|
Post by sigmfsk on Feb 19, 2013 18:28:06 GMT -5
It looks like a die cut foam pad. No need to open it up and check it out. Mine is together and installed in the car, I am not taking it back apart. When I tested the blower motor, I noticed a bit of air escaping between the lid and the box, that would explain some sore of seal that would have been in place. You were sure right! Here's the lid, just flipped over to the left of the box, so that the hoses could stay connected: The fact that I didn't remember that it was foam reassures me that this project is taking far too long (and I'm getting old and losing my memory). I'll never get this car done at the rate of it taking one year to get an oil pan made. I'm thinking there's a lot to be said of having the car locally where I can go visit often and keep things on track. On track means - keeping things moving, and keeping things moving in the right direction (so that problems can be resolved before the entire oil pan gets fully welded incorrectly). I think Industrial Chassis in Arizona would really fit the bill for Dodge Dakota suspension and anti-lock brake setup, but I'm thinking of checking out these guys: www.stenodperformance.com/projects/They have an in-house dyno: www.stenodperformance.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=59> With the installation of this dyno, we are going to get back to what we > originally started building, bad ass street cars. Our goal is to provide > the best possible street and race tunes needed for your car or truck. www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=134101> Stenod Performance can modify anything on four wheels, from classic > muscle cars, corner-carving street cars or 6-second race cars. www.dragzine.com/features/shop-tours/shop-profile-stenod-performance-where-fast-lsx-cars-are-born/> They are a full service performance shop specializing in the installation > and fabrication needs of today's street and strip applications. They > provide everything from installation of high performance components to > full on chassis and turbo development for many of today's high > performance vehicles to suit each owners needs. > > They have done a ton of work for Motown Muscle Members. www.motownmuscle.com/forums/showthread.php?97205-Welcome-Back-Stenod-Performance! It looks like things have slowed down the last few years: [post in 2011] > last year when i got work done i really never had an issue getting ahold > of him but this year its terrible. ls1tech.com/forums/racers-lounge/1392225-stenod-performance.htmlresponse: > He has been working at Pratt and Miller 60hrs/wk. Shop is still open just > not full time. and back to original poster: > Thanks Tom, we got my buddies car in there and he knocked the cage > out in a week. he does great work. They're local, and I think they'll be able to help setup the motor/trans mounting with a motor-plate, etc. And they might be able to help with the FAST XFI tune. And they might be able to do the suspension/brake setup to my liking also. Even if he's only working on it part time, at the rate of one oil pan a month, it will be 12 times faster than what I've got going currently. And maybe he can be of help getting the motor mounted and such, and I.C. can still do the suspension/brake work. Options abound.
|
|
|
Post by Sd.Kfz. 400 on Feb 20, 2013 19:12:17 GMT -5
Common sense tells me that direct engine's vibration cannot be good for the car. Or your teeth while driving, but I have no experience or even googled info about that stuff.
|
|
|
Post by 58hemifury on Feb 20, 2013 20:12:13 GMT -5
Up to you, once again I never experienced the car with anything but the rubber mount/ torque strap set up that's in it now and Charlie passed away several years ago so asking him is out of the question but there had to be a reason he changed the set up and his discomfort would not have been a reason. I've know people who ran solid mounts on the street too but most were 15 second Camaros with pussy small blocks that the owner thought were 12 second cars. 500 plus horse engines are a different story on the street. I had a '73 Polara with a 318 that kept breaking motor mounts that I put solids in and never noticed a difference. Once again just food for thought. Adam
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 14, 2013 16:43:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Mar 15, 2013 6:55:53 GMT -5
Pratt & Miller might be a good choice. It wouldn't hurt to at least set up a meeting with them and see if they are interested. They are a heck of a lot closer to home. There are porbably a number of qualified shops in your area that are capable of doing the type of work you need. Problem is finding them and getting in the door, they are all likely covered up doing show cars and concept cars for the OEM's.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 15, 2013 16:29:31 GMT -5
Thanks, Spanks. I'll work on making a overview web-page I can e-mail Pratt & Miller. Earlier in the thread, I talked about how Industrial Chassis liked the Gen 1 Dodge Dakota (87-96), and the Dakota dimensions were a pretty close match for the Monaco (and it had 9 1/4 rear axle, and anti-lock brakes). I read that the > current > Director of Engineering Services at Pratt & Miller Engineering was previously > Dodge Dakota Vehicle Dynamics Development Engineer > Chrysler and > Performed ride and handling tuning for the Dodge Dakota truck > (1997-2000 model years). Evaluated and recommended > specifications for suspension geometry curves, shocks, tires, > bushings, springs, stabilizer bars, steering gears, and jounce > bumpers. Not that it makes or breaks them being a good candidate for my work, but an interesting tidbit.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 18, 2013 14:20:55 GMT -5
Thanks, Spanks. I'll work on making a overview web-page I can e-mail Pratt & Miller. I'm having fun generating the overview. I'm trying to focus on generating the best plan, and not focus on generating the plan that best fits the parts I have. My engine won't make much vacuum. I selected the hydroboost brake setup so that I'd have solid brakes: But now that I'm going with a dry sump, is there any reason to use the hydroboost? It seems like I'll now have more than enough vacuum and can use a standard power booster setup. And if my pump doesn't generate sufficient vacuum, I can just throw another module on the end of the pump. I don't see much about cars with dry-sumps and power brakes. Here's an interesting tid-bit: > At the end of the season of 1971, #2-1971 (along with #1-1971) > were sold to Marshall Robbins of Indiana, who painted them red > and white, converted them to dry sump oiling and power brakes, > and ran them in T/A and A/Sedan for a few years. www.ponysite.de/transam21971.htmHere's a supercar www.koenigsegg.com/models/ccxr-special-edition/with > Twin Rotrex centrifugal superchargers with response system, 1.6 > bar boost pressure. > > Dry sump lubrication with oil spray piston cooling. > > Brakes...Power-assisted. Maybe they use the dry-sump to get vacuum for the power brakes. Here's a 62 corvette www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/lotdetails.aspx?ln=665.2&aid=363with: > Peterson Fluids dry sump tank and hydraulic power brakes. It seems that hydroboost wouldn't be needed with a dry-sump pump, but: Maybe it was still better because it didn't require the huge power booster? Maybe it still provided better feel than regular vacuum power brakes? > The booster takes a little bit of getting used to, because it is very powerful and > does not have the mushy feeling associated with most vacuum boosters. They are > a true one-toe system no matter what they are installed in. That seems to be a universal description: > ...you need to watch and make sure that you don't kiss the steering wheel, and > that he has to peel his eyeballs off the windshield. forums.corvetteforum.com/1544228048-post10.htmlRead more: www.bluesmobiles.proboards.com/index.cgi#ixzz2Nv8aWQ8W
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 18, 2013 14:48:02 GMT -5
Looks like even with sufficient vacuum available, hydroboost has some benefits: 1.Vacuum boosters put out between 700-1,000lbs of pressure. That's the amount of pressure added to your braking capabilities (how much more pressure you can put on the brake pedal compared to manual brakes.). 2.Hydroboosts put out between 2,400-2,700lbs of pressure. This gives you 2-3 times the power of a vacuum booster. This is enough power to stop you in almost any circumstance, including towing. This system will only put out as much pressure as you demand. Step on it easy to come to a slow stop, hard to lock up all 4 tires. eastsidecustomtruck.com/n-1967-hydro-boost-vs-vacuum-booster.htmlThe HB unit with the Lees pump can easily generate 1500 psi at the gauge with the Cobra 1" MC. The best the stock vacuum booster with 1" MC could do was 900 psi. With 13"/12" PBR brakes and Hawk pads this system stops in a hurry. However, it is very manageable. It also stood up to 20+ minutes at Buttonwillow without a wimper. The other bonus is that working around the engine is much easier. www.geocities.com/casanoc/
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 24, 2013 8:18:33 GMT -5
Time for some scanning! The le mans-winning corvette C6.R has traction control: (from April 2012 road and track) I'm going through all my Marin County posts: here, and on BBC, pulling together the thoughts that still apply to my build, and putting together for a summary for Pratt & Miller. It was interesting to see that I already had a blurb about their traction control in my thread.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 25, 2013 19:36:35 GMT -5
Hi everyone: I put together my build thoughts here: www.74monaco.comIn preparation for sending it to Pratt & Miller to see what they think. Before I do, I'm eager to solicit opinions from the board. You guys know what I'm trying to do more than anyone. Anything confusing or unworkable or unneeded? Lots of pics over there. Here are some of the parts I received today: your friend in consolidating into a coherent plan, arthur
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Mar 27, 2013 6:56:46 GMT -5
This is a very good build plan. Its cool to see it all condensed into one document. As I was reading it all over I could not help but to think of a group of guys sitting around a conference table reviewing the project in silence, mouths hanging open in awe of the amount of time and planning you have put into this. I am sure most projects land in their laps with nothing more than a picture or a concept drawing. Heck, I am in awe ofer the amount of time and effort you have put into it. I know personally, for every hour of physical work or progress made requires hours of mental thought, pondering and planning. FWIW, I kind of like the thought of a complete chassis replacment you suggested at the end. Have you looked at Art Morrison to see if they have any "off the shelf" chassis that meet the Monaco dimensions? I know they make a lot of direct replacements for Vetts and 55-57 Chevys.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 27, 2013 15:47:51 GMT -5
FWIW, I kind of like the thought of a complete chassis replacment you suggested at the end. Have you looked at Art Morrison to see if they have any "off the shelf" chassis that meet the Monaco dimensions? I know they make a lot of direct replacements for Vetts and 55-57 Chevys. Thanks, Spanks. I spoke with Kevin K at Art Morrison in Jan 2012. He was pleasant and knowledgeable, but the gist was that they weren't setup for my custom needs. Here's their general setup: I didn't have the option of adjusting track width (you got one of their options, and that was it). I told him that I might be able to accept that, but I needed the frame crossmember moved so that the motor could fit down lower, and he said that wasn't an option. They just weren't setup for that type of custom work. Prior to my phone call, I went through all their customer pics, and noticed this pic: Of this '71 Challenger: www.artmorrison.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1455To me, it seemed quite horrifying that since the oil pan didn't fit, so they had to lower the crossmember below it. Kevin said that was the type of solution necessitated if the customer's motor didn't fit their frame. So I thanked him kindly and said that I'd look elsewhere, as I wasn't going to notch the crossmember like that. It was shortly thereafter that I spoke with Steve of Industrial Chassis, and he was interested (as long as I wanted to use the Gen 1 Dodge Dakota suspension parts), but I never sent him anything like on www.74monaco.com. He might still be the best option for a custom frame; I'm just trying to consider options closer to home. There's a lot there; I owe you one for digging through it all. You're right about their being hours of thought behind each idea. It's a good thing this is a fun hobby! I'll work on sending Pratt & Miller an e-mail over the weekend. thanks, arthur
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Mar 27, 2013 21:31:13 GMT -5
Prior to my phone call, I went through all their customer pics, and noticed this pic: Of this '71 Challenger: www.artmorrison.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=1455To me, it seemed quite horrifying that since the oil pan didn't fit, so they had to lower the crossmember below it. Your right that is ugly. It seems almost a sin to cut into that chassis like that. I would think that some one with high end fabricating skills could basically cut that whole crossmember out and weld in a completely redesigned unit where they want it. No problem man, I don't mind looking at your project, or anyone else's. Hell, I check in to the forum a few times a day just to see if there is anything new, the build threads are my favorites.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 28, 2013 2:22:30 GMT -5
Your right that is ugly. It seems almost a sin to cut into that chassis like that. I would think that some one with high end fabricating skills could basically cut that whole crossmember out and weld in a completely redesigned unit where they want it. That's what I told him! I said, can't we just leave all the a-arm mounting points at the same place, and move the crossmember and rack forward? And he said that their design is based on running computer models on the exact design, and that they really can't do things like that as it would be an entirely new design. And I said, I recognize it would be a new design, and couldn't they simply recertify/test/calculate the new design, and the answer was no. I mentioned Art Morrison's "Custom Chassis Services" www.artmorrison.com/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=14533and asked what that involved that was "custom", being that they couldn't change the track width or crossmember or any part of the design. I don't remember the exact exchange, I think it was just selecting the components, and putting different bodies on one of their existing frame designs. If Pratt & Miller is interested in taking on the project, and if I can afford them, I'm sure I'll be paying a lot just for their knowledge and expertise, and I've decided that its worth it. I spent a year waiting on Restoration Specialties, and they ended up keeping my parts. I spent the next year waiting for an intake lid, and it doesn't meet spec. Hopefully, P&M will be responsible for the end result, and will use their knowledge to select/design components that will allow them to work well together. Maybe P&M will do the entire frame, or maybe they'll farm out the frame (maybe to Industrial Chassis), but I'll have the benefit of P&M specifying what's needed, and ensuring that it's done correctly. They might even shake it out on the track once it's all done. They have a lot of cool stuff to check out. It would be like visiting Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory for a car/computer guy: > Pratt & Miller’s modeling and simulation department develops solutions > that optimize ride, handling, and mobility on a multitude of platforms. > Utilizing the latest standards in simulation technology, including our > in-house proprietary software tools, our team enables virtual testing to > efficiently analyze and predict vehicle dynamics.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 29, 2013 9:18:06 GMT -5
FWIW, I kind of like the thought of a complete chassis replacment you suggested at the end. I was doing some poking around on the web and found this build thread: www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,63123.0.html of a 68 Charger using a Schwartz frame. Pics of the charger's frame: He was impressed with Schwartz's work: > for instance heres a pic of the spindle that they put together... if I break > this Ive got some serious issues... That thread talks about the frame being offered on e-bay, and I found one here: www.ebay.com/itm/Schwartz-Full-Frame-Chassis-for-1968-1970-Mopar-B-Body-Charger-Roadrunner-Etc-/160997321591?pt=Race_Car_Parts&hash=item257c302b77&vxp=mtrIt's fascinating in that it fits "around" and welds-to the current frame: Text from the e-bay ad: -------------- These convert unibody to full frame, with only slight cutting of torsion bar crossmember required. Once the chassis is installed the shock towers can also be removed. 1968-1970 B-Body, 1970-1974 E-Body Mopar chassis features: Most engine bay sheet metal is cut out. Torsion bar crossmember is cut about 2.5" on each side to "channel" around our frame. Plates will need to be welded to these channels as an attaching point for our chassis. Front end attaches to 2 holes on each side by radiator support. In the rear, our chassis attaches to the stock frame rails. Stock-type fuel tank will fit. Only things needed to be done by customer/builder: Exhaust system, & steering shaft (we can supply pieces to connect to a column). Installation is simple. You are not required to cut your floor-pan The only required cutting is of minor brackets, front frame-rails and front shock towers—creating a “clean” engine bay The only required welding is of four mounting plates onto the original torsion bar cross-member The only required drilling is of two bolt-holes in the rear frame rails ------------------ I suppose that same information is on the web-site schwartzperformance.com/mopar-b-body-chassis-full-frame/but it didn't jump out at me when I previously read their web-site. I thought that somehow all the standard unibody framework would be removed from the body and the body placed on this new frame. But the "weld the two frames together" plan sounds less intrusive, and an overall fine solution, although maybe heaver than it would need to be.
|
|