blueovalz

Awesome! I used to be big into the old Mustangs. I don't recognize the powerplant though.

Again, welcome to HybridZ. We're not trying to discourage qureries for information, but his subject is once again very well documented. Search for "R230" in the drivetrain forum in regards to a differential that is tougher than the R200 (even though the R200 is a tough piece). There's a ton of information and pictures in this regard. We had one member document a Vet rear-end as well (wished I could remember who).

Thanks for what now appears to be an obvious answer. I appreciate it!!

Define "single shear" please (looking for enlightenment).

Since Tony was nice enough to take the time to post all of that, I'll add a couple of photos of a hood scoop I made for my 240SX hood that was made using the exact same techniques listed above in reference to the hood scoop work. This scoop was made "on the car" over the OEM paint, with no damage done at all to the factory paint, using the foam as a mold. Then it was removed, finished, painted, and then installed permanently (non-functional). All in all, it took 2 weeks to fabricate from start to bolt-down, and cost about $40 in materials (everything!) Anybody with the desire can do something like this, and this type of job is an excellent "starter" for those wanting to experiment with composite fabrication.

Headlight covers were discussed on a previous string not long ago, and the consensus was the fit is poor, and even with the rubber gasket around the Lexan, a gap or two will exist around the edges of the cover. Bondo is not a bad thing. It's fine over broad areas in thin layers, but you don't want to use it in lieu of poor bodywork, or as a filler for deep imperfections or damage that was not hammered out correctly. I can't address the bodywork (especially because I lack familiarity with the MSA kit). Your drawing left me wondering what you were trying to illustrate.

Great update. Hard to believe how dinky that engine looks, but what a powerhouse!

I believe the pot consists of read (not red), sent, and available space. The drop-down menu ("jump to folder" box) at the top will show the "sent" messages which also count against your total. I'm guessing you've received 4 messages and answered (or sent) with 4 replies for a total of 8 messages. Hope this helps.

You should be able to line this out with a simple vacuum gauge. If at idle you're at or below 8.5 inches of vacuum, then the power valve needs to be reduced to a number below this so that the valve stays closed until you open the throttle up under load. But I wonder if the power valve is only part of the problem. Assuming you still have the OEM cam in place, and timed correctly, you should have a vacuum of well above 8.5" at idle, so this tells me you may have a bad power valve (ruptured diagram or one not sealing closed) or idle screws are not adjusted correctly. Hesitation when you open it up can also be associated with an accelerator pump/squirter that is too small, plus you may have too small a main jet sizing as well. Timing could contribute to this as well. I'd work on all this before looking for the flow meter. The flowmeter will help in getting it really fine tuned, but you need to get in the ballpark first.

If Holley said the valve was too big, I assume that means the number is too big. I believe this means that the valve stays closed at higher than 8.5" of vacuum, ant that as the vacuum drops below 8.5 inches, the valve will open (At WOT for example) allowing a richer mixture. This then tells me that if Holley thought it was too big, then a smaller one (say a 6.5 for example) would keep the mixture a little leaner by not allowing extra gas until vacuum dropped even further. So is your problem being excessively rich mixture. In this case, perhaps vacuum is not strong enough to keep the valve closed (at the times it should be closed), so a smaller number should be used to correct this? We need more information on what you base your comment, "The problem is adjusting".

This is true. The OEM location is off the side of the strut tube. It allows a longer link which promotes the use of an adjustable bar without getting into large link angles. Neat design.

Main Entry: cur·mud·geon Pronunciation: (")k&r-'m&-j&n Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown 1 archaic : MISER 2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man John, I had no idea!! Lots of smilies if I could figure out how to attach them to the post!!

Here is an illustration of what I was refering to:

This picture begs me to ask a couple of questions, or at least pose a point or two that I'd like to discuss. The control arm pictured on the initial post shows the sway bar pick-up at a point off center of the control arm's centerline, a centerline that rotates a limited amount due to the sperical rod ends and ball joint. Thus, as I see it, the only thing keeping the control arm from rotating uncontrolled about this centerline is the T/C rod clevis. This would be my first concern (am I correct here?) in an inspection for fatigue as this is now a shear issue with the clevis and no longer limited to a tension or compression issue? With that said though, this same issue of off-center sway bar pick-up would appear to be an "amplifier" for the sway bar. As the arm drops to full droop, the arc that must be followed by the T/C rod then also swings the sway bar pick-up arm (even as short as it is) the same amount of angular change. Thus, for every movement up or down the control arm travels, the sway bar's pick-up point is amplified to a slightly larger amplitude of change (dependent on the pick-up's displacement off centerline), which would seem to cause a smaller sway bar to exhibit the same performance as a larger bar picked up on the control arm's centerline. (I suppose the actual effects will be slight, but just a topic to discuss)

Well, your post got my curiousity up. I assume that you were backing up when the rod broke (being the wheel went forward into the fender)? Also, If the bushings and the rear half of the rod are gone, I wonder how it came out (the nut and the stepped rod should have kept it all together) or did it snap off at the bushings? Were the OEM bushings on the rod at the time of failure? The answer may help those reading this post later. All this scares me to a degree because after reading about all the failures from the other post, I can't help but feel concerned, being my T/C rods were extended 1.5 inches, and even had the tires rubbing on them at full lock for years (sticky tires no less), but they are still true, un-rusted, and in somewhat perfect condition. Perhaps the fact that I've never had anything other than the OEM bushings maybe?

So true! I struggled with the tire size I currently run. They are taller than the racing set-up I had, which now sets the car up some due largely in part to John's comments. I'm about as low as I can go with this tire combo. IMHO, the best look/performance balance (street) is a tire in the 24" tall range, and no taller.

I used two types of foam. The soft, crumbly foam (commonly used in "wet" floral arrangements and found at craft stores and usually green in color) is resistant to the effects of the resin (reacting or dissolving the foam for lack of a more accurate description) whilst the hard, crispy foam (found at same stores) will react to the resin, but is much more durable in its handling. If I use the later, I cover this foam with masking tape prior to covering it with resin to prevent it from dissolving away. Anyway, either foam cuts and sands extremely easily. These are the types I used to make the body panels on the BlueOvalZ (and all the other fiberglass parts on it). Here is a photo of the hard, crispy type of foam I used in creating the tail light panel on my Z:

Adding stiffness to a large, broad area, by added thickness to the panel will add excessive weight to the entire panel, which then acts against the added thickness (now the panel must support more weight). The most effective way to stiffen a broad area is well placed ribbing. I used 1" by 1" foam strips that were covered with a single layer of mat. The foam added no weight to the panel, and the "box" created over the foam greatly stiffens the edges of the panel (or anywhere it is placed). Angles can provide the same effect. In some areas I've simply bonded a single strip of 1" X 1/8" fiberglass strap, perpindicular (_I_) to the surface being reinforced. This works almost as well as the boxing.

Well, it's not a photo of the puller, but it is a quick drawing of what it basically looks like. The all-thread that was used was not your garden variety in that it looked like a good quality steel, and I cannot remember if it was NF or NC, but either way should work.

It's always good to hear another Ford rumble to life when it resides in a Z!

I'm hoping this weight is "shipping" weight. The dimensions seem awfully large. Perhaps these are the "shipping" dimensions as well (39†tall….no way).

I've never used the 7oz mat, so I cannot address that. I do suspect the thicker mat will be harder to lay up over compound curves. Even the 2oz mat gives me some problems on smaller concave or convex shapes. I have noticed that at high speed, my hood will deflect slightly in a downward position. Currently my hood rests about 1/4" above the water pulley. At triple digit speeds, this area of the hood compresses just enough to where the bolts holding the pulley begin cutting into the underside of the hood. Personally, I like the idea of positive pressure above the hood this far forward, but I was surprised by the level of pressure provided. The goal was to create a body suitable for racing (light weight) but not too fragile for street use later on. I did not document the building of the bodywork 1) because I wasn't sure it would ever "work out" being it was my first "all body" work, 2) It was a divorce recovery project, and I wasn't in the mood to document anything in my life at that time. But I did finally (due to the many questions asked by so many folks) create a text document describing how and what I do with fiberglass. If you send me an Email (not a PM), I'll reply with is Word document attached. It's only my methods, and does not imply any professional process or results. The Word document is simply intended to answer the most popular questions I've received about working with fiberglass in a home garage without specialized equipment. The lay-up on my car took a couple of days, but the finish work took years (but I kept changing things, adding here, removing there, etc) and cost (guessing here) about $600 in materials. I can't remember specifics on amounts of materials, but the higher quality resin will go further than the cheaper resin. Common sense, lots of patience, lots of thought about the design, and prodigious amounts of desire will insure a great finished project.

Yeah, I used the puller from one of our members as well, and took out 6 pins in the JY in about 30 minutes. But those that are not fortunate to have one at least has a good idea of what a PITA these pins can be to remove thanks to his write-up. Good work Larry! When I think about what is the popular method of removing these pins (banging on the ends with a hammer or such) I can understand why a puller works so easily. It appears that any compressive impact on the ends of the pin would swell the end of the pin (even if the threaded portion is necked down in size) ever so slightly, to the point where you increase the wall friction. If I had no puller to use, my next attempt at removing these pins would be to place a nut on the end of the pin and then use a ball-joint fork (or any ramped steel device) wedged between the pin and the bushing inner wall, and use this method to remove the pin using tension instead of the common compression method. As the pin is worked out, you'd be required to increase the thickness of a spacer (using washers perhaps?) to be able to continue using the fork as a means of removal.

With resin, I count one layer of 2oz mat to equal about .040 - .050" (remember, this depends on if it's rolled out, and how much resin you want in it. On my panels, I used 4 layers, which measure out to about 3/16" roughly. The finer cloth or woven cloth takes a billion layers to get the same thickness, but will be more durable. Again, when I do this, it's a matter of compromise. I balance strength verses ease of construction. A higher resin ratio allows for better sanding and finish as well if you don't use the traditional gel-coat step with a mold.

I wished Ford could have utilized one of the great attributes of the 5.0, which was it's weight and size (small outside physical dimensions) when they re-configured their SBF.