blueovalz

Thanks for the long reminder list. At first is looks intimidating, but is easily done as one builds the motor, takes his time, and ensures everything is correct. This is why I wait until 2100 or 2200 before starting the assembly of my motors. By then the wife and kids are in bed, nobody is calling on the phone, and the motor takes my full attention and time. Kinda like a woman, give them a dedicated slot of undistracted attention, and they usually work flawlessly.

My experience on all of this leads me away from any reinforcement. Anything you do to stiffen the part will transfer impact forces (even small ones) into the metal fenders, and they are harder to fix than the fiberglass part, and then you've got two (or more) pieces to fix instead of just the fiberglass only.

The evaporators I've seen dont have tubing large enough to support sufficient oil flow for the motor.

Nice. Does the Pinto's 7º taper match the Datsun taper?

I've always wanted to investigate an unequal-length front suspension as shown by Dragonfly. My goal was to make it "bolt on" in the sense of welding required reinforcement in place that would not interfere with the OEM set-up, and then bolt on the new set-up. The biggest issue was the upper arm support. I applaud the attempt with backup plates as shown, but I am concerned about the flexing that will take place under braking, and high lateral forces. I am not convinced there is enough support for the upper arms. My thoughts would be a 2 piece crossmember the bolts onto the OEM holes, but has (per side) and outboard part the bolts to the inboard part, and both of these sandwich the unibody between them. Then these two pieces are attached to the other side two pieces.

You can get a rough estimate on the gear ratio by counting the number of times the propeller shaft turns when the axle spins one complete revolution. Mine was about 3 3/4 turns, which is a 3.70 ratio. You can also see the ratio stamped onto the outer circumference of the ring gear if you take the cover off. There are some strings in the drivetrain forum that will show you what the CLSD differential carriers look like. Just search for CLSD.

In that case, I'd be looking at the "shorty" 302 headers. There are some pretty good aftermarket sets out there.

Now to clean my keyboard and hope it still works. Yeah Jason, GOOD one... someday you're gonna find your spare tire missing!

There should be a lot of material, if googled, that discusses the high verses low intake manifold performance comparison. Generally, the lower intakes (comparing the Torker II to the Victor Jr) will provide higher low end torque, and the taller intakes will provide higher end power. In mocking up the 351W motor, I used the Torker II intake which allows no net gain in height over the 289/302 Victor Jr. I did find out though that the oil pan on the 351W is 1/2" to 1" deeper than the 302 oil pans (depending on which pans are used).

One example: then again, you could build your own:

Nice information. So when you say you have 50mm at this time, does this means it's a taper down to 45mm at the plates?

What are you wanting to do with the car? My guess (I hate guessing) is that this is for drag applications because if it was a road application, suspension would have been the first thing on you mind.

Now you've really got me confused. As you know, my intention is to place these larger 50mm TB onto a V8. The cylinder volume/TB size ratio is larger even for my tiny 4.7L motor (and I want to use these for a 6.3L motor) than it is for the 2.8L using the smaller 45mm. So the above statement only makes sense if I were trying to fit the 50mm TB onto an L28. So...if I understand this correctlly, you are not going to consider applications using cylinder volumes larger than...say 500 cm^3? I feel that I must not be seeing this correctly, but perhaps you could share with me (us) the airflow increase in the tapered bore ITB verses the constant bore ITB that you offer (both having the 45mm plate using 45mm and 50mm openings.

Let's get him on the list and see if we can convince him to swap it out to a SBC with some JTR mounts. On second thought, that may throw the CG way off. How about some other mounts closer in? He could have a hybrid^2 then.

I think that's the first time anybody's ever posted a life-size photo of a shock. Anyway...if your talking about cutting the strut tube low, near the spindle boss, then you've removed the struts intention of being a rigid member of the suspension. The OEM strut is a suspension arm itself in liew of the double A-arm or wishbone suspension. Unless the bottom of the strut can be rigidly attached to the spindle boss (no bushings or flex), the suspension will fold under the weight of the car. And even if you could do this, I'm not sure this design (the shocks in particular) are designed support the side loading that a strut tube and insert are designed to withstand.

What is the amount of tensile force increase on the T/C rod (percentage wise)?

fhptom's method is probably the intended method (unless bonding - which I don't recommend - was the intended method when this piece was originally designed and made. If you're going to remount this, I'd drill several guide holes in the bottom surface (assuming it has a bottom surface on this piece) to see how thick the material is. This way you can determine if there is sufficient material to support threads for attaching the piece from the bottom side. If the piece is fiberglass, you're in great shape because, with some work, you could reinforce the bottom surface to make it thicker if it were too thin to support any thread depth.

The stiffness had less to do with it than the balance between front and rear. My set-up (235F/265R spring rates with a 1" bar up front) was a good balance. In fact, I could probably increase the front bar or springs to get even better times, but I'm close enough with a nice amount of what John calls "Oh..."

I recently rebuilt my suspension with different parts, and knowing that it may be erroneous thinking, I re-installed the rear sway bar. After one lap in the car, I removed the rear bar completely (same as prior set-up) and picked up 1.5 seconds. Past postings will verify this is no surprise with certain set-ups.

Good comments Pete. My high-strung 289 made good power (for its size), but it was all above 4500 RPM (peaked at 7200). The cam I chose for this project is looking at power from the other side of the continuum. With this cam, I'm looking for as much area under the torque curve (high avg torque) as is possible, while keeping peak power somewhere in the 6K range. Actually, this cam, and the one in the 289 are very similar with the exception of the lobe spacing (112º for the 289, and 110º for the 383). After reading the links, my conclusion was the only way to truely find the dynamic stroke was to actually use a degree wheel and measure where the valve actually seats.

Wow. That's got to be the best OEM I've ever seen. I would come a lot closer to paying this price than for the red one with the aftermarket stuff. Awesome car.

Yep, it appears to be about 8.2. Nice information and now kinda gives me an idea that the motor should be ok, and that I've avoided making a poor choice in parts. As always, they could be improved, but these numbers look better than I assumed for what I wanted. Thanks again Grumpy!

If the strut spacers at the top are both in good shape (and the same size, assuming someone previously didn't swap a short one for a tall one), and all other dimensions are identical left to right, I'd recommend you measure the wire size (micrometer) on the springs and if needed, remove them and make sure they are identical.

There is no design difference in left to right, but there is front to rear. Did you change front and back together? Perhaps put a front spring on the back?

Thanks for the appraisal!! The dynamic CR calculator was really nice. I put my correct values in it (finally have the card in front of tme and the duration is a good bit less than the post before. At .050", the duration is 246 and 256 (I/E). According to the calculator (49º ABDC close), this nets to a dynamic 9.05 CR. Now to search around and find out how this number relates to the real world performance on pump gas. Using my cam card, at .050", the overlap is 31º (17 BTDC + 13 ATDC)