blueovalz

This is getting beyond my expertese. Google for this information and you'll probably find a Ford forum somewhere that will discuss this. My understanding is that all SBFs (289/302) are pretty much equal (sans the Mexican and 271 HP that had bigger main caps) if you're looking at OEM blocks. The early 351W blocks are supposed to be a little tougher than the later onces (1969 was the cutoff?). Anyway, you'll need to research this information.

Japanese Grand Touring. Similar to the GT class in the ALMS. Rear wing, flares, vents, etc.

This certainly seems to work well! If it does completely seal the rusted area from oxygen and water, then you've got a winner. You'll want to ensure that the back side is sealed as well. Perhaps some means of getting the POR-15 on the backside of the patch.

Is the LSD set up tight enough to not break away under hard acceleration if by chance on side (stub or internal issue with the differential) was severed?

The rear pickup points sound like a reasonable place to start with. I almost sounds like one side has toe issues caused by torque (accel and decel).

At the HP values you're shooting for, I'd say you should reconsider your choice of motor. The 302 is capable of this power range fairly easily, and streetable, at less weight. The T5 WC will hold up fine behind it, and it too will weigh less than the TKO. If you're planning to drag race this (which I doubt based upon you desire HP numbers), then the T5 may be marginal with hard launches, but in a light car like the Z, who knows (I'm sure someone on the site will chime in on that). If you decide to do the 351W thing (I've done the 289/302 thing, and have a 351W (393 CID) stroker on the engine stand waiting to replace the 289 this winter), then again, at your desired HP range, any 351W block will work fine, and can be had at many salvage yards. The TKO is a different story. I've never seen or heard of one being found at the salvage yard. Ebay has them from time to time, but again, the World Class T5 is in my humble opinion, a more practical choice for your targeted power. IF you choose to go the TKO route, then you may want to consider going with the 600 instead of the 500. It will allow all the torque you'll ever want to add in the future with only a small amount of money up front.

I'm putting the 383 in my Z this winter, but I'm using a full stroker kit due to the quality of the components, ease of work involved, and the better rod length/stroke ratio. If I were to go the cheapest route though, I'd do the 393 stroker because it uses the OEM 351w rods, and (I hope I'm right on this) the 302 pistons to make it work. All you need then is the stroker crank, which I think I've seen on Ebay for as little as a few hundred dollars. Smart money would dictate searching on the web for information on this, being there is a lot more data about the 351W strokers on the Mustang/Ford sites than you'll find on this site.

They look great Mark! I'm liking this!

Nice thinking and fabrication. I especially like the upright/rear mount frame.

It takes very little movement at the fingers to disengage the clutch disc (I'm thinking about .060"?) which puzzles me how this would not work. I'm using a 3/4" Tilton on a McLoed HTOB on a Ram (long style) pressure plate, and have never had an issue other than initial adjustment. Can't wait to hear how you've resolved this issue. The HTOB's cross sectional area can be calculated by comparing the amount of movement at the HTOB as compared to the amount of movement at the MC. If the MC moves 1" for a 1/2" of movement at the HTOB, then the HTOB has twice the piston area of the MC. In your case, a 3/4" master cylinder's 1" stroke, moving a HTOB 1/2" at the clutch would mean the HTOB's effective bore is ~1 1/6" in diameter. Increasing the MC bore to 7/8" would give you a 68% movement ratio rather than the 50% movement ratio at the HTOB. That example does not represent a realistic rato between the MC and HTOB, but does show that you can determine the HTOB's piston area.

Sounds good. Some day I may actually be able to remove the 3/4" spacers I have on the wheels now. What size nut are you looking at to bind all of this together. I've seen several failures on the nut side of the splines (too much tightening torque?), so will this be a larger diameter thread as well?

Would the seatbelt bungs allow a piece to be bolted across them without interfering with the driveshaft?

Even if the acuracy was lacking, it would be a constant error throughout all the studies, and the study should still show reletive effect comparing different set-ups.

That is my favorite as well. In fact, I fabricated a device built off that idea that is tightened down on the rocker arm stud, which compresses the spring when the other side of the device pivots against the valve cover rail. I built it from an old stamped steel rocker arm, and it works okay, but I'd like a better one. I've seen pneumatic ones, but years ago when I searched for them online, I couldn't get any hits.

Grumpy, on a "tool" note. My experince with the tool shown in your opening post that they will twist or distort if used on high pressure springs. The price shown for this Summitracing.com item indicates to me that it would be no better than my previous clamp in my attempts to compress the springs. Any comment or suggestion?

If I understand this correctly then, this would eliminate the need for your outboard 930 adapters, and the CF would be drilled to the 930 six-bolt pattern? Lastly, the offset on the wheel flange; I'm not visualizing the flange, so would it simply be set further outboard 3/4", and thus the axle is extended in length 3/4" past the outboard bearing by that amount? This would be no different than higher offset wheels, or using spacers, as seen by the bearing, but how will the axle shaft itself respond to this extension? Does it pose any risk being "out there" with no support, even if it is only 3/4"? If this is a concern, does the desire (not a need as I see it) for the additional offset outweigh that concern? Last point for me personally being I'm still using four lug wheels. Would this flange be round and easily drilled for the four-bold pattern?

What is your percieved design for the companion flange. OEM 4 bolt pattern (Yes!), or another configuration? The reason I ask, and you know exactly what I mean because you've done the same thing, is my set-up uses the OEM configuration.

That's were I wonder though. My understanding is that a radiator at high speed is seen as almost a solid object. The longer, lower nose with a flat front is what intrigues me. At high speed I've seen the hood push down on top of the spinning water pump pulley.

I've never lived in Shreveport, but I have lived in northern LA and southern AR. It's hot and humid in the summer time, and not nearly as wet during the winter. I enjoyed my time in that part of the country. It was a little too "country" for my personal preference, but the people I met were generally pleasant.

This is almost the identical parts I use on mine (Ford though). Do you know where the HTOB sits currently in regards to it's range of movement. If it is at the end of being fully extended, then you may be running out of travel. For me, the adjustment phase was a PITA. I ended up spinning the threaded adjustment tube from under the car (through a couple of holes in the bell housing) while all of the stuff was assembled, but once adjusted correctly, I fell in love with this product. On one hand, you'll need to have it far enough forward to fully disengage the clutch, but on the other hand you need it far enough rearward to allow for clutch wear over time. If it is on it's stop (fully compressed), then I don't know what the answer would be, but I do know you'll have problems later: I found that as my clutch disc wears, the fingers that are used to disengage the clutch (fingers on the pressure plate) move inward toward the transmission. IF the HTOB was adjusted just off the stop (fully compressed), the the bearing will not be allowed to move any further rearward to compensate for clutch wear, and you'll end up with the clutch partially disengaged with the foot completely off the pedal. I found I had to move the HTOB rearward (on the threaded adjustment tube) so that at full pedal movement, the clutch was fully disengaged. At this point the HTOB will be fully self-adjusting as the clutch disc wears and becomes thinner (the the fingers of the pressure plate move closer to the transmission).

Lord I wished I lived there. I would give anything to validate the work on my car (a design based solely on aviation and automotive reference material).

I was looking at bore spacing, and the LS series has a .020" wider bore spacing. I can see where their may need so tweaking here. Photos would be appreciated.

Thanks DavyZ for the neutral comments and administration. I wished this string could have been avoided, but that's life and perhaps he will feel that some time in the future he can return. I REALLY regret the deletion of the historical Z related photos.

I'm guessing because of electrolosis. In my application it has never been a concern (kept very dry), and has never shown any sign of this action. The major reason I chose the softer material was a concern that the higher grip pressure of the steel rivets would distort, or worse, crack the fiberglass when installed.

I would like to hear any personal commentary on Ernie’s actions kept to those who knew him personally. Those who did not should state that, and make their comments in that context. If you know without a doubt that malice was intended in the post removals, then have at it, but speculating and insinuating that he did this with malice is bordering on the reason Ernie left. So...let’s keep our comments in a positive light, please.