0673
<<
Message Index
>>
0675
Number: 0674
From: n20capri
Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:32 pm
Subject: Re: 88 McLaren
Body:
Whoo-Hoo....Mine does, Mine Does...haha...Thanks for the info.
-Mike
--- In ascmclaren@y..., cigarsandy <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> 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.
> > > > > > > > > > > >