0658
<<
Message Index
>>
0660
Number: 0659
From: cigarsandy
Date: Mon Mar 11, 2002 11:01 pm
Subject: Re: 88 McLaren
Body:
Picture didn't work - but "I give up" ~ Maybe they did put them
in...? OOops - here come a guy to say His don't got it!!
S A N D Y
-- In ascmclaren@y..., n20capri <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Sandy,
>
> also, you can see the proportioning valve in this picture (see
link -
> bottom right of the picture)
>
>
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~st947g38/myfriends/MikeNewWeb/images/Moto
> rFront.jpg
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
>
--- In ascmclaren@y..., n20capri <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > My Car had a proportioning valve on it when I bought it. I
thought
> > it was factory McLaren stuff. Could it be or did the previous
> owner
> > install it?
> >
> > -Mike
> > 86 AscMcLaren Capri #26
> >
> >
--- In ascmclaren@y..., cigarsandy <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > AnThOnY:
> > > Sometimes it's difficult, as the master listing of what was
going
> > to
> > > be changed/altered does not always prove 100%. Further
example:
> > It
> > > states that the braking system on the Coupes (asc/McLaren
Mercury
> > > Capri Hatchback Coupes of 1984, 1985 & 1986) was "modified" by
> the
> > > addition of a "Brake Porportioning Valve" as well as Sintered
> > > Metallic Heavy Duty Pads, replacing "Stock" equipment. This
> switch
> > > was to be done BY asc/McLaren at the Livonia Avenue site.
> HOWEVER,
> > > after printed material was printed (Including mention of this
in
> > the
> > > Coupe sales brochure) asc/McLaren found out that if they
TOUCHED
> or
> > > ALTERED the braking system, they'd first have to crash test,
> under
> > > government eyes the actual testing, and it had better conform
to
> > all
> > > requirements and it better improve the stock system, and blah,
> > blah,
> > > blah. So, in the 11th hour, asc scratched the idea, and
carried
> > all
> > > the valves to the dumpster. So, anyone reading the materials
> that
> > I
> > > have, or even just possessing the brochure, would swear it has
> > these
> > > items, when in fact...none ever did!!!
> > > I think the 3:73:1 axle ratio in automatics might be the same
> > scenaro!
> > >
> > > S A N D Y
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -- In ascmclaren@y..., asc88mclaren <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > Thanks Sandy for all your help. I was just curious on this!
I
> > > just
> > > > like to know about these things, it is very interesting to
me.
> I
> > > > really would have liked to have had the 3.73's!!! Quicker 0-
> > 60!!!
> > > > Oh well, guess I'll just live with stock, or eventually
change
> > > them.
> > > > But thanks again for all your help.
> > > >
> > > > Anthony
> > > > ***bE oRiGiNaL***
> > > >
> > > >
--- In ascmclaren@y..., cigarsandy <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > This rear axle ratio is a "grey area". I do know that the
> > 2.73:1
> > > > was
> > > > > standard equipment in the 5-Speeds, and that ALL cars with
a
> > D32
> > > > code
> > > > > (asc/McLaren Spec) that were 5-Speeds did get the 3.08:1
> > ratio.
> > > > NOW,
> > > > > according to asc/McLaren paperwork dated 1/'87 it states
that
> > > > > the "normal" rear axle ratio for an automatic 5.0L LX or GT
> was
> > a
> > > > > 3.23:1. It further states that D32 Spec Automatics would
> > > receive
> > > > AT
> > > > > FORD the FORD AXLE RATIO of 3.72. Is it possible that this
> > > didn't
> > > > > REALLY take place? Yes, I guess so. Did it take place on
> SOME
> > > > cars
> > > > > and NOT OTHERS? Possible! Was it 1987s only? MAYBE!? Was
> it
> > > > > planned, and not done? MAYBE. Perhaps yours was among
SOME
> > that
> > > > did
> > > > > not receive it?? Possibly!! I am not, never was
mechanical,
> > so
> > > I
> > > > > have never taken one apart as you have, and if I did, I
would
> > not
> > > > > know what I was looking at, anyhow......so, I sure as heck
> I'm
> > > NOT
> > > > > doubting your intelligence, as I am sure you are correct.
I
> am
> > > > only
> > > > > relating what I have found on asc/McLaren corporate work,
> > > smuggled
> > > > > out to me in the dead of night!! < grins >
> > > > > S A N D Y
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
--- In ascmclaren@y..., asc88mclaren <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > I don't think they put 3.73 in the 88 automatics. The
> reason
> > I
> > > > say
> > > > > > this is because I recently had to pull my rear apart to
fix
> a
> > > > leaky
> > > > > > rear axle seal and leaky rear pinion seal, and while I
was
> in
> > > > there
> > > > > I
> > > > > > counted the teeth and came up with 36 on the ring and 11
on
> > the
> > > > > > pinion, and that truns out to be around 3.27 when you do
> the
> > > > math.
> > > > > > My rear has never been replaced, and these are the gears
> that
> > > > came
> > > > > > with the car origionally. I was just wondering if this
is
> > > > > correct.
> > > > > > I may be wrong and have miscounted, I am just curious.
> > Anyone
> > > > with
> > > > > > an answer, thank you for your help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anthony
> > > > > > ***bE oRiGiNaL***
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
--- In ascmclaren@y..., cigarsandy <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello Anthony !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Some Rumor! No where close to 300HP, they do produce
225
> > H.P.
> > > > > > > They DID "hop-up" the rear end! In 5-Speed cars the
> > standard
> > > > > rear
> > > > > > > was 2.73 & they upped it to 3.08. In automatic cars
> > standard
> > > > was
> > > > > > > 3.23 & they hopped it up to 3.73.
> > > > > > >