blueovalz

In your inebriated state, you didn't bite anybody's sister did you?

Even though I've used the BFG T/As, and Comp T/As, I've known that they could be bested easily by many other tires. IMHO, These tires are fine for street use, but I'd leave them home when it comes to quick lap times. My impression is the compound is just too hard for quick times. Construction is great, but they are not a sticky tire. Again, just an opinion.

I've just witnessed another episode of the "Hybrid-Zone". How can this get any more bizarre than having an 11 year old man-child boy-racer bring tears to my eyes. Time to go into my garage and sit in the Blueovalz and contemplate my current standing in life once again.

The most desirable 289 is the HiPo 289 (4 bbl) but it's rare, and expensive, to find the rods which are IMHO the main thing that separates this 289 from all the rest. I've twisted my 289 (for 25 years with different motors) to 7k a lot, and 8K occasonally, using the stock rods with ARP (or SPS a long time ago) rod bolts with no failures except for a broken ring land on a cast piston (yes, I did run cast pistons early on) .

The control arms only reach the "peak" on the "negative camber" curve once the control arm rises (e.g. the car is lowered) to the point in which the arm is perpendicular with the strut tube. Being the strut tube is laid inboard at the top by 13 degrees (in general), then the top of the "negative camber" curve is when the arm is 13 degrees to the horizon (road), which means the car is pretty low at that point. The amount of continued negative camber gain at this close proximity to the peak of the curve means very little negative camber gains will be realized as you continue to lower the car, but none-the-less, the geometry cannot be argued with. Don't get confused between camber effects, and the position of the wheel as the wheel moves inboard and outboard with the arm. The kingpin angle (so to speak) of the strut tube is what mucks all this up. Look at it from the strut's point of view. If the strut were perfectly vertical, then the horizonally perfect arm would then be at the top of the negative camber curve, because the arm is perpendicular to the strut tube, and further lowering of the chassis would indeed cause the camber to pass the top of the curve and start going toward the positive direction. BUT, this would also mean that anything other than a horizontal arm in either direction (up or down) presents inself as inducing positive camber. Because of the 13 degree inclination though, this geometry allows the increase of negative camber throughout the complete "probable" range of strut compression, and not just part of it.

Lookin' good!

To make an educated guess here, you can compare the OEM Ford MC bore/SC bore, then I'd apply this ratio to your SC to derive the size of the new MC. The 13/16" SC's stroke will only be a little more than half of what the stroke of the 5/8" MC is. You will need to determine how much available stroke the current SC has. If it's about 1", then I'd say this matches the stroke at the MC (which is usually about 1" as well). But aside from this extra work, yeah, I'd say try the same size up on top.

If it's the OEM rear, I'd say it is NOT a LSD (Limited Slip Differential). Can't address your question about the radiator (or more acurately, the fan?)

I could weld you up a turnbuckle similar to mine if you run out of patience or supply sources, and if it would match your design. Left and Right hand nuts and bolts are available locally (mine are 1/2" by 2" long in grade 3, but I believe they can be had in 1/4" and 3/8" as well, and can be tacked together fairly quickly).

Well Pete, that was discussed as well. It seems that the bronze will be visible in the oil as very fine particles if inspected closely, but believed that it does no damage to the bearings.

When I was assembling my motor with a new roller cam and the required bronze gear (a first for me), I was told by an engine builder (HP and race) that the first distributor gear (being it was a brand new cam) would most likely last only about 5k miles. He said the next one would last perhaps 20K, and a third one a little bit longer but not much. The first one would smooth up the cam gear teeth enough that the subsequent distributor gears would last longer. It sounds like your experience may be proving him correct.

Ok, I'm confused. Are we in Iraq because of 9/11, or was that why we are still chasing Usama in Afganistan? I was raised to take care of first things first, then do the clean up work later.

I used the Competition Cams roller tiped steel rocker arms before going to the full roller aluminum ones, and my impression of the steel roller tipped arms was very good. The machining for the main pivot socket was an excellent match for the "ball", and with the proper supply of oil was much much better than the OEM set-up, but again, not as good as the full roller bearing rocker.

The guy who rebuilt my alternator told me some sort of small resistance was needed in this circuit to allow the alternator to work (charge?) correctly. It didn't quite make any sense to me (if bulb burnt out, then alternator quits working?). Anyway, I went back and asked him again about it, and without any specifics he said it does require a bulb or some kind of small resistance.

I cannot address 74_5.0L_Z's concern, but I know that on the ZX cv jointed shafts, a spring on one (moveable end) end pushes the shaft against a nylon button in the other joint at the other end of the half-shaft keeping the shaft always positioned inboard. This also povides constant pressure on stub axle as well. The joints used on German makes use the same type of cage set-up, with no spring at all, but the grooves that the balls ride in are much shorter allowing only about 1/2" of movement on each end.

The booster assists the driver in providing pressure to the calipers. A "weak" pedal to me describes lack of any real back pressure or feedback. If this is correct then the booster could be working fine (providing the assistance) but you would be having a problem with the fluid side of the system (perhaps the MC). If the booster was bad, and all other parts were working correctly, then the pedal pressure would be higher than "normal" for the same stopping power, which, in a way can feel like brake fade. One other thing to check if you've got all new (or rebuilt) parts is to make sure the in-line vacuum valve is looking in the correct direction. This one-way valve prevents air from going toward the booster, but allows air to pass from the booster to the engine (thus providing the vacuum necessary to operate). If it is reversed, it would prevent the evacuation of air from the booster diaphram.

My experience with lowering (1.5") springs on stock perches was a max of 4.6" BS to center the tire between the lip and the spring perch, which allowed about 3/8" on either side of the tire. BTW the front and rear "centering" is different by what I could tell was about 1/8". I know, that's only fly shit in pepper, but when I had my 245/45ZR16 on mine, I needed as much BS as possible. On the custom wheels I had 4.56" BS on one end and 4.44" on the other end (too bad I can't remember which end was on which) which prevented any rubbing, inside or out. Also remember, the tire sidewall will flex in and out more than one would think in a high G turn. .

The first thing you need to do is see if you can get a tech line phone number for Howe and talk to someone there to find out what the recommended bore and stroke for the MC should be. The Howe hydraulic T/O bearing's piston may have more area than the McLeod one, and if that is so, you may be fine. If it is about the same size as the McLeod, then a 5/8" bore will be marginal at best (a 3/4" bore is over 40% larger in area than a 5/8" bore). Your 13/16" bore, with a lightly sprung PP may work better. Just watch the firewall for excessive flexing if it feels too heavy, and pay close attention to where the clutch engages and disengages. Being this bore is only about 17% larger than a 3/4" bore, I'd say start with it first, using caution not to over extend the bearing. Who knows, this may be the perfect size, but I've not seen any posts using the Howe unit. Let us know what you find out after testing it out.

Getting closer to paint. Wanted to finish up the fuel cell change-out while the weather is still too cold to paint. I had a 12 gallon Harwood poly cell in the car, but due to reasons unique to my set-up, I needed a more rigid cell, and a larger one as well. The local sheet metal shop was given plans and they welded up a 17 gallon cell for me. Here is a picture without foam or a top on it. The top is being put on this week and everything is looking good for a spring paint job. Finally I've got a cell that clears the exhaust, rear suspension pieces, and the rear bodywork modifications.

I would return the pushrod at the MC back to a normally adjusted length. It appears this has no effect on what you are seeing at the T/O bearing. You stated early on that with no SC at all, the fork tries to move the T/O bearing back into close proximity to the PP. Sometimes the rubber boots around the fork (attached to the bellhousing) will cause this if they are brand new, but then how could you see what you're seeing with the boot in place. Anyway, I can't think of anything else to tell you on this.

Is a 13/16" MC the recommended size for this bearing? It sounds a little large to me is the reason I ask (I believe 3/4" and 7/8" are the ones I've seen, but the Howe may use a larger area piston). Anyway, I would say any 1/8" brake line would work for this, coming off the MC, routed the way you want, and terminating at a line outside the bellhousing. Unless you can tighten your "internal" connections to this bearing from outside the installed engine/tranny bellhousing once it's in the car, then you'll need a couple of lines to go from the bearing to outside the bellhousing for both the input, and the bleed screw (The McLeod hydraulic bearing has these on it already, but it's more expensive). And if you are using rubber engine and tranny mounts, then flexible lines would be required (SS braided). For example:

I would consider a spring of some sort to keep some light, but constant tension on the arm holding the T/O bearing back. My initial thougt about your problem is that perhaps the lever arm is not seated onto the pivot ball correctly (going on some old and perhaps wrong memories here). Does this arm use a wire retainer to hold it down, and if so, have you insured that it is fully "clipped" into place?

Not sure I can give any advice here, but what carb was on it before that allowed the hood to close all the way?

Jon, I can't argue with that. It would have been easier, but I found that with a very short spacer (or none at all), I became concerned over 1) reduced flexibility in the link, 2) the sway bar hitting the control arm at full compression, 3) the control arm's motion is in an arc that is perpendicular to the arc the sway bar travels in, and thus the increased resistance to any lateral movement between the two without a spacer to lengthen the link (see 1). In addressing problem 2, one could mount the bar higher than the control arm so that the bar's arms angled downward toward the control arm so that they were no longer parallel with the ground, but in doing so, you exasperate problem 3 (which would then produce a tension/compression movement on the bar's mounts with every up and down motion the control arm makes). This is why I went to the pains of the modified bar. With the Stanza links (ball and socket design), I gained some flexibility over the poly bushings (on one side of the link anyway), and my bar stays well clear of the control arm, and I finally quit tearing the boots as well, so after 3 separate bars, I found a keeper, and it was the easiest one to modify. The "cut and weld" ends only took one afternoon to do, and I'd do this even with an OEM bar just to gain the use of current design bar links (ball and socket arrangement).

Your 15mm offset, on a 7" wheel, would translate into about 4-5/8" back spacing, and as Tim has said, he uses 5" back spacing with a bit of room left between the tire (wheel) and the spring (which is the same case for me as well). With an 8" wheel, you should be safe with a 12mm offset, and with a 9" wheel, a zero offset should still place the wheel back 5". Unfortunately, once you go wider than an 8" wheel, then the fender lip becomes the constraint. An 8" (depending upon the tire used) should not require any fender work, but I'd say a 9" wheel will require the lip to be rolled, if not completely flattened against itself.