Captain Obvious

Haha! Try to stay warm, my friend!!

I think "tumbler" and "wafer" are pretty much synonymous when referring to this kind of lock. Yes, the "Right" or "Left" style of lock comes down to the cylinder casting, meaning that the key blank will only fit into the correct style cylinder. But they all share the same tumblers. As for the wear grooves in the outer shell, I don't have any good suggestions about how make those better. The lock cylinder and other body parts are (I think) cast zinc. Cheap, easy to work with, easy to get fine detail and accuracy. All of that makes it a popular choice for locks. Note that "durability" is not in that list of properties. And I don't think epoxy will last long. It's softer than the zinc. Ideas? Find a NOS replacement. Pay someone to make a whole new one. Live with it.

I suspect our resident librarian is too cold... Huddled up in a chair in front of the space heater with a warm fireball? Let me cover for him on this one: https://www.classiczcars.com/forums/topic/35919-new-challenge-anyone-had-warped-tail-light-flanges-before/#comment-644526

I re-keyed my glove box along with the rest of the locks on the car. However, my 77 uses the newer (74 on) style lock. I haven't messed with an older style glove box lock. Mine looks like this: While the older style looks like this. I've not messed with one of these, but I expect it to be conceptually similar to the rest of the locks: So about the tumblers for the ignition locks... I believe the only difference between the tumblers for the ignition and the rest of the car is a slight change in profile at the top of the tumblers. Here's a pic of a couple ignition tumblers. Note the concave shape to the top of the outline. The doors, etc do not have that concave feature: Everywhere else on the car, the tumblers are domed (convex) on both top and bottom. With that in mind, ignition tumblers are able to be used in other locks, but I don't remember what that concave feature is for, so I can't offhand tell you if door tumblers would work properly in an ignition application. I'll have to dig my (three) lock box off the shelf and re-familiarize myself with that detail.

Uh-oh.

That's what I did. I had enough tumblers that I re-populated my locks the way I wanted them and then cut my own key to work with them. Turned out great. I'm gentle with the door locks now. I try to apply juuuuuuussst enough pressure to unlock. Trying not to smear the soft metal so I don't have to ever mess with them again.

Yeah, I was sure the math you cited was sound, just misapplied. We're good now. And, the duplicate thing exists, but unless you go trying your key in other people's cars, then how would you know? Just like you and your buddy with the pranking. Haha!

And if there was a left and a right option for key blank, then the numbers double. So 1024 for each blank resulting in 2048 possibilities total. But no... I really don't think there were any "locksmith adjusted" tumbler modifications in the field to get more than that.

Respectively submitted... I don't think you are reading everything correctly. As an example, I know that if you have ten different choices and two different spots to put them, you have 100 different combinations (00 to 99). Ten to the exponent of two. Four different choices and five different spots to put them results in 1024 combinations. Four to the exponent of five.

I was wondering if you were talking about the lock code. There is likely no correlation between "lock code" and wafer numbers or positions. In fact, if there were, it would be unreasonably easy to figure out which wafers were used in which lock. In other words.... If "lock code 1234" corresponded to wafers numbered 1-2-3-4 in that order, then that would be all you would need to make a key for that lock. Not much security there. I think the "lock code" is just that... A code. Recorded and stamped into the body when the lock was populated with random wafer numbers in random positions. Just because the lock code can seemingly go from 0000 to 9999, I don't think there is anything to be gleaned from that number as far as the wafers are concerned. And yes, there could be duplicates. But without the code book, that's fine. How would you know? If you have four wafers in your early hatch lock and there are four different wafers, then you have 256 different possibilities. I think I have five wafers in my later hatch lock which provides 1024 possibilities. Seems like they added an additional tumbler to the hatch just like they did with the ignition lock.

No, the rectangular slot does not vary in height. It varies in position. The position of the slot will be closer to the top of the tumbler for each tumbler. If you look closely at the pic you posted of from the ASP catalog, you can see they tried to draw them that way. It's a subtle difference, but enough to make the lock work. Goes like this: And about the number of tumblers... I'm no locksmith, but I've only ever seen four different tumblers for these locks. Where are you getting numbers between 0 and 9? I don't know if they changed the number of tumblers in the hatch over the years (like they did with the ignition lock), but my 77 has five tumblers in it. With four choices of tumbler for each position, that works out to different 1024 possibilities.

They differ by changing the where the location of the rectangular hole is with respect to the top and bottom edges. When you get the right wafers in the right spots and insert the right key, it should look like this pic. Note that the wafer farthest from the key is used simply as a retaining device for the cylinder to be held into the lock body. In other words... It should always be proud, even with a key inserted. Looks like this:

I don't know if all the years are the same, but this is how my 77 did it. Passes through a grommetted hole above frame rails from the engine compartment into the wheel wells: Dry-rotted old grommets:

I don't have a silver bullet for the problem, but I can at least explain why pulling either one of the fusible links kills the draw... The larger (black) link feeds the smaller (green) link for a number of the electrical systems. Goes like this: White wire from the battery (picked up at the starter) goes to the larger link. Other side of the larger link goes into the shunt. Coming out of the shunt, the White/Red then powers the smaller fusible link. And then from that smaller fusible link, it feeds a number of systems in the car. So armed with that info... If the larger link is pulled, the smaller link always goes dead. So pulling the large link kills power to both of the links. You're looking for something on the downstream side of the smaller link. Those things include such items as turn signals, wipers, heater, dash gauges, etc. Essentially anything that is only powered when the key is on. So..... @Dolfinz, you said it fluctuates. Is it regular, or seemingly random? If it regular cyclical, I'd look at stuff like the turn signals or the key in lock buzzer.

@zspert , That's a great story about the flat top investigation work. I would have loved to be there for that. I do, however, want to suggest that the bowl vents do not exit into the venturi, but in fact vent to the surface where the air cleaner bolts to the carbs. It essentially vents to the clean side of the air cleaner just like the round tops do. It's piped in upstream of the reduced area (the venturi section) of the carb. Here's a pic detailing the bowl vent, and the venturi is located a couple inches away at the bottom center of the piston.:

Who says it needs holes added? If the four cylinder is anything like the six, then they kept reducing the number of holes over the years. By the time they got to the end of the ZX there were a number of holes that were completely blocked by the gasket. I wasn't there when they did the engineering, but it appears to me that they were trying to encourage more flow to the back of the block. Maybe they did the same thing on the four? The point is... Just because there is a passageway there, it doesn't mean you have to (or even should) use it? And I spy some photo trickery.... I suspect you had more than one new gasket in your possession? Haha!!!

You better. Because pics or it didn't happen!

BTDT. Just like the rest of you.

Maybe it's just me, but this whole thread confuses me. @chaseincats Have you measured the gap between the body and tires of your car? If so, are they the same front and rear?

Sheesh Dave, It's only funny(ish) because you weren't hurt. Glad that didn't go worse!!

It sounds like you are assuming that the front ride height is the same for all the years, and I'm pretty sure that is not the case. And you are also making the assumption that the center line of the bumpers was the same for all the years? I'm not sure if this is the case, but I'm not comfortable making that assumption without data. And to make that point... Here's a pic showing how they changed the front spring perch location between the 240 and 260. So in theory, not all the front ends are at the same height from the factory : That pic came from this thread. Some good pics and info: https://www.classiczcars.com/forums/topic/60161-lowering-bottom-spring-perch/ And forget 77 and 78... According to the FSM's the rear bumper was lowered compared to the previous 280's. The front seems to be the same as the rest of the 280's but the rear is different.

All we know is that there's still no contact with the colony, and a xenomorph may be involved.

I'm confused... It looks like you only have half the switch in there? Like the whole top half is removed and missing? Like someone has totally hammered your switch to pieces? Take a look at this thread for some other pics: https://www.classiczcars.com/forums/topic/65118-dome-light-repair/

Wow. Don't want to pay $174 for a pair, but it's cool they are there!