|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 29, 2013 10:48:18 GMT -5
I thought this note in that guy's Schwartz charger build provided an interesting comparison against my nose-down plan: > I was able to get it set forward enough to make bolting the bellhousing up > easy. www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,63123.100.html With the motor nose-up, one can have clearance between the valve covers and the firewall, and still not be able to get a wrench on the bellhousing bolts. But with the motor nose-down, any clearance between the valve-covers and firewall automatically provides access to the bellhousing bolts. So the motor can be moved rearward.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Mar 30, 2013 13:41:32 GMT -5
The more I think about that Schwartz frame setup, the more I like it. Back on BBC www.bluesbrotherscentral.com/forum/topic/6578-make-your-bluesmobile-handle/page-2#entry118328I posted about the Schwartz cadillac that beats a Viper in: 0-60, skidpad, 1/4 mile. Schwartz's site has some info on it: schwartzperformance.com/1982-cadillac-fleetwood-brougham/> Measured Performance > 1.02 Lateral G’s on skidpad > 11.80 @ 118 mph in ¼ mile > 0–60 4.0 sec > Top Speed: 150 mph But the this page has more info on it: www.jherush.com/schwartzperformance/cadillac.htm> Passing Mustang Cobras at Road America April 03, 2003. > Byron, IL Dragway with an 11.90 ET It was the Car Craft 2002 Real-Street-Eliminator winner: www.carcraft.com/eventcoverage/real_street_eliminator/ccrp_0303_2002_real_street_eliminator_series/viewall.htmlIt has > Hydroboost brake system nice. But I think they've really hit the ball out of the park with their 65 Tempest: Here's the company page on it: schwartzperformance.com/1965-pontiac-tempest-temptress/Article: www.popularhotrodding.com/features/1004phr_1965_pontiac_tempest/photo_16.html> The rear suspension is a four-link with a sway bar. The Pontiac uses a > Dana 60 with 3.55 gears and a posi. Dana 60. Mopar. Nice. And more info here: www.pro-touring.com/archive/index.php/t-54891.htmlwith this note from Jeff Schwartz: > The best event of 2010, Hot Rod Power Tour Autocross in Birmingham > AL, I won the overall beating 120 cars, including Brian Finch and many > late model cars 911, C6 Z06, RX8, 350z etc. BTW I drove the car the > entire Power Tour and back to Woodstock IL from Mobil AL, about 3500 > miles in 10 days. > Here's a vid of my final run. > ... > The Temptress continuously got more dialed in. > The Best event performance of 2011, Charlotte Goodguys, > Schwartz Performance wins Vendor class. Other videos: It uses a dry sump. nice. That rear sway bar hangs down pretty low. Looks like it would be visible from this angle: But here's a pic of their setup on a '70 Cuda: schwartzperformance.com/1970-plymouth-cuda/Notice that the sway bar is up and hidden behind the gas tank. The exhaust is interesting. The 'cuda has it below the axle. The tempest has side exhaust: Looks like there's not much room with the new frame being mounted inside the original rear frame rails. Here's the cuda up front: This type of setup would need some modification, because the usual setup keeps the pinion pointing the same direction through it's range of vertical motion. I need the pinion to change angles as it moves up and down (so that it always points at the CV at the rear of the transmission). At least I think I do. But the fact that they've already got a good setup to keep everything without intruding into the trunk seems like a great start.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 3, 2013 7:06:03 GMT -5
The more I think about that Schwartz frame setup, the more I like it. I put up my build plan info on www.74monaco.comI was originally planning on sending it to Pratt & Miller, but I ended up deciding to talk to Schwartz first. The things that seemed to really fit my needs: - they actually have experience getting full-size cars to perform well (Cadillac and Tempest) - they are known to take-on unusual/goofy projects (Cadillac and Tempest) - they already have a developed rear suspension setup that doesn't intrude into the trunk So I tuned my build page specifically towards Schwartz: www.74monaco.com/schwartz.htmI spoke with Jeff Schwartz, and he was interested in the project, and had a few ideas and questions. He asked "why e85?", and then when I explained the extra cooling effect for the TX Mile, and the e85 tune didn't particularly add any complexity with EFI, he understood and we moved on. He wasn't jumping all over the "nose-down" attitude of the motor/trans, but when we talked about me accepting that the transmission fluid pan/filter/pickup would need to be modified, he didn't see anything wrong with it. He really thought that larger wheels would greatly help with braking (by allowing larger rotors), but I stayed firm that I needed to use the standard 15" steel wheels for the blumo look. All their pages seem to show wilwood hubs designed for use with lugcentric wheels: from www.classictrucks.com/tech/1203clt_wilwood_engineering_brake_upgrade/photo_02.htmlwhile I need a hub designed for use with hubcentric wheels, for two reasons: 1) that's the kind of wheel I have 2) that's the blumo look I showed him this pic of that Industrial Chassis truck: and they wrote that's a Baer hub, and they use that hub when they use Baer brakes, and it wouldn't be a problem to use that on their standard knuckle. I explained that my general plan was to have Muscle Motors build the motor using their standard carb setup, and then later have it setup and tuned for EFI. He asked me about my plans for the cam-profile, as EFI engines preferred a high lobe-separation-angle. I'll write about that in a new post. The only part of the plan that he really didn't care for was the forward mounting of the steering rack. I'll write about that in a new post. So it was a great conversation, and I'm pumped to be working towards the plan of sending them Marin County.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 3, 2013 8:23:22 GMT -5
The only part of the plan that he really didn't care for was the forward mounting of the steering rack. Here are some pics of the Schwartz steering rack mounting: and my plan was to have the rack moved forward, so that the motor could be lowered down as much as possible: which would mean that the outer tie-rod ends (is that what you call it on rack & pinion) would angle back, like this: I read that this type of angling isn't so bad: Jeff was open to the idea, but made it clear that if it was his car, he'd put the rack in the standard place and modify the intake if needed. I asked him to "run the numbers" and see how the forward mounting would impact the steering geometry, and he said they'd work on it, and that > The geometry issues with the rack forward are mainly at full lock. > Normal driving it would be ok. So that part of the plan might still be viable. I noticed this pic in Road & Track, May 2013: and it seemed to me that the viper motor had a nose-down attitude (or at least not a large nose-up attitude), and I wondered how the steering rack was mounted in relationship to the motor. Fortunately, I happened to have a "1996 Viper Service Manual", and see this pic: And it has the steering rack mounted forward of the crank pulley, which is the same as my plan. There's a lot of room in that engine compartment to have the entire motor set back behind the steering rack and still have the steering rack outer tie-rod ends not needing to angle back to the knuckles. I found this page: www.bigblockdart.com/forum/showthread.php?20430-Project-Scud-69-Pro-Touring-Darton a guy putting a viper motor/trans/suspension in a 69 Dart I notice this pic of the steering rack mounted in the stock viper location (in relationship to the stock viper knuckles) and then later he moves it forward: as he > had interference issues with my steering rack and engine so I > devised (engineered (ish)) a system to enable me to move the > steering rack forward and up while clearing the engine. I also > raised the engine 1-1/4"... So I'm still thinking about that part of the plan, but if the geometry issues are only at full lock, and full lock is only when turning into parking spaces, it's difficult for me to imagine that this would ever be noticeable in real-world driving.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 3, 2013 12:17:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 3, 2013 13:07:42 GMT -5
You thought that 69 Dart had a big engine setback: Check out > the worlds first all wheel drive '68 Charger www.protouringmopar.com/showthread.php?84-Project-Silver-Fox/page8He's using > front diff, drive shaft and CV shafts from a Cadillac STS and > the Cadillac STS front hubs will bolt rite into Corvette ZO6 > knuckles I learned about Flaming River's "travel bar" from his thread: www.flamingriver.com/index.php/products/c0007/s0007/FR313NCSHThe purpose of that bar is to run a rack with older cars, where the older cars have a much longer outer-tie rod and can't connect directly to the rack, as the shorter outer tie-rods on the rack would cause bump-steer. But it also could be used to move the exact same pivot points further back in the car, so that the outer tie-rods wouldn't "angle back". But that's almost enough hassle to simply tilt the motor up 5 degrees so that the crank is level, and put the rack here: But that'd throw off the whole angle of the dangle, and I'd need to raise the motor further so that the front edge of the trans pan didn't hang down.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 3, 2013 14:25:42 GMT -5
So I have the day off work, just relaxing after posting some blumo updates, and then the spirit of the blues came to visit me - in the form of voice reminding me of AZ Blues comment on BBC: > The advantage to R&P is not in preciseness or ratio, but space > limitations in certain cars and total weight - they are lighter than > the recirculating ball box and associated cast iron tie rods and drag > links that they replace. If you are keeping the stock suspension > pickup points and the box doesn't get in the way of anything, there > is no problem using it. www.bluesbrotherscentral.com/forum/topic/8327-theres-a-new-marin-county-sheriff-in-town/page-10#entry119249so if it turns out that having the rack so far forward causes undesirable steering geometry, and the option to raise the front of the motor is out because it would interfere with me winning the "weirdest driveline angle" award, there's always the option of using a steering box and draglink. The draglink can fit just forward of the oil pan: And it can be solidly mounted with the pittman arm and idler arm, so it could even be curved rearward around the ends of the oil pan if need be. > I still don't understand most people's facination with having a > rack and pinion on their older factory chassis. > You can get the EXACT same feel as a late model rack with a 670 > steering gear. www.chevelles.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-181987.html> I read on the Chevelle and other sites about people being very > happy with the Delphi 600 steering boxes. In particular the > Delphi 670 by Lee Power Steering was a favorite as it is a direct > bolt-in replacement and Lee blueprints brand new units and > modifies them for particular cars and preferences. The praise was > high enough that I called Lee Power Steering, ordered their > Camaro 670 steering gear with 12-1 ratio and high level > feedback. Cost was $525, which certainly is not cheap compared > to about $150 for a rebuilt IROC unit. > > I installed it yesterday and finally tested it today (between rain > showers). In short, it is a FANTASTIC improvement! It's still no > BMW (or other rack-and-pinion sports car), but nearly all the > center free play is gone and it transitions smoothly into the turns. www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=223270So another option for the kit-bag.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 9, 2013 17:22:54 GMT -5
I read this snippet in the April 2013 Hot Rod:
> TIG that junk and turn up the steam.
And that got me thinking about my concern of my EFI lid being attached to the intake with that one screw on the INSIDE of the lid:
Once the motor guys build and dyno with their standard carb setup (using a bolt-on carb lid to the intake), I can simply weld the EFI lid to the intake. It's not like it really offers me much of a feature to have the lid removable.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 11, 2013 6:00:54 GMT -5
I think I'm slowly recognizing that there's no such thing as a "perfect build", and that I should be happy with a build that is "good enough" (however that happens to be measured). Some problems one could work on by oneself, and come up with an undisputed answer. For example, to answer the question "What is the maximal value of min(A,B,C)/ gcd(A,B,C) for A^x + B^y = C^z with A,B,C >= 1; x,y,z >= 3, and C^z <= 2^100" arxiv.org/abs/1004.0430v1For the key parts of a blumo, it will be easy enough to see if I achieved success: does it look like the car in the movie? But for the hidden areas, I might need to go for "good enough". Like anti-lock brakes. If I'm not typically driving it through the rain and snow, do I really need them? Traction control for the Steam EVOC challenge - yes, but anti-lock brakes? I've been getting back into the motor build, and see that > A typical wedge headed engine with a 4.500 or bigger bore that > makes over 1100 HP has gasket durability issues between 3&5 > and 4&6. www.musclemotorsracing.com/muscle-mike-blog/109-what-is-a-predator-head.htmlSo if you build the motor so awesome that it produces 1100HP, you then have head gasket problems. One could get a Sonny's GM-style big block which would make more power, but then it wouldn't be a wedge. I think my 572" Mopar Wedge plan is still the way to go. Another consideration is that instead of trying to determine what part is "optimal", I need to consider "what is good enough, considering the resources I have available to me". Schwartz said they typically use "BigStuff3" EFI, and it looks pretty good. But my (minimal) experience is with FAST XFI, and I have a good contact Brian that taught the FAST XFI class, so I'm going to stick with that plan. Schwartz asked about my cam, and suggested an "EFI-friendly" cam with a high lobe-separation-angle. From what I've gathered doing a lot of reading, a small LSA has a lot of overlap, pushing a lot of unburned gasses out the exhaust at low RPMs. This confuses the EFI computer, as it senses a lot of unburned gas in the exhaust, and thinks that the engine is running rich, but the reality is that the engine is running perfectly, and its just the exhaust that's rich. From speaking with Brian, there are some things that can be done to have the EFI computer work with a small LSA cam, but that an > EFI specific cam will make more power, idle better and overall > work better than the old tight lobe, rumpty rump cams So it's important to have Muscle Motors build the motor with an EFI friendly cam (114-116 LSA). I also got to thinking about the E85 setup. From various reading, and then verification with Brian, if I have Muscle Motors build and dyno the motor for 110 Octane racing gas with a carb, I can then have Brian swap it to EFI and build three tunes: 1) E85 2) 110 octane racing gas 3) pump gas The 3rd tune would be way down on power, but the important thing would be that I could drive around even without an E85 station around. your friend in cross-country blumoing, arthur
|
|
|
Post by scatpack on May 12, 2013 6:59:40 GMT -5
But for the hidden areas, I might need to go for "good enough". Like anti-lock brakes. If I'm not typically driving it through the rain and snow, do I really need them? Traction control for the Steam EVOC challenge - yes, but anti-lock brakes?
Mopar Action had an article not long ago showing how to add anti lock brakes to old mopars for little to nothing. just a fyi
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 12, 2013 7:14:29 GMT -5
Mopar Action had an article not long ago showing how to add anti lock brakes to old mopars for little to nothing. just a fyi Ahh, if I remember correctly, it was how to add a unit to keep the rear from locking up, which was priority#1 in a lockup situation, because sliding friction is less than rolling friction, so when moving forward, if the rear locked up, the rear would spin around to be in front. When I read the article, I thought it interesting, but not of direct relevance, as my plan was to simply use the entire Dodge Dakota brake setup. But that rear-only ABS setup might now be in play again. Thanks for the tip! I'll re-read the article.
|
|
|
Post by scatpack on May 14, 2013 22:03:20 GMT -5
where are you getting all the rubber gaskets for the doors, trunk etc?
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 15, 2013 2:36:19 GMT -5
where are you getting all the rubber gaskets for the doors, trunk etc? This thread covers trunk weatherstripping, door weatherstripping, window channel, and other odds and ends: bluesmobiles.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=parts&action=display&thread=217&page=2These guys make gasket sets for c-bodies: www.detroitmuscletechnologies.com/with these parts: - steering column - main a/c box - air duct box - windshield wiper motor to firewall - blower motor to firewall - brake booster to firewall - master cylinder to brake booster I learned of them when I read this thread about them: www.cbodydrydock.com/forum_viewtopic.php?17.14361where they're advertising their gasket sets, and offer one for free if they don't have the pattern for it. > As an added bonus, the first new gasket produced will be given > to the member requesting it AND providing the neccesary > resources for it to be reproduced for free! They didn't have a pattern for a 74 monaco, so In October 2010, I got all my pieces together, e-mailed the guy, and he said he was interested, but he was always busy, and then I finally gave up on him. At least he didn't keep my parts like Restoration Specialties did. I'm guessing for those gaskets, the best plan is a "make-it-yourself" deal. your friend in keeping the water out, arthur
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on May 18, 2013 13:10:31 GMT -5
The panel-beaters were tired of the Fury hanging out in front of their shop. I can't imagine why. So I abandoned my plans to do an "F58 rear crossmember support" analysis, took the few remaining parts of it, and left it for the scrapper: I then went to the scrapper with 1100 pounds of parts from my garage (mainly the motor and transmission from the Fury), and cleaned up some space so that I could do some bumper swapping. Remember my front bumper had the two holes on top that were for the original cop pushbars (which was cool, but not screen accurate). Remember my rear bumper had the giant cop sign-holder or whatever it was: So I put on a new (different) 74 front bumper. I think it has a good blumo-amount of dilapidation. Not too shiny, but not completely rusted out. And on the rear, the parts catalog shows a different rear bumper for a 74/75 and a 76. www.bluesmobiles.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=details&action=display&thread=211but nobody knew what the difference was...until Cathy found it. The 74/75 has a "notch" cut out of each side of the bumper. Here's my new 74 rear bumper:
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 15, 2013 5:50:55 GMT -5
It looks like the motor is finally coming together. I'm headed up to the motor guys today to participate in the dyno testing. Here's a pic of the current setup:
It looks a bit weird with the dominators on top of an intake with fuel injectors. But the injectors are just filling the holes at this point. The goal is to get the motor sorted out with carbs and standard distributor, and then I'll later get it tuned with fuel injection (and dual sync distributor).
|
|