blueovalz

Yeah, it's one hermaphodite arrangement, which is why I looked outside for a different shaft design.

Some of the cheaper, spray can, bed liners are very durable, thinner, and can be used to control texture. When I did my dash, I was able to apply it "wet" for a heavier, but smoother texture, or "dryer" with a finer, thinner texture. I could almost get it down to almost like a 120 grit sandpaper finish if sprayed in the dry mode (spraying if from a longer distance, e.g. 18-24 inches). This was too fine so I also opted for the heavier, but smoother finish as it was easier to clean.

After searching, I found this old string and was curious of any updates that could be added. I have a couple sets of the GSXR 42MM ITB set-ups and have intake manifold plates as well that these will be attached to. I did find this site in which these ITBs were used on a V8 in the UK: http://www.replica-cobra.co.uk/accobra.htm (click on "Thottle bodies. My firewall here at work prevents me obtaining the URL address). Currently I am gaining information and parts for a winter project of building an EFI set-up using these. I'm trying to balance price and performance with the inclusion of something challenging and home-made (megasquirt, etc.)

I hate it when someone thinks out of the box and finds a better solution!!!!

Keep working on the wagon Ernie. Just imagine all that power, and then IMSA flares on the back. Hmmmm. I loved that wagon you did!

Lots of things to say, but won't. It's good to see a "hybrid" win and will look forward to the broadcast. Very impressive couple of cars you've got. Care to pass on specs as related to driveline (rear set-up in particular), etc? Photos? Thanks for giving the folks here a heads-up!

On mine, the boot"s metal band is formed around the metal housing of the CV joint. This requires carefully cutting the band along its circumference. Reassembly consisted of (in my case) sufficiently fixing the assembly so that the edge of the new boot's band can be hammered or formed around the CV housing's metal edge (or lip). It was combersome, and in my first attempt, envolved damaging the rubber boot in the process. I imagine that a properly supplied shop would have some kind of roller that could do this very easily, but I did not have any shop like that in this area. In the end, I supported the assembly in a press (carefully positioned with a bearing puller, so as to not pinch the rubber boot material) and lightly hammered the edge of the metal band in place, which took may trips around the band in order to do this without distorting or stretching the metal band excessively. Fortunately, I bought a couple of these boots, so the first one was not a deal-ender. Both CV joints are held in place by either a snap ring, or the peening of the splines at the end of the axle shaft.

I thought I'd never see this identical problem that I faced with a Gleason-Torsen type carrier that I installed a few years ago. What I found I had to do was swap the end (inner CV) from one shaft to the other. This was the only way it was going to fit correctly and allow a small amount of longitudinal movement of the axle shaft. The unfortunate thing with this is that this is the CV boot that has the metal ring on it, and this is a "bear" to replace, and do it well. The crying shame in all of this is that over the years, I never saw another person experience this issue, so a couple of months ago, I threw away the set of half-shafts that I modded for this (they were not usable by any "normal" R200 set-up) being I moved the differential 1" to the driver's side, and put the 930 joints in.

Not needed for the street, but I had plans to go to Hallet (Tulsa) and that track is really hard on brakes, plus, you know what they say about preparation.

I agree. In fact, until the lower control arm is perpindicular to the line drawn from the upper strut mount down to the outer bushing pivot point, the strut actually moves outward away from the differential. This is why you have a camber increase with suspension compression. Also, I'd take a good look at your CV operating angles. Yeah, CV joints operate at larger angles than U-jonts, but I think you may be at that limit under high torque applications. I see from the photo that you've got a bit of angle already built in at full droop. I cannot imagine what it is when compressed at normal ride height, and even worst, on hard acceleration or in a turn. My CV-joint axle angle is not this bad (my axles are horizontal at full droop), but this is only because I raised the differential up one inch to reduce some of this angularity. My memory on this is not the greatest, but it seems that these joints are not designed to operate under high torque outside ~26º or so???

One issue that has been much discussed (and debated) is the suggestion of either all solid, or all flex mounted attachments. Solid mounting of either the front or rear (but not both) will very likely result in the solid mount tearing away or fatique failure at some point. Solid mounting only one end of the differential still allows the other end (the flexible mount) to move, focusing all this stress onto a solid mount that was not designed to be flexed. Eventually, the constant bending will result in failure. By solid mounting both ends, you eliminate all movement, which results in a durable and long lasting mounting system.

The only thing I've got is the below drawing that I used to get started (the dimensions are my measurements, but the math and intuition seem to verify they are correct). After I cut the main "C" out of the plate, I bolted it onto the strut (I used the strut to mark the holes for drilling to insure all holes were perfectly positioned being I do not have any fancy CNC equipment), attached the rotor, placed the caliper over the rotor and used compressed air to hold it in the correct position, and then positioned the angle properly with respect to the caliper mounting bosses and the "C" plate to mark the caliper mounting holes as well as tack the angle onto the "C" plate. Then I disassembled all of this, finished drilling the holes, and welding the two bracket pieces together. Even though it sounds like a lot of work, it only took one entire dedicated weekend from start to finish. I used a 3 1/4" hole saw for the center of the "C" plate. This took the most patience of all the tasks involved with this fabrication.

I had a local machine shop turn them for me. Dang, as much money as I send his way, I could have bought a nice mini-lathe and turned all of this stuff myself! Remember, I don't have an e-brake, and that bothers me more every year I drive this thing. Some day that will go on as well.

When I compared the weights of the 302 and the L24 at the swap, I found (comparably equiped with aluminum heads, but with the SBF using an aluminum flywheel as compared to the L24 steel flywheel), that the L24 weighed close to 45 pounds more than the SBF.

Jon, Per another long thead (stiction) about using spherical bearings on the inner joints (the outer joints were easy), I've gone ahead and sent the drawing to a local machinist to have these "housings" machined for 3/4" bearings that will replace the rubber bushings (similar in concept to the parts you recently purchased). Any progress on these parts and there application?

Yeah, I allways overbuild this stuff (can't help it). I just look at the OEM stuff, and use it as a basis for my choice of material. The Maxima brackets on the car had some pretty thick flanges so I based my bracket on them. I use 3/8" for the main "C", and then used 1/4" steel angle for the rest of it. My main concern was in that going from a floater to a fixed caliper, that I needed the added rigidity. This may be unfounded, but it was in the back of my mind anyway. I have seen this stuff made all the way down to 3/16" steel in some applications, but these in particular had no offset angles and were flat plates with very short lengths.

My latest, and last, brake modification is complete. It uses '87 supra front rotors (12" X .875") with Outlaw 4000 series calipers (1.25" pistons). These complement the front brakes (13" rotor and 1.75" piston caliper). It was pretty much a straight forward install with the exception of fabricating a caliper mounting bracket. A sawsall, drill press, welder, grinder, and a weekend took care of that issue. Forgive me for the bling (red caliper paint), but the finish on these calipers had gotten pretty bad.

The 405 pound weight would be with aluminum heads, and most likely without the flywheel. My 302 weighed just under 400 pounds, but that was with an aluminum flywheel (no clutch), and aluminum everything else except shortblock and pan. I even think it had the headers on when I weighed it.

Interesting. I have a ram-air set-up on my SX, and it was very sensitive to the resultant turbulance until I baffled the area just ahead of the MAF. I thought it was just something I did not design well (which I guess is the correct conclusion).

I think it all looks great. A clean aerodynamic look may resemble a boat, but aren't both supposed to travel through a medium at high speed? Form follows function.

Amen!! Some of these titles are witty, amusing, cute, and catchy, but do absolutely nothing for those searching for information. Thank you for bringing up a subject I'd wished I had.

Looking good. The Boss heads probably helped even the torque out a bit. Anyway, looking forward to watching the progress on this project.

Is this a typo? 215 tires behind a N/A 302 could be boiled off in no time. Did you mean 315? I can't help with the turbo questions, but I like your idea. When you can, would you provide more info on the set-up and parts?

{quote] I've often wondered why shaft loops are designed as simple U shapes when it seems better to have a full circle around the shaft. It seems like a full circle would help prevent the shaft from beating the underside of the car to pieces. This is because these are made more for live axle cars, which allow a lot of up-and-down movement. Thus the loop must be elonged in order to keep the movement as restrictive as is possible. Our IRS set-ups could use a more round arrangement, but the propeller flange still moves up and down a bit.

1) The spacer will do it, and... 2) 50 series aspect ratio is also making it worse I've had 240/45/16 tires with no rubbing, but this was a zero offset 8" wheel. The further outboard you go, the worse it gets, plus you've got a taller tire as well.