Namerow

I like this approach. Who was your source for the mass-loaded vinyl sheet? How did the price per sq.ft. compare with the usual products like Dynamat?

I like this approach. Who was your source for the mass-loaded vinyl sheet? How did the price per sq.ft. compare with the usual products like Dynamat?

Good tip concerning the use of floor tiles as turn plates. For a light car like a Z, I wonder if it might not be a bad idea to load up the driver's seat with 150 - 200 lb of ballast (sand bags?) before doing a toe adjustment. Re compensating for front-to-rear differences in track/tread when doing a string alignment: The 240Z's wheelbase is 2305mm, while the front and rear track measurements are 1355mm and 1345mm respectively, That would call for a 5mm step-out adjustment of the jack/axle stands at the rear. This doesn't seem worth fussing over. The error created by a 5mm lateral difference when played out over a 2305mm lengthwise distance amounts to only 0.005mm (i.e. two ten-thousandths of an inch). I found a nice pictorial explanation of how to do a string alignment here: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/chassis-suspension/ctrp-1204-determining-wheel-alignment-string-your-car/

Try JDM Car Parts. They list the bag at $75.00. Not sure if it's NOS or a reproduction. http://jdm-car-parts.com/collections/body-exterior-parts-nissan-fairlady-z-240z-260z-280z-280zx?page=4

Plain old white vinegar. Ignore the extra-strength 'cleaning' version. I have no idea what they do to make it extra-strength, but it undoubtedly will involve a different pH level. No sense in adding a new unknown to a process that's already challenging .

I'm afraid I'm going to have to go metric on you here: 100 grams of epsom salts for every 1 litre of vinegar. In your terms, that would be 3.53 oz (by weight) of epsom salts for every 1.06 US gallons of vinegar. Ignore anything you read about adding sugar, saccharine or corn syrup to the bath to act as a brightener. There are a number of reports that this achieves very little in the way of brightening and can end up creating a sticky mess. I bought some very handy graduated mixing tubs (clear plastic) from the hardware store. They hold 2 litres of liquid (0.53 US gallons). Using these, I discovered that my '2 kg' (by weight) container of epsom salts measured out at 1700 millilitres (by volume). I am using 16 litres of vinegar (4.2 US gallons), so I needed 1600 gm (by weight) of salt. Using my weight-to-volume conversion factor of 1700/2000, that meant I needed to measure out 1360 mL of salt (46 US fl.oz.) to add to the bath. Using fluid volume measures, the mixing ratio is therefore: 1360 mL of salt for 16000 mL of vinegar or, 1 fl.oz. salt to 11.76 fl.oz vinegar (i.e. 1 measure salt for every 11.76 measures vinegar) You'll probably be using 4 US gallons of vinegar (4 x 128 = 512 US fl.oz.). That means you'll need to add 43.5 fl.oz. of salt. (512 divided by 11.76). If you get the same volume-to-weight conversion that I did, the 43.5 fl.oz. volume of salt would weigh 51.2 ounces, or 3.2 lb. Be sure to check my math before doing your purchasing and mixing. I'm now using just a single, 4"-wide hoop of 'Moss Boss' zinc foil in my 5-gallon pail. The inside wall of the pail has a slight draft angle, so I lap-soldered the zinc strip to create a hoop of just the right diameter to lodge about half-way down in the bath. The pail measures about 10.5" in diameter at that point, so that means I have about 130 sq.in. of exposed zinc inside the bath (i.e. just shy of 1 sq.ft.). I soldered 12" lengths of solid copper wire at the '9' and '3' positions on the hoop and use these as my connector terminals for the 'POS' lead of the power supply. They also give me a hand hold that I can use to pull the zinc hoop out of the bath between plating sessions.

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?