blueovalz

I'm an ex-cyclist!!! Back in the 70's I was a cat II senior. I got so burned out on it though that I hadn't been on the saddle since '78.

The CV-jointed and the U-jointed halfshafts use differing companion flanges (differing bolt patterns). So I would say that, yes, the companion flanges would need to be exchanged along with the halfshafts.

whoop, whoop whoop whoop.... yunk, yunk yunk!

Your question about the engine and towers sounds correct... for a soft-mounted motor. Mine is solidly mounted to the rails at 4 points, tieing the rails and motor together as one. This would eliminate any ramp, or cam action, impressed onto the towers in the configuration I've used. I would never have done this had I used rubber motor mounts.

There have been several designs produced by our membership. Most encompass a plate on top of the tower, connected by tubes to the other side, and to the firewall, to triangulate the structure. These designs are mainly oriented toward keeping the towers rigid in relation to each other when faced with the side loading imparted by the suspension. They may well offer some support for engine and chassis torque as well, but without any empirical proof, I'd wonder if the towers would twist in unison (along with the frame rails), thus making them less effective for this purpose. This is not all doom and gloom though, because IMHO, the Z is a fairly stiff car considering its weight, what it was designed for in the first place, and the era that it was designed in. Here is my version of what I wanted in extra stiffness. The engine is solidly bolted to the unibody at 5 point (including the tranny), and then triangulated up to the strut tower, and the strut tower brace that connects to the firewall at 3 points:

I was the same way until a couple of months ago when I got hit. Unfortunately, the worm that caught me was off the IP, and there was no fix in the works at the time, but regardless, I now update (rather that procrastinate) constantly (and patiently) whenever it is called for. Now I see how often I get virus hits, and my computer is back up to "speed" once again.

Your revised first post now makes much more sense. Being you're maintaining roughly the same ratio as before, it would appear you should have no problem with the swap in regards to "feel".

IMHO I would only use this small a bore for the rear brakes. This size of piston(s) is less total piston area than the OEM front calipers were. With the 15/16" MC that you already have on the car, it would make the situation even worse (reduction of the brake cylinder and increasing the MC).

I ran into this same problem with my rack the minute I adjusted the slack out of the rack. I had to go back and loosen (back off) the adjustment that pushes the rack up against the pinion gear. Eventually, I gave up and instead replaced the bronze bushings at the ends of the rack housing. I cannot verify this, but if I remember correctly, there are some shims that space the pinion gear up off the rack gear. I'm wondering if reducing the thickness (remove a shim or two) of this shim, in conjuction with some very slight adjusting of the rack's adjusting nut inward, would keep this from happening. It all made sense to me years ago when I did this, but I remember the adjustment nut (on my particular rack) actually instilling a slight bend in the rack when adjusted too far (due to a combination of worn components), causing it to bind at full lock.

The solid mounting method I was espousing uses two sheet metal plates that bolt onto the front and rear of the engine block (between the water pump up front and between the bellhousing at the rear) which then bolt onto receivers at the crossmember and rear part of the engine bay's frame rails. This basically turns the engine block into a part of the unibody. My personal thoughts (and this has been debated) is that once you use a solid mount on any specific part, than all other mountings for this part should be solid as well. In other words, you may want to consider solid mounting the tranny as well. To have the tail of the tranny moving around whilst the solid motor mounts try to restrict this movement will eventually lead to fatique and failure of the solid mounts (cracking, breaks in welds, etc) or crossmember towers.

If I understand your rubbing problem correctly, toe has nothing to do with your issue. If the tire is rubbing on the spring perch on one side, but not the other, then it sounds as though 1) strut housing (hub) is bent; or 2) the spring perch is not in the same location (height) on each side. One thing to look for is to place the car on a known level and flat floor, and then measure the camber on each of the rear tires with a "neutral" setting on any control arm bushings if you have adjustment capability on them. Your problem indicates to me that you will have more negative camber on the passenger side verses the driver's side. I'd also measure the distance from the top of the hub boss (the cast steel bearing carrier) to the bottom of the spring perch on both the rear struts and see if there is a difference in this dimension between the two.

The answer no one wants to hear, but try the "search" feature. I could be wrong here but I believe this is a common trait of the Z. I had it on mine, and I've heard many others with the same issue. It has been covered in one or two strings (perhaps last year some time). Where is the tire rubbing? How much of a difference is there between the left and right side tire clearance that you make reference to (e.g. how much clearance do you have on the drivers side verses it rubbing on the passenger side). This is one reason I made an adjustable rear toe-in mechanism. I've used the delrin eccentric bushings (but they started wearing and eventually became too loose for my likings), then I returned to the OEM rubber bushings with the outside half of the passenger's front bushing shaved while inserting a piece of 2" (not sure of this size) schedule 40 PVC pipe between the unshaved "inboard" part and the steel saddle. In effect this moved the centerline of the bushing outward by about 1/8", which was just about right, and it's was there for years until I installed the toe-in adjustment device and installed new poly bushings.

Is that photoshopped? Somebody sure likes the old 67 Shelby rear scoops.

Something to consider in the solid mounting in regards to chassis stiffening is the "front and rear plate" method. When the engine is mounted onto the frame rails at four separate rigid points, the frame rails then become tied together via the engine and thus all of these parts act as a single unit. In a high torque application the twisting then is spread out behind the firewall, instead of forward of the firewall if you were using the typical two point soft mount. The rear plate in this instance is tied to the joint where the frame rail and the firewall meet, and this keeps the rails parallel. This then is where a cage really comes in handy in stiffening the chassis behind the firewall. BTW, vibrations have never been a problem with the solid mounting on my car. I was afraid the rear-view mirror would be useless with this set-up, but I find its view to be very clear. I added further stiffening into the chassis by solidly mounting the tranny as well. The engine/tranny combination provides a "spine" so to speak for the tunnel area, which reduces any up and down flexing. I can jack my car up completely off the ground with jack-tubes positioned at the exact center point between the front and rear axles, and the door jams will not change at all from the normal "on the ground" position.

Excellent observation, and one I agree with. I felt the last election was perhaps a peak in the abyss that separates the parties, but now see this was a premature observation. No longer is leadership the primary goal (as I have so naively presumed it should be) of office, but rather election of one's party appears to have replaced this goal, which thus sets our first President's words to ring more true than ever. I suppose I'm much too idealistic for my own good.

Great comment Mike. What troubles me in the current political arena is how deeply divided the left and right are. Recent experience in the workplace has shown me that tolerance for the other's viewpoint has all but disappeared, opposing points of view are never considered, an open mind is rare, and there is no regard for the remote chance that "my" argument may be flawed. One person, whom I've had a great deal of respect in his opinion for it's fairness, has for the last year and a half been consumed in literature that pounds the left, and uplifts the right. At what point does one begin to be brainwashed by the opinions and words of what he reads, leading to more and more of the same, leading him to become more and more focused into a narrower and narrower field of view, unable to raise his head and see that there are indeed two sides to an argument. Just for once I'd like to have an intelligent debate with the other isle in which both sides of the argument could be considered from both sides of the isle.

I'm seeing about a 38mm drop in ride height (25.5mm due to tires, and 12mm due to wheel size). The 60 series tire will have a sidewall of 123mm vs the 97.5mm sidewall of the 50 series tire (thus the 25.5mm difference). This, in addition to the 12mm drop due to the smaller diameter wheel, adds up to 1.5". Lowing the CG of any car will improve the handling. 'Nuf said.

Very nice indeed!

Ditto. I ran into leaking fittings as well. Then I replaced all 4 O-rings in the banjo fittings with new ones from my "harbor freight" O-ring box, and it's been leakproof since (last summer).

Yep, I hammered it (with a dolly backing it up). It was not easy being this piece is comprised of compound curves, but it did hammer out. I wanted to eliminate as much welding as possible, but the cutting would work just as well, and be easier to do in the long run.

Very nice job on the hood, and I am quite happy that it turned out so well after all the problems you had "learning" the trade. It all starts out as mat and resin, but with some patience and determination, an entirely unique, custom, and homemade creation that looks professionally made is the end result.

I don't have any good pictures that can show this, but here's a drawing I threw together that shows what I did. It's a cross-section of the wheel well/fender before and after I modified the opening to accept the wider tires on the lowered body and avoid any rubbing.

I've had a set of titanium headers (for a motorcycle) in my hand and the tubes were mandrel bent. The tubes were about 1.5" in diameter, so this smaller size may have an effect on the ability to bend titanium tubing, but talk about LIGHT WEIGHT!

I also think I remember where Roush was contracted out by Ford to mate two Duratec V-6s a long time ago for research purposes. I'm guessing that the A/M engine came out of that research?

A picture is worth a thousand words. To gain more room for my tires on the quarterpanel, I cut about 2.5" off the lip, actually, it was the same radius as the wheel opening, but with the center of the arc moved 2.5" upward, so that the sides remained uncut, but the amount of material removed was more and more the higher up the arch I went until it was about 2.5 inches at the crest. Then I took the wheel well material (which I did NOT cut, but instead separated it from the outer skin at the lip) and hammered it straight out from it's peak (as it normally curves around the tread toward the lip in the OEM configuration) so that it would meet up with the new, higher, outside lip. Then I re-welded it all back together again. It is important to re-connect the inner (well) and outer (quarter panel lip) steel back together again after any of the lip is removed so that the unibody integrity is maintained.