Page 7 of 7
#121 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:11 pm
I'm very pleased for you!!!!
Great for the returning car of spain, and great for your wonderful garage!!!!
Why did you change your "pseudo"?
#122 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:45 pm
I have modified my pseudo because all my pics have been stolen on my french blog and were on Youtube by a nederland garage.... as if they were able to sold it....
#123 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 3:51 pm
It's now time for many little modifications :
First of all the pedal level difference , clutch VS brake
To balance those two pedals i need to fit a spacer between the clutch master cylinder and the pedal housing.
1) taking out the clevis pin in the car where the clutch pedal is fitted
2) coming apart the master cylinder after purge the clutch liquid .
3)fitting the new studs and spacer with the cylinder
4) insert the clevis pin .......
now there is no room to insert the pin , so i had to push the brake pedal forward and more!!
And with my very thin fingers.... insert the pin. ( old pic following)
And after sometime....
i am pleased with the result
Little job for many of you, but a little succes for me ....
#124 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:14 pm
Hi Yves...i like the pedal mod.....this is something im planning to do as a winter job...not exactly the same as mine is a S2 and i want to bring the clutch pedal up a bit ....Steve
#125 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:06 pm
Yves, I am surprised that you had such a difference between the clutch and brake pedals.
And I am under the impression that you have now maybe adjusted these a bit too low. Did you check the pedals travel and do they seem to bottom up before they hit the bulkhead?
When I restored my pedal box, I paid attention to put back the pedals at the same height, and frankly did not have any issue or need for any spacer for the clutch master cylinder (have opted for a new girling).
Here is a pic:
#126 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:45 pm
Hi Ralph, i don't remember how were the pedals when i took the pedal box to pieces. So i have adjusted the level with the pedal kit .
#127 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:55 am
I restored my 3.8 pedal housing scribing the pedals to there positions prior to stripping. The pedals were the same height before stripping. On reassembly I had to have 3 attempts at getting the brake pedal on the correct spline, once achieved the clutch pedal aligned correctly.
I would suspect your brake pedal is too low and putting the spacer in to match the pedals height raises the possibility of hitting the vertical toe panel.
#128 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:13 pm
#129 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:01 pm
While my removable steering wheel antithief ( superspoke) is being redesigned because of an adjustment of the system ( already 3 months.....waiting...!) i have occupied my time making a cubby box arm-rest with some vinyl leather and foam from BAS . So the driving position will be more comfortable and i'll have some room to put many little things......
Cutting the vinyl straight:
Making the box with medium , thin foam and vinyl:
A few stapples
Some customed hinges
Apiece of wood to maintain the foamed cover
Not so bad in the car. (the box will be taken out for the shows....
#130 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:10 pm
Hi Yves, great restoration, congratulations for the progress so far.
One question: how the cubby box arm-rest is fixed to the aluminium centre armrest? I think it is a great idea to be able to remove the cubby box as you say for exhibitions and concourses
#131 Re: Another Restoration of a 1963 3.8l FHC
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 10:32 am
it is not fixed, i have sticked a rubber film under the box , so it does'nt slide ......the box must be heavy enough ...