Dave WM

westworld.

60k and no AC, I'm out (ha like I was ever in). Saw it run on the tube last nite, makes a lot of noise, prob a lot of fun to drive.

I have a feeling when you look over at a driverless car, the likelihood of it being grandma is going to be nil, whereas the likely hood of someone furiously thumbing a cell phone is high, very very high. Regardless if you think its lazy thinking then you are welcome to your opinion. Tell you what I will be down with the idea of it being good for grandma as long as Cell phones are disabled while moving.

hmmm seems like family and friends used to fill those voids, guess not anymore.

I keep hearing "they will be safer than humans" as one of the reasons for development, lets face it the reason for self driving (as well as driver assist like braking and lane warnings) is for one reason and one reason only. MORE SMART PHONE TIME. that's it the only reason. if safety was a factor, smart phones would be disabled anytime they are moving more that 3 mph. I don't understand the addiction they possess but clearly must be more than opiates base on the extreme limits people are willing to go to get more facebook time.

hmmm does that turbo look too close to the brake master? Don't those get VERY hot? if so I would be concerned about heat from it effecting the brakes. I wonder how liability works out on custom made cars that are then sold to a customer. I can see if you customize something yourself, but doing it as a business and then selling seems risky. I think the ZX cars had a heat shield installed to protect the brake master, don't know if that was a turbo car or all ZX's.

Took it out for a test drive, same as before, only issue is a slightly smoother idle, and seemed like the BCDD was holding revs up more than normal, keeping it higher than the original, but still working by cutting off at less than 10 mph. I am going to reinstall the orig anyway, its just prettier... I will measure the depth of the bypass screw on the orig, the plastic plug was in place and everything looks like new, was difficult to turn so did not want to mess with it. After measuring I will see where its set at by comparing the replacement AFM which is not as hard to turn.

I was going with the vacuum since I noted a direct correlation between the pot adjust and the vacuum (on the orig AFM). Was thinking if the air bypass can change the mixture the same as the pot does (at idle adj the bypass to richen vs using the pot to richen). I also tried just touching the vane weight on the replacement AFM (cover not sealed) and movement either way would drop both idle and vacuum). My guess is my orig AFM is just a touch lean at idle.

I picked up a spare AFM at the local JY, it test ok per the FSM (voltage test/resistance test/pump micro switch) but I still wanted to test it in the car. No point in having a spare part if you don't know if its going to work. Anyway a little background I was doing some vacuum testing, and was at about 17 in/hg with the orig AFM after fully warmed up. I added the 500ohm pot in series with the temp sensor and was able to pickup RPM and increase vacuum by added resistance (enriching fuel to air mix). The plug was still in place on the AFM for the idle air bypass and I did not want to mess with it since this is not really a problem, car drives great and starts fine. So while testing the spare AFM I thought it would be a good idea to check out the effect of the idle air bypass. car starts as normal (quick) and idles well. vacuum is up to 18 in/hg which is what I could get with the pot set to max resistance, but this time adding resistance seemed to have no effect on the idle or the vacuum. My only assumption is the orig AFM was indeed lean, whereas the replacement was more ideal and enrichment did not really effect anything (a bit richer but not enough to mess up the vacuum). The other thing I noted was the air bypass had NO noticeable effect on idle or vacuum. that is from 0-at least 10 turns out. I did make sure the air passage was clear but I did not actually test the screw on the flow. So my assumption is the effect is very small and would prob need a AF mix gauge to be able to pickup up on it. For now I just set it back to 1.5 turns out and left it. going to test drive to car to see if there is any noticeable difference in engine performance, but will most likely re install the orig AFM and just know I have a good spare. Was wondering if anyone else has messed with that bypass screw? when I get it off I will try blowing air thru the little inlet at the mouth of the AFM and see exactly what effect the screw has and what its adjustment range is. I always assumed air bypass screws where typical 1.5 for middle adjustment.

Little stuff like that is often the problem. Glad you found it.

so you are not getting spark at the plugs?

ditto on some grease just to keep them from rusting in place.

this is what I used, but again, I think its overkill. It just I did not want to have to mess with it again. http://www.thezstore.com/page/TZS/PROD/classic12a04/10-2466

if you see oil only in the very back of the pan, its prob the side seal/rear main, looks like the pan but its not. that being said I went with the MSA silicone racing gasket, although I doubt its needed, Just a the reg felpro rubberized cork would be fine. Make sure the pan gasket surface is flat and do not over tighten. 7ftlbs IIRC which is not much. You do not have to pull the motor to remove the pan, you just need to get the crankshaft turned so the front of the pan can get past the throw of #1 crank pin.

I used the same stuff sold for diff sealant. Oil resistant. did not use any on the main seal but I did grease it up (like the OE seal has pre applied grease on the lip where it comes into contact with the crankshaft). I followed the FSM on the rear side seals for where to apply around the bearing block, and assembled quickly per the "how to rebuild L series engine" book. The quick assy was suggested to prevent the sealant from setting up. I used the aftermarket side seals with the separate pins that force the seals against the block. more sealant again where FSM suggest. So far not a hint of oil.

BTW you can do the side seal without pulling the trans. easy to do while the pan is off doing a pan gasket. If you are doing a clutch you may was well do the rear main and while doing that you can see the side seal leakage if any.

that engine/bell housing leak may be the side seals as well. it will be obvious if you remove the flywheel.

fsm is not for cartridges. That oil was for actual damping. I just replaced the oil and put new o rings since all the internal parts were intact. the original design was rebuildable.

that was a very nice survivor I really wish they could have worked their magic on something a little more f'd up. Based on the bidding I can see how it clearly has more value in its present state though. Had a 2+2 green 260 back in the day new, it was nice to see one that looked so much like it.

my kind of guy

have you checked the TPS and temp sensor? oh I just saw this is a ZX, not sure what could be that problem. Think it uses an O2 Sensor as well.

I wonder how hard would it be to use an O2 Sensor to close the loop on these open loop ECU's? possible some of the unused pins? if not perhaps building a circuit that uses an 02 sensor to approximate the function of this pot in the same circuit.

so far so good with the replaced .130, holding off on putting all the plastic riv back in the panels.

yea kinda trashed.

good ground at 72? see if you get any voltage there with a test lamp or meter with it hook up to the relay and the switch in the "ON". reading from chassis to 72. If you have a good ground you should have 0 volts there (or better yet no light on a test light).