blueovalz

Oh....oh (hand up in the air waving frantically)!! And, the bronze bushings, that are inserted into the ends of the rack tube, are of a different size as well. The early rack gear is slightly smaller diameter than the later ones (I had to use a brake hone to increase the ID of the early bushings in order for the later rack gear to slide back and forth in it)

I had to think on this one a bit, but in changing to dual MCs, one would assume the following: The same sized MC (15/16" for this discussion) would be needed to keep the same MC/SC size ratio for a proper leverage. But with split (one MC for each half of the braking system) cylinders pushing a certain volume of fluid at this same leverage, you'd only need about 1/2 of the pedal movement to obtain clamped calipers (two 15/16" cylinders pushing fluid instead of a single one) Thus, I would surmize that the pressure on the pedal now doubles (assuming for a moment that front and rear calipers and MCs are identical) because you've got 2 MCs to push instead of a single one (basically doubling the MC bore cross section). Now, reducing the size of the MCs so that the volume moved is enough to return the pedal to its normal range of motion will in turn increase the leverage to the calipers (when both MC are compressed). So, if all this is correct, then I would assume that a reduction in bore size is required to maintain fluid flow and leverage at the OEM characteristics. Going further, the assumption is that 2/3 of the braking done on our cars is by the front brakes, and that 1/3 is done by the rear brakes. This then is used to modify our assumptions above by reducing the size of the front MC bore (when converting from a 15/16" single to 2 smaller dual MCs) to 2/3 its original (15/16") single MC size, and reducing the rear MC to 1/3 of its original (15/16") size. This then leaves the sizes as being 3/4" and 9/16", which is very close to your planned bore sizes. My guess on this set-up then would be a midpoint setting on your balance bar.

You'd think I'd know this, but that part number (HMS4R) can be picked up where? This is great information, and I'd very much like to get a set, but do not know where to start. Thanks again.

I'll have to disagree on the dimensions. The ZX seal is 62 MM X 40 MM, and the Z seal is 72 MM (or 73 MM?) X 42 MM (I may be off by 1 MM on the OD for the Z). So what is needed is a seal that is 72 MM (or 73 MM?) X 42 MM in order to fit a ZXT companion flange to a Z bearing carrier (strut), and properly seal the bearings. The R200 pinion seal that I later used is a 75 MM X 40 MM, but the 75 MM is too large, which is why I had to remove the rubber off the outer circumference to get the seal to fit into the Z strut.

They are the Motorsport J302 heads from Ford. They are one of the original aluminum heads offered for a SBF, but I still like them. What I find is a shame is that aside from these heads that I have, I have yet (but I don't actively search for them) to find any with the wide, Cleveland style bolt pattern on the exhaust side. These J302 heads have two patterns on the exhaust, an OEM bolt pattern, and then an angled, Cleveland style bolt pattern which allows lots of room for larger tubing and still be able to get to the header bolts without a lot of problems. Unfortunately, header flanges are no longer made for these heads. Power? They do a good job, but I've got a lot backing them up (headers, intake, cam characteristics, compression, etc. So how much is a result of the heads only is up for grabs.

Completely different. The runners are vastly different sizes, and the water passages are different as well. You'll need the boss intake for what you have. I believe the Cleveland line of exhaust manifolds will fit as well as headers, will bit the exhaust side, but remember, the block on the 302 is smaller, so the header may hang lower as a result.

danged firewall

Dan, Love the Avatar

Mine weigh about 23 lbs each with all hardware (J302)

IF these companion flanges are indeed identical to the 280ZXT flanges, the journal on the companion flange that spins inside the seal lip is about 2 mm (maybe 3 mm) smaller than it is for the Z companion flanges. This gap prevents proper sealing of the bearings. Just something you'll want to think over or look at. I've taken two approaches to the seal issue. One was using the ZXT wheel bearing seal (it is about 10mm smaller OD than the Z seal OD), set into a split metal ring, that then is inserted into the bearing carrier just as the Z seal would be. The other approach (which may or may not be easier) was take an R200 front pinion seal, and remove the rubber casing on the outer circumference only, then press this seal into the wheel bearing carrier (using a sealant) just as you would a Z seal. The rubber on the outer circumference is removed because the OD of this seal is about 1mm too large, and caused interference. Unfortunately, some seals use a thicker layer than others, so depending upon what seal you get depends on how frustrating it is to get the seal inserted into the wheel bearing carrier.

I know this may seem silly, but I'm going to ask anyway. Have you taken care of any bearing seal mismatch between the two companion flanges. I ask because the Maxima flange is exactly like the 280ZXT flange, and the ZXT flange requires a different bearing seal.

Thanks for answering the questions, and yes, it looks great (Just get the rest of those six bolts in)

I may not understand your situation, but here goes. The short axle is the one having a problem with length (driver's side?). So replacing it with another short axle (of the same length) will not solve the problem. The longer one will benefit from this though. I don't know what the first gen Maxima companion flanges look like. A question I like to have verified is: Is the R180 narrower than the R200, and if so, I would think you'd have plenty of room for the R200 axle swap. So are the R180 axles longer than the R200 axles? Is the companion flange similar or identical to the 280ZXT companion flange?

I've used thin spacers (shims if you prefer) on calipers for years. And washers will work fine if you measure them for a matching pair.

Yeah, I did. Purpose:, to allow plenty of room between the pan and the crossmember, to relocate the pivot point for the control arms, allow the Mustang steering rack to be properly attached, and to bolt onto the engine plates.

It's been brought up twice (I think) over the last few years, so it is nothing common, but I believe they were all front solid, rear flex mounting.

My firewall prevents me from seeing any "foreign" sites.

4.5" is marginal. It will be very close but you may be lucky with about 1/4" between the OEM springs and the section width of the tire. At least it will be close enough that you should be able to go ahead with whatever plans you have, and adjust for any interference later.

I agree wholeheartedly. When I saw this idea being floated earlier, I wanted to comment, but couldn't communicate my thoughts on it effectively. The ONLY reason I solid mounted both the diff and the engine/tranny combo was out of convenience. I would have solid mounted the diff regardless of what I was doing to the engine tranny combo.

Did you solid mount the rear of the differential as well? My guess (god, I hope I'm right on this assumption) is that you did not. Blending solid and flex mounting on any piece of equipment will result in failure on the solid mounted portion. The flex mount (I assume on your mustache bar) will allow flexing, which causes the material around the front solid mount to flex. Metal will only flex so many cycles before fatique and failure. Solid mounting the rear would have prevented this small amount of flexing up front. Solid verses flex mounting...one or the other, but not both. This is why I solid mounted front AND back portions of the differential. I also solid mounted the motor, but then I was required to solid mount the tranny as well. Going on 15 years and counting with no cracks or breaks.

Is there a pin that must be removed and then the caps (sockets) unscrew off the rack ends?

Well dang it! When I saw "460ZX" in the Ford section, I started salivating, thinking this was a 460 (with hopefully Cobra Jet or Super Cobra Jet heads) hybridz, only to find out it was a 4.6L

Short string

The original OEM sleeves are too large an OD to fit into the polyurethane bushings (I've already tried that). The polyurethane bushing is .750" ID, but the OEM sleeve is .785" OD, and the polyurethane bushing did not want to stretch at all (not even .035"). Forcing it made the polyurethane bushing's OD too large to fit into the arms.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but...lateral loads will not be twisting the arm about a common point, but will instead introduce a compression/tension load (assumed to be equally distributed between bushings). His example shows how the lateral load was positive on both bushings. If there were no crossbar between the two sides of the triangle arm, then other loads would indeed be introduced onto the bushings/bearings during lateral loads; and then the wider the spacing, the higher the loads would be on the bushings/bearings.