0671
<<
Message Index
>>
0673
Number: 0672
From: cigarsandy
Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 11:50 am
Subject: Re: 88 McLaren
Body:
Mike, Okay, now I see where you're coming from! With THAT info, I'd
tend to agree with you, that the prior owner did not do it, since
everything appears (or was) bone stock. IF he/she was going to get
into "mods" installing a brake porportioning valve does seems like a
weird thing to do right off the bat. My guess? ASC installed it.
NOW, we're gonna get a dozen or so owners screamin "MINE DOESN'T HAVE
IT" ~ and I, Sandy can be the first to scream it!!! he he he.
S A N D Y
--- In ascmclaren@y..., n20capri <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Sandy,
>
> When I got the car it was totally stock save for a pair of
flowmaster
> mufflers. I did all the modifications to the car, and I know I
> didn't do the valve. I guess the previous owner could have
installed
> it, I was just wondering. Oh well, thanks alot.
>
> -Mike
>
>
--- In ascmclaren@y..., cigarsandy <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > Thanks for the assist in opening the pic, it worked!
> > Look; the engine is not entirely stock, there's a strong
> > possibility that the valve was added by a prior owner. I was
able
> to
> > count 5 items not original, so it would not surprise me if he
also
> > added the valve!
> > S A N D Y
> >
> >
> >
> > -- In ascmclaren@y..., n20capri <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > Sandy,
> > >
> > > click the link again and add "rFront.jpg" without the quotes to
> the
> > > end. It was all there but I guess yahoo only "links" a certain
> > > amount of text.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
--- In ascmclaren@y..., cigarsandy <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > > > >