Zedyone_kenobi

Welcome my friend! If you need anything just ask around. I have never met finer people than are here on this board.

You are at the point where you need EGT on each cylinder. But the output may not be that useful. We can only tune so many screws. The older Z's have no feedback, so you will have to pick where you want to run. Also, are you tuning for power, or efficiency. While I think that installing EGT's would be cool, I am not sure how much more beneficial it will prove over just a standard Wide band. Now if you could datalog real time and use redlines to shut down the engine incase soemthing bad was happening to one cylinder or another, it would be very useful. I can imagine many situations where it COULD be useful, but the trouble of installing them and monitoring them may prove more work than worth.

I thought you had stripped down your car there for a second Arne! Hey if you have time, it would be awesome to hear your opinion on life with the 911 vs the 240Z. You have had the Porsche long enough to get your vocabulary settled and to do some fixes and get to know the car. What is it like? I would love to know the differences in ownership, feel, community, mechanicals, ease of use, etc. The Z's have a feel to them. You know it. What are the 911's like?

I thought just that Captain. Well sort of. When the manifold was off and I was test fitting the original rod, I had all the rod ends lose without any lock nuts on them at all. I swapped around rod ends, and tried all possible combinations. My middle was still a good bit more than 1/16th of an inch off at least regardless of how lose it was or what order I put them in. It was very discouraging. I can tell you by the looks of the Cannon manifold that it is so cheaply made ZERO finishing or quality control was done. I had to remove flashing from the runners on both sides. The webbing on the outside of the runners shows the sloppy casting. The last hole by #6 cylinder required 'persuasion' for it to sit flush on the gasket. I am not the only person who has had issue with the Cannon Manifold. I get the impression the FET or Kameari are leagues above in quality. The cannon is built to a price point. I was able to get my fore and aft rod end holes drilled (.334" drill) and tapped them with a 3/8-24 tap. The Rod ends are extremely close to parallel with each other and they appear to be perpendicular to the surface of the manifold. When you are only using 2 rod ends, the need for perfection on linearity is not nearly as important. I used a set of calipers to ensure they are sticking up the same height above the manifold within 0.060" of an inch anyway as best as I could measure. When I inserted the 3/8" rod, it barely moves when I apply a load to it. It also spins freely in the rod ends. Also the rod ends supplied with the Weber kit had a metal ball riding in a phenolic 'race'. That plastic bushing if you will had developed some slack in them that was not there when new. They had also become extremely stiff as well. I know that seems like a contradiction, slack but stiff, but that is what they feel like. Sort of like the worst of both worlds. The new rod ends are a different story. They are all stainless and are extremely smooth and of higher quality. The metal on metal of the rod ends and the new actuation rod feels almost lubricated its so smooth. I will attempt to attach the lever arms tomorrow if my new baby boy lets me. He does not give me much free time haha.

Well drat I managed to get an hour of time today to get into the garage and found out my new beefy linkage kit was a bit too beefy. HA. It seems the Cannon manifold has 5/16-24 threads in it. THE rod ends in my new kit use 3/8" threads. I have looked everywhere and it seems that rod ends that accept a 3/8" shaft ONLY come with 3/8" threads. I may have to drill the manifold and tap it to to accept 3/8" threads. Drilling into the manifold is not my idea of fun, but I figure it can be done. and if I mess it up well then I will have to take it off and get it done again anyway. Wish me luck.

NO I am getting that too, but it worked earlier.. I have no idea why. Flickr has been dead reliable in the past. Let me go check my links again.

Blue, great points. and WONDERFUL drawings!! THAnks bud. I made an extensive effort to get the angle of the actuation arm the same as the rod on the Weber. You cannot see it, but right now they are parallel. However, the stroke on the throttle cable rod has always not been ideal. The positions of the cables/push/pull rods on the rods I have played with extensively. I had to give up some mechanical advantage due to the fact that I was trying to balance the spring force with the rod flexing. I have a 3/8" rod coming in. It will replace my 5/16" rod I am using now. I need to take a video of the rod flexing when I touch it.

I got a few more, but you get the gist

There goes my patent hopes! HAHAA I am working on that picture!

I am going to place an order from mcmaster today for my collar. I can take it to a machine shop here at NASA off duty and get some holes drilled. Then I will source a torsional return spring. It will be nice not having a linear spring that attaches to the valve cover. If nothing else, it will clean up the engine bay that much more.

I have not given up totally on the Two rod end configuration. I have a Universal kit from Peirce manifolds coming in that uses a 3/8 steel rod and much beefier connecting hardware than what came in my Redline Weber kit. Pics to follow.

mcmastercarr sells torsional springs by the butt load. And they deliver in like a day.

Okay, I generated this up pretty quickly, but you can get my idea. All of this is available from McMasterCarr You would have to buy the collar, and drill some small holes in it which you would put dowel pins Next you need to make a plate out of some scrap metal. The rod end is already on your manifold. One end of the spring will rest against a dowel on the collar. The other end of the spring will stick into one of the holes in the plate being held by the rod end. The plate between the nuts will need some anti rotation feature, but that is nothing to implement. Opinions?

applying for patent now... www.patentmyideareallyquick.com

EXACTLY.... it would be smooth as silk, and not put any radial load on the rod. It would be compact. I should try to make a prototype...

I had an idea. I am going to run the car until it is up to temp, and then let it run for 15 minutes after. I am going to pull off the valve cover and check clearance. I should be in the 0.010/0.012 range hot, but if I am not, then I know I can probably afford to try a tighter cold lash. The transision is the key as mentioned. There is no way to really get that clearance unless you start the car from cold each time and increase the time and temp in increments, checking the clearance as you go. That would be an interesting data point to have!!! If only I had an entire weekend with nothing to do!

I would recommend a cold lash. It is too hard to get all the valves dead nut perfect hot. I would to 0.008/0.010 cold. That way all the valves are uniform temp and at the very least you get some consistency.

sure... Let me get that, I may already have it.

IF it has two mounting rods, it simply cannot bind. The rod ends usually have 10-20 degrees of angularity build into them, so you will be okay. With two, It can only flex in the middle, like mine does. This can be avoided of course in many ways. You can get a beefy actuation rod (3/8" should do it), or you can pull near a mounting point if you can get the springs and linkages to work out. I have mine in mechanically the worst possible position in the middle, and I exasperate it by using a BEEFy return spring. I am going to get this solved one way or the other. I did some poking around this morning and found out hat my pedal digs into the carpet and I cannot go WOT :stupid::stupid: Making these linkages work is NOT hard, but it takes attention to details and time. Luckily for me, I genuinely LOVE it. I was thinking last night that a torsional spring that wraps around the acuation rod at both ends would be a VERY clean way to get return actuation if you can find a way to mount it to the actuation rod on one end and then fix it on the other end to the intake somewhere.

Thanks for the complement on the fuel rail! it was homemade i started out with a piece of generic aluminum fuel rail. drilled and tapped for AN fittings and the fuel pressure gage brackets were bent on a vice, sanded and painted and drilled from metal scrap

behold the awesomeness of the kaminari manifold! behold the arse reaming price off 699!!! Leon, want to go half-sies

The bar idea is a really, really interesting one! I like the modular nature of it. I would probably take it to a machine shop to get it done exactly how I wanted it. But I will look into that. It opens up so many options for where I can mount things and where I can place return linkages and all. I smell a project...

Thanks mike I thought the cable was to blame at first, but I have it set up that at idle the throttle cable is a tiny bit of slack in it, so the return spring only has to overcome the linkage and not the cable. I would love to run a very light return spring. So blipping the throttle would feel more natural. I need an entire day to mess with this. Speaking of the cable, it feels like it has a LOT of friction in it. I suspect that where the pedal attaches to the cable and pulls through the firewall are not properly lined up giving me more friction than I should have. I will look into that. I will also double check my screws and make sure they are not too tight. You are right, that smooth rod does allow the arms to move a bit Mike. You would think soembody would make a threaded one by now. Guess I could take a stab at that. But the locktite is a great idea, and I think you mentioned that to me over a beer or two, or three. good times. Interesting note. I looked at the universal linkage kits for triple DCOE's on Authentic Weber Carbs, Manifolds, Conversion Kits, Accessories and More!. Their kits only come with 2 rod ends. Apparently the quality control at CANNON really sucks. I am going to tackle the linkage all over again sometime in the next week. The weather is perfect for Z's and a few car shows are coming our way. I want to be ready.

I have long hated my Cannon manifold that came with my triple weber kit. The three drilled holes for the rod ends do not line up, so I only used two for my set up. I ran like this for a while, see below well now I have noticed that the precision driveshaft I bought at Mcmastercarr has started to show more slop than it use to. I am applying a load in the worst possible position as I have it mounted now. I really need that third rod end in the middle to react the loads from the return spring and throttle cable. I have given this much thought. The simplest solution would be to just bend the rod end the few thousands of an inch and then install it. Keep this up until I have no binding. But this could be tricky. today I was about to place an order for a new linkage kit from pierce manifolds that has a 3/8" steel shaft versus the 5/16" shaft that is currently on the car. This added beef would resis deflection even more. Or, I could try this. I could drill out the middle hole oversize. then install the middle rod end loose in that hole. Adjust the front and rear rod end so that it is level. This would keep the middle rod end just hanging lose in a hole. then I could apply some JB weld to the hole and in a sense it would fix it in the perfect place. I grow tired of my sticky throttle cable. If I put a super strong spring, the pedal effort gets rediculous, and the shaft flexes far too much. I need to finda way to get that 3rd rod end. how I wish the supplied shaft that came with my kit that worked with the SU linkage would have not been bent.