blueovalz

Just a comment about the oil pan clearance issue. My front sump ford pan sits just slightly behind the axle, thus the speedbumps are not really a concern (pan pretty much follows the travel of the wheels at reasonable speeds), unless I start running parallel over them between the wheels.

Kevin, Your still an Eighter in my eyes.

The seed has been planted.

Sorry to see that number (plus a 150?). Anyway, it could be worse. Let us know what you find.

For some of you old timers out there, quite a while back Shieffer used to make their flywheels that had a translucent thin coating as the friction surface for the clutch, instead of the usual steel ring insert. Does anyone here remember, have used it, or have any first hand experience in whether this was a good product. I'm trying to decide whether to use one, or go ahead and get a new one with the steel friction surface instead. I have no idea this coating was very durable. The manufacturer claimed it was, but.........

If you have a 157 tooth flywheel, you should be OK. The early SBF had the 164 tooth flywheel, and then about '86 they went to a 157 tooth flywheel. This smaller diameter flywheel is what the T-5 uses. So what you will need to do is use the later 157 tooth flywheel, and have it rebalanced from the 50 oz offset to the 289's 28 oz offset. Then the T-5 will fit up. I'm using a starter off a '73 ford (some sort). There will be a difference in the amount of gap between the ring gear and the starter case (flush with edge of block) for the SBF starters. They are listed as 3/8" and 3/4". Mine uses the 3/4" gap. Just make sure you know that this gap is important in choosing a starter (I found out by accident)

I believe the weight was within a few pounds of each other (T-5 vs the Datsun 5 speed). I don't have the specifics here, but the weights were real close.

Amen!!

While he's getting the math in order, the PMOI is dependent on the mass of the SBC in addition to the distance from the center of the car. His first statement of using light weight parts is the primary concern. And at some point the weight/distance of the SBC vs I6 will be equal. Then you have the lowered CG too, and on and on. IMHO, a small block swap is a win-win situation as far as well rounded performance is concerned.

Yes, they are the same control arm. All the Z rear control arms are like that.

The shop here in town will balance my entire assembly for about $200. So I would check around.

I can't speak for the rivet process, but the lead process involves filling in the imperfections (after hammering, shrinking, and filing) with lead. This was a process used when the sheetmetal gauge was much thicker (1940 and 50 vintage cars) than currently being used. Bondo is quicker for another thing too. You will see several places on the Z where lead is used on the A and C (?) pillars.

The counter balance is very obvious. All that the shop will do is remove the material from this part of the flywheel. Look at this picture http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=596477392&r=0&t=0&showTutorial=0&ed=1003062491&indexURL=0&rd=1 and the middle of the 3 pics will show the counter balance. On the 28oz flywheels, this "wedge" of material at the top is about half the included angle of the one in the picture shown.

Mike is correct. Comparable Z cars (8 vs 6) will have the 8 run better overall. IMHO, the weight difference is not an issue at all (but that's because my Ford engine was lighter than the L24 was). They may have been steering you away from the 8 because of 1: The "purist principle" 2: It will put you in E modified (but if you enjoy self inflected pain, you may want to do this) which here in this region, has a very small group of runners (VERY small).

If I could go one single year without upgrading or re-modifying something on the car, it would be no more than any other car, but my wife says it is very expensive (asked her to pick up a case of Mobil 1 motor oil at Wal-Mart the other day. It was not long before she called me on the cell phone with the attendant comment about the price). Live and learn.

Unless I am way off here, those are on all the Z cars. They flip up for battery maintenance, etc. Am I missings the obvious here?

Nathan, check this graph out for speed vs gearing vs rpm http://www.geocities.com/z_design_studio/ Terry

Very easily (by a competent shop) being all that has to be done is the removeal of some of the cast-in counterbalance. Even if you had a complete factory assembly, I would (an am going to myself) have the rotating/reciprocating assembly balanced before using it. Here, it costs about $150 to do the whole thing, but if you want to turn some R's (and a 289 will go to 8 grand real easy and hold up well, even with some unsophisticated parts.

The early 289/302's used a 28oz offset balance on the cranks and damper, where the newer 302s used a 50oz off-set flywheel (not sure about the damper on that though). Also, the older flywheels were mostly 164 tooth flywheels while the newer ones are 157 tooth models, which is another fly in the ointment as far as the T-5 use is concerned. I have seen reference and even an Ebay double-hump pan that had a pan provision for the dip stick. Have you considered a front sump only pan. Either way, the pump is still in front and will be the main cause for any clearance issues with the pan.

I don't have the URL address here at work with me, but if I remember when I get home, I'll send you the URL for a neat graph that shows what your speed will be at differnt RPMs. Inputs include tire size, tranny, and diff gear ratios (unless someone beats me too it)

Last 4th, I took some of the smoke bombs and placed them at several locations around and under the car, and using a jet of fast air (open air hose from an 80 gallon 125 psi air tank) I was able to observe the effects of the vents over the front wheels. I'm sure this not a very accurate model of air flow over the whole body at one instant, but the air drawn out from under the car was quite obvious from the smoke trail.

Ford 289 with 10:1 pistons. Victor Jr intake with the aluminum J302 heads using Chevy valves & a 780 Holley. 1.75 equal length tube headers. Solid roller road camshaft, and 8k valve train. Griffith aluminum radiator with underdrive crank pulley. McLeod aluminum flywheel and hydraulic T/O bearing. T-5 to an R200 (Gleason-Torsen) with ZX turbo 1/2 shafts (soon to be Porsche 930 CV jointed). Rear mounting plate for diff, sway bar, & suspension pickup points. Custom rear toe adjuster. Camber plates, HD swaybars, roll center spacers. Tokico race inserts in 230 F/265 R lb/in 10" springs 315/35ZR17 tires on 11" wheels. Supra front and Maxima front (on the rear) brakes. Ford power assist rack, 8 pt cage. driveshaft driven alternator. And a little ol' fiberglass body atop a custom fiberglass interior.

I had the engine ignition circuit tied to the starter circuit one time that caused this. The engine would try to run when I would start it, but as soon as I released the key, it would die.

I saw these LSDs in their catalog, and the 45 lb/ft breakaway torque seemed a little "loose" to me. Is this a normal or good setting? Also, is the Quaife LSD a worm gear (can't remember the correct name for this type in my old age) or clutchless type of carrier?

For anybody wanting a good single carb, single plane intake, check this out (5 hrs left) http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=596052509&r=0&t=0 I'm not selling it, but back in the 70's, I used this intake, and it was the best I'd ever ran. My newer Victor Jr. it the only other intake I really have liked. This is the older (scewed carb) version of the Torker. Very light and effective (I used a 780 on top)