The Ford Capri Laser Page

I’m after another measurement if possible please, would someone mind giving me the rough measurement between the top of the strut top to the bottom of the chassis leg where the crossmember bolts? I know I’m hoping but the ideal measurement reference point would be without the strut on and measured from inside the turret down to bottom of chassis rail but I know my chances of someone having a car with the struts off are very slim indeed.

Many thanks in advance

That is approximately 490mm. That's very roughly though, as it's difficult to measure on the 2.8 as there's a lot of stuff in the way.


Andrew.

Is this any help? I assume the inset ref. hexagonal `X` is frontal view of tower?

Thank you very much chaps, much appreciated

Just out of interest I also found this in the original, imperial, `69 workshop manual: the windscreen aperture is 21 & 39/64ths of an inch high.
You can see why the metric system caught on.

stevemarl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:31 pm
You can see why the metric system caught on.

Yep , it sure is easier , more efficient , easier to teach , easier to work with , easier to calculate critical dimension , I mean 29 /64" ......farrrrkofff , gimme mm's. It's just so much more practical . How the firetruck did the yanks ever get stuff to hit the moon , apart from being notoriously bad shots how do you figure how many feet in a light year

Didn`t they once have a billion $ mission where they`d assumed a measurement was in yards: in fact it was in metres so they missed Mars by some margin? Pesky SI units

stevemarl wrote: ↑Tue Dec 31, 2019 1:31 pm You can see why the metric system caught on

Imperial weight measurements make even less sense to me than those for length.
16 ounces in a pound
14 pounds in a stone
8 stones in a hundredweight
20 hundredweights in a ton
Eh? What?

At least the Americans had the good sense to make a ton a nice round 2,000 pounds.....

Andrew.

No coincidence that's what the average American weighs

Hahah It turned into a rant and rave !
There’s some good and bad aspects of both systems, however -
OUR imperial system developed over centuries as an easy way to judge things, the inch the width of a man’s thumb, yard length of an arm, etc..whilst god knows what the metre represents..

if you ask anyone how tall they are, how much they weigh or how many pints they guzzled last night, thank goodness we haven’t been totally forced into using napoleon’s system...doing 31mpg, 70 mph, flying past on British roads with proper miles, yards, ft & in, apart from the idiotic dictat eliminating gallons (and many garages with it) it’s still mostly reassuring..

It's not hard to see how primative peeps, who had not yet had the brains to invent a ruler might substitute the size of various body parts to indicate size , now you can't tell me that somewhere in the depths of history some bloke didn't get his dick out for science, being that it changes size depending on temperature it was used as an early thermometer ,however proximity of pussy tended to confuse results which is why us kiwi's ended up with the cubit and you lot got the inch . The imperial system survives in a country because they don't have the ability to multiply by 10 unless they are planning a parade or counting war hero's