Captain Obvious

Woof. That's no fun at all.

OK, so we have seemed to confirm that you have the correct filter. And your housing does clam shut if there is no filter installed. Sp what about the possibility that it's simply a rubber compressability issue with the new seals inside the airbox that squish against the sides of the filter? In other words.... Do you think that the airbox would close tightly if those two rubber seals inside were not present?

Time for the obvious question... Does the air cleaner clamshell fit together tightly when there is no filter inside? Yeah, I know. But someone has to do it.

Glad to help. Since it's so easy, I'd pull the boots back and do what you can. Small amount of work for the time investment. Just don't split the boots. That would be the typical "reward for being proactive".

Getting to the root of the question... No. You cannot get to all of the areas of the rack that need grease without taking the rack apart. As you suggested, you can pop the inboard sides of the boots off and grease what you can see. Doing that will allow you to grease the rack end bushings and the rack gear. And if you have the grease holes in the ends of the rack gear (not sure all years had those), you can temporarily install a zerk fitting into the hole which will allow you to grease the ball and socket joint on the tie rod ends. Install the zerk, pump in some grease, and then take the zerks back out. That's most of the rack, but not all of it. The only thing you won't be able to grease is the ball bearings on the pinion gear shaft. Better than nothing though!

Yeah, I had little doubt it wasn't that easy. But I have to ask. Haha!! If you have one of these (commonly known as a layout caliper), you could push the piston in and reach behind the retaining ring to set this thing for the inside diameter. Then take it out and use your caliper to measure the jaw width. If you don't have a layout caliper and are really really desperate, you could use a piece of coat hanger bent into a "U" shape. If you do it right, you should be able to get a reality check quality measurement.

And another complication will be that the retaining ring clip will be in the way of taking a measurement. I'm assuming that the master doesn't have the size cast into the outside of the body? Cause if it did, you wouldn't have to go through any of this?

The measurement should be at the narrowest part of the taper. In order to get a good reading, you might have to push the brake piston in a little bit to expose the surface on which to put the calipers. Or you might be able to just catch a little bit of the bore at the bottom of the taper even without pushing the piston in. And if you are just "reality checking" to make sure you have the right master cylinder for your car, that might be accurate enough.

The master cylinders are usually bored out larger in the area where the retaining clip goes. So if you are measuring the bore with all the guts installed, It's likely that you aren't measuring the actual working diameter of the cylinder. You are probably just measuring the diameter where the lead-in and retainer are located. My guess (from my chair) is that the bore down deeper in the cylinder is smaller than what you are measuring out at the end where you have the caliper.

When I was doing that job alone (taking valves apart with engine in the car), I found that working with one hand on the tool at all times to keep the spring compressed is an extra special pain. So I used a piece of nylon cord to hold the tool down so at least I had two hands to work on getting the retainers out and back in. Tie the cord off onto something an anchor. Looked like this: Still a pain, but way easier!!

Cool. Sounds like a plan. Hope the retainer shortening takes care of the issues you are having and that's the last hiccup!

And while I'm here, I've got a question. You said you were going to pull off the Isky retainers this weekend... What keeps the valves from dropping after you remove the retainers? Rope or compressed air in the cylinder to get the retainers off and then some kind of clamp or feature attached to the stems after you pull the springs off? Maybe temporarily install stock retainers? Just curious, but what's the plan?

Gotcha. So "installed height" has nothing to do with the location of the tip of the valve stem. Seems important for valve pressure and bind analysis, but really doesn't have anything to do with the problem you're having. So I poked around a couple seconds and turned up a thread on ratsun that talks some about the isky retainers. Seems the Isky retainers are specially made to work with Isky springs? Something about fewer coils maybe and keeping them centered? But there's also talk about making sure you don't sink a seat, and people have had the same tall retainer problem and have cut down the retainers: https://ratsun.net/topic/42818-l20b-with-a87-head-valve-spring-questions/

As long as the springs are compatible with the retainer disk, then I don't think any of the rest of that matters. The tip of the valve will be in the same location regardless if there is a change in exactly where the keepers lock onto the valve stem. In other words... The height of the valve stem tip above the head is dictated by the location of the valve seat (inside the cylinder) and the length of the stem. And since the lash pad sits on the top of the valve stem tip, neither the location of the keepers or the location of the notch in the stem for the keepers would have any effect on the installed height. Unless I'm misunderstanding "installed height" or something?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to throw the engine builder under the bus. I'm just trying to make sure I understood what happened. Mistakes happen. So, why don't you just use stock spring retainers? Is there something different about the tops of the Isky springs that makes them incompatible with the stock retainers? Or is there something way better about the Isky retainers that make them a better choice over stock? It's not like people are complaining all over the internets that the stock retainers are inferior. I've never heard of a failure. Ever. Or you're thinking that since you paid for them, dad-gummit, you're gonna use em!! I mean if that's it, I get it! Haha!!

I was thinking the exact same thing. If what inline6 posted is a quote back from the guy who did the head, then it really doesn't make sense. If the engine machinist picked the lash pads and declared the wipe pattern "correct", then he must have overlooked a real problem!

Haha!!! Thinking about it a little more, if both diodes were dead shorts, they couldn't be camping right to the two rails or the ECU would have sucked a whole bunch of current. There has to be more to it than that.

Well smoking gun at least. The combo of sinking the exhaust seats, the extra deep retainers, and longer than stock exhaust valve stems. A little disconcerting that the two adjacent exhaust valves are that different in adjustment. Makes me wonder how much variability there is between how deep he sank the seats. I'm no engine expert, but I'm not totally comfortable with modifying the rockers. You would be removing material right at a stress point and introducing a stress riser right there. How much material do you think you'll have to carve out? You could stuff some rope into the cylinders and swap out the retainers for something shorter, like stock. That would take care of it, and still not require pulling the head off. More work, but no stress risers that way.

Hmmm... Really not much to go on. Those old parts can be really difficult to identify. Dave, I can see why you potentially ID'ed it as an avalanche diode. Everything I found (quick internet search) in the old SOD case was avalanche style, designed for circuit protection. So how are they connected in circuit? Are the two of them connected together at the middle? If so, it's a check in the column for circuit protection. PS - I give that pic the "crappy tiny picture award" for the year. The year isn't over yet, but you're running strong to win the award!! Congrats.

Is the issue solvable with a lash pad change? What I mean is... The lash is too tight. Even with the adjuster all the way down. That clearly means a thinner lash pad is required. But the wipe pattern is almost off the end of the hardened pad. What happens to the wipe pattern when the lash pad thickness is reduced? I've never messed with it in any great detail. Does a thinner pad move the contact patch towards the adjuster end of the rocker, or towards the valve tip end? If a thinner lash pad moves the contact patch towards the valve tip, then this issue cannot be solved with a lash pad change.

When I run my adjusters all the way down, I have LOTS of clearance. Like almost enough to actually pull the rocker out without even compressing the valve spring. Almost, but not quite. Point is... Something really doesn't seem right. I bet I could install the thickest lash pad ever created and STILL have clearance when my adjuster is run all the way down. Are you double dog sure that everything else is as expected? Valve stem lengths are correct? Valve seat depth is as expected? Head not cut on the top side to clean it up? Something? And about the carb float valves... I think they switched to the rubber tipped valves in 1972 "improving sealing performance".

Well, at least it should be a simple fix. And I did like emccallum did... After a the initial 15 second fire-ups, when I did add liquid, I added straight distilled water. No antifreeze. Ran it like that for a little while to check for leaks. Rad cap off. Then, next step was rad cap on and let it build pressure. Then once I was convinced it would hold pressure, I drained all that out and started fresh with 50/50 distilled/anti-freeze.

Hahaha!!! Those are great stories!! My recent new motor fire-up was completely uneventful. I feel totally boring. No, wait... I do have something!!! It was about day three after the fire-up, and I was picking up a noise. Something weird, but certainly unpleasant in the top end. But I don't want to clutter up someone else's thread with tales of my stupidity.

Cool!!! I'm not sure I would add coolant until I was sure the engine ran. You can run it dry for a short time (fifteen seconds) just to make sure things work. At this stage, I would also consider the carb oil to be optional. But since it's so easy to put in and take out, it's no big deal. I would add "double and triple check that the cam timing is correct". before I spun the starter. And when you do turn the starter to prime the engine oil... I would make sure oil comes out of all of your spray bar holes. And if you're energetic, I'd run a compression test after the oil was primed and before I put the plugs in. Just to rule out surprises. After all the detail leading to this point, not much risk of any issue, but fingers crossed here just because it's a big day!!

Me too. The coil tab to the side made sense to me as well. But orienting both the connections in the same position didn't work well. In any event, it's really not a big deal. Thanks for bringing up the questions so I could tag along for the ride!