Captain Obvious

That's why I was asking if it was threaded. I was thinking the same thing. My 77 280 has bump stops that aren't described in the manual either.

Haha! You've taken your first step towards recovery.

Haha, yeah, I'm lurking. Visions of spindle pin bushings dancing in my head. I tried the forever priming as well, and it didn't help me much, but my (first order) problem was a non-existent check valve back at the pump. So I could have great fuel pressure as long as I was cranking, but as soon as I let off the key, it went to zero. I found the check valve issue at the trailing end of last summer so I haven't spent a full blown hot summer afternoon parked on the blacktop yet after getting that part sorted. This year will be the test for me. My artificial enrichment circuit got me through last summer. That was when I hooked up a relay in series with the temp sensor and fooled the ECU into thinking my engine was very very cold while it was cranking. This summer I'm hoping that a new check valve will make the electronic choke unnecessary. But I gotta get wheels under it first!! :classic:

Not regardless of the temp... Only squirts while cranking below 72F max. (FSM says the thermotime cuts out somewhere between 57-72F). 77 FSM page EF-14.

siteunseen, did you get those bellows you talked about? Are they the same ones I bought, or one of the other alternatives?

My pleasure. The pics of your hardware in your thread are a little different than what I found in mine, but hope the info helps anyway!

Haha! Some call me Obvious. I believe you are supposed to tighten the side rod until it bottoms out. And then once the side rod has bottomed out against the end of the rack, then you should lock it in place with the lock nut. If you're lucky, the side rod will have a stiffy at that point. If it's still all loose and floppy hanging once the side rod has bottomed out, then it's worn beyond the recommended limit. As for the order of the other two parts... Are they both threaded? I mean, obviously the lock nut (part with the flats) is threaded, but what about the other part? The part without the flats? I'm not even sure what that is. It's not in the manual pics... Also, what year manual are you looking at that said something about .22? I looked and couldn't find that.

Brian, Those pictures are perfect. Thanks for the closure.

I'm glad to hear your positive results as I'm doing pretty much the same thing on my 77. Wheel bearings, steering rack refurb, strut inserts, ball joints, tie rod ends, bushings everywhere... To make matters worse on mine, I've found a bunch of things that weren't put together properly from my previous owner. I'm hoping (maybe even expecting) huge improvements over what I started with.

bacarl, Awesome. Thanks for the confirmation! Pics of the original parts for future reference would be great when you get a chance.

The nuts that tamo3 posted are the original peen over style. They are not the ZX self-locking style.

Yeah, I'm in a similar situation with why I'm doing this now. I've got all four corners of the suspension off the car and I've promised everyone some cheap easily available check valve options for the pump, so there's no easier time to mess with the fuel pump than now. Then I figured while I had the whole pump assy off the car, I may as well make sure the insides of the pump looked good, and you know how it goes... Now I'm messing with an elegant mounting of a fuel filter back there using a mounting bracket that will hopefully look "stock" when I'm done. Scope creep. I'm confident in my measurements to about +/- .01mm (a half thousandth over here at this part of the globe). Thankfully O-rings are pretty forgiving about sizing, and I don't think the differences between what you got and what I'm getting are really going to matter. Especially in a static face seal like we have here. I'm going to order some O-rings tomorrow and go from there. Thanks again for your help with this! And you made me chuckle when you mentioned the German standard. That was the first one I opened too. The second was the Japanese standard. And so on. Same thought process.

Chas, Those pictures are perfect. Again, answered my current question, and a few I hadn't asked yet. Thanks much for the help!

Thanks Chas. Awesome info. My measurements are a little different, but not by much. I measured the depth of the grooves to be 1.6mm (instead of the 1.5 you got). It was a little tricky to measure because the grooves have a small radius at the bottom corners, and if you get hung up on the fillet on the inside corners, you'll measure a little less depth. I was careful to measure at the center of the groove, and I got 1.6mm. Slightly less crush than what you calculated, but more than enough. I did not measure the groove width, but I will next time I'm in the shop. I see that you calculated ID from linear length, and I was curious... How did you measure that? I measured ID directly with gauges (rods of appropriate diameter) and found the IDs to be 33.0 and 33.5mm with the smaller O-ring located near the motor. Also, I bumped your fuel line insulator thread with a question. I'm guessing you didn't see that? http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/garage-hobbyist/50966-280z-fuel-line-insulators.html

No problem. I'm sure I'll end up with a couple extra sets and I'd be happy to share the surplus. I took another very close look at the O-rings last night, and it just may be that there is a small size difference between the two. I'm not sure if it's stretch from application or swell from gasoline exposure, but my two O-rings are definitely different in circumference at this point. Easiest to tell when you swap the two from their original grooves. They definitely fit different in the other grooves, and I don't think it's just from compression set. Still close enough that I think the same size would still work in both locations, but if I'm going to be ordering two different sizes anyway, it just may work out for the best. The two grooves are a slightly different shape as well due to the geometry of the pump ports. I'm thinking they tried to make the two O-rings the same, but missed a little bit? :bulb:

Chas, Your insulators look great. My PO put new hardlines and insulators on my car so the rubber looks OK, but the hardline routing is a little screwy in spots. Not a big deal, but while I've got all the suspension torn off, it would be convenient to make changes now. Have you got a photo of the hardline routing back by the rear sway bar? I'm trying to figure out if those lines are supposed to go above or under the sway bar. Something just about a foot further forward than this one:

Hehe. I do. But I'm not young... :paranoid:

I've been through O-ring sizing details in the past for stuff that I had a hand in designing, but the easiest thing to do on existing equipment is.... Use the same size that came out. Problem here is that the O-ring has taken a set from years of compression, and the groove that it sits in is not round, so it's not like you can easily measure the ID and OD. Depth is no problem, but anything having to do with circumference is tough. I measured my old O-rings using a gauge of appropriate diameter. I came up with 33 or 33.5 mm depending how much stretch I estimate occurred over the years. I suspect either size would work OK, and if it comes to that, I'll just order both sizes and use the one the feels right. Of course, I'd still rather have a recommendation from someone who's already had success. McMaster stocks the 33mm in both Nitrile and Viton. The 33.5 they only have in Nitrile. Good enough, but Viton is even better. hr369, I can definitely tell you that they are NOT 30 mm. When I get the correct sizes, I'm sure I'll have to buy more than I need, so I'll have extras. In other words, don't buy any yet... I think I'll have you covered. Thanks for the help everyone, and keep the info flowing!

I think the normal routing for that sensor wire is to dangle from the straps around the radiator hose (with the distributor wire), and I bet he wanted to route it along with all the other sensor wires up and over the intake instead. My PO did the same thing, although he didn't have to add any wire length to make it happen. Mine was long enough without splicing.

Figured you knew there were two of them, but since keystrokes are free, I thought I would just double check. My measurements also show that the two of them are the same size. I agree on the photos. Can't have too many. In fact, that one pic you just posted above with the fuel pump mounted in place under the car answered a few other questions for me... My previous owner replaced all the hardlines (brake, fuel) going from the front to back of the car. And I've had suspicion that not all of the routing of what he did was the same way it came originally. Your photo confirmed that. He used some poetic liscence in the routing. I don't think it's a big enough deal for me to take them out and start over, but at least now I have a pic of how they're supposed to route. Thanks again!

Chas The EFI harness does too have a ground. It runs one thick wire right over to the battery negative terminal. That's about as ground as it gets in an automotive application! The ground you highlighted above is part of the engine bay wiring harness, and I've done a little poking around with it as well. You want to see something interesting? Disconnect both ends of that wire and then check the resistance to ground with them disconnected. Still makes connection, right? There must be internal splices inside the engine bay wiring harness that are back feeding through other directions. Same with the other ground connection on the other side of the engine. One end at the alternator, and another on the bulkhead wall near where the heater tubes poke through the firewall. Disconnect all four of those at the same time, and they STILL read to ground. I didn't dig any further than that, but I found it interesting. Don't forget that the whole drivetrain is connected right to the battery negative terminal through the starter cable too.

Thanks Chas. When you get a chance to dig through your notes, I'd appreciate any input you have. Mine wasn't leaking, but I took it apart because, well... because I do that. Actually, my input filter has disintegrated, and I wanted to make sure there weren't little bits caught up in the works. One other thing. I'm sure it's nothing, but just to be sure... You keep talking about "O-ring" (singular) instead of "O-rings" (plural). You do know there are two of them, right? One on either side of the rotor housing? Here's a pic of where I am now. You see the my original O-rings have taken a set which makes measurements less accurate:

I've got my 77 EFI fuel pump torn apart and when I put it back together, I want to use new O-rings to seal the rotor section. Anyone know the sizes that are used there? Are they available as a replacement part? I looked through the parts docs and I couldn't find an exploded view of the fuel pump. I'm thinking they aren't available separate? I measured the old ones that came off, but they're deformed from over thirty years of service. They are no longer round, nor are they circular in cross section. By this time, they are oval in cross section, and are shaped like the groove they came out of. However... Doing the best I could, I get 33mm ID and a 2mm cross section? I know others have been through this (EuroDat) but I never found closure on the O-ring size.

Thanks for the input and that was my thinking as well. So the plan is to go with the ZX style unless someone has a compelling reason not to. I'm not worried about the concourse... I did extra credit with my spindle nut rubber washers.

So, any input on which retaining nut to use? Z or ZX?