MoparFins

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We changed servers, which is good, and lost all passwords, which is bad. See above.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - attkrlufy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
31

Quote from: Sjak Brak
You may want to check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Build-Successful-Low-Cost-Rally-Speedpro/dp/1845842081/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308073780&sr=8-1-spell
Wow, this book looks great - thank you so much.  I'm definitely picking up a copy.  :)


32

Quote from: dana44
The little Mercury Capri was a pretty decent little runner, not heavy either, but parts would be an issue, along with the Pinto/Bobcat....
I really liked the gen I Capri - until I thought about how impossible parts would be to find.  I dunno, I think parts for a Pino are easier to come by than you think.  Isn't the gen III Mustang just a stretched Pinto?  I know there's tons of parts for those cars lying around - I'm pretty sure if a part fits a 74-78 Mustang it'll fit a Pinto or a Bobcat....which then makes them (and the Mustang) pretty attractive.

 
Quote from: dana44
I think the Hornet would be a really good choice, then swap in an LA and matching 727 for parts ease.
Yeah, the Hornet/Spirit looks really tempting.  Actually, for the tranny I was thinking an A-833 4spd w/ OD to save weight and for mechanical simplicity (+ better control over the car).
You mentioned weight difference between AMC and Mopar engines - you wouldn't happen to know where I could find the weight difference between the LAs, would you?  Specifically, the # diff between a 273 and 340?


Quote from: dana44
Only question I would ask would be the early A bodies, 1961-1969....why not one of them? The early Valiants/Signets, etc., are still pretty common and wouldn't be much more than the rest of them when compared to the Barracuda and later A bodies, they are all about the same price.
That's certainly true.  I didn't do an exhaustive search, but just noodling around on the internet today showed me that gen 1 and 1.5 Barracudas are not a cheap as I thought.  The 60-63 Valiant 2drs are fastback-ish and cheap.  I would consider one.

Quote from: dana44
Also, the early 67-69 Cougars, 69 being my favorite year, is a nice, small, well handling package with just a little work (extra leaf spring and poly bushings in front), and a simple wing on the back makes them handle really well at high speeds (ask how I know that), copared to a fastback.
I LOVE gen I Cougars, too, but I think they're probably a bit too big.  The 69 Cougar has a 111" wheelbase, is 194" long, and is 3,300 lbs.  The engine needed to move that has to be big, heavy, etc. (when compared to a smaller car), which throws off F/R weight, which affects handing, braking, etc.  I just have trouble believing that a 194" long, 3,330 lb Cougar with, say, a HiPo 289 V8 is as nimble and quick as a Bobcat that's only 163" long, with a 94" wheelbase, and weighs 2,100 lbs with the same HiPo 289.

 
Quote from: dana44
As a last note, why a fastback?
You know....that's a good point.  I was intially thinking a fastback for better aerodynamics....but in the kind of rally I'd want to enter, it's not all flat-out, top-speed craziness, all the time.  Handling/braking is just as (if not more) important than top speed.  But, wait......don't fastbacks (by nature of their design) put more weight towards the back of the car than a notchback/sedan?  Wouldn't that help even out the F/R weight distribution a bit better than a sedan?  Plus, aren't fastbacks usually lighter than sedans?  And wouldn't a 2dr FB flex less than a 4dr or 2d notchback when cornering?

As an aside - after I posted the original post, I realized I forgot an AMAZING candidate for a cheap rally car from GM: the 1986-89 Pontiac Fiero GT.  But - geeeeez - I certainly wouldn't want to work on one.  Ease of repair/work is certainly an important factor in choosing a car and those things are a nightmare to work on.


33

Quote from: Sjak Brak
Why not FWD?  A K-car would be extemely cheap, and more fuel efficitent than any V8-option, and parts are everywhere. With some tweaking, these cars perform well.
Oh, I agree.  I thought an Omni 024 or Horizon TC3 would be perfect.  Actually, I love the EEKs.  My first Mopar was a 1987 Reliant wagon.  That little car was awesome, and I'm STILL mad at the driver of the Taurus that ran a red light and totaled it back in 2001.  :(

I just think a car with as close to a 50/50 weight distribution would be ideal for rallying.  FWD cars have all their weight up front.  Admittedly, it's where the drivewheels are, so they get good traction, but because of the location of the tranny, propshaft, and rear diff on RWD cars, I think it'd be easier to get that 50/50 split (or really close to it) than with a FWD car.

Quote from: Sjak Brak
But I think you simply want a V8 RWD Mopar, and of course, there's nothing wrong with that :)
Well, they are tempting; and easy to work on.  I'm a big fan of simplicity - and, for me, "cheap and simple" is the name of the game for something like this.  But....you know.....those two AMC cars look really appealing on paper.

Quote from: Sjak Brak
A friend over here did the Paris-to-Beijing rallye with a 4-speed 383 68 Coronet. It outperformed most other contenders.
Wow.  That sounds so cool.  Are you in Europe?


34
Wow....this is a REALLY long post.  I guess I have a tendency to ramble.  I woldn't read this if you're busy and/or pressed for time. 

I've been watching a lot of Top Gear lately, and every time I see those
three Limey knuckleheads enter some form of rally in a hopelessly old,
decrepit car I think to myself, "I ought to try that."  Not an off-road
rally, mind you, but a road rally.  Either a time-trial rally, or a
classic rally.







So I began thinking, "What car would be the best candidate for me to
build and drive for a classic/time-trial rally?"  It'd have to be RWD,
small, light (under 3K pounds),
with a good wheelbase:total length ratio (no large F or R overhangs),
good F/R weight distribution (no monster v8s up front), and a fastback. 
 Plus, it would have to be CHEAP to buy with easily found parts that are
 also CHEAP.







That scrubs everything from GM.  Vegas are too hard to find and Monzas
have too much overhang.  All Camaros/Firebirds are too $$.  62-65 Chevy IIs are too expensive, as are 61-63
 F-85s/Tempests/Specials, and none of them are fastbacks - plus parts for GM Y-bodies are $$.  Corvars are
scary, even the 65-up models.







Likewise, anything from Europe or Japan would be just too expensive and
rare w/ parts
impossible to find....which is a shame because 240/260Zs, 70s
Celica/Supras, Conquests, Arrows, and Sapporo/Challengers all would make
 a great contenders otherwise.







Two Fords have slight possibilities.  64-66 Mustang FB are out, as
they're too $$.   67-68 Cougars are a bit big and have no FB model.  The
 60-65 Falcon/Comets look good on paper but they don't come in
fastbacks, either.  66-69 Falcons/Comets are too big.  69-77
Maverick/Comet FB coupes are the same length and weight as a 1st gen
Barracuda, but have a 3" shorter wheelbase, so why bother? 



I'm thinking the best bets would be the 70-80 Pinto/Bobcat runabout, or
the 79-93 Mustang/Capri fastback.  They'd be great with either the the
air-cooled or intercooled 140 I4 turbo, but that's a really hard-to-find
 engine and I think it'd ruin the "cost" and "easy parts" categories.  You
could stuff a hi-po 289 or 302 v8 under the hood, but I don't know how
$$ they are (or their parts), so that might not work.  Forget the Boss
302 - way too rare and $$.







Mopars look really good on paper - there are three I can think of and
they're all A bodies.  The B,
C, D, E, F, J, M, and R bodies are just too heavy and/or have too much
overhang for rallying.  So either a 1964-1966
Barracuda, a 1967-1969 Barracuda, or a 1970-1976 Duster/Demon/Dart
Sport.  The engine would have to be either a built 273 or 340
V8.  I'm inclined to say the 273, as you can squeeze a ton of HP out of
it, it likes to rev just as much as the 340, and it's lighter.  I
thought about a 225 slant 6 Hyperpak to save weight - but because it's canted, I'd be
worried about L/R cornering balance.







But then.......





AMC seems to have won.....maybe.  The first AMC offerings I could think
of didn't fit the bill: 65-69 Rambler (no fastback), and the 65-67
Marlin (too heavy and rare).  But then I remembered the 70-72 Hornet
fastback-ish 2dr coupe and its cousin the 79-83 Spirit.  Not everyone
knows that a 1979 Spirit (AMX) with a 304 V8 won their class in
the "24 hrs at Nurburgring" race in Germany (the
drivers/crew were called "Team
Highball." It's an AMAZING story), going up against Porches, Alfas,
Fiats, Citroens, Lancias, etc.  As far as engines go, a 360 V8 might
make them too front heavy for what I'm looking for, but a built 304 V8
would work - maybe even a Typhoon 343?  The one thing I don't know about
 AMC is the parts availability.  The Hornet and Spirit are cousins, but I
 don't know how plentiful parts are for them or what will be the total
cost to "rally them up" compared to a Chrysler or Ford car.

However, the numbers for both cars look really good on paper.  There's
even a 4wd version of the Spirit sold as the SX/4 Eagle - but it's rare,
 so I doubt it'd work:







70-72 Hornet 2dr fastback

Wheelbase: 108 in







Length: 180 in







Weight: 2,650 lbs



79-83 2d Spirit FB




Wheelbase: 96 in






Length: 167 in






Weight: 2,500 lbs







Compare that with the Mopars (which are a bit heavy):







64-66 'Cuda:




Wheelbase: 106 in




Length: 188 in




Weight: 2,950 lbs









67-69 'Cuda FB:




Wheelbase: 108 in





Length: 193 in





Weight: 2,910 lbs









70-76 2d Dart FB




Wheelbase: 108 in






Length: 193 in






Weight: 3,100 lbs







......and the two Fords:









70-80 Pinto FB




Wheelbase: 94 in








Length: 163 in








Weight: 2,100 lbs









79-93 Mustang FB




Wheelbase: 100 in








Length: 179 in








Weight: 2,600 lbs







So what do you guys think?  What car would you rally given those criteria?  Or would you pick something else entirely?



35
Tech- - Engine / Can't set timing after electronic ignition swap
« on: June 06, 2011, 06:11:40 AM »

Quote from: POLARACO
Quote from: dana44
15 degrees sounds a little bit much for fuel mileage, 12 would be better.
Agreed
Well that's good, because I'm on the shy end of my guess - I'm probably at 11 degrees +/- 1 degree.  It's running pretty good, so I think I'll let sleeping dogs lie.

Thanks for the recommendation, Sjak.  I think I will pick up the Equus 3568 - or at least something like it.  I certainly could have used it this past weekend.


36
Tech- - Engine / Can't set timing after electronic ignition swap
« on: June 05, 2011, 09:39:01 AM »
Got it!  Reset everything to TDC - turned the engine by hand for those last few degrees - double checked that the dizzy rotor was advanced just past #1 cyl and she fired up beautifully.  After that, it was just a matter of turning the distributor enough to guess where 15 degrees advance is ('cause I can't actually SEE the #s with the water pump in the way).

Man, oh MAN, what a difference electronic ignition makes.  I can't believe I waited this long.  Its like I'm driving a brand new car.  :)

Thanks for the help, guys.



37
Tech- - Engine / Can't set timing after electronic ignition swap
« on: June 05, 2011, 03:22:02 AM »

Quote from: dana44
I just answered this on the "other" site as possibilities and verifies.
Other site?  What other site?  There are no other sites.  :P


38
Tech- - Engine / Can't set timing after electronic ignition swap
« on: June 05, 2011, 03:21:15 AM »

Quote from: POLARACO

I don't like the big difference in the reluctor gaps though. . .   Almost like the shaft is bent



Yeah, the vacuum advance is not hooked up on the distributor and is plugged on the carb.

I thought about the bent shaft, too.  Maye the dizzy was machined poorly?  The bracket that supported the stator was bent - it gave a different gap at the top than at the bottom of the reluctor.  I had to bend the unit (carefully!) while it was still in place to get a straight north-south gap.

But I don't know if all that would cause the problems it's having.  I'll try again today, while taking pics (maybe video?), and see what's going on.


39
Tech- - Engine / Can't set timing after electronic ignition swap
« on: June 04, 2011, 05:53:41 PM »
Pretty much what the title says: after swapping out the leanburn in my car for an orange box ignition module, I can't get the timing of the engine to come down from where it is now - about 35-25 degrees advance.  I'm trying to get it at 14-16 degrees advance.  When I turn the distributor clockwise to retard the timing, the timing doesn't follow suit, the engine runs worse, and - a few times - even backfired through the thermoquad (giving my eyebrows a nice dusting with flame).

Two things I noticed about the work I did today:

*The reluctor in the replacement distributor has a pretty big variance in gap from vane to vane.  I set the recommended 0.008" gap at the closest distance, but other vanes will go as wide as 0.022".  Could that be somehow screwing with the ignition?

*I put a 4-post ballast resistor in place of my 2-post.  It gets REALLY hot with the key in "run".  Like, too hot to touch (it burned me a bit).  Did I wire the electronic ignition improperly?  Could that somehow affect the spark?

I've gotten the car to run - so I know I didn't install the distributor 180 degrees off, or get the plugs in the wrong order - but it can't stay running without really stomping on the gas.  I just can't seem to get the timing back down.

Any ideas?



40
This is just an FYI post for anyone adding/upgrading the front and rear sway bars + associated bushings in their '73-'81 B & R body cars.  I hope this is able to save someone some time as it was maddening to go through to find all this out.  But, man.....the upgrade was totally worth it.

Front:
This concerns an upgrade to the largest front sway bar Mopar offered for these cars - the 29mm bar (1 1/8"), and the associated bushings that work.  If you upgrade to (or have) a smaller bar, either 21mm (13/16") or 24mm (15/16"), you won't have problems finding poly shaft link bushings that fit.  Energy Suspension supplies them.

Sway Bar Shaft Link Bushings:
I could not find anyone that makes a poly bushing for a 29mm (1 1/8") bar that fits the factory Mopar link.  You will have to modify the link to accept a universal bushing - but any machine shop can do this quickly and cheaply (~$50).  More on that below.  Energy Suspension makes a universal poly bushing w/ clamp to fit, #9.5112 (~$28)

Sway Bar Link Isolators:

Energy will give you 4 pair (8 total) + washers in part #9.8105 (~$18)

Arm Strut Shaft Bushings:
You have two options with this. 1) The Moog K7064 (~$9) fits, but it's rubber.  2) You can get a poly bushing for this, but there's some waste involved.  Energy Suspensions offers this bushing for the arm strut shaft in poly AS PART of their B-body front sway bar rebuild kit for a 15/16" bar, #5.5142.  Be warned, there is no split in this bushing, so you either have to split it to get it on the strut, or remove the strut and slide it on.  Plus, you'll have unused parts when you're done.

Rear:
The rear sway bar for B & R bodies is 19mm (3/4").  If you're going factory, make sure you get the leaf spring hangars along with the links, clamps, and screws.

Sway Bar Shaft Link bushings:
As with the front bar, I could not find anyone that makes poly bushings to fit the factory link.  You have three options: 1) Keep the factory link and modify it to make it servicable to accept rubber repro bushings.  2) Get new factory links and rubber bushings as a set.  3) Modify the factory link to accept universal poly bushings.
If you want to go with 1 or 2, Kanter is your place: #SL18248 for bushings, #1828 for new links.
If you go with 1, you will probably have to go to a machine shop to make the bushing servicable.  They are fusion welded, not bolted, so it will need to be split - ~$35 at a machine shop.
I went with 3, and modified the factory links (exactly like the front links, cost ~$50 and is explained below) to accept Energy Suspension universal poly bushings, #9.5106 (~$20)

Sway Bar Link Isolators:
These isolators are the same as for the front link, so if you purchase the 8 bushing set from Energy (#9.810) you'll have enough for both F&R links.

Sway bar Shaft Bracket Bushings:
The brackets will accept a universal style poly bushing - the same bushings from option 3 above: #9.5106.  You will have to use the clamp provided from Energy as the factory clamp is too small to go around the bushing.

Leaf Spring Pad Set:
When putting in a rear sway bar, you have to swap out the leaf spring hangars for ones that accept sway bar links (standard hangars do not).  So you might as well replace the leaf spring pads with poly ones since you're already there.  Energy Suspension supplies 'em as a set for L&R - #5.6106 (~$55)

Leaf Spring Bushing Set:
If you have factory oval-eye leaf spring bushings, you can also have these replaced L&R in poly from Energy Suspension, #5.2110 (~$70)

How to modify the F & R links to accept universal bushings:
Honestly, it's a bit more $$ up front if you can't do it yourself, but if you plan on keeping your car, this is the way to go as the universal style of bushing is super EASY to get in polyurethane (and this is where the manufacturing industry is headed).
1) Cut off the clamps at the base of the shaft, to keep its length factory correct.
2) Fusion weld a flat piece of appropriate-grade metal on the link shaft where the clamps used to be with the following dimensions:  4 1/2" L x 1 3/8" W  and 1/8" thick.  Have holes drilled in both ends 1 1/2" from center (total 3" apart) to accept the bolts used to clamp the bushing to the new base.
3) That's it.  Super easy.  If you can't do it, a machine shop can in a day.

Hope this helps and I hope this gives a sense of the cost involved.



41
General Tech / Air cleaner vacuum diaphragm - restore?
« on: May 19, 2011, 06:48:51 AM »

Quote from: dana44
How about plugging the vacuum with a nipple to keep anything from going inside it, then soaking them in the molasses to get rid of the rust.
Molasses?    Ok - but because there's a metal rod that comes down from the diaphragm, it's gonna be hard soaking the bottom in molasses unless the whole assembly is submerged.  I can't lay it flat.

So if molasses and water gets inside it won't harm the inner workings of the diaphragm?

Quote from: dana44
Use a rust inhibitor before painting.
Would I use this as a primer or would the primer go over it?  Got any brands / recommendations?


42
General Tech / Air cleaner vacuum diaphragm - restore?
« on: May 19, 2011, 01:18:12 AM »
I'm now the proud owner of a mid-'70s dual snorkel air cleaner.  It's a bit rough, so I have some work to do.  But it fits my car exactly, has no holes/modifications for a lean-burn, AND came from the factory without an OSAC valve, so it has the block-off plate, instead. (sweeeet!)  However, my question is with the vacuum heat riser diaphragms:





They're a bit rough, too, but I want to reuse them since they both hold vacuum. (and they're each $70 a pop to replace!)  But I don't know how delicate this mechanism is.

How easy are these to ruin?

I'm thinking they're too small to glass bead.  So I guess I have to sand and/or chemically remove the rust off the tops and bottoms, then paint them Mopar orange - but I don't know what will happen if water, rust dust, paint, etc. gets "in" the diaphragm.

Anyone have tips/tricks/advice?



43
Tech- - ELECTRICAL / Am I shallow? Maybe.....
« on: May 18, 2011, 11:39:58 PM »

Quote from: POLARACO

He'll fix you up.  I sent him a note and told him to take care of you
Thanks.  I'll send him an email.  No offense to Snotty - but I just don't want to deal with the "make your own ends" type of plug wires.  Taylor makes a nice set of those in orange.....but I'm doing too much right now and I need "plug 'n play" items if I'm going to be ready for Carlisle in July.


44
Tech- - ELECTRICAL / Am I shallow? Maybe.....
« on: May 18, 2011, 08:13:12 AM »
....but I want a set of orange wires w/ 8mm+ thick silicone jacket, RFI-shielded, and w/ 180 degree boots for the plugs.  I can't find them, but I can find orange ones like that that are 7mm thick.  I know thicker shielding is better for the life/performance of the wires so I shouldn't compromise on that.....

....but I WANT ORANGE WIRES!!!!  

So maybe I am shallow for going with the "pretty" part instead of better-preforming, boring, black wires.

But before I commit to buying the set I found that comes closest to what I want, (here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330561249251&viewitem=#vi-content ) I was wondering if anyone knew of another set that's closer to what I want in the color I want?



45

Quote from: firedome
I have a drill press if you want to use it Dom...
I wouldn't even know to drill into something like polyurethane.....

Do you use high speed / low speed?  What style bit?  Do you use lubrication or not?  If so....what kind is best?

This would be an expensive part to screw up while learning how to ream an 11/16" hole into a 1 1/8" one properly.  If I end up off by more than 1/32", I've probably just ruined the bushing.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 17
© 2008-2014 Steve Hobby • © 2015 Allpar, LLC