a different brand with the same "245" width, the 8" wheel looked a bit narrow, so I guess some millimeters are smaller than others. Anyway, I would say yes, it will mount, but you may be stretching it to do so. Tires that are too wide for the rim they are mounted to (with the exception for cantilever styles) generally have a less precise feel, especially in the transisional stages of the turn. IMHO I'd instead go for a 225 if you want to keep the 7.5" wheels.

If you get hit without the bumpers, it's gonna be an ugly site. It's basically down to looking good with no bumpers at the risk of even small impacts hurting the sheetmetal, or protection for small impacts, and have it look "heavy".

Dang, that truely was an "axial flow" supercharger. Can't even imagine how fast that puppy had to spin. An all this time I thought the term "axial" was being used erroneously.