Captain Obvious

That was my first thought as well. Last one of fifty produced, huh? Prove it. Unless you can produce definitive documentation to prove it IS in fact what they say it is, then it's just a 72 with a history of crappy paint jobs. The thing that really bothers me about a car and claim like that is... OK, so they think it's something really special. If it's really THAT special, wouldn't you take the time and put forth the effort and cost to put paint and other finishing touches on it that's commensurate to the uniqueness of the specimen? They say in the description: "only one of the 50 duplicate O.M.S. Pace Cars has been found, and the sole survivor is the car we have to offer you. The original owner tired of the graphics and painted it with a Jaguar Burgundy. The car was pulled out of storage and sold to a friend of the owner in 2007, who began its restoration. Photos show layers of paint being peeled away revealing the original O.M.S. Blue and White colors from 1972." If they peeled the paint away, then why is there still burgundy overspray in the engine compartment? You see it? Over near the blue overspray? There are several members of this forum who put their cars on a rotisserie and stripped to bare metal and did a real nice paint job. And that's just for their "driver" car. Not one of fifty of something supposedly this unique!

Wow... Remind me to never buy a vehicle from Indiana. So if you don't have a title, then what documentation do you have to prove that you even own the vehicle in the first place? A notarized bill of sale? A non-notarized bill of sale? And what information is on that documentation to indicate that the documentation pertains to that specific car? Is there VIN listed on that documentation? If so, which VIN? The one from the firewall, or the one from everywhere else?

Well there's still possibility #1 that one of the rear corners was put together wrong. If that were the case, I would assume it would pan out like this: They pressed the outer bearing onto the stub axle correctly. They also pressed the inner bearing into the knuckle correctly. But then they incorrectly put the distance piece AND a washer onto the stub axle before inserting it into the knuckle. If that's the case, when they tightened the nut, it would draw the stub axle into the knuckle until it bottomed out. That bottoming out is SUPPOSED to occur at the exact same position when the outer race of the outer bearing makes contact with the seating surface machined into the knuckle. But if they had a 1.0mm thick washer in place, the stub axle will bottom out against the inner bearing 1.0mm BEFORE the outer bearing is fully seated. Not the end of the world resulting in an immediate spectacular failure, but would probably result in a load on that outer bearing that it wasn't real happy about. Would also result in your wheel being 1.0mm farther out than the other side. Not that you would notice that with your eye though. As for measuring the distance between the seating surfaces... You could hold a short flat piece of something against one of the seating surfaces and then use a depth measuring tool from the other end to determine the distance? In other words, use one bearing surface as the seat for a depth measuring tool, and then use a temporary (hand held) anvil against the other surface as the stop for the depth measurement. I'm trying to come up with a direct (instead of calculated) measurement of the counterbores inside the knuckle. Using the still installed inner bearing is pretty good, but sometimes the inner and outer races are not ground to exactly the same width. Also, you will be pressing the inner race downward which takes up all available play. I would think this could explain your 52.69 measurement above. The one that gives you hope gives me hope as well and adds credence to the "installed incorrectly" theory. Let me know if that makes sense, and if not, I can whip up a sketch or something.

RIP. You know Bon and Malcolm are rockin' it right now.

Forgot... I don't remember how large the hole is in the rear knuckle. Too small to feed the jaws of the caliper in there and measure the distance between the two bearing seats directly?

I don't consider it academic at all. You say you took two of them apart and the washer was in a different place between the two sides. Now that you have measured the length of the distance piece and found them both the same, I consider only the following two possibilities: 1) One of those rear corners was assembled wrong. Very wrong. Or... 2) You were mistaken about the location of the washers upon disassembly, and they were both installed in the same relative position on both sides. Either both in series with the distance pieces, or both between the inboard bearing and the companion flange. I had originally considered a third possibility that one of the rear knuckles had been machined to have longer distance between the two bearings than the other, but the factory spread from distance pieces (from length "A" to length "C") is 0.2 mm, and there would never ever be a need for a 1.0mm thick washer in there. So unless some repair shop went in there and added metal to the bearing seating surface, I consider this possibility very unlikely. I think you still need to determine double dog sure where those washers go. And back to it being academic? It's not. If there IS a measurement mismatch, it's not as bad as you think. It would be a relatively simple procedure to machine replacement distance pieces of the proper length. In fact as a side note, I just went through this a few weeks ago with the cheap-o aftermarket lawn mower blade spindles I purchased. They were incorrect as purchased, and I had to adjust the lengths of the distance pieces between the two bearings. During the process, I accidently cut the second one a thousandth too short (crap!!!) and had to make a completely new replacement. BTW - I'm all in that the washers go between the inboard bearing and the companion flanges, but it's still prudent to wait for confirmation.

Yup. I made that knob. Top to bottom. The knobs I've made are a labor of love. Easy? No!! If I had a Kenmeri shift knob that I cold use as a pattern, I could probably copy it. But to be honest... If they are available already, then it's probably cheaper to just buy one.

I've also done some customization work to my 77. It's a "Stage 1".

Wow. Cheap! I was looking at that damage thinking about ways to fix it, but at that price, there's no way. Cool! Make sure you get the tapered edges facing the right way on the new one! You won't have tarnish marks to use as a guide like you probably had on the old one. Bet you can't wait to get those things back on the car and see how much better things work!

It gets worse... There isn't even any email support contact. The ONLY support is on their user forum. And wait... It gets worse yet! ..................... You ready for it??? You have to be logged in to post on their forum. The problem I was having was that I can't log in because my account is locked. Catch 22!!

Poor condition would be it burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp.

I did that too. Way back many moons ago before things got security tightened I had an account for Heim Nassole. I even found some family there. But in the past year or so I deleted that old acct and went legit because I actually wanted to try to use the facebook. But get this... Now that I've deleted the old fake name acct and created a legit one, my account gets locked about every two weeks or so "because they detect suspicious activity". What suspicious activity? I haven't even logged in for two weeks??? I have to send them a picture of me, or a copy of my ID about twice a month, and there's no way to contact them. Their user forum is the only "help". I started a topic there with the details, and got no response. Nobody read it, nobody responded. Nothing. Waste of time. It's really taking what little joy there was out of it.

Oy. Nice throttle plate. At least you have a plausible explanation. When I saw the first pic, my thought was "improved throttle response off idle" or something stupid like that. Then I read your theory about drilling the progression holes, and that makes much more sense. Out of curiosity, what's a replacement run cost wise?

I do. And I've been known to make a knob or two: But I'm nowhere near the Bay area!

I share the experiences and impressions above. Facebook has decimated some of the on-line forums, but thankfully this one seems to be doing pretty well in face of the changing of the guard. I attribute that to the quality of people here. This IS my social media. I know at least one younger Z owner local to me who is on this forum and he spends more time on facebook and youtube. He's suggested that I become more active on the facebook forums, and he also suggests that I make videos and post them up on youtube. Hard to do those things with a flip-phone and a Polaroid camera. Not sure how it's gonna turn out in ten years. "Get off my lawn!!!"

What was the last series? Because that's what my 77 is. There were some minor changes between 77 and 78, but not enough to warrant a series change. However, with all the sheet metal redesign, there was clearly a series change between 76 and 77.

I did it three. Kids are a PITA. It's clearly not a geographical phenomena!

Nice! I like the exploratory discoveries!! Haha!!

Mmmmmmmm.... Those sure are purty!!

Yeah, because as we all know... Leaks at the rear of the Z pull in fresh air.

As Zed Head mentioned, that is normal behavior. This is what the circuit looks like with the ECU installed: If you pull the ECU out, it disconnects each injector from the others and you can test them individually.

And that's exactly why you need measurements. At this point, I don't think you can trust the documentation. Nor do I think that you can trust that things were assembled correctly before you took them apart. Measurements.

Well the confusion (for me anyway) just keeps getting deeper... Part number 43211-N3400 shows up on the parts breakdown pic needing four per car (one on each end of the distance piece). But part number 43211-E4100 (the one called out for on that TSB) shows up used on the R180 differential, two per car. I didn't see 43211-E4100 called out for in a corner application other than on that TSB, just inside the R180. Just keeps getting weirder and more confusing. Matthew, Just to be sure there isn't something catastrophic about to happen... Before you press the wheel bearings back together, you should measure the length of the distance pieces and also measure the distance between the bearing seating counterbore surfaces inside the rear strut housings. Those measurements will tell you if there should be any washers needed on the ends of the distance pieces. Based on the lack of clear documentation, I would check those dimensions just to be sure. Something is really fishy....

Yeah, I've seen that workaround. Too late for me though. I suspect that workaround will only last as long as it takes their programmers to fix the leak, and then it won't work anymore. I've move on and have started deleting my old pics and rehosting them in a new location. Little bit at a time as I can spend cycles on it.

I sure hope we aren't headed to an era where people are turning everything into "Series Ones" because they're worth more. With the recent spike in prices, I wouldn't be surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.