Namerow

And I'll add to that: Which die grinder type do you find works best for spot-weld work: straight? right-angle? Or does it depend on the weld location and accessibility? Do you see any merit in a variable-speed feature for this type of work? Have you tried the 'low-noise' designs and, if so, do they live up to their billing?

Are the Nissan OE bushings NLA?

The only source that I know of for ready-made sheet metal for this area is UK-based Automotive Panel Solutions (no website, but can be found on Facebook). The proprietor does beautiful work but -- as noted above -- it ain't cheap. A third solution will be to find a donor car, cut out the required sections, and then graft them into your car. I can't see the rest of your car from the photo you've offered. However, if this level of rust is typical of the entire vehicle, you may want to consider acquiring a better vehicle to start your project with.

Question 1: How did you secure the oak template? It looks like it's sitting on top of a bench vise, but it's not clear whether it's actually being clamped by the bench vise. Perhaps the oak template actually has two levels, where the top level (forming section) is full-width while the bottom level has a reduced width so that it can fit inside the span of the jaws of the bench vise? If this is the case, how are the top and bottom levels joined together? Glue? Wood screws? Or were both levels carved from a solid wood block? Question 2: It looks like there's a sheet of copper sitting on top of one of the jaws of the bench vise. What is its purpose in this set-up? Question 3: What 'gauge' of sheet metal did you use here? p.s. It's nice to see these 'old world' panel-forming techniques being practiced. Your results look just as good as anything our friends at Tabco have been turning out. Probably better.

I have exactly the same issue with an approach slope to my garage... although the frequency of my new-project arrivals pales in comparison with GK's. I bought a hand-crank winch and bolted it to my workbench (which is bolted to the back wall of my garage). Motorized would have been better, but it was certainly an improvement over a come-along

Going back to the engine removal for a moment, I noticed two things you did that I'd like the hear more about: At the front hoist point, you bypassed the lift bracket installed on the hoist chain and used, instead, a clevis and a bolt. Was the clevis a part of the hoist kit, or did you source it separately? At the rear hoist point, you appear to have removed the header stud and used a bolt instead. Please explain.

That's impressive work. Nice attention to planning and details. Not a great deal of ceiling clearance in your garage workspace, either. I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk about pulling a Z engine without removing to hood. I don't think I've seen anyone bring the hoist in from the side, either.

More of your most.

Really? Are we out of contributions already? I think that the old Atlantic Z-Car site could deliver at least a dozen ideas all on its own. CO should be able match that. ZKars and Grannyknot, too.

That's a nice reward for all those hours spent on the restoration. Perhaps it's time for you to re-post a picture of what the car looked like when you started...

This is all really good stuff. Hopefully, we'll end up with an inventory of, 'Why didn't I think of that?' items that will save others a lot of time, grief and/or money. They might even inspire some new ideas. Pictures help, if you've got them.

As we all know, not all needs are answered by over-the-counter tools. As one example, my Z-friend Dieter Roth made his own special wrench for one particularly annoying Z job (halfshaft U-joint bolts, IIRC) by simply grinding off the excess metal from a standard open-end wrench so that it would fit inside the limited-clearance space. For my own efforts, I've enjoyed constant use over the years from a 18" length of 1"-dia aluminum tubing (from a TV antenna mast) that I squashed one end of so that it would fit over the end of open-end and box-end wrenches to give extra leverage. What's in your tool box?

For a slightly different take on farming in England, watch the 2020 Amazon Prime series, 'Clarkson's Farm', hosted by the former Top Gear host, Jeremy Clarkson. Really funny.

That's an excellent piece of work. The shape of the OE lower rear valence is interesting. It's not uniform and when I first looked at the one on my 70 Z, I thought it had been tweaked from collision damage. The proprietor of APS is a gifted metal shaper. His inventory of offerings seems guided as much by the challenge of creating a new piece vs. the marketabilty of that piece once done. Apparently he compensates in his pricing (which is probably quite fair). Perhaps you should ask him if he's interested in recreating the entire rear panel. BTW, APS is based in the east Yorkshire market town of Thirsk -- the centre of the world of the well-known BBC TV series, 'All Creatures Great and Small', and its lead character, animal veterinarian 'James Herriott' (real name, James Alf Wight). It's a beautiful area and well worth a visit if you're in England. I passed through a couple of years ago as part of a combined Goodwood Revival/Yorkshire Dales vacation.

Out of curiosity, why did you buy the (rear?) valence panel before you discovered the damage? Also: Assuming that you really were referring to the rear valence, what does APS' panel consist of? (I'm assuming that it's just the usual piece that extends up only to bumper height).

So, rightfully, your next restoration project should be a Morgan.

I hadn't noticed before that your shop equipment includes two axes, a hatchet, and a crowbar. Mixed in with your vintage 50-lb anvil, that's a powerful combination .

What fabric did you use for this?

Here's a little math for you to ponder: According to the Sunoco article that is referenced by CO in an earlier post, their then-current 'Supreme' fuel blend had a density of 5.95 lb/gal, while their then-current 'Regular' blend was heavier at 6.06 lb/gal. So the Supreme weighed about 1.8% less than the Regular. To make things easy, let's say that the Hitachi-SU float has a cylindrical cross-section and is constrained to move vertically. In this way, a change in fuel density results in a change in float height that is directly proportional. Let's now say that we're starting with the light Supreme fuel in the float bowl. The top of the cylindrical float rises to a height of 'Y' mm above the floor of the float bowl. Let's make Y = 50mm. Then we drain the float bowl and replace it with the heavy Regular fuel. The float doesn't need to sink as low in this heavier fuel in order to displace its weight, so the top of our cylindrical float now sits higher (relative to the floor of the float bowl) by 1.8% and 50mm becomes 50.9mm. That is, the float has risen by 0.9mm. That kind of math doesn't fully explain the crazy float angles we see with the Hitachi-SU's in practice. I think what's going on is a combination of a few geometrical factors: The immersed part of the float is sightly conical, rather than cylindrical. The Hitachi-SU float doesn't actually move in a pure vertical direction. Instead, it's vertical path follows an arc (which may explain why the bottom part of the float was made slightly conical) Once the float passes some particular 'tip-up' angle (relative to horizontal), I suspect that the change in the cross-sectional shape of the immersed part as a function of immersion depth begins to get really non-linear. To add to the non-linearity of the float behavior (hydrostatics?), the contact surface of the metal shut-off tab also travels through an arc (which may explain why its contact surface is curved, rather than flat). It's not clear whether that curve accurately compensates for the arc in the travel path. There may be, once again, a point-of-no-return, beyond which the tab-to-shutoff pin contact behavior goes non-linear. This would be an interesting simulation exercise for someone with the time and the curiosity to pursue it. It's mostly 2D geometry (the conicity of the float makes it somewhat 3D), but it's hard to do on paper. Easier with a CAD-CAE program (which I don't have).

Your willingness to destroy an old float 'to see what's inside' has led to an important discovery: they're not hollow. If someone ever proves that the specific density of modern fuel has changed relative to that of 1970's-era fuel, then this process of ballasting the floats might become a standard part of rebuilding Hitachi-SU's. I'd be curious to know what Z Therapy have to say about this, though. One assumes that they've successfully set the floats on hundreds of H-SU's by now and I don't think I recall any discussion on their part of special tricks being used to cope with modern gas.

I did a similar bench-top experiment a couple of years ago (I was bored and curious -- a dangerous combination). I discovered that it didn't take much tab-bending to generate some pretty wacky float angles at shut-off. The 'cam-to-follower' geometry seems to be pretty sensitive. I thought about creating a little trig simulator on my laptop, but decided that I wasn't quite that bored. Or curious. I also tried weighting the float as a secondary adjustment strategy. It worked, but I didn't like my chances of gluing a dime onto the float and having the adhesive last more than a week or two. It would be fascinating to learn how the Skinner-Union and Hitachi folks did the design layout for the float and linkage in the first place. The whole thing just begs for an external adjustment screw. But were would the charm be in something that sensible?

Suggest you layer or sleeve the tab.

Different customer demographic, for sure. Both vehicles rusted out at the same (rapid) rate, though*. As for the proportion of each marque's new-vehicle numbers written off from collision damage, that would be an interesting statistic to know. We could speculate, but actual numbers would be better. Might make a good undergraduate thesis topic for somebody enrolled in Business with a minor in Sociology. (* Kudos to Porsche for eventually becoming one of the first in the industry to introduce galvanized panels into the construction of their products.)

I read the Hagerty article this morning. The author tries to argue that younger buyers aren't interested in buying Porsches because they identify more with Japanese brands. There may be a small element of truth to that, I think it's more about affordability. I also didn't see anything in the author's pricing survey that surprised me very much. Good 240Z's in the US$30K-$40K range sounds about right to me. Prices may have gone up over the past 10 years, but they haven't exactly exploded. I think it comes down to production volumes. Nissan made a lot of Z's between 1969 and 1978. Maybe 10 times the production volume for 911's at Porsche? Consider this: A brand-new 240Z cost about US$3,400 in the early 1970's. Most consumer prices have gone up by a factor of 10 over the ensuing 50 years, so it could be argued that the car sold for the equivalent of about $35,000* in 2021 dollars. Which is about what a decent restored Z will cost you right now. Not sure the same can be said for an early 1970's Porsche 911 (which sold for around $6K when new, IIRC). (* Becomes $50K after you add $15K for front and side air bags, DOHC/CVVT/EFI engine, full computer control, comprehensive emissions control equipment, front/side/rear-impact and roll-over structures, leather, modern lighting, galvanized steel body panels, sound-deadening, contemporary electronics and sound system).

Been there, done that -- LHS tow point on one car, RHS on another. Needs an oxyacetylene torch. The flame temperature from a propane torch isn't high enough and the flame tip is too diffused. EZ-outs are the devil's tool (the cheap ones, anyway). Snap one off inside the stud and the degree-of-difficulty for the job instantly increases by a factor of 10.