blueovalz

You are correct. I was looking at it the pedal ratio differently (your total length of pedal : the length from MC rod to pivot point (3:1 ratio). This does help you quite a bit.

What you (Ernie) needs is folks that have been on both sides of this fence and can say which was best for them. In my case, I am about to find out. For the last 15 years, I've had the 289/302/289 (yeah, I liked the 289 better). Even though it was down on HP as compared to those larger, blown, heavier cars I've run against, the lightweight Z chassis let me take the lead. Now in the works: I have a 383 (shortest of the 351W stroker kits) being machined for installation this winter. It will add about 75 pounds to the car, about 100 cubic inches, additional stressing to the drivetrain, a little more HP, and GOBBS more torque as compared to the high reving 289 (The 383 still should rev fine with the set-up I'm using though). Hopefully, by next spring I'll find out whether I made a mistake or an improvement.

To me, it sounds like the larger MC (as has been recommended) is too large for the abnormal pedal ratio. Just wondering if you do any power lifting, squats? Lastly, you may want to review the area where the MC is located and insure it will be up to the task of heavy pedal pressures. On the typical firewall mounted systems, the wall can flex a bit. A Tee fitting will be fine up front, and with the relatively large rear caliper piston, I would definitly use the proportioning valve. If the CG is pretty high off the ground, you'll get a lot of weight off the rear during braking, and this will make it tough to adjust out.

Rough guess on following figures but I think it will be pretty close. On my Z I have about 6:1 pedal ratio, a .9375" MC and a 2.375" slave (caliper) cylinder. Thus, for every 40 pounds pressure I place on the brake pedal, I place roughly 1535 pounds of clamping pressure on the rotors (I am not including any booster assistance). This set-up provides more than adequate performance With the parameters you've provided, and for the same clamping pressure, you'd need a .627" (5/8") MC. The only problem I see at this time, is the required travel to move enough fluid to clamp the rotor. You'll get the required MC piston travel with the long 2:1 pedal ratio, but I don't think they make a master cylinder long enough for this purpose. Yes, you could use a larger MC to reduce travel, but then it would require more pedal pressure. Hope this helps

This is almost identical to one that Grizzly offers.

I did something similar to this. What I used for the spring seat (remember, this is now a street car) , and rubber insulator, for the upper part of the spring was a Honda spring seat. The seat, and the rubber insert fit perfectly. I pried the rubber piece out of the steel cup (or housing), welded the cup onto the modified Datsun piece, and then pushed the rubber back in place. I can't remember what year Honda I used, but the springs were very narrow.

Thanks again for another enlightening moment from Grumpy

Nice work!

EEEE ouch! I bet you feel older than me now. (ooh, does something stink?)

I tried the hydraulic method with sucess at times, but on my SX, the pilot bearing was only a small sleeve, which offered little hydraulic advantage compared to other bearings that had a OD twice (or larger) than the ID.

I've had a lot of problems with pilot bearing removal as well. On thing I found worked extremely well was a tap. I used the tap (not sure of the size but I think it was a 9/16") to cut threads into the pilot bearing hole. Once the tap bottomed out on the end of the crank, I simply kept turning it, which then pulled the pilot bearing out as I turned the tap into the end of the crank. Who would have thought?

After fifty years, and particularly, the past 15 years, I've found attitude about life becomes more and more important. Yeah, the joints hurt a little more each year, and my memory...what was I going to say?.. and the competitive power-lifting I did in my younger days has taken its toll on me, BUT never say "die". Kickboxing, the BlueovalZ, and my greatest blessing, my smarta$$ wife and kids who don't let me get away with anything, keeps me young at heart (sometimes too young). You guys though are the icing on the cake.

I believe that it will not. The bolts that hold the upper part of the column into place will need to be removed (4 bolts, 2 on each side of the column). The sheet metal used to hold the upper column in place is not very thick, and can be bent or deflected, but the flange at the bottom of the column may not allow enough movement sideways before interference prevents any further movement.

Cozy, you're just so....do I need to say it... cozy :mrgreen:

Dang! This is as touching as my dad sending me the bouquet of dead flowers and "over the hill" black balloons. Anyway, thanks guys, I appreaciate the thoughts.

Yes, yes, and yes. The only tricky thing about all of this is the precision required in the placement of the rod ends. It all looked fairly simple and straight forward when I started, but midway through the design stage, I realized that with no rubber to allow some degree of misalignment, I had to get the rod ends in the "dead-on" correct position. Not only to align the strut correctly in the very important pitch axis(the yaw axis could be adjusted out with the rod ends), but also in the rod end spacing (so that the balls would not be preloaded in the longitudinal axis when the assembly is tightened together). The rod end spacing issue could be corrected by changing the exact width of the 1/4" spacers (adding or subtracting a few thousanths), which is why these were added in case a future strut change had slightly different pin boss dimensions from the strut I am currently using. Any misalignment in either of these two areas would not bode well for the project. It makes a jig imperative, and gives me some insight into the difficulty in using multiple rod ends for suspension arms of this design. This set-up leaves little (if any) room for error.

Yes, I used 1/4" spacers between the pin boss (strut) and the rod ends. I don't feel these are necessary, but I wanted some means of being able to tune up the fit, and to allow for a small amount of placement error in my assembly (welding of the critical parts). If needed, these spacers could be changed (thinned or thickened) so that the strut could be moved forward or rearward a small amount if I happened to have the rod ends not perfectly placed, but as things turned out, they were perfect (only because I assembled everything on the car, and then tacked in the tube ends to insure everything bolted up in the correct position). The OEM pin is used, but modified by cutting 5/8" threads on the ends to tighten the assembly in place. I could have used a 5/8" bolt as well, and this would simplify things a great deal, but I was a little paranoid about the .010" slack fit between the bolt and the 3/4"-5/8" reducers that fit into the 3/4" rod ends. As it turned out, the poor tolerance control in these machined reducers (bought on Ebay) gave them a snug fit on the OEM pin, so I chose to use the pin instead of the bolt. FWIW, a 5/8" bolt has a shank that is in reality .620" in diameter (I found all bolt shanks are about 1% smaller than there nominal size).

The shaft that you wish to replace will drop (slide) out of the steering column once you provide an unimpeded path in the engine bay. You can leave the outer case in place inside the car when you do this. There is nothing holding it up inside the column other than the fact that it is kept from sliding out by being attached to the steering rack. It is about 16" long from the u-joint up, and has about 3" of splines on the end of it up inside the column.

The main reason I wanted to do this was to get the control arm geometry back to what I would call "reasonable". It is angled up from horizontal (at the outboard end) on my existing set-up. I'd like to get a little more camber action as well as get the roll center back up a few inches above ground. Kinda experimenting right now.

#1 (which is why this hole is there in the first place). Adjust the level so that fuel just barely trickles out of this hole with pump running.

Ernie is a great guy, and anybody who can help him but does not is missing an opportunity to meet a great guy with some good experience.

So Ernie, does this guy want "handling" in the traditional sense (go fast in the corners)?

On a smooth surface the argument would be difficult between the two if one neglects the advantage of adjusting the negative camber into an IRS suspension. On a rougher surface, the argument favors the IRS because of the lessened unsprung weight. So I have to say the IRS wins in both cases.

Jon lit a fire under my back side (as he usually does when he starts one of his many notable projects) to modify the rear suspension of the BlueOvalZ (A.K.A. The Ongoing Project). I finished up the control arm mods using Jon's idea, but with slight modifications to suite my personal taste. I chose to use a single 1/4 X 2" steel bar for the rod end support. Prior to this change in the lower control arm, I wanted to raise the roll center of the rear. I had some spare struts, so I modified one to test. and if I decide it is worth more work, I'll repeat it for the other side. Below is the modified strut with the lower portion extended by two inches. I used 1/4" flat bar for all material, and then used 1/8" sheet on the outside to overlap previous welds. Jig I built to ensure everything was correctly aligned when completed: On the car to test fit and align the tube ends for the control arm modifications: Before and after: Another view:

There was a string a while back showing many Z cars with the rear tire closer to the front edge of the lip than the back (by a significant amount). I'd consider this, and Jon's advise.