Captain Obvious

Everything should come off the rod. In this pic, there are still a few old bits rusted into place on the donor rod. That large washer has to come off, but it's being held into place by a rusted into place sleeve tube. There is also a smaller washer behind the large one that you can't see in the pic. [ATTACH=CONFIG]66118[/ATTACH] Here's a pic of a bushing kit. Two small washers, two big washers, two bushings, a sleeve, and a nut: In application, from front to rear of the car, it goes: Small washer Large washer Bushing (with sleeve in center) Frame of car Bushing (with sleeve in center) Large washer Small washer Nut Here's a pic showing the install order. This is what it looks like with urethane in front and rubber in the back. Note that the concave portion of the large washers should be away from the bushings. Also note that the direction of the black rubber bushing is wrong. The thicker portion of the rubber bushing should be towards the large washers, not towards the frame. I originally installed them incorrectly and later took them back off to switch the rear bushings around.

Right. My bad. I have little experience with the early years and it's certainly conceivable that they changed the hardware over the years. By the time they got to the 260, I believe they were using the self-locking single nut, but I have no significant experience with anything earlier than that. Even if they did use two nuts for the lock feature on the early cars, I bet they superseded it with the self-locking newer style. There's a "concourse" detail for you to keep an eye out for at shows. :bandit:

I believe the stock arrangement is to use a single self retaining vibration-resistant nut on the bushing end of the rod. One of those all metal styles that have a few purposely distorted threads at one end. There's nothing wrong with using two normal (not vibration-resistant) nuts there instead, but in theory, if you're using the correct stock nut all by itself, you should not have to. Just remember that the stock style nuts never hold as well the second (or third, or fourth) time you try to re-use, so if there's any question as to their ability to hold themselves, you should just buy new.

I'm seeing more issues than just a bad bushing... There is supposed to be a threaded portion on the end of that rod, and it's not there, The whole rod snapped clean through. You're gonna need a whole new T/C rod for that side. Look closely at the other side for more details.

I just noticed that I had the constituent percentages swapped above... The correct mix is 75% argon / 25% CO2. Sorry for the simple stupid mistake. I would edit it up above, but it's too late. I can't change it. Maybe the mods will fix it for me?

Me neither. I'm no welder! I know just enough to be dangerous. Wait a minute... I think I can say that about lots of things!! :laugh:

Yeah, I didn't know it either. I thought that the only reason people used the CO2/argon mix for the MIG was because it's cheaper than straight argon. In my defense, I'm claiming "bad advice from counsel". I bounced the idea of sharing the same tank between the TIG and MIG off a few people who should have known better, and I was told (incorrectly) that the only difference was cost. Here's to hoping that I can pull you out of that fallacy faster than I was pulled out. Here's the doc that pulled me out. Lots of stuff in there, and way more in depth than anyone except a professional welder in an industrial setting would need to know, but in the early sections, there's info that applies to us "hacks": http://www.lincolnelectric.com/assets/global/products/consumable_miggmawwires-superarc-superarcl-56/c4200.pdf Here's hoping I can pull out of the wrong shielding gas fallacy sooner than I was pulled by someone else.

Glad that you were able to narrow the problem. That makes things much easier. Thinking out loud, the only "external" thing I got that would put extra heat into the ignition module would be the lack of a ballast resistor where one is required. Maybe the PO didn't get it hooked up right and/or shorted it out somehow? Without the ballast resistor, you run the risk of pulling too much current through the ignition coil, and that might be enough to mess with the ignition module. I've not seen it, but I guess it's possible. Just to be prudent, you should check your coil and ballast connections carefully and make sure everything is done correctly.

Yeah, but it's just the principal of the thing.

Tis a puzzlement to me as well, but I can tell you... You aren't the only owner with this issue. I, on the other hand, ran SU's for quite some time and never had this problem. I don't ever remember having to add fluid. Unless I took it out on purpose, it never changed. And I doubt the gas smell has anything to do with it. You pull a part out of your carb and it smells like gasoline? Color me surprised!!

Good pics. I don't see anything that screams obvious problem. Two things catch my eye. First is a couple missing clamps on things like the brake booster and PCV vacuum lines. Not the cause of your problem, but might be providing a little vacuum leak. Second thing is what's with the hole in the middle of the EGR mounting casting. It's not sucking air through that little hole in the center, is it? As for potential heat related ignition issues, before you drop time or $$ on a different system, you could shoot a hot hair dryer at your existing module to try to recreate the problem. And buy a $5 can of circuit cooler at Radio shack to cool it off and see if the problem goes away.

You're using the wrong shielding gas. For general purpose MIG on carbon steel, you should run 75% CO2 / 25% argon mix. If you use 100% argon with the MIG, you get proud beads and very narrow fingerlike penetration. You'll be tempted to turn the power up to get the bead to spread, but that's not the solution. The solution is to use the correct shielding gas. I went through this myself about a year ago because I was trying to minimize the number of bottles I had to maintain. I figured that I could share the same 100% argon bottle between the MIG and the TIG, and I was mistaken. It doesn't work right.

Since the time of that other thread, I have disassembled a round top suction piston and have verified that the round tops are machined from one piece of steel and don't have any seams at the bottom. So if you're running flat tops, they might leak out the bottom, but your round tops can't. I'll snap some pics of the round top tube in disassembled state when I get the chance. I know that won't help your diagnosis though... Only makes it more difficult.

So the car started it's life as a 260 with a manual trans, right? Who swapped out the original flat tops for the current round tops? Did you do that swap, or was it like that when you got it? Also, how much of the original 260 stuff remains now that you're running round tops? Did they swap to 240 intake manifolds and balance tubes too, or are you running the original 260 stuff there? I'm just trying to get my bearings... Got any engine bay pics?

There are no seals involved. Everything is metal on metal. Nothing that would dry out. Here's a recent thread that dealt with the same question: http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/carburetors-s30/46939-su-oil-consumption.html

Yes, that sleeve is in there to act as a stop for the large washers, and yes... Even with that sleeve installed, the bushings deform significantly when the nut is tightened to bottoming. I'm with ya, it's more deformation than what is usually considered "normal", but it's correct. That's why the bushings you took out look very little like the new ones you're putting in.

Haha!!!! Good call! Thanks for the laugh!

Same thing has been said about me at times.

I've got something similar with my FI throttle body: http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/fuel-injection-s30/48078-sticky-throttle-body-hanging-idle.html I think I have traced the issue to wear in the throttle plate shaft. The shaft is chrome plated for wear resistance and the plating is worn through in spots. The softer gummier steel underneath gets sticky against the soft steel bearing inserts that are pressed into the throttle body casting. I've "temporarily" fixed it by increasing the return spring force. Addresses the symptom, but not the cause. Eventually I plan to come up with a better solution that addresses the cause instead of just the symptom.

What did the recall do? Do you have any links to more info about it?

a) Yes. 2) Yes. III) No idea.

Thanks Zed Head, I'll double check the locations of stuff. My original thought was to go with the 77 intake because I liked the way it looked, so I was happy to hear that the 83 stuff didn't fit right. Provided the validation and justification I needed to swap it onto the 83 motor. But then I was looking over the 83 intake system and I'm seeing some beauty in the functionality. I like what they did with some of the items like the BCDD and the PCV systems and now because of the functionality, the 83 is looking more attractive to me than it did before. So now I guess I could go either way. I'm thinking that if the location changes are not as significant as you originally alluded to, then I may try to make the 83 work. Heart says 77, buy head says 83? Does that make sense?

Well if you're convinced that it's a fuel delivery issue it should run on all six cylinders if both carbs are getting the right amount of fuel... Pull and plug the fuel supply tubes off both carbs and fill the float bowls with a funnel and a short piece of tubing while checking the float bowl level with a clear piece of tubing on the outlet nipple on the bottom of the bowls. Once you're convinced that both carbs are filling to the correct level, then start the car. If you're right, then it should run well on all six cylinders for at least thirty seconds until the float bowls are sucked dry. If not, then it will still run like crap.

FastWoman, Haha! I was thinking about the exact same potential solution, and the answer to your question is yes... There are plenty of unused ECU connections on the stock connector. Problem is, however, that the receiving connector on the wiring harness shrouds all the connections whether they are used or not and you would have to chop an access hole into that connector or the rubber boot on the back side of it. IMHO that violates one of the prime "plug-n-play" directives of this endeavor.

What about the lower end? I've heard reports that the oil pan designs are different and the oil pickup tube is in a different location? I can certainly swap pans and sump tubes between the two, but if I don't have to, it's less work. Anyone have any more info about the situation?