Pantera 06927

Okay, shocker question still stands, but.............

Some days I just hate women!!!

Picture this. Her, the lanky blonde wife, arrives home after work and wanders into the shed with the business jacket, tight skirt and high heels.

"Are you still under that car?" she says, "You started that when I left this morning!"

So I explain to her that I got the shockers off and show her the cleaned up struts ready to post tomorrow, and then tell her that I struck an issue with the upper control arms etc as described in post above.

"What about that set of special sockets with the covers on them that I bought you to take the wheels off the cars without scratching them?" she says. "Isn't the smallest one of those a 17mm size?"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's too thick to fit in this space I try to explain to her.

In her best, I'm only a mere woman and you are Tarzan type voice, "Well, what about if you slide off the nylon sheath that protects the wheels, then I'm sure you will be left with a thin enough wall to fit in there" she says, looking towards the roof of the garage as if to add 'dumbass' onto the end of the statement if she wasn't actually a very well mannered lady!

And guess what.............she was right. Three minutes later I've got both upper control arms on the bench.

Yes, she went and changed clothes then operated the 1/2 drive rattle gun from under the wheel arch, whilst I crawled into the footwells and captured the 19mm nuts. Bloody women!!!

I have aldins in mine, and mine are in simular condition to yours.
I have found a local guy who will fix them to better condition than Aldin.
Melb metro as well.
That is what i will be doing, when i finally pull them out !

Can you drop me a line to rhayden@panteraaustralia.com with some details of this shocker guru please.
Would be worth talking to the guy before I send mine all the way back to the USA.

quote:

I have aldins in mine, and mine are in simular condition to yours.

IMHO, from what you both have experienced, it might seem as if putting stock and faith in the virtues of rebuilt Aldins is pretty much an exercise in throwing your money away.

I cannot recall other failure reports with the Aldins, but the writing on the wall seems pretty clear.

Dump them now, buy Konis, and be done with it.

Larry

I've heard of a few Aldan failures- mostly leaks around the damping adjust screw. If you send such back to Aldan, they unscrew the adjuster and put a new 0-ring on. Until the next time. Had not heard of hard-part breakage before. What spring rates do these assemblies have?
Our Pantera has always had Konis with zero failures in going-on 30 years.

Okay, based on feedback from the guys that know, I went to Koni in Melbourne to discuss the issue. Now this is the Australian HQ for Koni, yet they tell me that the only product that they list for Pantera is the 8211 series which is a 12 stage fully adjustable rebound and compression shocker as fitted to all 70's and 80's race cars including F1.

It seems they will do the job, but their recomendation is the Code 1324 version with the B3 valving which suits a 285 - 450lb spring rate.

My car runs a 400/650 spring rate which they think is too stiff for the car, and if I stick with that spring rate then I need a Code 1324 with a B6 valving rate suitable for 400 - 700lb springs.

Now here is the kicker, $1100 AUD pr shocker plus labour charges to adjust the valving to suit the car and shorten the bump stops as required.

Close to $5000 for the set including new springs.

They said that if I could find an old set of Koni's, they can certainly rebuild them, but there are no suitable bodies available as new items apart from these racing shocks.

Talking to Paul at Koni USA in Kentucky. He requires a part number for the Koni shocks that you guys are using and he can build me up a set.

They use either:

30sp8's,3012's or 8212's for the Pantera.

The 8212 is the super expensive one.

I have Konis supplied by Quella.

I took the following # off mine - 30 1301 1000.

'30' referred to the series 30 shocks, (gas-filled, sealed and not rebuildable)

1301 was the style (oval track with heim
joints for the upper/lower mounts

1000 was production date code (10th week of
the year 2000).

These are rebound adjustable shocks that must be removed from the car to be adjusted according to the factory sequence.

Springs are also from Quella and are -

GT5 SPRING RATES ARE:

FRONT 450 POUNDS

REAR 550 POUNDS


Hope this helps at least a little bit.

Larry

Thanks Larry.

Sitting here at 12.30am going thru the archives looking for Koni shocker threads. I'm afraid $5000 AUD is just too much to throw at the old girl just now so I need to find an alternative to what Koni Australia came up with.

This might help http://www.panteraplace.com/page212.htm Quick and easy bolt in!

Mike

Yep, they look great. The 30 series won't do it for me as they are not height adjustable. Classic garage has a set for a good price, but I'm not interested in a fixed height unit.

The ones on that link look great. Weird that they are not Koni colour as I've never seen a Koni in Yellow, but if I could get a part number from them, I think they would be perfect.

Have you looked at the Hall Pantera shock options, they have both standard and aluminum versions...

http://hallpantera.com/cgi-bin...ntera-inc&item=22484

From the Hall Website under "Chassis Components"...

SHOCK ABSORBERS
Set of 4 gas filled shock absorbers with adjustable ride height. Includes springs.
$1040.00

SHOCK ABSORBERS
Aluminum, gas filled, double adjustable. Includes springs.
$1440.00

Might be worth making a quick call to a vendor or two to see what they have to offer.

Yep, and there are no brands given but the sure look the same as the Aldans that I have here.

Just looked at some pictures of Aldans, I think you may be right about the Hall shocks being the same. I have a set of the Hall Aluminum shocks and springs, haven't had any problems, but I'll keep a closer eye on them now.

Yep, I'm pretty sure they are Aldans.

But.........is that such a bad thing. If Hall supported them and sold them, can they be all bad. Seems a lot of folks using them that want height adjustment.

They may not be a Koni by design, reputation or quality, but are the Q1's going to be much better given their racing heritage.

Here's what I found when I pulled out the Aldans. Remember these were fitted in 2004 and then a spring rate change was done in 2007 so they were obviously out at that time.

• Front Left - The entire adjustment knob and valve unit is not in the base of the shocker and I can't even see the groove where the circlip sits that holds the valve.

• Front Right - Not too bad, still holding pressure but doesn't seem to be affected by the adjustment knobs.

• Rear Left – No pressure at all.

Rear Right – Very badly damaged. The entire shocker had come apart in the car. The top had come off and the inner tube has been rubbing against the casing and worn the thread off the outer casing. I have no idea how this could happen when the shocker is totally captive in the car unless constant movement can unscrew the top cap.

And here's the set ready for shipment.

quote:

Originally posted by OzGT5:

The ones on that link look great. Weird that they are not Koni colour as I've never seen a Koni in Yellow, but if I could get a part number from them, I think they would be perfect.

You can just order the set from Pantera East and they bolt right in. I think the setup was only around $1000. Ride height adjustable too!

All Pantera East links that I have are dead.

Is there a new website for them please?

I've had trouble with their website recently too, but found this info posted by Larry late last year...
--------------------------------
A recent phone call found that he is redoing his website.

Try his phone or email:

727-381-1151 sales@mapenterprises.net

Marino is the owner

--------------------------------

Just found some other possible e-mail addresses for Marino on the POCA forum

marinoperna(at)ij.net mperna(at)tampabay.rr.com marinoperna(at)gmail.com

quote:

Originally posted by OzGT5:
All Pantera East links that I have are dead.

Is there a new website for them please?

Be sure to tell them that you have a GT5 conversion so they can pre adjust the height for you. That said not all GT5 conversion have their finders in the factory position so some adjustment might be required. With my spring rates I left the back shocks set they way I received them (lower A arms parallel to the ground) and the lowered the front some to provide a slight nose down rake.

Mike

I bought mine from Precision ProFormance. The double adjustable are ~$1435 and the singles are ~$1000. They are available in different lengths and I was told that they have a lifetime guarantee.

http://precisionproformance.com/sc1001.htm

John

quote:

Originally posted by jb1490:
I bought mine from Precision ProFormance.
http://precisionproformance.com/sc1001.htm

John

No doubt at all that these are Aldan Eagles without the stickers. From the pictures o that link they are identicle in every way.

Can’t remember for sure but some years ago there was a group coilover buy and I think Bob was part of that deal. I don’t recall who the supplier was but they were Aldan units. When I decided to go with adjustable coilovers it just seemed like the best solution was Koni.

MIke

After much contemplation I decided to have the Aldans rebuilt.

Local Koni supplier in Melbourne was close to 4 grand for new ones, so back to CA they have gone.

Aldan recommend their S specification which is more suited to Sport Car / Road Race with heavy compression and heavy rebound settings.

They left yesterday so should be in California for the start of next week.

Whilst that's going on I have sent the upper control arms (front) off to Johnny Wood in the UK for modification which he did over Easter and sent them back today.

One thing of note is that apparently I already had an offset bush in the upper arms which now wont be any good so I have to locate some standard upper control arm bushes.

Can anybody point me in the right direction for these please?

I'm also having a set of short bumpers made by Kirk Evans and have already removed the rear steel bumper and shocker system all ready for the lightweight rear bumpers.

Today I also removed the rear axles. As you may remember I did a temp repair to the drivers axle a few months back to get the car on the road. I used a two part epoxy mix and then machined it on my lathe to 40.04mm and fitted the bearing with a loctite product to get me by, knowing that at a future time I would have to replace the axle.

I have done 300 miles on the repaired axle and today when I pressed off the bearing, the epoxy area looks like new, zero damage. That stuff really is amazing when used properly.

Anyway, I measured up my axles expecting them to be 39.99 and original, but no, it appears they have been changed at some time.

Worst part is they are not even. Starting from the base of the splines I have 40.04, half way down it goes to 40.11, and then back to 40.02 towards the base.

The passenger side wasn't much better being 40.09 through the centre and then back to 40.04mm where the bearing sits on the outside.

Also, when I took the nut off the passenger side it was quite loose, certainly not requiring any grunt at all with a three foot bar on it. The drivers side was still very firm and took a bloody god heave, which was good seeing as this is the one I repaired a little while ago.

There seems to be many and varied opinions on the axle solution, and I'm considering even a different alternative and would appreciate your opinions.

We have a very good hard chrome place nearby who will grind the shaft, hardchrome face it, and then grind back to my specification. Cost is around $220 AUD per side.

I contacted a local bearing supplier today who said that they would like to see approx 0.003 - 0.004 thou of interference fit on a 40.00mm bearing.

Calculating 0.003 thou back to metric brings me to 0.0762mm or 0.004 thou to 0.1016mm

This is really a lot, it means the shaft would need to have a finish grind of 40.075mm if I run with 3 thou interference fit! Seems too much to me, but I'm wondering what you guys think?

I would have considered 40.06 to be a suitable number, then warm the bearings, freeze the axle and slip them together.

Has anyone actually measured the bearings to be an exact 40.0000mm?

On a side note, I fitted new front rotors and pads to my Testarossa a couple of years ago and a few blokes here talked me in to having them cryogenically treated.

Frozen to -270 deg C in liquid nitrogen and then slowly bought back to ambient. Aparently it aligns the molecular structure of the steel and dramatically lessons fatige and structural failure of steel components.

My brakes are great, no disc scoring at all and hardly any dust.

At the time the guy had hundreds of mower blades from the large municipal lawn mowers. Apparently after treating they keep an edge for 8 - 10 times longer than untreated.

He was doing gearbox splines, axles, aircraft components, all sorts of things.

http://www.cryogen.com.au/ will take you to the site.

Today, my local Ferrari mechanic suggested that I do the Pantera axles after the chrome and grind treatment.

Do any of you Americans use this type of treatment or have any experience with it?

quote:

Cost is around $220 AUD per side.

For that money, you can buy a full pair of new stub axles from Wilkinson. Last I knew, about $400 USD the pair, with new nuts.

If you need shipping assistance, I'd be glad to have Steve send them to me and I'll resend, if that angle is of any use to you.

Larry

Thanks Larry,

Given that my current axles are 40.04 at the bearing end, wouldn't you think thay have been replaced at some time, as I thought factory ones were actually undersize, like 39.99mm?

I'm concerned as to why mine appear to be much thicker in the middle, meaning I'm stretching the bearing somewhat to get over the centre and then going back down to 40.04.

Could the axles be getting thicker in the middle by the tension applied to the nuts?

Are the Wilkinson axles made to really good tollerances in your estimation?

Would it be possible to get a current price inclusive of post to you from Wilkinson as trying to get the time right between the countries is hard.

BTW: I also need that strange bush that sits on the drivers side chassis rail that the gearshift shaft runs through. Mine is so bad it has more than 6mm of sideways movement and I've had to take the finger gate off to allow gear selection of Reverse and first.

I wrote to Steve Wilkinson today to see if he can confirm the shaft size of his axles. I really want to go with a 2 thou interference fit to the bearings and if I can't buy this then I may have to go down the spray weld route. After 35 years, the old girl deserves a new set of axles, so I hope that the Wilkinson axles have the right tollerances.

quote:

I also need that strange bush that sits

Trunnion bearing. Stocker is pretty well done for after 35 years.

All the vendors have it.

Quella does something different on his restorations. He removes the shaft and welds a larger pipe over the area where the trunnion is. He then turns that new o.d. down to fit properly inside a large heim joint.

No slop, but a bit problematic for keeping lubricated.

A local owner bought the axles just late last year. I recall the bill was just under $400. Doubt it has risen since them.

As for tolerance, I do not have measurements of the set I bought, but I am quite sure Steve had them made for a proper fit.

Larry

Larry, I tried to sign up for Steve's subscription today but the sign up link didn't work at all.

It's pretty hard to find anything there except, naturally, for the stock parts that come up on the catalog diagrams.

Is there a specific link to an area on his site where he lists all the new stuff, like these axles etc?

quote:

It's pretty hard to find anything there except, naturally, for the stock parts that come up on the catalog diagrams.

Steve's site has not, nor is likely to be in the foreseeable future, upgraded since created.

But some of his new parts have been added, and are findable by going to that piece's description page, and deleting the last letter and adding the next letter.

He is in effect creating a new part number. Sometimes he adds several,so keep changing the last letter until you get a void page.

Not so with his new axles.

For instance:

This is the page number you get for one of the coolant pipes

http://www.panterapartsusa.com...l.cgi?prod_id=11007A

If you change the last letter "A" to a "B", you get his upgraded stainless steel pipe

http://www.panterapartsusa.com...l.cgi?prod_id=11007b

Larry

Still no joy here. No answers back from Wilkinsons as to the actual external size of their new axles.

Car is in a million bits and whilst waiting for answers so that I can order my bits from USA, I've started cleaning up some of the underbody bits.

The previous owner stated in the car records that all of the control arms were bead blasted and coated back in 2007 when new bushes were fitted.

Doesn't ring true to me as ALL of the control arms have surface rust on them. Sandblaster took it all off and the paint was so thin, I'm sure it was a $2.95 spray can from home depot. Certainly not a decent paint let alone a powder coat.

So having sand blasted them all again, this time they are all getting a proper priming and coating with 2 pack enamel in an alloy colour. I've also pulled off the rear stabiliser bar and I'll have this powdercoated as the spring tension in it wont take kindly to chrome plating or even painting.

Pantera and Mangusta stub axles need a medium press fit if you're going to use ball bearings or straight-roller bearings such as the GT5-S had. Slip-fits do not hold the inner race tightly enough for 300+ horses with these bearings. The axle will flex a little and the steel used is much softer than bearing race steels, so the axles get wear-tracks pounded in them.
I've seen stock axles successfully repaired by welding, by hard-chrome and by spray-welding. Once repaired and reground (NOT lathe-turned!) to a medium press fit (0.0005"), ball bearings will last a lifetime.
But if big wide sticky tires are mounted AND you drive hard or do frequent track days, expect to find the second weak spot in stock axles. This is the wheel flange where it joins the axle shaft. The flange will flex at the shaft with giant tires, eventually cracking in two and you lose a wheel- and usually, the lower rear quarter panel! This doesn't happen with normal street use but 3 continuous hours on a race course with race tires will usually break one or both stock axles. Most aftermarket axles do not have hollow shafts, and have 3X thicker wheel flanges. Such non-flexing axles are adequate for pro racing with over-600 bhp engines. Knurling or magic glues will be very temporary axle repairs if you drive the car as it was intended. Finally, all this is useless unless you check axles with a 4-decimal micrometer: 3-decimal micrometers simply cannot measure close enough to check a medium press-fit of 0.0005". You'll be guessing which usually doesn't work. And remember, axles and the bearings are made with tolerances. Its possible to find completely stock combinations that are loose, tight or just right, but it takes a lot of parts to sort thru to find the 'good' combinations. Better to get high-quality high-carbon steel aftermarket axles and put that worry aside forever.

With you all the way and understand that Larry.

I just need an answer. Do I just buy a set of Wilkinsons and be done with it?

Are they the right size?

I have to worry about this when a guy here in Perth ordered WIlkinson axles and they are 39.995mm measured properly.

This is undersize to the bearing so as long as it's seated parallel, it's barely a press fit as it's undersize.

Checking my imperial back to metric, your 0.0005" comes back to 0.0127mm

To get this crush inside the bearing I need to confirm that Wilkinsons new batch is 40.0127 or pretty damn close.

As soon as I see 39's, they just can't be right.

By the time I get them here, and slip new bearings in, it's a $1000 job, so I must get it right. You guys are too far away to do it again, and the mail is a killer on heavy things.

quote:

With you all the way and understand that Larry.

I'm Larry, but Bosswrench is Jack.

Of course, if everyone (Including you ) would just sign your postings - like folks used to do in the old letter-writing days, sigh - then we would know who is who a bit more easily.

quote:

Do I just buy a set of Wilkinson's and be done with it?

Are they the right size?

Steve is closed Mondays. I will call him Tuesday and see if he gives me a clear answer to the size question.

Stand by.

Larry

Thanks Larry,

Sorry Jack, I'm getting the hang of it all,

Thanks for the help.

Rob.

Well I completed the rear control arms today. All shiny and new in their new coat of metalic silver paint. I used a special hardened enamel designed for wheels as it's got great adhesion properties and resilient to chipping.

I have one hub stripped out and ready to go and will do the pass side tomorrow.

My front uppers should be back from Johnny Woods tomorrow or Wednesday so by the end of the week I should have all of the control arms painted, rebuilt and ready to fit back in again.

Hopefully Aldan turn my shockers around nice and quick so I can get it on the ground soon.

I need to check my steering rack for play but can't really do this till wheels are back on and the weight of the car is on them properly. Then I'll have the wife rock the steering wheel whilst I have a good look and see what else is needed.

Then I can order the trunion bush, axles, and maybe steering rack rebuild kit all at once.

I have also ordered Kirk's shortened bumpers to give it a cosmetic lift at the same time.

Rob,

What is the story with the horseshoe sculptures? I love found-object welded works.

Larry

I searched Oz for a decent Testa and couldnt find one so I went to UK and bought it. That sculpture is in a small town called Heydon in Norfolk. Apparently after the Crusades, my family owned a castle near there and this village supported the castle.

Those sculptures are outside the local blacksmith shop in the village. Look great don't they?

Did you look thru the technical pages Larry.

There's a bit of info there on how to fix these Italian beasts as well.

They are prone to all sorts of issues, but it's been fun learning how to fix them.

And now I start all over again with the elder cousin!! Glutten for punishment I think.

Here's my renovated suspension components all ready to go back together.

And a couple of issues I discovered along the way.

The lower front control arm has been pressed and assembled from two components. It's then been welded together but the seams between the pressing can catch and hold a lot of road debris, which stays wet and can cause cancer in these areas.

If you ever strip these down, pay particular attention to these areas. Get them really clean, sandblast, scratch, do whatever, but get the crud out of these seams. Then treat them with a rust converter product like ferrite tannate solution before you paint them.

I'm actually going to use a grey coloured mastic filler over the paint and carefully apply it OVER these gaps to stop the crap getting in there in the future.

I scratched it out as best as I could, even getting a box cutter blade down in there. Then I heated them in the oven for an hour to ensure that any residual moisture had been dried up.

Once that was done, I treated all of these seam gaps with the rust converter.

Another spot is under the edges where the ball join mounts.

And into this gap also:

Robert,

Do your front lower a-arms have the sway bar mount brace?

John

Yes John, you can see them in the first image above where I have all the bits laid out on the ground.

They don't show in that pic as they are on the underside of the a-arms. I was just curious if you had them.

I see that you have a nice ding in the rear lower a-arm. I have a similar one on one of mine. It was probably from some tire jockey in the early days.

I also went through the same scraping and cleaning on my front lower a-arms. That area trapped a lot of dirt and gravel.

John

Sorry John, you were refering to the brace not just the mount.

Yes, mine have the brace exactly as you have pictured, and damn hard to clean and paint behind it I found.

I wrote to Precision Performance yesterday and had a reply straight back from Bob.

Most interesting, quoted below for the information of anyone looking for axles.

"We have been doing this since 1977. These other people keep trying to change whet has always worked. The axels we make press into your bearings like they are suppose to. They never did from the Factory or from all the others made. I guess they never figured it out.

So here you go 1.575 +.0008-0 That means 2000 press on to the bearing, any more and its to big to press apart later.

If you get this kind from any one else you still get them from me as I'm the manufacturer of almost all parts made.

Pantera by Wilkinson has them made in China and they are too small and spin."

Looking at their website, (http://precisionproformance.com/sc2014.htm) they say that the axles are 4340 billet steel, and can be supplied as stand alone axles @$375 USD per axle or complete kits with bearings, spacer and nuts @ $475 USD per axle.

Has anybody here used or have experience with the precision performance axles. All the answers appear to be right, but I'd like some feedback before I drop $1100 Ozzies in the hole!

I have used them on customer's cars. They are very nice.
Ron

I had a reply from Steve Wilkinson today. As you guys said, he was in Italy at the factory.

"LET TALK ABOUT YOUR AXLE PROBLEM! FIRST OFF LET ME STRAIGHTEN THINGS OUT ON DETOMASO MAKING THE AXLES THE WRONG SIZE. ALL THE AXLES THAT CAME IN THE PANTERA WERE THE RIGHT SIZE. FORD MADE A RUN OF AXLES IN 1972 THAT WERE UNDER SIZE BY .002. THEY WERE STILL OK TO RUN BUT YOU HAD TO INCREASE TORQUE ON THE NUT TO 420 LBS. WE STILL USE THE TORQUE OF 420 LBS ON THE NEW AXLES TODAY. YES, YOU SHOULD USE NEW AXLES THE DOUBLE BEARING AND A SHORT SPACER. THERE IS NO MOD. THAT HAS TO BE DONE TO INSTALL THE DOUBLE BEARING."

So still no confirmation of the finished sizing of a Wilkinson axle but I've replied and asked again as the last thing I want to do is have a set of axles sent to the other side of the World only to find that they are either undersized to fit the bearing correctly, or worse, have some taper to them.

This research takes such a long time. Poor old car is missing out on a run of Autumn 27 - 30 degree glorious days. Bugger!

Still haven't recieved my front upper control arms from Johnny Wood either. He posted them ages ago, bloody volcanoes!

My Percision Proformance axles arrived today. They look pretty darn nice. Looks like the rebuild can commence now. My repaired shcokers also arrived back from Aldans.

What a great bunch of guys. They found that two shockers had issues which thye felt related to manufacturing, so they replaced them. The other two had worn (actually bent) shafts in them so they fully rebuilt them with all new parts internally, charged me $100 and sent them back again. Fantastic service and highly recomended.

Question: What would cause three shocker shafts to become bent?

quote:

What would cause three shocker shafts to become bent?

Hard contact with curbs, trees, rocks.....???

Or terrible manufacturer quality control?

Larry

What about using tired or too weak rated springs so they are allowed to bottom out?

What spring rates are you using?

Aldan's are 'Hot Rod' shocks and IMO not really meant for anything much more than your local cruise in.

Julian

I rolled the old shocker shafts on a laminated board and the bend is just discernable.

The car originally had 350 / 550 springs when the shockers were fitted, but were changed in 2007 to 400 / 650 springs. Maybe the original springs bottomed out sometime?

Aldan have set up the replacement/rebuilt shcoks to an 'S' sprecification. This is a road/rally spec with much firmer valving than previously.

Hopefully these will be better and I might gain a better opinion than Julian's. I'll let you all know.

Hi guys, I've put the front end back together with Johnny's arms and it all looks great.

Went to make a start on the rear end tonight and noticed the MIN THICK 17.5 on the rear rotors.

Mine appear to be in nice conditon, virtually no scoring at all, and measure up to 17.82mm.

Can anybody tell me what the thickness is for a new set of rear rotors? This axle replacement is quite a big job, and I don't want to have to do it again if I find out that I'm really close to min thickness on the rotors with barely one skim left in them.

My fronts measure up 20.38mm but I can
t see any MIN THICK writing on the fronts so I'm not sure what's good and what's bad for the front.

So I've put the rear on hold until I sort out the thickness issue. Besides, it's too cold in the shed these last few nights anyway.

Stock rear rotors are a 0.81" rotor thus implying they would be 20.6mm new.

It sounds like yours have been resurfaced at some point.

Julian

Wow, maybe even a couple of times Julian. Looks like I better find some new ones.

Any idea about the front?

quote:

Any idea about the front?

My stock DT fronts say minimum of 19mm.

Larry

Thanks Larry. Mine are vented at the front, but even so, when down to 20.38, seems like both ends are well down.

Now the fun begins, to see if I can find rotors in Oz.

Just going through the workshp manual, which is all in imperial for some reason, and there are a number of sums written there for New and Refinished sizes.

Front - new 51/64" refinished 43/64"
Rear - new 47/64" refinished 39/64"

Hard for me to understand this so using the old grey matter calculator i thought I'd run a mathmatecal equasion over this to convert back to metric.

As an inch = 25.4mm I did the following:

25.4 divided by 64 multiplied by 51 gave me 20.24mm

Similar calculations gave me the following:

Front new 20.24mm refurbished 17.06mm
Rear new 18.65mm refurbished 15.48mm

Now someone please check the figures because this doesn't make much sense.

The rear solid rotors on my car certainly say Min thickness 17.5mm yet here's the factory manual telling me that 15.48 is the min.

Interesting also to see that Larry runs a stock DT fonts that say 19mm on them and here's the manual saying 17.06 min on the front.

Nothing is ever easy is it?

I'm trying to sort this out for two reasons.

1. The rear axle job is so intensive, I don't want to do it again in a year because my rotrs are down.

2. Rotors and pads are common wear items that must be available down here. They are probably shared with some other car and available from EBC dealer locally. I just need to go to EBC with the right dimensions and have them match up a set of rotors for me.

quote:

see if I can find rotors in Oz.

I replaced all four rotors last winter. The 65-66 mustang rotors are a perfect .81 thickness but vented match except for slight diameter differences.

Go here for a starting point:

http://www.poca.com/index.php/...ery/?g2_itemId=20370

Larry

That's great Larry. Vented rears as well. Excellent.

The 121.61053 says that it is a C-Tek standard rotor.

The 120.61053 says that it is a Premium Rotor - Preferred. I take it that they are better in some way?

You used a front Mustang rotor on the rear and found it to work just fine?

So both numbers are from the FRONT of a Mustang?

Measuring my rotors, the height of the hat from face of disc to mounting surface on the front are 36mm yet the rears are 40mm. This 4mm variation seems a lot and I would have thought that it pushed the centre line of the rotor back 4mm in towards the centre of the car?


Your Mustang rotors (as above) show a height of 58.6mm and a Nom thickness of 21mm, therefore giving a 'hat' height of 37.6mm.

1.6mm higher than stock fronts and 2.4mm lower than stock rears.

quote:

That's great Larry. Vented rears as well. Excellent.
Indeed

The 121.61053 says that it is a C-Tek standard rotor.
The 120.61053 says that it is a Premium Rotor - Preferred. I take it that they are better in some way?
.........As noted in the text, the company stated difference is said to be a better casting and a black paint 'e' coating. In my case, they both were the same higher grade casting, just one had the 'e' coating.

You used a front Mustang rotor on the rear and found it to work just fine?
.........Yes. Read the text with the photos closely. There is a diameter difference. It will result in some unswept pad on the rear. In practice, this is not really a problem. If it concerns you, take them to a machinist and have them turn them down to match the OEM diameter.

So both numbers are from the FRONT of a Mustang?
..........Yes, but again, read text closely. Due to continuing difference in suppliers, make SURE the #'s currently match to just the rotor, not the one-piece hub and rotor unit.


Measuring my rotors, the height of the hat from face of disc to mounting surface on the front are 36mm yet the rears are 40mm. This 4mm variation seems a lot and I would have thought that it pushed the centre line of the rotor back 4mm in towards the centre of the car?

.............I found the height of the new rotors to match the old rotors. They created no change in rotor position as far as centering in the calipers.

I was able to knock out the metric studs and drive them into the new rotors.

A very basic upgrade procedure with only minor issues.

Larry

Out of curiosity I went and looked at my old rotors (found them in a corner of the shed!) they indeed say min 19mm front and both were 19.8mm. The rears say min 17.5 and they were 17.8mm, so I guess they really can go out to trash next week.

When I upgraded rotors and brakes I used two piece rotors and hats and moved the hats outboard to make for easy disassembly next time.

Julian

Well what a day it was.

After measuring, procrastinating, and then measuring some more, I took off to visit head office of RDA which is Rotors and Drums Australia, our biggest supplier and also a subsiduary of EBC (UK and USA)

The only DeTomaso listings were for a 1990 Pantera with huge discs, or discs for a Longchamp!

So then I followed Larry's advise and asked about 65/66 Mustangs. Every early Mustang in the catalog were hub mount style rotors with the wheel bearings integral in the rotor, like on a trailer. There were no floating discs listed for any Mustangs.

The guy at RDA suggested that www.brakewarehouse.com are probably manufacturing a hub system to adapt to a floating style rotor. That's why theu offer the various styles of rotor to fit the Mustangs. Unfortunately, not having too many Mustangs, this isn't an option here.

Rotors are too damn heavy to ship so I'm going to have to continue the hunt down here for a suitable product.

So.......still at the drawing board!

I wouldn't use RDA, havent had a good pair of discs yet, they always seem to warp.
Try DBA better grade of iron.

Julian can you post the part numbers on the rotors and hats you purchased and what supplier they are from? Thanks.

Robert,

I'm not surprised your Mustang search turned up one piece castings. They are the most common now.

BUT, the original Ford pieces were two piece units. Press out the studs, and presto, separate rotors.

So instead of new pieces, NOS pieces should also work. If you can find them....

Larry

Problem down here is that we didn't have a plethora of Mustangs. We have a few now that they are old enough to be eligible for import, but certainly nowhere likely to have new old stock, or actually any stock at all.

I'll have to see if any other blokes come through with details of their brakes, ie: rotor diameter and thickness and top hat thickness and if they changed calipers to suit.

Given some more info, I'm sure I can find something suitable down here. Given my wheel size I'd like to have larger brakes under her anyway. I already have one Italian that doesn't stop, so it would be good to be able to slow this one down in half the distance it takes to stop the Testarossa......or better!

Not being able to locate a suitable replacement rotor for the car, I've decided to put it back together with the current rotors. Then I can take some accurate measurements of the caliper centred position, with and without pads in place, and then I can ascertain exactly what will fit onto the car.

For those Aussies out there, keep an eye on this thread for locally available parts when I can locate suitable rotors.

Work sucks! Keeps me away from the car.

Thanks to Australia still celebrating the Queens birthday, it's a long weekend here so we got a bit done on the car. Even the wife got into it, parked herself on the carpet in front of the pot belly stove and scraped 35 years of sludge from the half shafts and got them all ready to repaint.

A few more pictures of the rest of the suspension nearly ready to go back into the rear, and the front finished tonight.

Front

More:

And finally tonight I also had a chance to get the other muffler wired down and a coat of ceramic primer onto it.

Quick question:

When assembling the rear axles with new bearings, there is a shaped washer under the split axle nut.

This washer has a taper on one side and is flat on the other side. The taper, to me, appears that it would face downwards to compensate for any casting irregularities in the head of the splined yoke. This would let the split nut sit against a perfectly flat face when tensioning to the required 400ft/lbs.

But........my washers may have been previously fitted upside down as there are marks on them where they have come into contact by the split nut.

Can anyone verify which way this washer should actually be seated?

Does this help any?

Yes and no. Number 17 is the offending culprit. There is a certain way that it has to go.

All those 9's are interesting also. I presume that they are bearing dust seals and with sealed bearings those numbers become irrelevant.

Okay, a picture tells a thousand words.

Here's the flat side of washer No. 17.

And here's the tapered side:

Now here's the split nut. The raised section of the split nut is nearly exactly the same as the flat section on the tapered side of the washer indicating that these may fit together.

But........

Here's the flange. Hard to see but the flange isn't dead flat inside as the casting shape starts to curve slightly. This initially indicated to me to put the washer in with the tapered side down so when it pulls up tight, the tapered part of the washer stays clear of the casting rounded shape.

Then the fully flat face of the washer must contact the split nut, and if that is the case, then why have the slightly raised section on the split nut?

Robert,

My original ones were install with the taper facing the nut. That raised part on the nut is referred to as "semi-finished". Definition: "SEMIFINISHED is machined on the bearing face to provide a straight, flat surface for the washer".

John

Thanks John, so maybe the washer is also 'semi finished' and has that same raised section to specifically come into contact with the base of the nut?

quote:

then why have the slightly raised section on the split nut?

I've checked all my manuals, and the online sites. Nothing shows this in detail.

But, as you noted, it appears the taper side of the washer should go in first so it stays clear of the rounded shape of the flange.

As for the ridge on the nut, you wouldn't want the full face of the nut pressing on the outer edge of the washer, as the washer radius and the flange rounded shape radius are likely not an exact match. With just the raised edge of the nut contacting the washer, the nut's force is all directed squarely on the bearing area of the washer.

Does that make sense?

Hope I helped.

Larry

Robert,

The washer is most likely "parallel ground" so that the top and bottom faces are parallel to each other. This distributes the nut's force evenly.

John

Well the plot certainly thickens. Larry thinks as I do, yet John is oposite, thinking that the two ground surfaces on the nut and washer should meet.

It's certainly an interesting one and I'm supried that it hasn't surfaced before. There are a lot of owners who have either changed axles or bearings or both and evryone must come across this sae issue.

I could just put mine back together the way it came apart, but I'm not convinced it was correct to start with.

Logic says that the job of that nut is to pull the flange down onto the bearing at 400+ ft/lbs.

If I sit the washer into the flange it's near on impossible to see if there is clearance to the tapered section of the casting.

If john is right and the raised section of the washer is parallel ground, then it would make sense to do as Larry says and put the washer taper down and tighten the raised section of the split nut down onto the flat side of the washer.

As you can see, my washers are marked pretty badly. Had they been assembled as suggested in the above paragraph, I would only se rotational scoring on the inner 3mm of the washer face and this would give me a good clue.

I have located a 3/4 drive torsion wrench so will try and do this job over the weekend, so if anyone can definatively solve this puzzle in the next day or so it would be most helpful.

Maybe anyone close to CA could give Bob at Precision Pro-Formance a call. I'm sure he could anwer it, especially given that he makes the axles and split nuts.

Robert,

I'll call Bob (when he gets in) and let you know what he says.

In my earlier post, I stated what I found upon removal of my original axles. They could have been assembled incorrectly by the factory.

John

When we took two different cars apart (71 and 74) and the cupped side/relived side was toward the outside of the car. We assembled it the same way and have had no problems. I think it was designed that way to give a little extra clearance with the splines on the axle and yoke. You will notice that as you slide the yoke on the axel the splines are pretty close to the top of the yoke spines. If the spacer between the bearings has much wear the yoke can stop on the axel splines before the spacer is held tightly between the bearings. This also moves the full force of the compression away from the splined area on the yoke.

Not sure how well I explained this but hope you can follow the attempt.

Mike

quote:

Larry thinks as I do, yet John is opposite, thinking that the two ground surfaces on the nut and washer should meet.

I'm not sure John is in disagreement with us.

He merely stated the two sides are parallel, implying that the torque applied to one side is evenly applied to the other.

Which is what we want to happen.

I think as long as the torque is being properly applied, then it becomes an issue of fitment.

And the tapered side of the washer would seem to want to be placed towards the tapered side of the casting.

I've got a call into Bob and he is supposed to call me back.

I'll update when I hear from him.

Larry

I just tried calling Bob, but he won't be back for an hour or so, and Don was busy with a customer.

I called Wilkinson's and talked with Bill. He said that the taper goes TOWARD the nut, as I had found mine to be installed from the factory.

I will call Bob later to get his answer.

John

I agree with Mike's logic. If the taper were installed toward the yoke (toward the outside of the car), then the smaller diameter seating surface of the washer's tapered side would put the compression force very close to the splines of the yoke.

Inversely, if the taper were installed toward the nut (toward the inside of the car), then the compression force would be farther from the splines of the yoke.

Interesting discussion.

John

I just spoke with Bob, and he said that the taper goes TOWARD the nut....small end of washer at the nut, large end of washer at the yoke.

Looks like two for two for the taper at the nut.

Anybody want to call another vendor for a third opinion??

John

Thanks guys, that's conclusive enough for me, and also logical based on my original thoughts.

Excellent work everyone.

Bravo!

Mike

Hi guys, I'm working away under my car and just thinking about putting all of the rear suspension back together, and I note that the cover for the petrol tank, like a forward inner guard liner is missing. So basically my left rear wheel is throwing rocks at the petrol tank.

I need to fabricate a new section, but can anyone post images of what it should look like, with particular reference to the ponts of attachment to the body.

I don't have pics but you are welcome to come and have a look.
I am 10 minutes from Dandenong.
regards
Paul

Paul, is your car off the road at present?

I have to come down to Carrum Friday so could swing by. Email me your numbers: rhayden@panteraaustralia.com

Well I managed to get down to Paul's place and have a look at the cover forward of the drivers rear wheel.

Appears to be a totally different shape to the other side of the car and much more complex shape than I expected.

Pauls car has big 20's on the rear and it was a bit hard to see in there.

Does anyone have their car off the road that can take a picture of the petrol tank guard forward of the LHS rear wheel?

Robert,

I currently happen to have my inner fenders out of my car. Here are a couple of pics of the fuel tank side. If you need more photos, higher resolution photos, or some measurements let me know. Best of luck.

In this first picture the side facing up faces the tire.

This side faces the fuel tank.

Here is a profile photo. This edge faces the engine.

You're a legend. Much more complex than I thought.

SHame there isn't an easy way to trace around it so I have the cuttout shape, and then I could just try to replicate the bends once cut out of flat steel.

Why do you blokes have to live on the other side of the World?

Robert,

If you want, I could trace it on a large piece of paper, fold it up, and stuff it in an envelope. I don't think it would cost that much to send it through the mail. However, I have no idea how long it would take it to get to you. Let me know.

Generally only 5 - 7 days through normal postal chanels.

That really would be great, but you would need tp slip off that rubber edge, and if there is a chance of damaging that edge it may be a bother.

Things get pretty hard and brittle.

How about just tracing it on a Graph paper then e-mail a hi-res photo. The outline does not need to be perfect as the rubber makes-up the gaps, I used a seal from pick-up cab cover.

4NHOTROD did his in stainless steel sheets

Denis

Denis - funny you should mention that.

I have a buddy that is an IT guy with access to a document scanner that can copy the exact size of very large items. We are going to see if we can scan my tracing and then email the JPEG to Robert.

If that doesn’t work I’ll see if I can round up a large sheet of graph paper. Thanks for the idea.

There are some great blokes on this site. Devin went to a lot of trouble to trace his gaurd liner, then have it scanned and sent to me on a large format file. I had it printed and mounted to card at a local copy shop, and here it is now situated inside my rear fender.

It's not a perfect fit, as I think my quarters have been pumped a bit even before the flares went on, but it's a great starting point.

I went out today and got a couple of sheets of 0.8mm zinc coated steel (2 in case I bugger up the first one) and this weekend I'll have a go at fabricating this missing part of my car.

Many thanks to Devin for this great job.

Thanks to Devin I now have an inner liner. I cut it up yesterday and fitted it today. The part is now in the car with the first coat of paint on it.

Garvino,

Can I get a copy of that inner fender shield large format file?

Thanks!
Garth

Garth,

I sent a copy of the JPEG to your website’s contact email. If you need anything else or need it emailed somewhere else let me know.

If anyone else needs a copy of the tracing please PM me your email address and I will forward it to you as soon as I can.

Thanks.

Today I fitted the new inner rear fender liner, complete with pinch mould. Fully coated in a tar based underbody sealer which I've used elsewhere under the car.

Here's a few pictures. Was certainly great to actually start fitting up the renewed suspension after a few months off the road.

And the pinch mould section:

And finally after months of downtime, the rear stablizer bar and lower control arms go back in.

Front and rear bumpers have been removed to make way for a set of the special short versions produced by Kirk Evans.

I ordered them before I took the car off the road back in April, but they haven't arrived yet. So looking forward to putting the car on the road minus the steel rear bumper and the 'shark' nose.

Fully rebuilt Alden shockers are here to go on along with full billet axles.

More pics over the next few days.

I'm a bit held up by the exhaust. I stripped everything back and recoated the system with a ceramic exhaust paint, but I wan't happy with the tips. The ANSA sticker had trapped moisture and dirt underneath and this damaged the chrome plating. Also there were some abrasions there that wouldn't polish out.

I had a local exhaust tech roll some 0.8mm stainless into a 70mm ID tube. He welded this over the original tips and then shaped the tube to perfectly match the original ANSA shape. I have the exhaust at a metal polisher today to highly polish the stainless tip covers. This should look perfect and allow me to look after them without the issues associated with chrome.

Yes, the ANSA sicker is a well known problem. I took them off mine when I first got the system years ago.

Mike

And here's where she's been sitting for the last few months. And now her stable mate is playing up too. Dropped a heap of power on the right bank of the engine.

Bloody Italians...........always something, and just when we are finally coming into some decent weather again!

Today I built the rear hubs with my new billet axles. Lovely fit, just the right feel on the press when fitting the bearings. Right side may have been about a half of one poofteenth tighter, but both felt about right. These were Bob's axles from Proformance.

Hubs are now ready to fit to the lower arms, but still waiting on the exhaust as I'd like to fit this first and get it out of the way.

Whilst I'm waiting I thought I'd change that horrible rubber bush that the shifter linkage passes through. The one on the left rail under the headers. Bugger of a spot to get to!

I'm wondering if anyone has replaced this that could explain any tricks to getting the linkage off, gaining access to the two big nuts and then re-asembling without having to fully setup the shifter linkages again?

Any tricks to make this job a little easier?

No tricks really, just a busted knuckle or two. I replaced mine with a Quella unit which gets rid of the rubber bushing.

I'm more wondering which linkages need to be loosened (removed) so I don't lose the shift adjustment as aparently that can be a bit of a PITA to reset.

I managed to get the 24mm nut off the base, so the unit is loose, now need to seperate the linkage and get it out.

Since you'll be taking off knuckle(s) I don't think there's anyway around not having to readjust the linkage. It is a bit of a PITA, easier with 2 people. The major issue I had was getting the splines cleaned up enough the knuckle could freely slide all the way in and out, much easier to do with all the parts out of the car.

Robert, are you angling the new exhaust tips up more than stock? Those tips run over 500 degrees- hot enough to melt solder- in a hard- driven Pantera. So the decals are usually short lived anyway. And the exhaust seems to get caught in the upward air blast around the rear of the car. One U.S GT-5 with short upturned tailpipe tips melted both his taillight lenses in a single 90 mile wide-open blast some years ago. There's also enough rear lift from that aero to spin the tires in 5th if you have the horsepower to run to 175 or beyond....

I've actually trimmed the sleeve to suit the exact shape of the original ANSA exhaust. If you look really closely you can just see the inner original, but it looks like a double laminate of steel tip. Maybe having no rear bumper to protect the lights could be an issue, but I'm stuck waiting on Kirk for that one.

I always wondered about the 'wing'. Does it provide downforce or lift? In my experience it's made wrong. It should have a cap or blade on each end of it to trap the air and force the car down. Not having ends on the wing makes it virtually cosmetic.

Another thing on my list for when I do up the bodywork is to modify the rear wing.

There is a July 1985 Fast Lane GT5 review article where they tested the car with and without the wing. They found no loss of performance without the wing and picked up some MPH on top end.

They recommended ordering the car without the wing.

Mike

quote:

I'm wondering if anyone has replaced this that could explain any tricks to getting the linkage off, gaining access to the two big nuts and then re-asembling without having to fully setup the shifter linkages again?

I did mine without loosening the large adjusting nuts. I was able to separate the u-joint from the splines. But, as Husker pointed out, this can be difficult unless the splines are clean.

If you can separate at the splines, then the only adjustment that you will have to make is the fore/aft position of the shifter. This can be done by loosening the "pinch" bolt on the shift shaft u-joint. Just make sure that the splines are returned to their original "location".

If any of the shifter u-joints feel rough, the ones from Flaming River are a less expensive replacement than the originals.

http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve/...=890103126#890103126

John

Thanks John,

I undid both of those pinch bolts close to the bush and as you said I was able to tap them forwards and release the long linkage, and then slide the bush off. I marked the knuckle and spline with a bit of tippex before I removed it so the splines went back on the same. I've now done both bolts up and went to check, but neutral is now too far forward and I cant shift into r/1 because of this.

I take it that by pinch bolt, you mean the one closest to the new bush, release that and maybe get someone to hold the stick in the centre and then do it up?

Robert,

The pinch bolt is the bolt and nut that clamps the u-joint to the splined shaft. If you loosen the pinch bolt, you should be able to slide the splines to get the fore/aft adjustment that you need.

John

Regarding your Aldan shocks.

There was some conversation about Aldans and seal leaks on the email forum a little while back.

The culprit seems to be over tightened mounting bolts and/or a slightly too short steel bushing causing the urethane bushings to bind on the shock body that in turn stresses the shaft seal.

Hmm... that's interesting as three out of four of my shocks came back with shafts replaced because they were bent and this is what had caused the gas to escape.

When I put the new ones in I'll check them for swing top and bottom before I final fix them.

Basically, if they dont pivot freely from both top and bottom mounts without binding at all, then they are too tight and I may need to space the central tube?

Yes.

I just figured out that 420 ft/lbs is horribly bloody tight!!

But.......my home made tool stood up to the test and all looks good.

Well I hope you guys had a better day than me.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I had built the hubs and were ready to fit them to the car. When pressing the new axles into the captive outer bearing (installed into the hub) I did notice that the RHS bearing took a little more pressure on the press than the left but it didn't feel too bad and when the spacer tube, inner bearing and the flange went on, it rotated nicely and didnt seem to be a problem.

This morning I tightented the nuts. 250 / 300 / 350 ft lbs. Left side, all went perfect, but right side, the tension wrench wouldn't click at 350, it seemed to want to keep tightening.

I stopped to check things out and found that the hub had siezed up and I couldn't rotate the disc anymore.

I can't explain why, it's exactly the same as the other side, but something is amiss.

So I removerd the nut and the flange and then removed the hub from the lower control arm, knowing that I'd need to press it all apart and take a look. Strangely enough, my press wouldn't shift it.

I ended up having to take it to a local workshop with a serious 100 tonne press and have them do it. Obviously the fact that t was late on a Friday afternoon and the operator wanted to go home and attend to some serious weekend drinking, I don't think he took the care that he should have, and he ended up smashing my rotor!!

Can anyone imagine what that felt like. Here I am on the other side of the World, three days away from driving my car which has been on the hoist for 6 months, and I need a new rear rotor.

Pantera rotor in Australia is about as rare as golden rocking horse sh!t, and no local brake places were able to come up with a solution.

When I got home and got the rest of the bits cleaned up, I noticed really heavy scoring in my nice new axle shaft. inside the larger (outer) bearing there is also really bad scoring, yet this was a brand new bearing onto a brand new axle. Fitted up with a liberal smearing of grease to help the fit, but it's really quite bad.

So here's a couple of interesting questions?

1. Bob's axles are beautifully finished to a very exacting tollerance. The bearing was a new USA manufactured bearing yet somehow I ended up with serious scroing on the axle shaft. How can this be?

2. Why couldn't I get the tension wrench to 'click' at 350lbs like I could on the other side?

3. When first fitted, the rotor turned fine, but when the tesnion of 300 lbs went onto the hub nut I was not able to rotate the disc anymore. I don't get this as you have the axle, then the spacer cup, then the bearing, spacer tube, inner bearing, flange, washer and nut. There isn't anything else and both sides are the same, yet one has 350ft/lbs on it and rotates freely and the other bound up!


Now, for standard rear solid rotors, who is best to get these from?

I see Wilkinsons lists three rotors. One solid, one vented, and one vented GT5.

Will both of the first two fit my car, or do I stick with the solid that it had?

All things- even precision bearings & axles- have tolerances. And with press fits, the assembly requirements are in the ten-thousandths of an inch range. A proper pressfit on axles is 0.0005" to 0.0008" larger than the bearings for that assembly. One simply cannot check this with a std calipers. I use extreme-pressure rear end lube or Lubriplate moly-grease on axles when pressing, and for really tight fits, its well to freeze the axle and heat the bearing to about 150F degrees before pressing.
The only thing I can think of for your lock-up problem is, the extreme press pressure bent the outer steel bearing retainer, and there's not much clearance between that retainer and the wheel-stud heads. Likely, the torque wrench was still trying to pull the nut down tight so it didn't 'click'; 300 ft-lbs is not enough torque. Around 450 ft-lbs is more realistic and is why one uses new nuts if they are the sliced ones that twist when tightened. Filing the scratches flat (but not out completely) on the scored new axle will work fine, as will selectively fitting a new bearing to the 'tight' axle. You may find a new bearing that FALLS ON- that obviously is on the other end of the tolerance scale! One thing with a press: do NOT use simple stand-offs on the brake rotor to back up the pressing: you will shatter the disc- as your mechanic found. I use a huge steel pipe cap 6" thick with a hole bored thru that just clears the axle flange and contacts the rotor on its curved edge, not on the braking surface. Others use wood or plastic stand-offs made the same way. I know of several owners- including vendors- that have broken cat iron brake rotors trying to disassemble.
Finally, drive or press out all 5 wheel studs before pressing an axle in or out; this removes about half the pressure required to assemble/disassemble a properly sized Pantera rear suspension.
Vented rotors will stabilize on a hard-driven Pantera about 200F degrees lower than solid rotors, so if your driving will be at Bathurst or other such, you'll need vented rotors on both ends and Porterfield R-4S brake pads, to keep from brake fade- especially with the deeply-embedded brakes on a GT5-S! On streets & highways with only occasional stops, either rotor will work fine. Hang in there- this WILL go together.

Thanks Jack.

I actually tried to do it right. I found a length of 195mm ID steel pipe and parted a length off so that it would support the entire way around the rotor, but I was right on the edge of the braking face, so the 'top hat' section was captive inside my pipe.

Hard to say what they did, but maybe it was crooked or something? Now I just need to find new rotors and move on.

After hours of searching last night it seems that only Wilkinson advertise a 'standard' rotor for my 74 L model. They are not expensive, but I know the shipping will be due to the weight.

Surely somebody has come up with a modification for a slip on rotor for these cars using a common and available rotor?

I thought about it during the night. Purchase a new set of wheel studs with the knurling right at the head like Toyota/Ford use. I'm using Bob's axles so the head of the axle is really thick and would support the studs beautifully. Assemble everything as normal but without the rotor.

Then find a rotor with a deeper top hat section that slips over from the outside and locates on the new studs and also the deep centre flange of Bobs axles.

I had a rear rotor in the shed from an early 90's Lexus SC400. I laid my back wheel down on it's face and then sat the rotor in there and aligned the stud holes by eye. Then I grabbed my new axles and sat it in there. The centre bore of the Toyota rotor was a perfect fit on bobs axle. There was still 10mm of the locating flange sticking through the rotor and this fitted perfectly into my wheel. SO you only have 10mm to locate into the wheel, but many cars only have 6mm anyway.

As the Toyota / Lexus has a small handbrake drum inside the rear rotor, the main body of the axle fitted perfectly in there.

The standard top hat on the solid rotor appears to be 42mm high from the rotor face. Bob's axle heads are 14mm thick. Toyota rotor face is 5.5mm thick.

All one would need to do is some mathmatics to
establish the top hat height required to put the braking face of the rotor in the middle of the caliper and it shouldn't be too tricky to do that.

I just did a quick drawing. Considering rotor is 18mm thick (>???<) and original top hat is 42mm high from the rotor braking face then its 64mm centre of caliper to mounting face for the wheel.

If I used a slip on rotor from any 114.3 PCD 5 stud configuration Japanese or Ford car with an internal rear handbrake (so it will take the axle) then I would need to find a rotor with a 55mm top hat height to maintain the same 64mm to the centre of the caliper from the wheel mounting face, which would now be on the rotor, not the axle.

This would make it so much easier to change rear rotors, never having to go through this hell of dissasembly and trying to find tools to get 400lbs out of that split nut.

I need some clarification on what thickness the standard rotor is as mine are 18mm and used.

What's your thoughts Jack?

Has anyone fitted the double row inner wheel bearing conversion?

I purchased these bearings locally and as the new beariing was 12.2mm wider than the original I had a machine shop turn down my spacer tube by 12.2mm to compensate for this.

Both tubes were done and both were the same when completed, but given my problems yesterday, I'd really like to know what the total length of the spacer tube is supposed to be, just in case my RHS has been squashed a bit and this may have contributed to yesterdays issues.

Even if you could tell me what a new standard sparer tube should be, I can just subtract 12.2mm from that and then check mine.

Anyone know the correct length of the factory spacer tube?

Luck has smiled upon me.

Imagine finding a 72 model solid rear rotor in Perth, Western Australia that has a fresh grind and is 18.35mm? Freaky, but great!

And I picked up a stock spacer tube also.

Now if Jack or Mike or Larry or anybody can tell me the exact length of a stock spacer I would be most appreciative.

I assembled the drivers side tonight ready for the wheel to go on, and also fitted a set of baby tornado mirrors today. They appear to work really well and look the part.

Jack, I had a good look at the new axles and the sizing is a bit off.

Just below the splines and basically where the inner bearing sits, the axle measure 40.04mm. Then it goes to 40.02mm but right at the outer end of the axle, basically the last 7mm it goes to 40.06mm

That means that my bearing was pressing over 16thou then to 8 thou and then the shoulder of the bearing was pressing on to 24thou as I did the tension up on the nut.

Just too bloody tight.

So it goes to show. I spent the big bucks on what is probably the best product out there with Bob's axles, but even then, they need to be checked and adjusted a little.

I threw it on the lathe and using emery strips I linished off the high spots to give me 40.02mm all the way. So I have a press fit of 0.00078 thou, just under your guidelines.

The replacement rotor will come today so I'll report in on how it all goes together.

Still waiting for a check length on the spacer tube, seems no one has one laying around or that measurement onfile anywhere.

Robert,

Email Bob and see if he will measure one for you.

John

I'm glad you found a stock rotor, Robert. I don't check e-mails daily so I'm a bit late here.
1)-on rotor variations: Dennis Quella in Colorado Springs, CO sells ventillated rotors with an aluminum hat-section that fits over the axle flange front or rear. It obviously spaces the wheel and tire outboard by 3/8" or so. I run '69-76 Porsche 911 ventillated rear rotors with a home-made 1" thick aluminum hat section that fits behind the axle flange as-stock, but is 40% lighter. The vented 911 rear rotor has identical dimensions as stock. Some of the Swedish members did much the same using vented Volvo rotors and home-made spacers. Larry Stock of PPC-Carson City NV sells a Sierra brake conversion for front or rear that uses Porsche 911 rear rotors.
2)- due to the fact that the front bearing is captured between a counterbored step and a steel bolt-on retainer, the inner bearing position floats. So there is quite a tolerance for the inner tube spacer length: the inner bearing can move in or out as required. The only limiting factor is if the spacer gets so short from wear or constant 'squaring-up' with a lathe, that the inner companion-flange adapter for the u-joint bottoms out in the axle splines before you get enough torque on the nut to hold the assembly. Sorry- I've never calculated what that dimension might be.
As long as you're using std bearings, a near- stock spacer length should be just fine. The spacer ends need not be dressed perfectly flat; a few bumps etc won't hurt. On GTS or GR-3 club-racers that ran the optional 10" x 15" Campagnolo wheels and rather wide, sticky tires, DeTomaso used a double-row ball bearing at the inner position for better axle support. The only mod required was to shorten the spacer by the amount extra in the double row bearing. All else stayed the same.
Finally, once you get all this together again, be aware that all 16 bolts holding the halfshafts to the u-joint companion flanges must be tight. If one bolt or nut is even slightly loose, the assembly may yield a 'funny', untraceable vibration under heavy acceleration. If you feel such a thing, recheck those bolts & nuts first.

Thanks Jack.

Interesting info that DeTomaso themselves used the double row inner. I wasn't aware of that. Thought it was a recent USA invention. So that's good for me as I have that double bearing and have which is 12.2mm wider than the stock single race bearing. Hence I machined down the spacers by 12.2mm to 45.7mm total height.

The rotor hasn't arrived yet, Australia is a big country for a truck and apparently we don't have airplanes!

I wasn't happy with the exhaust flange on the RHS headers so today I removed them, welded the flange and have just refitted them. Actually not a bad job, easier than many headers I've had to deal with over the years.

I called Kirk this morning and he will have my small bumpers ready by end of next week so it should fall into place that they arrive as the car gets back on the road.

Removed the clutch master and slave too. Master wasn't fun to get out. Trying to get that pin out above the throttle pedal was a nightmare.

Both are really tired, rusty and badly pitted. They have been sent off to local brake and clutch specialist for a sleeve and rebuild.

Mechanically and structurally, she's going to be good. Hope all this effort is worth it.

Okay, the disc from Perth arrived today and I had everything ready to go.

First stage was to press the outer bearing into the hub and then fit the bearing retainer and the four screws. I used a Loctite stud retainer on these screw and also an impact driver to tighten them securely without damage.

Then a light lubricant to the axle and I offered up the axle mounted to the rotor with the cupped washer in place on the axle. This went into the press and all went together well.

Then over to the bench and I have the rotor face down with the assembly resting on the tips of the studs and I test rotate the hub. Hmmm.....something is binding.

After a while I figure out that the top of the studs are touching on the bearing retainer plate or the four screw. Not good.

So back to the press and remove the axle again, and sure enough there are two studs touching on the bearing retainer ring. Number 11 in this picture.

I'm thinking that these tollerances are just way to close if a coat of thick paint can make the studs rub on this retainer and I start to think that maybe something is missing here?

Back to the parts book and an exploded diagram, and sure enough, I appear to be missing a component.

Now everything that came out has gone back in, no leftovers, so maybe whoever did the last set of bearings or rotors may have left something out.

Part 8 on the drawing below is the specialy cupped washer that goes over the step at the base of the axle. I have this component and it's quite clear where it goes.

Part 9 on the drawing I do not have!
The parts manual calls it up as an outer dust shield, but I have no details about it and certainly don't have them in either side of the car.

Can somone help with this. Please explain what this is, the purpose and I need to know what it looks like as I'm going to need to make this component now before I can put it all together.

And.......bugger it. I'll have to pull the LHS apart agian and fit this in, even though the LHS tensioned down fine and does not touch anything.

There are a number of images of the cupped washer/spacer on this page http://www.panteraplace.com/page87.htm Keep in mind that I’m running a Timkin tapered roller setup and there is an extra spacer to the outside of the bearing. Your spacer must have stuck to your old axels.

Mike

No Mike, it's only this component called a 'dust seal' and is number 9 in the picture above that is missing.

I called Tony in Perth and his car is exactly the same as mine, and is missing the dust seal part number 9.

The axle spacer is there, no worries.

Here's some images to explain things.

First, my axle spacer, which is number 8 in the image above and goes onto the axle first before pressing through the outer bearing.

Here's a picture after I pressed everything apart again. Note the black powder. That's black paint from the bearing retainer rubbing on the stud head, and you can see a curved mary on the stud head from touching the screws that hold the bearing retainer.

and here's the bearing retainer ring. You can see the areas that have been in contact with the stud heads.

quote:

Originally posted by OzGT5:
No Mike, it's only this component called a 'dust seal' and is number 9 in the picture above that is missing.

I called Tony in Perth and his car is exactly the same as mine, and is missing the dust seal part number 9.

The axle spacer is there, no worries.

Well, I messed that up!! My car did not have that part 9 either. In that case there can only be a few things causing the problem:

1. The step on the axel where the cupped washer/spacer fits is not the same as the stock axel. I can’t tell from your picture, but note on my axel images that there is a fairly thick space/step between the rotor mating surface and the area that the cupped washer contacts. The rotor hub should be the same thickness, right.

2. The bearing hub is not the same width at stock. Note that the hub/inner race sticks out some in my images.

3. The wheel stud flange is thinker than stock but I think I recall that you reused your studs.

After following your thread all these months I’m feeling very fortunate that the projects on my car have gone so well.

Mike

Thanks Mike.

The flange that part 8 sits on is 0.35mm higher than the original stock axles. This would have the effect of sitting the cup washer higher, therefore relieving the issue rather than compounding it.

Yes, you may be right and the actual head of the axle where the wheel sits may be thicker by 0.75mm - 1.0mm. This would force the rotor further inboard and may cause the contact.

Obviously last week when I fitted the first hub together, applying the 350 ft/lbs of pressure must have forced the stud heads firmly against the countersunk screws on the bearing retainer and caused the total lockup.

12.11 am in Oz so I'll get up and back to it in a few hours. It's Saturday here so I have most of the day to sort out the issue.

The factory clearance from head of wheel stud to those countersunk head screws and the bearing retainer must be miniscule?

You would like to see 3 or 4mm here to allow some clearances but this seems not to be the case.

I thought the caliper mounting tabs were close to the rotor surface, but the stud head clearance is crazy.

quote:

After following your thread all these months I’m feeling very fortunate that the projects on my car have gone so well.

Mike

It's certainly been an interesting few months Mike. It's made more difficult by being on the other side of the World where there are only a (small) handful of these cars and vitually no local knowledge to draw from.

Having Paul locally and Tony in Perth has been great, but without you guys on this forum I would be floundering with little chance of rescue.

You are all great and I appreciate your help.

In another few weeks it should all be worth it, and then I'll start the small jobs like the steering rack mods, electricals, switch gear, console treatment etc.

Will it ever end?

quote:

Originally posted by OzGT5:
The factory clearance from head of wheel stud to those countersunk head screws and the bearing retainer must be miniscule?

You would like to see 3 or 4mm here to allow some clearances but this seems not to be the case.

I thought the caliper mounting tabs were close to the rotor surface, but the stud head clearance is crazy.

The clearance between the heads and the upright is very close, but when my stock bearings failed the first thing I noticed was the rotor rubbing on the caliper mounts.

Mike

Robert,
Have you checked to make sure the rotor is tight to the axle flange? A portion of the knurled stud is a press fit into the axle flange and will tend to keep the rotor away from the axle flange if not pressed in tightly. I use thick washers that are larger than the stud knurls and use lug nuts to hold the two pieces together after pressing the studs through the axle. The dust shield was used with the original factory bearings that did not have seals but most of them have been discarded when sealed bearings were installed. You have sealed bearings so these are not required. They are just a thin piece of sheet metal.

Yes, there is zero clearance between he axle head and the rotor as I pressed this on and held it with nuts and washers exactly as you suggested.

I got up early and went down to the shed to annoy the neighbours with the lathe.

I mounted each stud and whisked 0.5mm off each head and then also linished the top of the bearing retainer plate and took it down level with the top of the screw heads.

It's now assembled and went together perfectly. So far I've pulled up 350 ft/lbs and it turns easily, just like the LHS.

Now I need the next size tension wrench and she can go back together.

A pic from this morning.

Was a good day in Melbourne today.

The big cat is back on all four paws again for the first time in many months.

Everything went together well, and now just waiting on the clutch slave and master which are out to be re-sleeved.

Couple of small cosmetic and eelectrical jobs to do whilst I'm waiting for that, but by the end of the week I should drive it again.

Another picture, and the new mirrors are visible too:

The refurbished exhaust: