AlastairA

Many thanks James.

Since the original post, I set up the TrackAce and was measuring 0' Toe (which is what I am aiming for) then arranged my phone to record the laser position as I climbed into the car and bounced the suspension quite a bit. The results are on this video and seems to show that the toe really doesn't vary at all (you can see the laser drop as I climb in, bounce around and then rise again as I climb out - all with little variation).

The steering wheel is correctly centred when I drive, so I'll check the absolute wheel position on each side using your method.

Thanks!

And a second question - I use the TrackAce alignment system which of course provides a Toe measurement of the angular difference between the two front wheels (rather than an absolute measurement of each wheel like the string method). Consequently the steering central position needs to be set before any adjustment - so, is a vernier measurement of the visible track rod thread length an accurate way of making sure that both sides are set equally? (And if not, what is the best way to make sure?)

I'm pretty confident of the answer, but would be grateful if anyone can confirm that both camber and toe for the front wheels are affected by the weight of the driver and passenger (and  therefore both should be set with the chassis appropriately weighted).

Many thanks in adavance!

Agree with Ainsley - insist on some new parts from CC.

So, just to be clear - the spacer that sits above the wishbone will not slide onto the lower upright bolt? The top hat is successfully fitted into the underside of the wishbone? One side was fine, but the other is too tight?

If so, then putting the spacer into the freezer will make the problem worse. I would try letting it warm up again and then apply a small smear of copperslip to see if that helps.

Put it in the freezer for an hour or so. It's a very tight fit but surprising how easy it is when it's cooled.

Link

I beleive you are correct - but keep in mind that the bolt stack is passing through the boot cover fabric and then through a substantial aluminium bar and into the chassis. Don't know if this helps : Link

Cardboard washer is discarded.

5 hours ago, aerobod - near CYYC said:

M15M-D is the Mazda transmission type, M53F-03-000 is the Mazda part number for that transmission. Here is a link to a manual for it: https://www.mellens.net/mazda/Mazda-Miata-2005/manual_transmission_5spd.pdf

This is really helpful - thanks!

The manual refers to adding sealant when replacing plugs - would Loctite 243 be suitable (concerned about being able to remove for alter services of course)?

Apologies for my lack of clarity - it was the following that I was referring to and I was just suggesting to the OP that it might be worth checking it is fitted:

• ChrisC
• Member
• • 2.3k

50 minutes ago, ScottR400D said:

There was/is a spacer that does something but not what you allude to. Not much can be done about engine/box alignment, the front of the engine needs to be down to clear the hood. 
In any case any angular misalignment is negligible. It’s a red herring.

I was thinking of ChrisC's comments here:

There is a spacer used between the gearbox and the gearbox mount on currrent kits. My understanding is that the spacer was introduced to get better angular alignment from the gearbox output shaft to the differential. Might it be worth checking whether this is fitted?

3 minutes ago, StevehS3 said:

I thought I read that the Duratec TPS wasn’t adjustable ie doesn’t have a slotted fixing to allow rotation.

That's correct, but there is some slop in the mounting and you can bias it in one direction or the other. The rest of the setup has to come from the idle speed grub screw.

Had a similar issue with my build, in that on a cold start the engine would hunt around 900rpm. I used an MBE985 cable and the Easimap software to set the TPS a little more accurately. This resulted in a slightly higher idle speed but stopped the hunting. I later had a chat with the technician who performed the PBC and he confirmed that (a) this is a frequent issue (b) that adjusting the TPS was the usual fix and (c) it was now set correctly.

I think most people fit the bellows for track days and refit the standard cap when back on the road. I didn't want to run the car without the low level warning indicator operating and spent some time looking at the fit between the cap and casting. A bit of fettling and it improved a lot - added a sock around the cap and have not suffered from any leaks to date.

BRG going eastwards on the Military Road - gave you wave headinig in the other direction! 

24 minutes ago, Jonathan Kay said:

Please could you clip and post the relevant bit of the diagram.

Thanks

Jonathan

They are in the 2015 assembly guide and refer to the R400 - but I think, on the whole, they are good for the 420:

Assembly Guide (not 160) 2016 (dragged) 2.pdf Assembly Guide (not 160) 2016 (dragged) 3.pdf Assembly Guide (not 160) 2016 (dragged).pdf

The connector with the two wires (both brown & black) connects onto the sender. For the earth, I included a connector tab between the bottom of the dry sump tank and the P-Clip mounting - verifying with a multimeter that it was making a good contact with the chassis earth.

The plan is, at some point when I have time, I'll do find the other end of the sender cable behind the dash and do the switch mod to allow either the oil or water temperature to be displayed on the guage. The only question I have at the moment is why there are two wires in the sender connector and I haven't yet looked at the wiring diagram to figure that out.

Don’t remember those from my build - can you photograph where they enter the loom and I’ll take a look if that helps.

Just had a look - if they emerge from the loom that contains the horn connectors then I believe it is the earth and signal for the oil temperature sender (if you fitted it) at the the bottom of the dry sump tank.

I went for Stihl which actually use Sena technology (I assume the noise cancelling and mesh intercom). I find them comfortable to wear for long periods. The noise cancelling, intercom and bluetooth functions (for SatNav guidance and music) to be effective. The only issue I noticed was that the SatNav guidance was very quiet. This seemed to be an issue with the MyRoute app which I think has now been fixed (certainly doesn't happen when I use AirPod Pro's).

Hope this helps.

My understanding is that the metalastic bobbins are there to absorb small amplitude vibrations, not large mechanical deformations. I don't have any direct evidence that jacking on one side causes radiator leaks, but when I did do it, the driver side wheel was several inches clear of the ground before the near-side even started to lift. Can't be good!

I'm wondering whether using the front right towing loop as a jacking point is the cause of, or at least compounds this problem. When I used this method once, I was really concerned by the amount of torsional stress and twist on the chassis. Of course this happens mostly at the front of the car and must put huge stress on the front vertical plane (i.e. the radiator). Using the towing loop is the advice given by many but I prefer to use the lower front cruciform to get an even lift even though it's a bit of a faff to get two stands under there.

Just a thought!

Sealey brake bleeder worked really well for me.

Before adding fluids, I used the Sealey to pressurise the system to 20 psi and left it for a couple of hours to see if there were any leaks. Much better to try to isolate any leaks without drips / sprays / puddles of corrosive liquid everywhere. With that confidence, I then filled the system, bled it and repeated the 20 psi test. Going around all the joints with a blue towel will quickly show up any "micro-leaks" at any joint.

Presumably there would be a constant offset between the dry sump temperature and the engine temperature?

Hi John,

Welcome! Hope you enjoy your build.

To your final question - I decided to fit the engine first, followed by the front suspension - a method pioneered by Chris Collins (I believe). My reasoning was simply that fitting the engine is by far (in my opinion) the riskiest operation of the whole build. With 180kg of engine weight suspended by a hoist on wheels, I wanted to limit the damage if anything went wrong. Secondly, the ability to move around the chassis and get clear visibility of the engine, bell housing, gearbox clearances to the chassis rails is important - so again my thinking was not to obscure any sight line with other components fitted before the engine went in. Either way is possible, of course - it's just personal preference!

Best of luck.