Captain Obvious

Hi Kats, Glad to help! I'll draw up a sketch showing what I believe the manufacturing process to be. And one last thought on the stopper... The only thing that should stop that nut from going on any further is the tapered angled surface of the nut should contact a matching angled surface down inside the lug stud hole in the wheel. The four angled surfaces on the four nuts are what locates and centers the wheel properly on the car.

I also found a tiny bit of asymmetry with the rear spindle pin bushings as well. I don't know if it was designed that way, or if it was an accident, but I found a slight difference in the distance the metal collars stuck out of the new rubber bushings. One side was longer than the other, and all of them were consistent (as though it was done on purpose and not an accident). I put all four of them in such that the smaller distance was inward towards the strut body and the longer portion was on the washer and nut side. I found that with the bushing pressed into the center of the control arm recieving cylinder, the distance between the two bushings worked out to almost exactly the width of the strut knuckle casting. I found that if I reversed the bushings and centered them, I ended up with a gap where the strut knuckle fit. Of course, it was a small gap and would have easily clamped down as I tightened the spindle pin nuts, but I figued if I didn't have a gap in the first place, that would be better. Also, putting the longer end on the outside allowed more room for the rubber sealing washer. Don't know if all the aftermarket bushings do that, but I bought Raybestos 570-1030 - There are two bushings per box, so two boxes per car. If you squint right, you can see the asymmetry in this pic. See how the center sticks out farther on one side than the other:

Yeah, refresh my memory... Why did you change the springs? I remember having discussions about springs with someone a long while ago, but don't remember the details... Was that you?

Yes, I believe the shape of the baffle with the bends has a purpose. It's intended to seal the baffle around the entire perimeter except for the very back corner where it's open. Presumably, the designers thought there would be the least amount of oil spray flinging around back there. Then the bumps and valleys in the middle (in conjunction with the cast ribs on the inside of the valve cover) force that air to swim a crude labyrinth (up and down) in an attempt to separate the liquid from the vapor. Up over the baffle bulge, down under the cast rib. Twice. Before finally getting to the hole at the very highest top part of the valve cover where gravity should also help keep liquid inside while allowing vapor to pass. I wasn't there when they designed it, but that's my read.

Hi again Kats, It's kind of hard to describe machining operations with just words and I'm not sure if my description above makes sense. If it doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll whip up a sketch showing the parts.

Hi Kats, That's not a stopper, and in use, that surface should not be making contact with anything. Those lug nuts are actually made from two pieces. They machine the threaded portion as one piece, and the tapered section is actually a ring of separate material that is pressed on later. The surface you labeled as stopper is actually the end shoulder of the surface onto which the tapered ring is pressed on. They could have cut the whole thing from just one piece of material, but I suspect they made it out of two pieces because it's easier, and cheaper (since it requires less material with less waste in the form of chips from the turning operations). They probably started with hex rod for the inner part (that way they didn't have to machine the hex), but because of starting from hex rod, they couldn't have any feature larger in diameter than that hex, unless it came from a different piece of material. So they used a larger round rod and cut the tapered section from that, and then joined the two parts together at the end and plated them.

I've seen that. One stalk damped a lot more than the other. The check valve on the one that didn't damp wasn't working properly. IIRC, the center shaft was cocked off to the side a little and because of that misalignment, the check valve didn't work right.

If you use the proper backup method with the correct sized supporting anvils, you should be able to press those things in and out all day with the hydraulic press without damaging or crushing anything. Having a lathe helps.... My PO did the bushings in my car. He burned the rubber out and put so much heat into the arms that they went blue. Then he hacksawed through the outer bushing wall, and into the control arms a little. In numerous locations. And then he pounded the remains out with a cold chisel and cratered and upset the metal on the inside of the control arm hole. All four were junk by the time he got done with them and I replaced all of my arms and started over.

Here's a dimensioned sketch of the OEM bushing. For those of you who don't want to deal with my chicken scratch, the bottom line is: OD ~ 1.977 OAL of bushing outer wall ~ 1.575 after installation (1.985 reference before installation) length of center bolt cylinder ~ 2.565 ID of bolt hole through ~ .677 (clearance hole for 17mm dia bolt shank) Note that the 40mm after install dimension should be on the inside edges of the bent over flanges instead the outside as it's drawn. I'm no draftsman.

As long as the dampers stay fully submerged even at full height, then the amount of oil shouldn't matter. If you're able to tune the amount of resistance to lift by adjusting the oil volume, then you don't have enough oil in there. They should be to the full mark, and at the full mark, they should both feel the same.

Well I would guess in todays litigious times, maybe he thinks he could be held liable for selling you something that drew more current than the original system was designed for. Especially if your lawyers came calling after your car burned to the ground. With you in it. And a nun. On a bridge that then subsequently collapsed and crushed an orphanage. Or maybe he just doesn't like guys named Granny?

I had to read what you wrote about six times before I figured out what you were talking about. Just in case it wasn't just me having troubles... What Zed Head is suggesting is that it would be possible to cut a hole in the stock baffle plate and then connect a tube to that new hole. Then you could also cut a hole in the valve cover anywhere you want, and bring the other end of the new tube out that hole. The end result would be a stock baffle performance, but you could relocate the exit hole anywhere on the valve cover surface. Assuming there's room inside to run said tube without it interfering with the camshaft or valve train.

Well here's a theory then... If you hadn't messed with perfectly good needles in the first place and made them richer everywhere with the exception of at idle, then maybe you would be able to drop the nozzles a little and end up with the mixture where you want it... Even at idle. Haha!!! Sorry. Just had to! I agree that 35 mpg would be hard to walk away from. So if you pull the lid off the air cleaner and lift up on the pistons: Are the pistons hard to lift? (Are the dampers damping?) Are the two dampers the same?

Really? Cut off? Did you and he discuss the destination application for the bulbs? Did he know you were putting 80/55 bulbs into a vehicle originally designed for something less? That's some strong CYA!!

If it's lean only when you first hit the gas pulling away from a stop, methinks you need thicker oil in your dampers, or there is something wrong with your jiggly bits. That or you just need a set of flat tops!!!

Will do. Later tonight.

That was nanu, not nano.

Haha!! You know me well, my friend! As a back burner project under @Patcon's guidance, I've been looking into this off and on for a while. The most promising bushings I've seen are things like engine torque strut mounts. The upper bar they strap on transverse mounted engines to keep the top of the engine from wretching around as the engine works. if you can't find something that has the exact same size as the original bushing, I muse that you could use something that is a little smaller than the stock bushing, and press it into a thin wall cylinder of appropriate ID and OD. Make the length of the cylinder long enough that there's extra material to swage over the mustache bar. Here's some pics of common cheap bushings that are probably large enough to consider. I bet with a caliper at a junkyard you ought to be able to turn up something .100 or so smaller than the original. There's got to be something out there. Little smaller OD than stock. Same or larger bolt through the middle. Length shouldn't matter so much. Here's some possible candidates. Next time I'm headed to the yard, I'm going to take my caliper: 73-79 Civic Camry: Excel: Paseo:

To echo what SteveJ said above, there is no significant electrical difference between the 280 headlight design and the prior models. None of the years came from the factory with headlight relays, and to get full effect from any headlight, you really do need to upgrade the system and include some relays. About E-spec, I'm no expert on the topic, but my understanding is that "E-spec" housings are legal in "E", but not here in "A". Also, the FSM lists the stock rating as 50/40, not 60/55. Not sure what the generic sealed beams you get these days actually are, but that's what the manual says.

Thanks for checking Zed Head, and thanks for the pic of the 81 cover. Chickenman, I know the stock system works well. A little ashamed to admit it, but the only reason I've even entertained this idea is simply aesthetics. Here's my thinking... I've got a FI car, and currently the PCV valve screws into the underside of the intake manifold. If I were to relocate the PCV to the engine side of the intake manifold (instead of the bottom), then I could connect a short tube from the valve cover to the relocated PCV valve*. That tube wouldn't even have to cross the fuel rail. It could go under/behind the fuel rail instead. Then for the block end connection, I could run a short piece of tube from the block to a nipple on the underside of the rubber intake boot that connects the AFM to the throttle body. The whole thing would be so much cleaner and simpler than the existing system. I wouldn't have those long large PCV tubes running across the top of the engine all the way from the valve cover up to the throttle body. * As a side note, there's even a threaded hole (plugged with an allen headed plug) in the intake manifold down between the runners for cylinders 3 and 4. It connects into the shared internal passageway for the EGR system. It's almost as if Nissan had considered exactly what I'm suggesting. From this old thread http://www.classiczcars.com/topic/22366-efi-progress-on-my-datsun-240k/ here's a couple pics of the integral EGR passageway built into the intake manifold. This one is webbed (which mine is not), but the concept and location of the passageway is the same. He's removing the EGR passageway completely to clean up the look of his intake manifold: In this pic, you can see the flat boss cast passageway between 3 and 4. The boss was never drilled and plugged like the earlier ones were though. But the boss still exists:

I'm not sure they were expecting "a lot of blowby"... I think it's just the nature of the design. The rings are never a perfect seal, so the amount of blowby lost past the rings will probably be proportionate to the pressure of the explosion. In other words, the amount of blowby will be proportional to the load the engine is being asked to support. Couple that with decreased intake manifold vacuum at high load conditions, and the direction changes. You make it sound like they were expecting higher blowby only on worn engines and I don't know if it was your intention, but I don't think that's the case. Short story? I think the flow direction will change even on a new healthy engine. At idle, air flows into the valve cover nipple, but at higher blowby conditions, that blowby will flow OUT of the valve cover nipple. The original purpose of this thread was to entertain the idea of reversing the default flow direction of the whole system so the "reversed" direction of that upper tube would become the "normal" direction instead. This would also mean that the block connection under the distributor would become the fresh air replace except under high blowby conditions.

Sounds great. I'm hoping my suspension work outlasts me as well. Next time I'm down there again, we'll have to go for another cruise!

LOL!!!

Thanks for the thoughts Zed Head. Note the direction of flow in those diagrams... Metered Into the intake manifold by the PCV and then replaced by clean fresh air pulled into the valve cover nipple. That's the "at idle" flow direction. That direction would probably reverse direction under heavy foot high blow-by conditions, but at idle, the nipple on the valve cover is fresh air in. On the carbureted cars you ought to be able to pull the hose off the valve cover and the nipple on the cover should pull a slight vacuum. Cap it off for a couple seconds and let vacuum build up in the block. Then it will woosh back in when you unplug the hole. You could do the same thing on the EFI cars, but it'll throw off the air metering system. Also an interesting thought about potential changes in the design of the baffle over the years. If you've got easy access to something newer, it would be interesting to see if you find the design the same. Site, I think stainless steel would be a better idea than plastic. Stainless sink scrubby? Or stainless steel wool:

That's beautiful. I wish I could justify the cost... I'd love to have my dash redone. It's still "not too bad", but it's just a matter of time before the grand canyon opens up.