Captain Obvious

Stalks out piston lifts easily and falls quickly is perfect. Stalks in piston has resistance lifting and fall is only slightly damped is also perfect. Not exactly sure I understand what you meant by not seeing spillage, but if you lift and drop the pistons without the stalks installed, you aren't testing anything. You won't cause any spillage or overflowing doing that. You need to have the stalks installed to do the lift and drop test. c1) Pull the stalks out and make sure the reservoir is filled to the correct level c2) After verifying that the oil is at the proper level, reinstall the stalks in their normal operating position c3) Stick a finger in the mouth of the carb and lift the piston all the way to the top until it won't go any higher - Should be hard to lift c4) Let the piston drop as fast as gravity and it's spring will allow - Should fall quickly c5) Repeat c3 and c4 ten times c6) Pull the stalks out and check to see if the oil level has changed. If the level has changed, there should also be fresh oil on the outside of the reservoir tube. If the level has changed and there's oil everywhere, make sure that all the brass jiggly bits are clean and goober free and everything that is supposed to move does. The top washer is fixed to the shaft (as is the C-clip obviously). The lower washer and the cylinder should jiggle. Also check the stalks? Do they appear straight? If you lay the stalks tits up on the bench, are the shafts perpendicular to the benchtop? One last question that I should have asked a while ago... Do you know if the engine has to be running in order to consume the oil? By that, I mean, how many days does it typically take you to accumulate 350-400 miles? And if you would happen to let your car sit parked for that same length of time, would the level change, or does the engine have to be running to cause the disappearing oil?

You don't want back pressure. You want momentum. Problem is that sometimes an increase in momentum is accompanied by an increase in back pressure. I'm no expert in the field, but my theory is that since an increase in momentum is often accompanied by an increase in back pressure, people started thinking that back pressure was the desired effect, and it's not. It's the unwanted, but often necessary, side effect.

Sorry... Meant to say there are two washers on the top and a C-clip on the bottom and the jiggly cylinder between them. Dropped some words by accident. I also wanted to explain the purpose behind the lift and drop test. You should be able to lift the suction piston all the way to the top until it won't go any further and then let it drop full speed to the bottom without any fluid loss. If the check valve is working properly and the oil is of suitable viscosity and level, then it should rush through the check valve fast enough that it won't pool on top of the valve enough to lift the oil to the point where it can escape out the top of the tube. If, for whatever reason (for example... too thick of an oil viscosity or something wrong with the check valves), the oil does not flow through the check valve freely enough when the piston is dropping, then you run the risk of lifting oil up and out of the tubes. Does that make sense?

Bummer. I was hoping that this was a non-problem and you were simply overfilling the tubes. It's been a while, but I remember someone else had a problem with dropping level in the dampers, but I don't remember if they ever reached resolution. I'll take a look for that thread when I get a chance. Take a look at the jiggly bits. There are two washers on the top and bottom and the jiggly cylinder between them. The washers are different between top and bottom, and if memory serves, the cylinder may be as well. It's unlikely that someone took them apart and mixed up the parts, but if your oil isn't seeping out the bottom and isn't evaporating into the air, then it has to be coming back out the top of the tube somehow. Here's some far fetched ideas... Maybe you have a crack in your suction piston near the bottom that is allowing oil to seep out? Maybe the piston was machined incorrectly and what is supposed to be a blind hole isn't and there's some passageway through to the top of the needle? And yeah, if you find any O-rings in there, definitely take some pics and call an audible!

I wasn't expecting that the jiggly bits wore out. While that is possible, I consider it very unlikely. I consider it much more likely that there's a goober in there affecting operation. Or the stalks are bent or misaligned. Or a previous owner took the check valves apart and got them back together incorrectly. Or hopefully... There really isn't any problem at all and the OP is simply overfilling the tubes all the way to the top and expecting them to stay that way. So, back to you Jetaway... What is it that makes you think you need to add oil? When you say: Are you filling the reservoir to the very top and then putting in the stalks, or are you filling the reservoir a little and then using the stalks as dipsticks until the level hits the fill-to line on the stalks? It takes a surprisingly small amount of oil to do this. The reason I ask is because if you are filling them to the very top before you put the stalks in, then you are overfilling the dampers. Won't hurt anything as the excess will simply be pulled into the cylinders and burned, but if that's the reason you think you have to keep refilling them, then what you've got here is a non-problem.

No, it is not normal. No, there are no O-rings involved. If you are losing fluid out of the dampers, the first thing I would look at are the little brass jiggly bits on the end of the damper stalks. Those jiggly bits are a one way "check valve" system that is supposed to impede the flow of oil when the suction piston is moving in the up direction, yet pass oil easily when the suction piston is moving in the down direction. This allows the suction pistons to rise slow, but fall fast. If those jiggly bits are stuck and not allowing the check valve to open properly as the piston is falling, then the oil will be lifted up and out of the top of the tube by the valve itself. Some things to check to verify proper operation? a) Pull the damper rods, fill the dampers to the appropriate level (should be a fill-to line on the damper rods), and re-install the damper rods. Pull your air cleaner cover off and lift the pistons by hand. They should lift slow, but fall fast. c) Lift and release the pistons a bunch of times and then recheck the oil level. The oil level should not have changed. If, during this test, you have lifted oil up and out of the tubes then something is wrong with your jiggly bits.

I used Viton. I'm not worried about fuel or the heat.

Butter smooth. No leaks.

Yup, I tried it and it works perfect! Heater core is completely cool with the lever all the way to cold, and as hot as it used to be when in the hot position. Much cooler cabin! Cooler cabin Simpler and cheap generic under dash hoses Easy future heater core replacement Easy future valve replacement Cheap ubiquitous valve About the cable throw at the panel vs. the throw at the valve... Originally, the cable movement length at the panel was a little bit longer than the max throw at the valve. So in order to take care of that, I made a new longer arm for the valve. The longer arm takes more linear motion to go between endpoints, and as a bonus, the force required to move it is less. I don't have a pic handy of the original arm vs. my longer one, but I'm thinking that the one I made is maybe half inch longer than the original. All in all, I'm happy with the way this turned out. I'm not 100% thrilled with the hose or cable routing in the engine compartment, but one of the big reasons I put stuff where I did is because I didn't want to cut any additional holes in the firewall and I wanted to make the whole thing reversible if necessary. If I knew it would work, I guess I would have been willing to make it more permanent right off the bat, but since I was making this up as I went along, I wasn't sure how it would turn out. If I were starting with a clean slate, I would try to move the valve down and towards the battery a little, but in order to do that you would have to cut a new hole for the cable as the stock hole is too far up the wall.

Hunt over. http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/thread46899.html Thanks for the creativity spark!!

The heater in my 77 always blew hot regardless of where I put the temperature slider and I tracked the problem down to a faulty water **** valve under the dash. I had the capillary style valve (http://www.classiczcars.com/forums/thread46448.html) and spent a little time looking into a direct replacement, but after spending that kind of "quality time" working under the dash, I decided that I never wanted to go through that again. So I changed over to a ubiquitous newer style water control valve which I relocated up in the engine compartment instead of under the dash. I grabbed a bunch of different valves from the junkyard from various Honda and Toyota products, trying to find one that had the correct flow direction, had the lever on the proper side, and opened when the cable "pushed" instead of "pulled". I kinda lost track of which was which, but I believe the one I finally used was from a 2000 Acura TL. Here's the valve I used. Flow direction is left to right when lever is on the side pictured, and it's CW to open again with lever as pictured. That means I can mount it on the return line from the heater core and it's push to open. Note that I also had to make a new control arm for the valve to get the ratios correct between between the travel distance of the control slider and the travel distance of the new valve: Here's a couple pics of the mounting bracket I made for the valve: Here's the whole thing painted, mounted, and plumbed in the engine compartment. I attached it to the mounting bracket for the brake lines and fed the control cable through an existing hole in the firewall. I believe this hole is where the vacuum line goes for the HVAC system on cars with A/C. The hole location was a little higher than optimum, but since I don't have A/C, this hole was unused which saved me the trouble of drilling a new hole only to find out that the whole project was a mistake: It wasn't a mistake! It works great and will be a breeze to work on in the future if necessary. One other bonus is how simple it is under the dash without the valve and all the associated hoses:

I'm suspecting it's even worse than you imagine... From your other thread, you set the needle depth using the "jet-push-piston-home" technique (which isn't the right method BTW) and ran the car like that with no turns down on the nozzle? If that's the case, then that means you were actually idling the car with the needle shoulder pretty much resting on top of the nozzle. The only reason the car even idled at all was because the needle shoulder was mostly capping the nozzle hole. The tapered part of the needle wasn't metering the the orifice... The shoulder was. I'm gonna check the fiche to see if all years call for the same nozzle P/N.

Yes, I believe we have great corroboration on the theory, but what about the explanation? Clearly those needles can't be used in the typical round tops on the typical Z car, but what gives? Those needles were used for some time with some margin of success. Bruce P refers to them as the smogger needles, so the inplication is that they weren't the best performers out there, but clearly we're missing something. Improperly made needles? Used in conjunction with a nozzle diameter change? Something else? Any idea?

I just pulled an engine and tranny combo a few days ago and attached at the exact same rear point that you did. I was able to connect a chain to that rear point while the engine and trans were still in the car, so you should be able to disconnect. It's a little tight, but it wasn't what I would consider "difficult". Worked for me, but YMMV. What I would worry about the most, however, would be scratching the paint on the firewall with the chain as you're jerking the engine around on final approach. Might want to drape a towel over the cowl and down the firewall while you're messing in there. PS - Your "All's I need..." reminds me of the "Send picture of boat and motor" joke.

I got a chance to measure some M49 and N54 needles today. First, let me describe what I have... A while ago, I bought a NOS aftermarket rebuild kit which includes four needles, two M49's and two N54's. It's not exactly the same box as what Blue posted above, but probably made by the same manufacturer. From that kit, I measured a pair of M49 needles and a pair of N54 needles. The measurements I got indicate that if you install the M49 or N54 needles into your typical round tops using 0.100 nozzles, you will run very rich. Richer than the SM needles. So rich, in fact, that there's got to be something unexplained going on. Either I've got needles that are mistakes or there's another explanation somehow. Since Blue put these needles into his round tops and got corroboration performance, I'm suspecting that my four needles are manufactured "as intended", meaning that there must be another explanation. After all, these needles were supposed to be lower emissions that previous versions? What about a nozzle change? Did they use the same size nozzles in all years 70,71, and 72 or did they reduce the nozzle size somewhere along the way?

Robert, The original bars I've messed with didn't have gaskets between the cam towers and the distribution blocks. I'm thinking that if you do manage to be able to reuse your bar, then putting in some gaskets in the three mounting locations would be a good idea, especially of the surface of the blocks at that location are distorted. Might help keep the oil from coming out of places you don't want. Good luck, and let me know if you need a replacement block!

Thanks everyone for the interest. I've sent PM's out. Started making some chips today! :classic:

Yup. That looks "normal". Are the distribution blocks wallowed out on the surfaces where they contact the cam tower? I've seen some pretty deep erosion in that spot from all the squirming. Can't be good for sealing the oil in at that joint... Sent you a PM.

Seriously? That's the best you can do? That's a great buy compared to others currently listed!! $3500 - http://cnj.craigslist.org/cto/3163069385.html LOLLOLLOL

I'm going to make a few more bars... Just sent out a couple PM's to people who have expressed interest. I'm not liking the sound of the C-clamp thing. I straightened mine in a quality bench vice with wide parallel smooth jaws. Tell you what... I've got some spare original blocks left over from bars I've reconstructed. If you crack yours trying to straighten it, I'd be happy to send you a replacement.

Thanks for the offer to take a good look at the 77 doors for me. Let me tell you what I have right now: a) All the hardware in the door jamb (both fore and aft) is hex headed bolts with a Phillips cross in the center. Captive lock and flat washers. You can use a 10mm wrench or socket, or a Phillips screwdriver. The two fasteners behind the door panel are dome topped Phillips screws (I guess I would call them truss heads) with a large head. They must be turned with a screwdriver only as there are no flats on them to use a wrench or socket. I have no idea if they are stock in that location or not. c) No spacers between the sash and the door I was a lot more afraid of the doors before I started working them too. I don't know what earlier years are like, but my 77 isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Thanks again, and I'll check into the quarter window mounting.

And BTW... Your descriptions of the original harware and it's locations was excellent.

Thanks very much for the help Jim. Yeah, doors are just so much fun... Nothing like cramped working spaces with razor sharp sheet metal burrs on all sides and complicated adjustment procedures that are difficult to do alone! As with most all of my projects, this one started with working on one thing and has since spiraled wildly. First, you pointed out a huge piece of required info that I did not specify :stupid: The car in question is a 77 (with the weatherstrip along the top of the sash). With the model year in mind, let me tell you a little more info about why I asked about spacers between the sash and the door metal... It appears that all of the bolt holes for the sash mounting are oversized to allow for adjustment of the sash. No problem there. Problem is that when I fully tighten the rear bolt at the upper rear corner of the sash (the one hidden by the door panel when done), the sash is drawn in too far towards the center line of the vehicle and doesn't align neatly with the strip on the rear quarter window. The sash actually passes beyond the strip on the rear quarter window. I don't know if the sash is bent, the quarter window is out too far, or if there is supposed to be a spacer between the sash and the door in that spot. Sounds like spacers aren't the answer... Is it possible that my previous owner somehow managed to install the rear quarter windows further out than they used to be? I know he had them out to paint the car, and I suspect he used new aftermarket rubber when he put them back in.

Not sure if I was clear with my post above about the N54's I measured... I'm not talking "runs rich for a stock motor". I'm talking "Billowing black clouds of smoke and probably completely undrivable in any condition." The measurements I got from my pair of NOS aftermarket N54 needles are richer than the SM's. That's why I'm thinking that there's some kind of mistake being made here. I don't know if the N54's I have are made incorrectly, I'm measuring incorrectly, or if there's some other detail that I'm missing. But there's a problem somewhere. I'll double check my numbers as soon as I get a chance, but I'm thinking there's more than that going on. As for the the length being shorter... If that part of the needle is never pulled to the top of the nozzle, then why do you think it would cause a problem?

I'm working on my doors to fix a few issues and while I'm in there, I'm putting in Sportage weatherstripping. Couple of questions: 1) The chrome trim up around the top of the window (Nissan calls it the sash)... What hardware is supposed to be used behind the door panel to hold the sash in place? By that, I mean, is it supposed to be a bolt or a screw, and what does it look like? I'm not sure what I have in there is the right piece of hardware. Not the bolts in the door jambs that are visible while the door panel is in place... I'm talking about the ones that are not visible with the door panel in place. 2) Are there supposed to be any spacer between the sash and the inside sheet metal of the door in the locations discussed above? Again, not the bolts in the door jambs, but the ones behind the door panels. Are there spacers used there, or is it sash directly contacting stamped door metal? 3) Was the original weather stripping continuous, or was there a break in it? And if there was a break, where was it located? I was looking at a junk Z yesterday and it appeared that there was a break in the upper 90 degree corner of the window and the weatherstrip was mitered to 45 degrees to fit that corner. But I have no idea if that was stock or replaced some time in the past. The reason I ask is that the Sportage weatherstripping is a little too long to use as is, and has to be cut to remove some length. I figured I would put the break in the same place the factory did, and along the top somewhere makes the most sense to me from a water ingress standpoint.