Captain Obvious

Agreed. I would also assume that's how he raises it. You walk it up one or two layers at a time. If you're going to be doing this often, you might even go through the trouble of screwing or nailing the wood stubs into a square "layer" beforehand and having a stack of them in the corner of the garage. Lift one end up high enough to get a layer under the jack stands and then let it down onto the stands. Then move to the other end of the car and do the same thing. Keep alternating ends until you have "walked" it up one layer at a time to the desired height. As long as the wood is flat-ish and isn't really warped, you will always have three points of contact and it should be stable even while on two stacks and a jack. I sometimes move machinery (surprised?) and utilize the same technique. I just never thought of stacking (and probably pre-building) layers in that geometry.

L2877280z, There are four white (no stripe) wires that go to the fusible link blocks. I would check the integrity of those as well. There should be one solid white that comes from the starter lug that then splits into four solid whites to go to the four fusible links. Make sure those all look good too. If someone grafted a replacement set of fusible link blocks into your car, those could be questionable as well.

There's some interesting info in this thread as well: http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/topic/58474-wiper-arm-linkage-assembly-parts/

Agreed. I like that and I think I'm going to put something together like that. It's not often that I want my car that high off the ground, but that looks like a good approach.

Yup. To provide a little more info to what SteveJ already supplied... If everything is working as designed, all four of those wires should be hot at all times. But, here's the thing... They are supposed to be solid wires with no cuts in them. I'm guessing that someone burned up the fusible fuse blocks in the past and (poorly) grafted a replacement set of blocks from a donor car onto your car. The point is to be careful. Make sure you get things together correctly and the correct wires paired with the correct fusible link, etc.

That's how it is in PA. Fog lights are only allowed to be on with the low beams, and driving lights are only allowed to be on with the high beams. At least that's how it was the last time I read the inspection regs that carefully. Of course, the day and age of people adding fog lamps and driving lights to their cars seems to be mostly a thing of the past. Years ago, all the cool kids did it. But today, the only aftermarket lights you see on anything are pick-em-ups.

And if none of that makes sense, let me know and I'll whip up a sketch of (what I consider) a more recommended approach.

I'm not exactly sure how you're circuit is intended to work. Can you add the internals of the relay to the drawing? Reason I ask is that (without any details of what's inside the relay box) my assumption is that you are using a DPDT relay and switching both the hot and ground sides of the power headed out to the driving lights? And with that assumption in mind... That will work, but is not ideal. You really only need to switch one side, and any additional contacts in the system is additional resistance that will rob brightness and add heat where you don't want it. The way you've got it drawn, you are running both the actuation current for the relay and the current that powers the lamps through the switches and the relay. Kinda defeats the purpose of using a relay in the first place. The real reason to run a relay is to isolate the high current load side from the low current signal actuation side. And if my assumption about using a DPDT relay is NOT correct, and you are actually planning to use a single pole relay (SPST), then what you have drawn will not work.

Glad you found the problems. Sounds like good detective work. And clearly why we need the Classic Z Car repair axiom... "You get a spare moment, clean some connectors."

Yeah, the first thing I would do would be confirm that it is in fact the correct alternator and that it tests good on the bench. We'll figure it out. (And if you get really stuck, give me a call.)

I'm sure those are "drill shaped objects" from a different continent. If the only thing you are ever planning to do with them is drill brass, then you'll probably get a couple shots out of them before they go dull. That said... I wonder how important the true roundness and surface finish is on things like carb jets. Drill bits don't traditionally leave a very smooth finish (or round holes), and if those things are important, then it would be a much better idea to ream to final size instead of drill.

Yeah, I was pretty sure that with such an ornate logo on the cap it would be pretty easy to identify. Covet that one original Western cap you still have. And nice Porsche. What's the deal with Z owners also having Porsches??? There must be twenty of us (myself included).

And while looking at the wheel section of the FSM's I turned up a mistake. This is an excerpt from the 72 manual, but this same mistake got copied all the way forward through 77. Looks like they finally fixed it in 78. Dyslexic style typo on the wheel offset number:

Yeah, that's unfortunate. The negative feedback that was there just a couple weeks ago is gone. He must have convinced ebay to take that down somehow.

Yes, As far back as I can remember. It's never been straight up measurement, it's always been ratio (as in "aspect ratio"). Even back with the alpha-numeric identified bias ply tires they did that. I think the first tires I ever bought were D78-14's. That meant they were "D wide" having a sidewall that was 78% as high as the width. Now, as far as exactly what the "D" meant...? All I can tell you for sure is that a "D" made by a tire manufacturer was guaranteed to be wider than a "C" from the same company and narrower than an "E" from the same company. I don't think standardizations between manufacturers was as predictable as it is today. One company's "D" could be different than another company's "D" But in any event, here's two things you could easily hear back then: 1) I need new tires for my Fiat to replace my bald Michelin 155/75/13's. 2) My buddy just put M50s on the back of his Polara. They were so wide he had to put fender flares on it just so it would pass inspection!

I saw the one original Western cap in the photo, but I could only identify one of the four. The other three look either different or are too blurry to make out. I bought a cheap aftermarket set of caps off ebay. They look good, but of course I'd rather have originals. So congrats on the purchase. Very very clean for a car that has been sitting since 2002! Out of curiosity... What's under the cover in the other bay?

Very nice. I have those same wheels on mine. Western Cyclone. And I'm partial to the color as well. If I had more money and time, I would strip mine and repaint in a dark 77 green. On yours though, I'm thinking it's not original paint? Looks a little lighter and the finish texture looks wrong. Also I can't come up with any reason to pull the vent insignia disks other than to paint the car. Any idea?

Yes. 175/80/14. And I can provide one more (admittedly circumstantial) piece of evidence to support that theory... Up until 74, all the FSM's listed the tire size as 175HR-14. Then in 75, they started listing 195/70/14 as an "optional" size. Doing the math, you find the following: 175/80/14 - Theoretical height is 25.0 inches tall 195/70/14 - Theoretical height is 24.75 inches tall So with a quarter inch difference between the two, you could switch back and forth between those two and only introduce a very small amount of speedometer error. In my little pea-brain, this supports my belief that the earlier size can be most closely duplicated with a 175/80/14. (Because if not, the speedometer would be significantly wrong.) Not sure I explained that well... Does that make sense?

Good luck, and lets hope it's as simple as pressing in a new seat.

That engine compartment's got my name all over it. At least the battery does!!! Wish I knew more about the Webers. Do the Webers even HAVE a real choke system? @240260280 would know. He's spent a bunch of time on them.

So it sounds like jdmfairlady21 just needs to limp it to Zcon near you and he'll have all the help he needs! I think I'm capable of learning them, but I've never messed with them. And learning on the fly on someone else's car while they watch isn't my idea of a recipe for success. Put a set of round tops or even flat tops on that 74, and I'm all over it.

Haha! So you need an old guy with Weber experience. I'd give you a hand, but it'd be blind leading the blind as I've never touched the Webers. Car looks cool. Hope you can get her sorted before the driving season!

I have heard some not so good things about this place. Of course, YMMV.

Excellent. Did you have to swap parts around, or was careful even tightening all you had to do?

Oh, and even though they are old brain cells, they aren't THAT old. I personally wasn't buying tires back then, but I remember hearing old guys talking about it. However, I'll admit that the first tires I bought were bias ply.