Captain Obvious

Mike, Haha! No the spell check squiggly works just fine for me too. Apparently that's not enough to stop me though. I was never very bright... And thanks for checking! (had to edit that in)

Yeah, in that case you might consider resetting everything. And I'm sure you would do this without mentioning, but I'd keep an eye on your tires too... If the changes are dramatic enough, you might find an alignment is in order.

Oh. Bummer. Surprising that it's an all or nothing. I'm spoiled in the same way you arr.

Well if we're soliciting suggestions, I'd make it such that if you edited your post very quickly after you first created it (say 30 seconds or a minute) then no note that the post had been edited would show up. But if the post is edited after that time period expired, then the notice that the editing took place would be added. I think that's how a lot of other forums operate. Gives you a short time to fix the bonehead spelling mistake "without penalty". Edited ten seconds after posting to fix a bonehead speling mistake.

Don't forget to do the tightening of the bushing nuts with the car on the ground. You might even consider loosening the other bushing locations as well and resetting them to a new "normalized" position. I'm thinking that your new springs and strut inserts might establish a different neutral stance than your old parts and it would be good to re-normalize everything. Loosen everything up both front and rear, jounce around a couple times, (have someone sit in the driver's seat if you're that concerned) and tighten them up again? Wait a minute... You're running stock style rubber bushings, not poly, right?

it's clear from the fact they built a multiple alloy assembly for the rockers that they were trying to utilize properties of different materials in different areas. I don't have rockers laying loose anymore to inspect, but I suspect the pad that contacts the cam was brazed into place similar to how they attach carbide bits to a saw blade. I also suspect it's properties run pretty much the same through the whole pad. By that, I mean I bet a couple thousandths down into it is pretty much the same as at the original surface. If there were issues, I would expect them to surface (get it?) at the lash pad end. I believe surface hardening runs deeper than .001" so if they did something like that at the factory, you shouldn't be through it at just .001. And there's no way I would try to home heat treat those things! I've done a little hardening with my oxy-acetylene torch and a can of quench oil, but there's no way I'd try it on something like that! Not nearly consistent or predictable enough. As for how good the workmanship looks... I've heard stories of the training of the old school European machinists and their apprentice days. One of the stories is that some apprentices spent their first year or two doing nothing other than hand filing. Maybe not even with a goal in mind other than to spend time filing. I'm clearly still an apprentice and with that in mind, I just spent a bunch of time hand filing a Z project yesterday. Turned out fantastic...

Blue, Those look great. Any considerations about surface treatment of the contacting surfaces? Do you know if there was any special treatments done that you might be wearing through? I thought I saw a thread on hybrid that talked about that sort of thing, but I can't find it. My search-foo is weak,

Yeah, me too. I know this is a Z forum, but they're just so closely related.

Matt, One other thing about the bolts... I don't think mine rub all the time, but once the engine is running and the car is driving and flexing and the hood is rattling around up there, you may need more clearance than you think you do. In other words, just because you can close the hood and there's no contact, that might not be good enough. That might be fine sitting still, but more clearance may be needed once things start vibrating and flexing. Beautiful work as always!

Matt, be careful with those new bolts you used to attach the fenders. My PO did the same thing and they rub against the hood sometimes when the hood is closed. I've not done a lot of investigation into it, but I've got a tub of old used hardware that my PO took off and replaced and I believe I've identified the original bolts that held the fenders on and they are lower profile than "normal". Low profile head and no lock washers. (Maybe no flats as well, but don't remember for sure.) Point is, It would suck for you to mess up your brand new paint because the heads on those bolts stick up too far. BTDT

Sorry to hear about the brain fart. I'm just so glad that I'm not the only one that does bonehead stuff like that! I wouldn't worry about it. It's not like you're putting on aftermarket lowering springs or anything... Sorry!

Excellent. It's always a little tentative to provide that level of detail when I don't have the official documentation. Glad that worked out and glad you got your test done.

My documentation for the early years is sketchy, but I believe it goes like this: Green/White is the +12 side. Black is the ground side. I'm assuming there's only one G/W in the dash harness, and you should be able to pick it up at the headlight (combination) switch connector. You should use a current limited power supply if you've got one or put a couple amp fuse (like 2A) in series with your power source just in case. Maybe turn the dimmer control full dim before you make any connections and then turn it up after you have power on the circuit? And anecdotally... They changed the wiring scheme somewhere along the way. The earlier cars (maybe through 73?) had the dimmer on the high side and the later cars (74 on?) had the dimmer on the low side. But I don't think it matters for what you're trying to do.

Gotcha. That will work to vent the tank (in both directions). However... A concern about doing it that way is that you're going to smell it since it will vent into the passenger compartment.

Just make sure you've got ways for air to both enter and leave the tank before the vacuum or pressure reaches levels unhealthy for the system. If you simply remove the vapor/liquid separator tank and just cap everything back there, you're asking for trouble (even if you've got a later style gas cap with the check valve). You'll be OK for vacuum, but pressure will still be an issue. And simply connecting the nipple on the tank that used to have the "orange" hose on it to the nipple on the filler neck won't do anything to relieve pressure or vacuum. It'll enable you to get more fuel in the tank at the gas station, but it won't do anything about vacuum or pressure buildup.

That link shows clearly the perils of letting the tank draw a vacuum. It doesn't have any pics of a tank that has bulged outward from pressure, but some of those may be out there as well. In normal operation the tank can draw either a vacuum or develop pressure and you need to have provisions somewhere in the system to account for both of those possibilities. That drawing on the previous page of this thread looks to recommend completely eliminating all the venting in the system. Am I reading that right? Are people really completely eliminating the vents on their systems?

Yup. That's the one. They called that the Flow Guide Valve, and it's purpose was to vent the gas tank pressure into the crankcase when the engine wasn't running. These vapors would be "stored" there until the engine was running, and then once the engine was running, those vapors were pulled into the intake manifold through the PCV and burned. I'm skeptical as to how effective an engine crankcase is for "storing vapors", and apparently the emissions czars were as well because starting in 74 they went away from the idea of storing the vapors in the crankcase and went to the activated carbon canisters instead. I've not had anything early enough to have a flow guide design (everything I've had is 74 or newer), but I believe the years with the flow guide were supposed to have a non-vented gas cap. The flow guide is supposed to direct air from the air cleaner housing into the tank if the tank draws a vacuum. In other words, the later years used a check valve in the gas caps, but I think the earlier years did that check valve function as part of the flow guide valve. In any event, there still needs to be a way to vent pressure out of the tank.

Not sure who your question was directed to or what bumps you're talking about, but if you're talking to me and you're asking about the bumps on the top side of the gas cap, then those are air holes that lead to the atmosphere side of the check valve built into the cap. When the pressure inside the tank gets low enough, the check valve will open and air will be pulled into the tank through those holes. Air isn't ever supposed to flow out of those holes... Only in. If you look carefully at the pic above with the paper clip... The clip is holding the check valve open and you can see the little rubber seal under the disk that the clip is lifting up. Pull the paper clip out and a spring pulls that disk back against the underside of the cap thus holding the check valve closed. And if you're not talking to me or weren't asking about the bumps on the cap, then please disregard this response completely.

The cap is vented, but it's a check valve that only lets air INTO the tank as fuel is used. It will not let pressure out. PRESSURE that's developed in the tank is supposed to vent to atmosphere through either the flow guide valve or carbon canister (depending on the year). If you've capped all the vent hoses and are counting on the gas cap to vent that pressure, you're at risk of bulging your fuel tank or overpowering the float valves on your carbs and flooding your engine. Let's say you've got a quarter tank of gas and your car has been sitting in your cool garage overnight. Then you pull your car out of the garage on a summer morning and then drive it until hot and then park it in the 100 degree sun for the afternoon... Something's gotta give. You need a pressure release somewhere.

Not the kind of thing you do twice. Next time you're here, remind me to tell you a story about troubleshooting an ignition problem on my old Alfa... The Prince of Darkness taught me a lesson in a somewhat related way...

Are you sure that the big nut on the top of the strut shaft is tight? And are you sure the three nuts holding the top of the strut to the body are tight? I'm sure you already checked that stuff already, but somebody's gotta ask...

I also don't think there would be a problem. Stich weld if necessary. And as suggested... Don't clamp your ground wire onto the rotating portion. Clamp the ground onto the same side of the bearings the weld will be located so the welding current doesn't have to go through the balls. It's never good to send welding current through the balls.

I actually took measurements and have a sketch around here somewhere for that exact purpose. I've been in situations where I wanted to get a Z hatch open and didn't have keys (like on a parts car). I now know where to punch a small hole from the outside in order to hit the internal linkage to open the hatch. And the small hole would be easy to patch if necessary.

Excellent. One last thing before I bow out and let you get back to the real topic at hand. The KYB guys didn't talk much about the expansion chamber and why it's needed at all. My read on this is twofold: First, as the hydraulic oil heats up during use, it will expand. And if there isn't some provision for compliance somewhere in the system, the pressure could rise above a level suitable for the shaft seal (or worse). Second, as the shaft is compressed into the tube, the volume of the shaft itself displaces some oil, and that oil has to have someplace to go. If there wasn't a compressible volume in there somewhere, you could never press the shaft down at all since the internals would be "hydro-locked". So some answers to questions that you didn't ask, but it puzzled me a little at first when I saw the position of the floating piston change a little as they compressed the monotube. Figured maybe the same thing caught your eye. That changing position is due to the volume of the shock shaft as it enters and leaves the oil chamber.

Cool. I'm glad you were able to find NOS, and I'm hoping that it's not going to become the next part that will fail on all the fuel injected cars (like mine). I'm thinking your old valve is gunked up inside with crud and you might be able to clean it out and keep it around in case you need a spare. Failing that, are you gonna take it apart and see what went wrong?