blueovalz

Where they stuffing the motors (turbo, super, etc).

Thanks for the input. By the way, these "hyper" pistons. Are they in reality a cast piston that has had some forging done on it during its manufacture?

There are a lot of options out there. If you want aftermarket, there are fine sets available, and if you want to update to later ZX brakes, check the "search" as a lot of info on the early 300ZX front/later 280ZX rear is in there.

Tom, the threads on a Ford 302 are 3/4" 16 tpi (NF). This is the same size as what I use on both the Ford and Datsun both. Terry

All I really want is a plain old forged flat-top, but some from TRW have them split depending on years. The valve reliefs are different in the photos, etc. But compression ratio is still going to be about 10:1 with these heads (supposedly they are the same size as the early 289 heads (58cc???). I wonder about the hypers. Whats the story on this material. I've read very little about these pistons (cheaper than forged, but more expensive than cast).

Do any of our Ford guys know the differences between pistons for the different 302 SBFs? I believe I have some mid '80s flat tops in my late '60s 302, and it seemed the top of the piston is flush with the deck (which I like), whereas the normal piston for this engine was about .050 shy of the deck at TDC. To make a long question short, which is the best year piston to use (J302 heads).

I don't believe that a tilt front end necessarily MUST use a different suspension. The stock suspension up front will work fine with a tilt front clip. From my very limited viewpoint on this is 2 concerns: The bodywork behind the front wheels curve inward, and will have some interference with the unibody as it is raised and lowered into place (sectionalizing this will eliminate this problem) and the second problem is location of the hinges for this. They will need to be very forward and very low (but this will depend on the type of frontend modifications you will have (like a front dam, etc.)

Thus from this you can calculate the tread contact by knowing the weight on each tire, and the pressure in that tire. In regards to the shape of the contact patch. Is there not some kind of reference material as to which axis of the patch provides the best "traction" in relation to that patch (wide for side forces, and narrow for fore/aft forces)?

My fuel gage in my '75 was always low, and in response to that, I would not worry about when the tank was "really" empty until the engine would stutter or hesitate immediately after taking a "brisk" corner. Once that started happening, I knew I had a few more miles left in the tank. I cannot answer your question directly, but if they are baffled, then it was not very effective.

That is what I have, and I love it. There is no evidence of the lack enertia when starting from a stop (perhaps indeed because of such a light vehicle). The best thing I like about the lighter flywheel is that the RPMs drop very quickly, thus making a quick shift so much faster. I like it so much that I am currently figuring out a story to tell my wife so that I can get an aluminum flywheel on my 240SX when the clutch goes (which should be soon at 160k on the original clutch)

Just a spare only. These old engines are really hard to find any more (especially the 289). I could use the current 302 engines, but my flywheel is the older 10.5 with the old balancing weighting.

I waited a long time for a deal like this to come by, but finally found a stock bore 289 today for $100 ('65 block). Finally, something for a rainy day. Now those 8 grand redlines won't make me nearly as uneasy.

Thanks to all for the invigorating scholastic banter for which only this group of folks would either become involved in or care. Tonight, my employer will no doubt be happy that my mind is on my work and not cars (again).

let me play the advocate here. If the tire is in contact with the ground and not sliding , and the ground is not moving, the the tire patch in contact with the ground would not be moving. Yes, the axle is moving forward, but at that instant the tire is in contact with the ground, that patch is not moving . This is why a turned tire makes a car go in circles. Each part of the rotating tire bites or sticks as the next or following parts advances the car around the curve and pull the car sideways more. No grip, no turn, as the compound flexes each time. I'm not sure of the term used for the process, but a steel tire would not turn a car because it cannot have that minute flexing needed as the tire "advances" the car around a corner.

Well, after sleeping on it, I decided that since the tire patch in contact with the ground is "at rest" or not moving, but the axle is still moving in relation to it, much as a satellite or moon revolves around a moving planet, so in relation to each other, centripetal force may not change after all. But this does not address the accelertion/deceleraton that the mass or point on the tire tread goes through in a single rotation (at rest, double the axle speed, then at rest with each rotation) in a viewpoint of space (assuming the earth itself is not moving through space itself). Much like the carnival rides do (or a picture of a tire at high speed with no panning). I wonder what kind of shear forces or cycles the compound goes through at high speed (high repetition rate)

I've worked all night, so I thought I'd throw a question out to all you rocket scientists out there. A tire is traveling down the track on a car at, say, 200 mph. Through space, what forces are working on the tire? Being the patch of rubber that is in effect "at rest" while in contact with the asphalt, is then quickly accelerated forward to about twice the speed of the axle at the top of the tire (400 mph), and then back to rest at the bottom again. Does this mean the tire growth due to centripetal force is greatest over the top of a tire on an axle moving forward vs an axle at rest? Does this also mean I need much sleep when I get off work this morning and quit asking absurd questions?

The bearing at the end of the pinion gear does a lot to keep the pinion from pushing away from the ring gear, but in general these things are built very well and heavy. I had one of the original "N" nodular castings, which was reported to be even stronger. I have no idea, but I'd guess that the center section before being put into the axle case, weighed around 80lbs. Another thing I liked about them was that no shims are used on the carrier, just threaded caps to adjust, which made a set-up super easy, and it could be done on a bench, and when finished, just throw it back into the axle housing. And IMHO, nothing beat the feel of a "locker" in it. I think this is more sentimental than fact though. Ah yes, those were the good ol' days.

I had a very short 9" on my 66 stang. It came out of a '58 Ford 4 door. These late 50's Fords used the short (same size as the OEM early Mustang rear ends) with the five lug pattern. Not sure of the diameter of the pattern, but back then the 4 lug pattern was 4.5". Now I think it is 4.25" or 4.75", but it is not the same as up till the mid to late '70s. The 31 spine 9" axles can be resplined because the axle is thicker than the splined area, but the 28 spline ones where quite a bit narrower, and as Lone said, tappered down a couple of inches outward of the splines. I found it was quite easy putting the OEM '66 GT front rotors and 4 piston calipers on the back of these axles (as I did this on mine), and would be a good complement to the aftermarket front brakes currently available.

Any normal load (even quite small) can show up as minute sparks at the terminal of the battery (+ or -). Even an old style electric clock can do this. Thus a high resistance ground, and/or a high resistance load (again using the clock for an example) will have these same appearances at the battery terminal.

If you don't have an air tool, then an old fashioned impact (a wrench or large rachet hit with a hammer) will get you there. It will rotate the crank a bit, but this will break them loose and get them out

Yeah, my alternator is running off the driveshaft (sits behind the passeger seat between the seat and the shelf). The pulley ratio would not allow a 1 wire to "turn on" until I got up to about 35 mph with my 3.54 diff and my tall tires. With this 3 wire one, I hopefully will have at least a small charge going on about town to help a little bit.

Lone, I was going to use a 1 wire, but the charatoristic "turn on" rpm was higher than I wanted (because of the particular way my alternator is mounted). So instead, I chose the more conventional 3 wire that would charge at any speed (abeit a very small charge at lower rpms).

That's the way I see it now. I just got off the phone with the rebuilder. He verified that the 12+ goes through the light and then to excite the field winding. According to him, with this wire left off, there will be no charge (no field excitation, no generator output). I asked "what if the bulb burns out" and he confirmed that no charge would exist.

Well then, based on what I've read here, I will use a short jumper off the charge wire to go to the sensing spade. The charging wire (8 awg) will still go to the battery via the emergency C/O switch (dead side), and the idiot light wire will come off a swithched 12v source, through a 1.5W bulb and then on to the idiot light spade. This now seems to make perfect sense, and Pete, you were correct, the field is excited through the idiot light circuit- No light, No charge. Thanks again, Terry

If I were to undertake this venture, I would weld ears of the appropriate design and strength to each of the four points, and then bolt the X member onto these ears. Construct the X member, bolt the ears to this piece, and then position this "assembly" where it should go, and then weld the ears in place. Of course the ears will take some work, but you WILL want to make this removeable in the future. I have never regretted a removeable piece vs a permanent piece since I've messed with cars. "B" is the way I see as the best.