Namerow

I've thoroughly hijacked Ramsesosirus' thread. Sorry about that. Thanks, Mike, for the pix of your #303-painted Z (nice car, BTW). I think I see more blue under-tint here than I do for the #240 paint (the #240 seems to have more of a yellow under-tinting). Looking at the avatar picture of my Z, it looks like at might very well be #303 that was used. I guess I'll have to get a pint mixed up at the paint shop and do a test shot to see whether I'm right.

What is the part that you're trying to plate? Can you possibly add more surface area to your zinc anode? Pieces of zinc can be joined together by mechanical means, with a jumper wire for electrical connection, or - preferably - by a solder joint. Zinc takes solder very well, BTW. After reading the Caswell forum narrative, I'm inclined to agree that your power supply may be toast. Nevertheless, perhaps you could try exercising it with a more typical small-resistance load, just to see how it performs. I've used a double-filament #1157 bulb (front park-t/s or rear taillight) to good effect before I got access to a controllable-volt/amp power supply. They're surprisingly robust. Just solder 12" insulated wires onto the shell and end contacts, add some alligator clips and you're good to go. The cold resistances are 0.7 and 2.5 ohms (altho maybe higher with the filament heated up). I got my plating project fired up again late yesterday afternoon. I'm using a vinegar-and-epsom-salts bath rather than the Caswell electrolyte. I tried one 'big' part (ignition coil mounting clamp) and one 'small' part (brake line hold-down clip). Surprisingly (to me), the big part was easier to do and plated very nicely (it's about 20 sq.in. and I used about 3A, IIRC). The small part has proved to be a lot more challenging. I had to re-do it three times before I got a decent result. And I still need to do it a fourth time to try to get it right. I've confirmed that 0.3A is about right for this application. The L-shape of this part makes it challenging to get both legs plated and on both sides. On Attempt #1, the zinc wasn't really depositing. I had wire-wheeled the part prior to the acid bath and I now believe that my wire wheel causes problems (it's brass, mounted on my bench grinder). Maybe it's a burnishing effect, maybe the brass loads onto the part's surface, or maybe my wheel is contaminated with other stuff, I don't know. I do know that I'm not going to wire-wheel anymore parts before plating. Before Attempt #2, I took the part pack to clean metal by re-blasting (I'm using ground glass media). That helped a lot and now, back in the bath, I had plating happening. Unfortunately, I got greedy and cranked up the current to see what would happen. The zinc started to turn black. For Attempt #3, a re-blasted once again. Current now back to the correct 0.3A. After ~ 5 minutes I had a fairly good result -- except around the ends. The part was suspended in the bath using a copper wire hooked through the holes at either end of the clip. Apparently, the electrical field set up in the part doesn't 'flow' into the small areas at the ends of the clip (i.e. the parts of the clip that are 'outboard' of the holes). There's a very distinct 'half-halo' boundary around the hole where the plating visibly stops. For my next -- and, I hope, final -- attempt with this part, I'm going to solder the copper wire to the very tips of the part (on the back side, of course) so that the electrical path comes in the from the very ends of the piece. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Can anyone post some pix of the #303 Green Metallic?

I have the same issue with my Z. It was re-sprayed over its original 907 'Racing Green' (not my favourite colour, BTW) with a darker green metallic. Like yours, my paint has a visible, fine metallic content and shows a bluish tint under certain light conditions. The colour used on our cars might be either the '303 Green Metallic' that was offered for 1974-75, or the '240 Green Metallic' replaced it in 1976. There appear to have been four different paints used on the Z that carried the name, 'Green Metallic'... 113 - 1972-73 - Green Metallic - aka 'Avocado' 302 - 1974-?? - Leaf Green Metallic 303 - 1974-75 - Green Metallic 240 - 1976-?? - Green Metallic I can see my/your paint being described as 'Dark Green Metallic' so as to distinguish it from #113 and #302 (which are definitely not dark), and maybe also to distinguish #240 from #303. Maybe someone who has a car with the original 303 or 240 paint can comment.

Just read Steve's reply, which is clear and right to the point. Good to know. Note that he's recommending 140mA per sq.in. I hadn't seen the Caswell calculator before. It confirms that "sq.in." refers to the total area of the wetted surface of the part(s). When I referred to the possibility that "sq.in." might have to do with 'line of sight' effects, I wasn't really referring to the case of a hollow pipe or tube. Instead, I meant that 'sq.in.' might be referring to the 2-dimensional 'face' that a part presents to the zinc as it streams off the anode. I now know this theory was wrong. I played around with the Caswell calculator for a while. Everything is pretty straightforward, except for the case of the bolt. Here, the calculator proved to be a little more sophisticated than it looks. It appears to take the area of the threads into consideration (rather than just considering the bolt shank as a long smooth cylinder). It also appears to calculate on the basis of a hex-shaped bolt head (rather than just a square head, as the diagram would have you believe). Looking at your own plating tank set-up, you might want to consider replacing your little zinc sheet with a full-perimeter ring. This helps to offset masking/shadowing and makes it less likely that you'll need to turn the part(s) during plating to get full coverage. Even with the 'ring' anode, though, I've found that the surfaces of the part the point 'up' and 'down' (rather than 'sideways') often don't plate properly and I need to re-jig the way the part dangles off its hook. I've been using a product called 'Moss Boss' for my anode. It's intended use is to control of moss growth on wood-shingle roofs (applied as a flashing strip along the roof peak). It comes in a roll that's about 40' in length and 4" wide. Inexpensive, but you might have to special-order it. Let us know how you make out. I'll be re-starting my own plating project tomorrow. I, too, experienced problems on my last attempt and was so frustrated that I just put everything away. Since then, I think I've discovered what I was doing wrong and have also gained access to a controllable voltage/current power supply courtesy of Grannyknot. I'm hoping for much better results this time around.

So far, the question of, "What does 'sq.in.' mean?" remains unanswered. I recall that Steve/nix240 weighed in on this in another thread a few months ago, so it might be worth looking that up. His results looked first-rate, but I remember him offering the usual caution that, 'Settings depend on your particular set-up, so you'll need to experiment.' FWIW, here's a link to a very nice electroplating write-up by a talented amateur restorer in California. He included it as part of a multi-segment documentation of his work on an early-year E-Type Jag. Guaranteed to consume an entire evening of your spare time... http://www.mckennasgarage.com/xke/jag_16.htm

hmmm. With all those ripped-apart old cars in the background, that set-up looks a lot like a backwoods still... Just missing the condensing coils. According to my notes, the typical guide for setting the current is 140mA per sq.in. of part. One person showing successful results said that he used only 100mA per sq.in., while others have gone as high as 250mA per sq.in. A lower setting is safe but really stretches out the plating time. A higher setting speeds things up, but going too high will result in a thick, fluffy, black-ish zinc deposit on the part. You probably know all that, though. You mention that your test part is a "5 inch piece of copper". Is that a 5" length of wire, a 5" length of tube, or a 5" piece of plate? The reason I ask is this: It's never been clear to me how "sq.in." should be determined. In the many DIY plating articles I've read, No one has ever explained or justified their rationale. Here's the issue: Let's say that the part to be plated is a 5" length of 1/2"-diameter thin-wall tube. Ignoring the two end surfaces, the total outside surface area on which the zinc could deposit would be 3.1416 x 0.5 x 5 = 7.8 sq.in. Taking the inside wall surface into account, the surface area approx. doubles to be come 15.6 sq.in. However, electroplating is a 'line of sight' process, so maybe "sq.in." means the profile area of the part (i.e. what the zinc anode 'sees' from one side). In this case, it's 5 x 0.5 = 2.5 sq.in. But then, if you have two anodes (i.e. one on either side of the part), the profile area would double and become 5.0 sq.in. And if you have a full-perimeter anode lining the inside of your plating tank (as I do in my set-up), then I have no idea what the profile are of the part would be. So: Depending on what "sq.in." means, you get four (or five!) different answers, ranging from 2.5 sq.in. to 15.6 sq.in., and the preferred current would be anywhere from 0.35A to 2.2A. And then there's the issue of creating the correct pH level for the electrolyte (and what it should be, and how much it really matters). And whether the electrolyte 'wears out' (I've never been quite sure how that would happen). And whether the electrolyte needs to be heated (some say it's important, some say it makes no difference). All of these issues could affect the correct value of amps per sq.in. of part. Put together, they could be the reason why people will tell you that achieving good results, 'depends on your set-up'. One thing for certain, though: Make sure you don't have the polarities reversed for your power connections to the anode and the part. And don't ask me how I learned that this is an easy mistake to make. I, for one, would be grateful for someone shedding some light on the 'sq.in' mystery. Maybe the Caswell manual explains this?

That's been my experience, too. I have both the Engine and Dash harnesses out of my 70 Z as I work (slowly) through my refresh project. I bought a couple of special terminal removal tools from Vintage Electric last year for about $10 and I've been using them with great success to pull both the male and female terminals from the plastic connector shells so that I can do a proper job of removing the tarnish ('oxidation' doesn't really cover it). Nothing else I tried (including dental picks and an assortment of small screwdrivers) would do the job. However, the VC terminal extractors only work for the white-shell, multi-pin connectors. They're of no use for the two big single-conductor, blade connectors in the Dash harness (heavy-gauge White and White-Red primary wires, IIRC). The brass terminals and the plastic covers for those connections were nicely toasted and the wire strands were oxidized for about 1/4". Bad grounds are always a worry, too. Excepting that in the headlamp pigtails (replaced), my harness wiring (copper and sheathing) seems to be in pretty good shape.

As Patcon has suggested, you should read the 'Careless' thread. He seems to have been pretty diligent about maintaining originality. I haven't seen an exhaustive list anywhere. The topic pops up from time to time, gets a few comments, and then dies away until the next person asks. The most visible non-'yellow zinc' parts that come to my mind are: Coil mounting bracket >> clear zinc Front and rear engine 'slingers' (the engine hoist loops that bolt to the front and rear of the cylinder head) >> clear zinc Fuel Filter mount bracket >> painted satin black Vacuum Check Valve mount bracket (firewall) >> painted satin black Ballast Resistor mount bracket >> clear zinc I think that the wingnut-style bolts used to secure the air cleaner housing 'lid' were also clear-zinc, rather than yellow zinc. It's my observation that most Z owners who restore their engine compartments and use a plating service just get everything done in yellow zinc. Probably looks better than the factory's mish-mash anyway. The yellow-green irridescent look is what you're after.

Glad to hear that you got the details for the sale transaction sorted out. Now it's time to get that credit card warmed up and ready for another round of resto-mod parts purchasing.

Glad to hear that you got the details for the sale transaction sorted out. Now it's time to get that credit card warmed up and ready for another round of resto-mod parts purchasing.

Even more puzzling is this: I bought a Honda Civic blower so that I could swap out the 'underperforming' Z blower. Same squirrel-cage impeller design, same inner and outer diameter, ~ same blade profile and chord. The motor, of course, is different. Installed in the Z blower housing, the Honda motor/impeller pair generates less overall noise than the Z's and it does put out more apparent CFM than the Z unit. A lot more when compared with the Z impeller operating in the 'correct' direction but probably only a 25% improvement in comparison with the Z impeller operating in the 'reverse'. As a side note, I seem to recall that the Honda impeller was relatively insensitive to direction-of-rotation. So: If you observe the same results as did sweatybetty and I, you might consider wiring up your Z blower motor to run in reverse. Could be a low-impact way to enjoy the bonus airflow.

Chris: While you've got all these parts out on the bench, perhaps you can try a little experiment to verify something that I found with my own Z's blower motor/fan: With the fan mounted in the blower casing, try running it first with 12V power connected with the 'normal' polarity, and then with reverse polarity. I found a significant increase in the volume of output airflow with the fan running in 'reverse' (and, no, I can't explain why). p.s. The muriatic acid dip did a great job of stripping the parts of rust and loose paint. Wish I'd thought of that when I did my heater. I'll try to upload my templates for the foam gaskets this weekend. At the very least, you're going to need to re-skin the air inlet control flap (both sides) so that it doesn't 'clang' when you move from 'vent' to 'heat'. The original treatment on the flap was vinyl-skinned foam. To a lesser extent, the same applies to the little side flaps that control airflow out of the floor-level vents. Pleased to hear the 'eau du rodent' has been looked after.

With very little effort, I've now found a brake MC service specialist that's located just 10 miles away from me. I'm going to ask them for a quote on a bore-and-sleeve repair and will post the amount here for the possible interest of others. It will be in Canadian dollars, though, and won't necessarily translate into what one might pay for a similar job done by a shop in the US.

That 'manifold thermostat' valve is easy to test. Just pull it out of the coolant line, put a short length of hose on one end, then dunk it in a pot of boiling water for a minute or so. Then pull it out of the water and see if you can suck air through the hose. If you get no resistance, then the valve is stuck open. An overnight soak in 'CLR' or some other calcium/lime remover might free it up. A new valve is probably going to be unobtanium. If you can't free up your existing valve, don't just throw it out and re-connect the hose, as this will guarantee that hot coolant flows through the intake heating passages all the time. Instead, you'd need to block the line (e.g. put a solid plug in the hose before re-connecting). There's been some debate -- unresolved, IIRC -- about the wisdom of permanently blocking the line.

Which of these styles did you buy?

I have templates made from my 5/70. Also took photos of the old pieces as they came out of the car. Exception is the large piece for the cargo-area floor, which was missing (I think I might have a template for this piece made years ago from a 72 I used to own). I'm busy all week. Might have time to dig these out on the weekend. I'm in Burlington. On a separate note, Grannyknot suggested that you might have a spare 70-71-type brake master cylinder. True?

That's a very nice job you did with the grille. I restored and painted mine last summer. It was a finicky job to get right -- and I started with pieces that were in a lot better shape than the 'wrinkled' stuff that you were dealing with. Did you assemble-and-paint, or did you paint-and-assemble?

Was that lurking under all the Canadian Tire undercoating that the PO sprayed all over the engine compartment?

Thanks, Mark. This might prove to be my only option for the time being. I've now verified that the 72 MC casting is quite different from the 70-71 design, so -- even though the bore size stayed at 7/8" -- the 70-71 internals do not look like they'll line up with the internal orifices. Also, not only are the hard line connections reversed from F-R to R-F, the spacing of the two lines is about 1/2" different, too. Unfortunately, in the 12-hour period since my original posting, the Rock Auto listing for the Cardone 71 unit has gone from 'available' to 'out of stock'. I'll upload a picture of the pistons and seals from my 70 MC soon, along with a picture of the deals that came in my rebuild kit. The seals for the 70 MC are much 'wider'. Thanks, Chris. I'll give him a try. Thank you, Dennis. I knew that there were MC service specialists out there and that sleeving could be a possibility. With your recommendation in place, I'll check these folks out. Depending on cost, this might be a good option. I'm concerned that there aren't enough 70-71 MC cores floating around out there to provide the rebuild businesses with a basis for re-stocking the suppliers' shelves. Maybe no seals available either.

Today, I started on what I hoped would be the straightforward job of rebuilding the brake master cylinder for my 70 Z. Disassemble, clean, install new seals and hardware, and reassemble. Job done. What could go wrong? Unfortunately, I only got to Step 2. After cleaning things out, I found a little divot in the floor of the cylinder bore, located about 1/2" aft of the rear stopper bolt. Hard to say what cause it. The car has been sitting for many years so I guess it corrosion damage. It's about 1/8" in diameter and deep enough to catch my fingernail on. The rest of the bore is in great shape. When I look at the cross-sectional view of the Brake MC in the 71 FSM, I see that this divot sits pretty much mid-way between the front and rear seals of the rear piston. Knowing that, it doesn't seem like the seals stand a chance of being nicked by it. Nor do the rear piston and seals that came out of the cylinder look like they've been hurt by it. So - Question 1: Can I get away with just leaving it as-is? If the answer is that it's going to be ok to ignore it, then I've still got a minor problem in that that the rebuild kit that I bought a number of years ago is not suitable for the 70 - 71 brake MC -- different seal types (even though the bore is the same). That leads to... Question2: Anybody know where I can get a rebuild kit for the 70-71 MC? If the answer to Question 1 is 'MC must be replaced', then I've got a much bigger problem. The 72 MC, while an improved design, has the front and rear reservoirs and lines flipped around -- which means that my hard lines won't fit. Plus, a 72 MC would dilute the 70-ness of the car's engine compartment (a small but touchy consideration). MSA lists the early-design Brake MC as NLA. The typical parts suppliers also show 'NLA'. Then there's Rock Auto... Rock Auto shows NLA for 70, but lists two units for 71. One is from Cardone, the other from Centric. When I look at their 72 listings, there are about 6 choices, including Cardone and Centric. The 71 and 72 Centric units have the same PN, so that one's undoubtedly the 72 design. The 71 and 72 listings for the Cardone units, however, show different PN's. In addition (although this may mean nothing), the pop-up picture of the 71 Cardone unit shows the 70-71 design, with the 'F' line/reservoir at the front and the 'R' reservoir/line at the rear. Question 3: Does anyone have any experience with the Cardone unit listed under '1971' from Rock Auto? Could it possibly be the real deal? (i.e. the 70-71 design). If these 70-71 brake MC's truly are NLA from anywhere, what do members recommend as a remedy. Am I really going to have to fit new hard lines? or... Question 4: If I am forced to fit a later-style 72 MC, does anyone know if I can install the internals from my 70 MC into a 72 casting , thereby keeping the reservoirs/lines in the correct, 70-71 orientation? Both castings have a 7/8" bore and -- other the placement of the stamped 'F' and 'R' markings -- I think they may be identical. Intuition suggests that the factory would have made efforts to keep the same casting when they upgraded the design, limiting the changes to the internals (and the hard lines).

Sorry. Double post.

'Forward of the firewall = yellow zinc'... What about the coil mounting bracket? The three that I have are all clear zinc.

Recent chatter among CZCC members suggests (altho doesn't prove) that attempts to list and sell a large lot Z parts -- new or used -- on a piecemeal basis may prove to be a less-than-satisfying experience for the seller. There are a lot of Z-parts vendors out there. Most have well-established reputations and relatively-easy-to-work with online ordering facilities and clear/reliable shipping procedures. I suspect that a lot of Z owners with small need-to-buy lists would prefer to pay full pop for new parts from a known vendor over the uncertainties of dealing with a private buyer. Nevertheless, I encourage you to give it a try. Just be prepared for only 20 - 30% of the parts to sell within a week, after which you'll experience dwindling interest in the remainder. A knowledgeable member like JeffG78 can give you an idea on typical asking prices for things like engines, heads, transmissions, differentials, and the like. Used small stuff like interior parts may never sell (unless it's a rarity). New small stuff might sell, but you'll probably need to undercut the price of a vendor like Motorsport Auto by at least 30% to attract much attention. A guaranteed seller with a worthwhile price would be a used or NOS dash with no cracks or chips. Probably only of interest to a ~ local buyer who could pick it up in person, though (too much risk of cracks developing during shipping). A working Z mechanical clock is also a collector's item ... but otherwise basically worthless.

I've finally managed to get my computer working properly again after its forced upgrade to Windows 10, so I'll see what I can do to post the package to the CZCC site. It was fortunate that all but one of the gaskets (and there are many) were of a size that would fit on the glass of my scanner.