I'm officially down to one car, but I haven't given up working on old crap. :thumbsup:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/3261E43E-8319-4749-B759-17E3281CCB14_zpspzbkfzhg.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/3261E43E-8319-4749-B759-17E3281CCB14_zpspzbkfzhg.jpg.html)
Instead of buying a new project car, I decided to invest some money into fixing up my dad's Corvette. I'm not planning a NCRS restoration, but I just want to get it running, driving, and maybe looking better too.
The car was horribly abused and repaired before my dad got it in 1978, but it still goes down the road. The engine is tired and the suspension could use some work.
I'm planning a stock rebuild on the motor this winter. Maybe a slightly hotter cam.
My first order of business is replacing the horrible Cragar S/S's with some Torq Thrust D style mags in the proper size and offset. Not only are these ugly, they are too wide and the offset is all wrong for a Corvette.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/2E5A33AA-B5E9-48FC-931B-C1BF9DEA08B7_zpsklw6xnuw.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/2E5A33AA-B5E9-48FC-931B-C1BF9DEA08B7_zpsklw6xnuw.jpg.html)
Probably going with these:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/aew-1117-5734/overview/ (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/aew-1117-5734/overview/)
(http://static.summitracing.com/global/images/prod/xlarge/aew-1117-5712_xl.jpg)
It will be fun to learn about old Chevy small blocks and use the other side of my socket set for once. :lol:
I'm also thinking a front disc brake swap may be in the cards. Non power front drums can be kinda spooky.
Holy sidewall.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 18, 2014, 09:22:32 PM
I'm also thinking a front disc brake swap may be in the cards. Non power front drums can be kinda spooky.
That's what I started with, then I caught pro touring fever. Be warned. Or give in now. Giving in is much more fun.
Yeah, there was a bad conversion there from vintage tire size to metric. :lol:
The new tires will be 215/65-15s, down from 215/75-15s.
Also, got it started today. I think the accelerator pump was sticky, but it got better as it ran more.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/itruns_zpsbf649f0c.mp4)
I'm guessing that's a '64 based on what I can see? IIRC, '65 got front discs, so you could just upgrade the brakes to '65 spec and still retain some level of 60s authenticity.
It's a 63
Quote from: MX793 on April 19, 2014, 07:21:06 AM
I'm guessing that's a '64 based on what I can see? IIRC, '65 got front discs, so you could just upgrade the brakes to '65 spec and still retain some level of 60s authenticity.
Most 1965 models got 4 wheel disc brakes, but it's probably cheaper just to buy an aftermarket kit. I don't know how many parts you have to gather up to make '65 brakes work.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ssb-a137-3/overview/year/1963/make/chevrolet/model/corvette (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ssb-a137-3/overview/year/1963/make/chevrolet/model/corvette)
Sounds like fun. Good luck with it.
p.s. These wheels would be perfect...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiJ7ciIz50lrERGpG01aAIXIbL1STzUYNo3wvEHndjUvDodQ--)
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 21, 2014, 04:57:04 AM
Sounds like fun. Good luck with it.
p.s. These wheels would be perfect...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRiJ7ciIz50lrERGpG01aAIXIbL1STzUYNo3wvEHndjUvDodQ--)
Ok, you buy em. :lol:
I like the gray centers, but I think my dad likes the polished centers better. Boooo. I think the gray looks more 1960s.
I found some firestone tires that aren't white letter dog turds in 215/65-15, but I wish I had more selection. I could pay $300 more and get 17s but they just don't look period correct, IMO.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 21, 2014, 06:26:46 PM
I like the gray centers, but I think my dad likes the polished centers better. Boooo. I think the gray looks more 1960s.
I found some firestone tires that aren't white letter dog turds in 215/65-15, but I wish I had more selection. I could pay $300 more and get 17s but they just don't look period correct, IMO.
Agree on the 17s. I saw a resto-mod Vette with retro-styled 17s and it just looked... off. Tires were just too low profile.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0027IRJ3O/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1398727409&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0027IRJ3O/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1398727409&sr=8-1&pi=SY200_QL40)
I think I like these better. Thoughts?
(http://www.jonesysautoclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PC110165.jpg)
There's some debate on Corvette lower rear control arms (they call em strut rods) are more angled than the half shafts. The camber gain curve is pretty aggressive as it was made for bias ply tires. They sell a kit that lowers the inboard strut rod mounting points and makes the camber gain almost nothing.
Seems to me that this would make the handling worse and cause track changes. It also lowers the roll center, which is a can of worms in of itself.
ANY amount of tinkering will affect things and even if you're an automotive engineer it's hit or miss how the changes will affect handling/ride....
I personally wouldn't be changing the stock setup (which was obviously tweaked by those who knew what they were doing) without some money available to fix any negative effects.....
I'll take a closer look tonight. I know nothing about old vette suspensions, but a former GM vette developer and pooprod fanatic works with me. He can break it all down for us.
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on April 29, 2014, 08:27:34 AM
ANY amount of tinkering will affect things and even if you're an automotive engineer it's hit or miss how the changes will affect handling/ride....
I personally wouldn't be changing the stock setup (which was obviously tweaked by those who knew what they were doing) without some money available to fix any negative effects.....
Keep in mind this car was developed a LONG time ago. I don't think they even believed in crumple zones back then. They tried to make the entire body of the car not crumple as much as possible. An old worn corvette is far from being some finely tuned piece of engineering prowess.
Yeah there's a lot of big gains that can be made with old 60's car suspensions. Not sure about this one, though.
There's more engineering in it than you probably think. Their test/analysis tools were very limited but they were clever bastards.
IMO it's going to be enough work just to get the car to factory specs - new u-joints, new bushings, new springs, new shocks, good set of tires - and it'll pay big dividends.
C3 Vette's use a lower mounting position. I'd say moving to that bracket would be a good idea - is the one you're looking at more extreme than the stock C3?
It's my thought that the lower strut rod should be closer to parallel with the halfshafts, and that the distance between the center of the wheels and the lower strut mounting point should be roughly equal with the distance between the inner u-joints and the inner strut mounting point.
http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?parta~dyndetail~Z5Z5Z50000050b~Z5Z5Z525876~P269.95~~~~S41U004S15982435993050~Z5Z5Z5~Z5Z5Z50000050B~~~ (http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?parta~dyndetail~Z5Z5Z50000050b~Z5Z5Z525876~P269.95~~~~S41U004S15982435993050~Z5Z5Z5~Z5Z5Z50000050B~~~)
Here's the link to the kit.
Quote from: MrH on April 29, 2014, 08:37:54 AM
Keep in mind this car was developed a LONG time ago. I don't think they even believed in crumple zones back then. They tried to make the entire body of the car not crumple as much as possible. An old worn corvette is far from being some finely tuned piece of engineering prowess.
True, and I don't doubt that tuners have figured out some pretty awesome stuff. Still, GM spent a LOT of money getting the best product they could to market, keeping costs down of course. So while there is definite room for tweakage, I still would be cautious.
Every car is a compromise.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 29, 2014, 09:34:55 AM
There's more engineering in it than you probably think. Their test/analysis tools were very limited but they were clever bastards.
IMO it's going to be enough work just to get the car to factory specs - new u-joints, new bushings, new springs, new shocks, good set of tires - and it'll pay big dividends.
GM aren't clever bastards now. They definitely weren't clever bastards half a century ago :lol:
If they were that clever the pro touring scene wouldn't be so lucrative.
What made you consider this upgrade?
If you plan on keeping the rest of the suspension stock and haven't had any issues with it, it might be best to save the money. If you've noticed it and want to fix the camber curve and don't mind a $200 order, go for it.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 29, 2014, 09:02:29 PM
What made you consider this upgrade?
If you plan on keeping the rest of the suspension stock and haven't had any issues with it, it might be best to save the money. If you've noticed it and want to fix the camber curve and don't mind a $200 order, go for it.
Want to replace the strut rods anyways. One of them was bent.
How much are normal strut rods?
Quote from: MrH on April 29, 2014, 08:27:38 PM
GM aren't clever bastards now. They definitely weren't clever bastards half a century ago :lol:
Not so sure about that - the Volt, C7, ZL1 and 6.2L Silverado are pretty clever...
Quote from: GoCougs on April 30, 2014, 09:29:56 AM
Not so sure about that - the Volt, C7, ZL1 and 6.2L Silverado are pretty clever...
You're a fool if you think muscle car suspensions were clever, though.
Clever could be used to describe some of the Trans Am racers who modified the cars to get around the issues, but not the stock set ups.
The Corvette wasn't a muscle car. It was a sports car.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 30, 2014, 01:24:35 PM
The Corvette wasn't a muscle car. It was a sports car.
It's an old argument but anything that went quick in a straight line was considered a muscle car.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 30, 2014, 02:30:25 PM
It's an old argument but anything that went quick in a straight line was considered a muscle car.
Muscle cars are intermediate-sized vehicles. The Corvette is not a muscle car. Camaros and Mustangs are not muscle cars. Torinos, GTOs, Chevelles, 442s, Gran Sports, Chargers, and Road Runners were muscle cars.
Quote from: MX793 on April 30, 2014, 03:02:18 PM
Muscle cars are intermediate-sized vehicles. The Corvette is not a muscle car. Camaros and Mustangs are not muscle cars. Torinos, GTOs, Chevelles, 442s, Gran Sports, Chargers, and Road Runners were muscle cars.
Muscle cars were also generally big engine versions of normal boring intermediate sized cars, not something that was designed from the start to go fast. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes it's all relative; but no, a Corvette doesn't fit
Quote from: MX793 on April 30, 2014, 03:02:18 PM
Muscle cars are intermediate-sized vehicles. The Corvette is not a muscle car. Camaros and Mustangs are not muscle cars. Torinos, GTOs, Chevelles, 442s, Gran Sports, Chargers, and Road Runners were muscle cars.
It's an old argument. :huh: Initially, when the mid-sizes first arrived and they started sticking big-blocks into them, they defined the muscle-car segment. Then they started sticking big-blocks into anything they could, including sports cars and pony cars. Many consider the 427 Cobra a muscle car.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 30, 2014, 03:12:19 PM
Muscle cars were also generally big engine versions of normal boring intermediate sized cars, not something that was designed from the start to go fast. Yes, there are exceptions, and yes it's all relative; but no, a Corvette doesn't fit
Of course it does...if it had a big-block. They went fast in a straight line and didn't handle well.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 30, 2014, 03:47:09 PM
It's an old argument. :huh: Initially, when the mid-sizes first arrived and they started sticking big-blocks into them, they defined the muscle-car segment. Then they started sticking big-blocks into anything they could, including sports cars and pony cars. Many consider the 427 Cobra a muscle car.
And there are people who order their steaks well done and cover them with A1 sauce; but generally speaking, these are not people with opinions that matter.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on April 30, 2014, 04:20:49 PM
And there are people who order their steaks well done and cover them with A1 sauce; but generally speaking, these are not people with opinions that matter.
As a '63 Corvette with a 327 was not considered, by most, a muscle car, the discussion isn't relevant here. It's closer to the sports car definition.
Don't get this forum going on sports cars. :lol:
Muscle car, pony car, Corvette car, whatever. Argue all you want about semantics, but 99% of domestic cars from the 60's did not have "clever" suspensions.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 30, 2014, 05:22:29 PM
Don't get this forum going on sports cars. :lol:
Muscle car, pony car, Corvette car, whatever. Argue all you want about semantics, but 99% of domestic cars from the 60's did not have "clever" suspensions.
Most cars from everywhere on the planet in the 60's didn't have clever suspensions.
Quote from: hotrodalex on April 30, 2014, 09:37:11 AM
You're a fool if you think muscle car suspensions were clever, though.
Clever could be used to describe some of the Trans Am racers who modified the cars to get around the issues, but not the stock set ups.
Look, an expert ;). Mopar's torsion bar front suspension was pretty clever and apropos to this thread even the now ~$50MM Ferrari 250GTO of 1963 didn't have IRS.
Quote from: FoMoJo on April 30, 2014, 03:48:38 PM
Of course it does...if it had a big-block. They went fast in a straight line and didn't handle well.
Big block Corvettes handled handled quite well for day, esp. the C3; pretty much better than most anything other than the very rare handling-centric homologation-type cars (Z/28, AAR 'Cuda, etc.).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 01, 2014, 09:15:24 AM
Look, an expert ;). Mopar's torsion bar front suspension was pretty clever and apropos to this thread even the now ~$50MM Ferrari 250GTO of 1963 didn't have IRS.
I never claimed there weren't any clever things (see 99% quote from a few posts back), so just stop now.
There are improvements to be made, the designs are far from perfect. See the change from the C2 bracket to the C3 bracket as proof.
The fact is that a ( if not the) major component that the suspension was designed around is already long gone and never going to be replaced- unless somebody knows where they can get bias ply performance tires in modern tread compounds.
That setup is meant to respond to body roll by increasing camber- which isn't a bad thing, but because of the way tall profile bias ply tires work, it does this way too much for a more modern tire. Lowering the inner mount of the strut I'd going to correct some of that.
How much is too much? How much is not enough; well shit boss, that's above my pay grade.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 01, 2014, 09:38:31 AM
I never claimed there weren't any clever things (see 99% quote from a few posts back), so just stop now.
There are improvements to be made, the designs are far from perfect. See the change from the C2 bracket to the C3 bracket as proof.
Stop? I'm just getting started. Mopar built WAY more than 1% of the muscle/performance cars of the era.
The improvements are enabled via better/different tire technology just as was the case in the '30s with the move to pneumatic tires. If the industry were still riding on that older tire tech there will be little if any improvement so the equivalency to today (not clever, lots of "improvements" now available) doesn't quite hold. They were as clever as they could be, just as automakers of today are.
K no one cares
We've learned lots more than that about handling in the last fifty years. In the early sixties, it was still being debated whether or not grip had anything at all to do with tire size- devotees of the Newtonian model of friction being independent of surface area still held court for the most part.
More to the point though, our definition of what constitutes good handling has changed as well- and anybody who's watched old race footage of cars exhibiting extreme understeer while negotiating a turn will agree.
It's not like this is an obscure car that nobody's ever fiddled with before either. People have been making these faster and better handling successfully for decades now.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 01, 2014, 10:13:28 AM
Stop? I'm just getting started. Mopar built WAY more than 1% of the muscle/performance cars of the era.
The improvements are enabled via better/different tire technology just as was the case in the '30s with the move to pneumatic tires. If the industry were still riding on that older tire tech there will be little if any improvement so the equivalency to today (not clever, lots of "improvements" now available) doesn't quite hold. They were as clever as they could be, just as automakers of today are.
Yes, they were as clever as they could be. Which isn't clever at all by today's standards. And tires did improve. Things have progressed drastically. No, super expensive Ferraris at the time didn't have IRS. But hey, they all do now. That's what we're comparing. Then vs. now, not brands back then.
I like how you're hassling over new vs old while I'm slapping shit on a station wagon from the same era and nobody cares. There aren't any old suspension ideas that are better than new ones (ignoring cost cutters like beam axles). Buy newer = drives better.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on May 02, 2014, 02:24:57 PM
I like how you're hassling over new vs old while I'm slapping shit on a station wagon from the same era and nobody cares. There aren't any old suspension ideas that are better than new ones (ignoring cost cutters like beam axles). Buy newer = drives better.
OK then. You're going to fuck up the brake balance in that beast by putting modern brakes on one end.
Happy now?
Pretty much as I keep saying, they were clever back then, as much as they could be.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 02, 2014, 03:08:30 PM
OK then. You're going to fuck up the brake balance in that beast by putting modern brakes on one end.
Happy now?
No - prop valve. Cut out this weak bitchsauce.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on May 02, 2014, 08:07:23 PM
No - prop valve. Cut out this weak bitchsauce.
Your hacksaw and duct tape fabricated brackets are going to fail and cause you to plow into a bus full of young ladies on their way to the Nina Hartley School of Cinematic Arts and Amateur Gynecology Institute.
Jesus, she's gotta be nearing 60 by now...
Quote from: GoCougs on May 02, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Jesus, she's gotta be nearing 60 by now...
Which is why she gave up the "acting" gigs.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on May 02, 2014, 08:07:23 PM
No - prop valve. Cut out this weak bitchsauce.
Those are normally used to cut power to the rear, which would only magnify the problem. :lol:
Took the Corvette down the road for the first time in 2 years.
I think the Corvette has the 4.56 or 4.11 with a close ratio trans. It turns 3000 rpm at around 55 mph and around 4000 at 70 mph. Insanely high rpms for an old V8, but man it is fun to bang off those shifts. :lol:
The brakes are pretty scary. Inconsistent pedal feel with lockup coming very easily. I think they need to be bled and readjusted. If they still scare the shit out of me, I'll look into the disc brake swap for the front. Pedal effort is heavy, but that's OK.
The motor is absolutely gutless. It starts sputtering upon heavy acceleration and has nothing above 3000 rpm. I think the carb needs to be pulled apart and cleaned. Also it has old gas in it too.
Also, it has the old 2nd gear "pop-out" issue if you're not under acceleration. It's a known issue with these, but we'll tackle it this winter.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 10, 2014, 02:18:33 PM
Took the Corvette down the road for the first time in 2 years.
I think the Corvette has the 4.56 or 4.11 with a close ratio trans. It turns 3000 rpm at around 55 mph and around 4000 at 70 mph. Insanely high rpms for an old V8, but man it is fun to bang off those shifts. :lol:
The brakes are pretty scary. Inconsistent pedal feel with lockup coming very easily. I think they need to be bled and readjusted. If they still scare the shit out of me, I'll look into the disc brake swap for the front. Pedal effort is heavy, but that's OK.
The motor is absolutely gutless. It starts sputtering upon heavy acceleration and has nothing above 3000 rpm. I think the carb needs to be pulled apart and cleaned. Also it has old gas in it too.
Also, it has the old 2nd gear "pop-out" issue if you're not under acceleration. It's a known issue with these, but we'll tackle it this winter.
You may also want to clean out the distributor and make sure the points are clean. It may simply be getting weak spark in addition to dud gas or a gummed-up carb.
Yeah, we'll check that too, but I think the carb needs a rebuild. Just pulled off the carb:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/B232F6E4-DDE6-4D62-B4B9-7AD21301BF8E_zpsmavlnezo.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/B232F6E4-DDE6-4D62-B4B9-7AD21301BF8E_zpsmavlnezo.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/2E30CD9A-2A25-4262-93BC-ED5D196EC69D_zpsxxburksp.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/2E30CD9A-2A25-4262-93BC-ED5D196EC69D_zpsxxburksp.jpg.html)
look at dem secondaries
I can't figure out what model number the carb is. I know the intake manifold traces back to a 1966 Chevrolet fullsize car and the block traces to a 1965 fullsize Chevrolet with a 2 speed powerglide.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/3C92F51D-AAD7-4E6D-90EF-95D5610014E6_zpsvlrkpqku.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/3C92F51D-AAD7-4E6D-90EF-95D5610014E6_zpsvlrkpqku.jpg.html)
A pic from Saturday:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/F852FB97-60C0-4250-8A08-044EB1C3A7AC_zps0gw6yypc.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/F852FB97-60C0-4250-8A08-044EB1C3A7AC_zps0gw6yypc.jpg.html)
Carb is post-'68 at least. Before '68, the model numbers were stamped on that round part just to the left of where it says Quadrajet. Model number for that one should be stamoed on the right side just above the throttle shaft for the secondaries. The fourth digit is the year.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 11, 2014, 10:59:37 PM
Carb is post-'68 at least. Before '68, the model numbers were stamped on that round part just to the left of where it says Quadrajet. Model number for that one should be stamoed on the right side just above the throttle shaft for the secondaries. The fourth digit is the year.
I don't think so. I believe it's a 67 or earlier. There are no numbers on that side of the carb.
I think there was a tag on it that has gone missing over time.
Four Jets are the best. Look at quadrajetparts.com, they have some identification resources that might help.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 11, 2014, 11:20:52 PM
I don't think so. I believe it's a 67 or earlier. There are no numbers on that side of the carb.
I think there was a tag on it that has gone missing over time.
Possible, it just doesn't look like the tag was ever there.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on May 12, 2014, 12:05:32 AM
Four Jets are the best. Look at quadrajetparts.com, they have some identification resources that might help.
Been there, done that.
I've googled the casting numbers and found a few other accounts of people with lost tags.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 12, 2014, 12:16:16 AM
Possible, it just doesn't look like the tag was ever there.
Well, it doesn't say "place ID tag here" but I've seen tags in that spot on other quadrajunks.
Worst case is you can identify it just by taking it apart now and comparing the gaskets vs the kits. Most kits apply to at least a half-dozen carb numbers. From the outside it looks pretty close to the one I have.
What's a carburetor?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 12, 2014, 12:52:06 PM
Well, it doesn't say "place ID tag here" but I've seen tags in that spot on other quadrajunks.
Yeah, that where it goes on early carbs, but they're pretty well attached and I've not seen one just fall off before; and I'd think prying it off would leave marks.
Hey fuel injection is just a set of electrically actuated fuel leaks...
Ordered a Pertronix Ignitor III and a Flame Thrower III coil.
Also got a book on how to rebuild and modify your Quadrajunk.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/CED9504A-CBF3-490E-B363-799458C52337_zpskle4hkst.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/CED9504A-CBF3-490E-B363-799458C52337_zpskle4hkst.jpg.html)
Pulled apart the distributor today. Turns out it's got an original distributor. The aluminum tag says it's a 1963 corvette distributor assembled in April of 1963. It had 50 years of gunk inside of it so I cleaned it out with a parts washer and mineral spirits. I'm sure it will work much better with an electronic ignitor, new seals, and a fresh cap and rotor.
Quadrajunk has many parts and tiny passages, but I think we can figure it out. It's soaking in minerals spirits over night.
I bought a new fan and clutch for it, but it's closer to the engine than the old fixed fan. It's not shrouded by the shroud, so I may return it.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 23, 2014, 08:34:19 PM
Quadrajunk has many parts and tiny passages, but I think we can figure it out.
it helps if you have two or three of them to compare.
Its even better if one of them is put together right.
It ran before, it will run again!
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 12, 2014, 12:16:16 AM
Possible, it just doesn't look like the tag was ever there.
It has brass caps, only the early ones had those. You're wrong.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 24, 2014, 12:04:41 PM
It has brass caps, only the early ones had those. You're wrong.
Well, fine!
Junk it and get a Carter/Edelbrock. All your dreams will come true.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 24, 2014, 02:16:42 PM
Junk it and get a Carter/Edelbrock. All your dreams will come true.
The quadrajet is better than those knuckle dragging ape carburetors.
Only if it works
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 24, 2014, 02:03:05 PM
Well, fine!
It's important that you know you suck. :lol:
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 24, 2014, 03:22:12 PM
Only if it works
It did and it will. Just needed a rebuild.
Those big secondaries are a huge performance advantage, IMO.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 24, 2014, 03:23:10 PM
It's important that you know you suck. :lol:
Hey, you had the thing in front of you and weren't quite sure. I had two pictures, and not from the angle that I could tell much from.
But, yes, I was wrong.
I'd get a 1000cfm dominator on there.
Don't worry about if it can actually flow that much air, just pump a shit load of fuel down that bitch and watch it go.
Atleast that's standard practice around here.
Edelbrock carbs don't like my dad's 427.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 24, 2014, 03:21:36 PM
The quadrajet is better than those knuckle dragging ape carburetors.
Ever read the hot rod mags or go to car shows? Virtually none of the high end modified street carb'd engines have Q-Jets (or T-Quads). Ditto for the highest performance engines of the era (which by today's modding standard are fairly average in performance) - L79 327, DZ 302, LT-1 350, 383/440 Magnum, 426 Hemi, Boss 429, LS-6 454, etc. (they either had the Carter AVS/AFB (which is now the Edelbrock AFB) or some sort of Holley).
Holleys are cool but a pain for garage queens.
From what I read, Holleys are good for performance, but have shitty fuel economy on the street. Edelbrocks are good for people without the brains to learn how the Rochester works.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 24, 2014, 10:14:20 PM
From what I read, Holleys are good for performance, but have shitty fuel economy on the street. Edelbrocks are good for people without the brains to learn how the Rochester works.
The solution ;)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/corvette9/HPIM0369.jpg)
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 25, 2014, 06:49:48 PM
The solution ;)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v222/corvette9/HPIM0369.jpg)
Yeah, Webers are good for people with deep pockets.
Those unfiltered air horns are good for sucking in engine destroying debris. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 25, 2014, 06:52:24 PM
Yeah, Webers are good for people with deep pockets.
Those unfiltered air horns are good for sucking in engine destroying debris. :lol:
You CAN get filters for them you know.
But, my experience with webers on VWs is that they only really work good at full throttle.
A PO stuck helper springs over the rear shocks to help support the rear end of the car. A normal person would have just replaced the worn leaf spring. :hammerhead:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/FDA7A942-CDA2-401C-A8C2-5B8C910B5E89_zpsnvz7btki.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/FDA7A942-CDA2-401C-A8C2-5B8C910B5E89_zpsnvz7btki.jpg.html)
The differential rear cover is cracked. This is where the rear spring mounts. It's been broken since at least 1977, so no emergency, I guess. :lol:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/C6D39AE1-42DD-4292-86AE-EF67DBA7A835_zpstryfegvz.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/C6D39AE1-42DD-4292-86AE-EF67DBA7A835_zpstryfegvz.jpg.html)
Carb pulled apart:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/36B92691-4AF7-4267-A525-D8977519EB56_zpsg2lzlke5.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/36B92691-4AF7-4267-A525-D8977519EB56_zpsg2lzlke5.jpg.html)
Did the old JB weld over the leaky plugs trick for early Quadrajets.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/A4894622-682A-433C-92B0-163EBEA7AB2F_zpsko9vaxmm.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/A4894622-682A-433C-92B0-163EBEA7AB2F_zpsko9vaxmm.jpg.html)
Got KYB Monotube rear shocks, a new leaf spring, all new bushings, and a stronger rear end cover coming. Also realized one of the wheel cylinders was leaking, so those will be replaced.
Once that's done, the likelihood of death while operating the car will decrease by 50%. :lol:
The front suspension has rotted bushings, bad shocks, and a loose rag joint, but I'm less concerned with it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2014, 07:07:08 PM
You CAN get filters for them you know.
But, my experience with webers on VWs is that they only really work good at full throttle.
We had a 48 IDA on the Mazda. It wasn't bad once it was tuned properly. They're also really cool looking.
Wouldn't start worth a damn in the cold, though.
Anybody ever rebuild a GM steering box?
I'm looking into a rebuild kit for $80.
Is it a Delphi 700 series?
You can get a rebuilt one for just a bit more, I think. Unless you wanna do the work. But I think I paid $80 for a new one from a Monte Carlo that has way less slop and isn't boosted so much. (Compared to a late 60s Chevelle, not sure what the Corvettes are like)
It's manual.
Got the car running, but still need to tune in the timing. The battery ran out of juice as we were cranking it a lot trying to get it set correctly.
I'm thinking the issue is the starter. It was drawing a ton of current and heating up the cables, so I'm thinking it's time to get a remanufactured unit.
This direct drive starter is a monster. I placed a bottle cap on it for scale:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/B451AA76-271B-491D-B289-4B092E1D2F05_zpsvexxvxkz.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/B451AA76-271B-491D-B289-4B092E1D2F05_zpsvexxvxkz.jpg.html)
Squeeky clean Quadrajet with rebuilt distributor and new Pertronix coil:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/928ED24E-F4ED-4146-AF30-F92EE59DE64E_zpsm3jjzwts.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/928ED24E-F4ED-4146-AF30-F92EE59DE64E_zpsm3jjzwts.jpg.html)
Asked about 16" rims on a Corvette forum. At least 1 post was useful. (sigh)
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c1-and-c2-corvettes/3480911-pictures-of-c2s-with-16-rims.html#post1587082424 (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c1-and-c2-corvettes/3480911-pictures-of-c2s-with-16-rims.html#post1587082424)
:lol:
Here's a nice '63 with 16's.
I think they look way better than 17's or 15's.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-CHEVROLET-CORVETTE-ROADSTER-TRIPLE-RED-RESTORED-VETTE-SELLING-NO-RESERVE-/121358256043?_trksid=p2054897.l4275 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-CHEVROLET-CORVETTE-ROADSTER-TRIPLE-RED-RESTORED-VETTE-SELLING-NO-RESERVE-/121358256043?_trksid=p2054897.l4275)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 07, 2014, 10:59:29 PM
Asked about 16" rims on a Corvette forum. At least 1 post was useful. (sigh)
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c1-and-c2-corvettes/3480911-pictures-of-c2s-with-16-rims.html#post1587082424 (http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c1-and-c2-corvettes/3480911-pictures-of-c2s-with-16-rims.html#post1587082424)
:lol:
Today I learned that they don't make 16" tires anymore...
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 07, 2014, 11:49:25 PM
Today I learned that they don't make 16" tires anymore...
Wat?
Quote from: mzziaz on June 08, 2014, 01:42:54 AM
Wat?
Oh, reading the responses at the Corvette forum that was linked, that's all.
Of course they make 16 inch tires still, and will fo rthe forseeable future too.
Oh, you've found some forum "knowledge"!
Quote from: mzziaz on June 08, 2014, 02:02:28 AM
Oh, you've found some forum "knowledge"!
I was especially impressed when the one chap explained that I could find 17 inch wheels if I did a search for "17s"
Unfortunately, stupid google thinks this has something to do with airplanes.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 08, 2014, 03:08:57 AM
I was especially impressed when the one chap explained that I could find 17 inch wheels if I did a search for "17s"
Unfortunately, stupid google thinks this has something to do with airplanes.
:lol:
One of the worst parts of being a mustang owner is having to wade through the Norwegian amcar forums when I need something.
Its like the political threads here. So many opinions, so few facts.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 07, 2014, 11:19:03 PM
Here's a nice '63 with 16's.
I think they look way better than 17's or 15's.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-CHEVROLET-CORVETTE-ROADSTER-TRIPLE-RED-RESTORED-VETTE-SELLING-NO-RESERVE-/121358256043?_trksid=p2054897.l4275 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-CHEVROLET-CORVETTE-ROADSTER-TRIPLE-RED-RESTORED-VETTE-SELLING-NO-RESERVE-/121358256043?_trksid=p2054897.l4275)
I like.
Well, they're right in as much as you'll have a harder time finding performance tires of the correct OD with a 16" tire versus a lower profile 17" tire. I ran into this with the Mustang when I wore out the OEM 17" tires. The OEM tires had a 60 aspect ratio, and I could only go up another 10mm in width and still fit on the rim, which limited me to no lower than a 55 series tire. Very little in hi-po summer tires with more than a 50 aspect ratio. I think there were only 2 or 3 on Tirerack, versus a dozen if I went up to a wider, 18" wheel.
That said, this isn't a resto-mod and you probably don't care about having really high performance tires. A modern grand touring tire or sport all season is likely better than what came on those cars from the factory.
And I agree, the 16" wheel seems to be the sweet spot. Still enough sidewall to look reasonably authentic, but it fills the wheel well a bit better than the 15s.
Quote from: MX793 on June 08, 2014, 06:29:13 AM
Well, they're right in as much as you'll have a harder time finding performance tires of the correct OD with a 16" tire versus a lower profile 17" tire. I ran into this with the Mustang when I wore out the OEM 17" tires. The OEM tires had a 60 aspect ratio, and I could only go up another 10mm in width and still fit on the rim, which limited me to no lower than a 55 series tire. Very little in hi-po summer tires with more than a 50 aspect ratio. I think there were only 2 or 3 on Tirerack, versus a dozen if I went up to a wider, 18" wheel.
That said, this isn't a resto-mod and you probably don't care about having really high performance tires. A modern grand touring tire or sport all season is likely better than what came on those cars from the factory.
And I agree, the 16" wheel seems to be the sweet spot. Still enough sidewall to look reasonably authentic, but it fills the wheel well a bit better than the 15s.
Likely better? Even Ching-Chong Squeelmaster All Seasons are better than 6.70x15 bias plies. :lol:
Got the car started. Runs a lot better now, but still has a weird issue where it won't return to a proper idle after a quick blip of the throttle. It wants to idle low, but give it a little gas and it will return to normal. Could the choke pull off cause this?
Also, it has a weird intermittent popping sound out the exhaust at idle. With the ignition and carburetor sorted, I'm thinking there must be a valve issue. Perhaps the valves are leaking?
Quote from: mzziaz on June 08, 2014, 03:35:58 AM
:lol:
One of the worst parts of being a mustang owner is having to wade through the Norwegian amcar forums when I need something.
Its like the political threads here. So many opinions, so few facts.
Yes, yes...poor little European doesn't like our brash American capitalism. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 08, 2014, 04:04:37 PM
Got the car started. Runs a lot better now, but still has a weird issue where it won't return to a proper idle after a quick blip of the throttle. It wants to idle low, but give it a little gas and it will return to normal. Could the choke pull off cause this?
Yes.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 08, 2014, 04:14:48 PM
Yes, yes...poor little European doesn't like our brash American capitalism. :lol:
Norwegian amcar forums. I´m sure we have world class boneheads.
Quote from: mzziaz on June 08, 2014, 05:13:33 PM
Norwegian amcar forums. I´m sure we have world class boneheads.
I was referring to us.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on June 08, 2014, 04:33:51 PM
Yes.
I'm going to have my dad pick up a new choke pull off this week. I tested the current one and it leaks.
Thinking about pulling the body off this winter. How hard could it be?
What's gonna be hard is all the sins you're gonna find (and will have to correct now that you see them) ;).
Quote from: GoCougs on June 09, 2014, 08:19:35 AM
What's gonna be hard is all the sins you're gonna find (and will have to correct now that you see them) ;).
:hesaid:
Unless you have a good reason or want a lot more work, probably best to not open the closet door and see the cobwebs. :lol:
Well, the frame is rotted and the RF isn't exactly where GM intended it to be. The car flexes when it's on jack stands enough to make the passenger side door not open.
There's a place over in GR that specializes in Corvette frame repair, I might give them a call.
Just ordered some 16x7 Torque Thrust II's and 225/60-16 Firestone Wide Ovals. I guess they do make 16" tires! Comes with a nice $70 rebate on top of the low price.
https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Firestone&tireModel=Firehawk+Wide+Oval+AS+%28H-+or+V-Speed+Rated%29&partnum=26HR6FHWAS (https://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires.jsp?tireMake=Firestone&tireModel=Firehawk+Wide+Oval+AS+%28H-+or+V-Speed+Rated%29&partnum=26HR6FHWAS)
This will make a huge difference in the way the car drives and looks. I actually consider it a safety item because the old rims were the incorrect offset, causing a dangerous rubbing condition that could have worn right through the sidewall. Also, the tires were about 14 years old and bargain basement brand garbage.
Sweet.
I have yet to really notice a huge driving difference with my new tires, but it was reassuring to see the guys from Hot Rod using the same tires to drive a 700 hp Camaro from Indy to SoCal in the snow.
Are the current tires radials at least?
http://www.autoextraparts.com/cavalier3.html (http://www.autoextraparts.com/cavalier3.html)
All seasun SR4 is good tire
lolz
Did you fix the rotting frame? or just do the obvious thing and forget about such a minor issue and buy some cool wheels?
:lol:
The frame is not an easy fix. It will have to wait.
I think it may take precedence over the engine.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 17, 2014, 03:00:51 PM
The frame is not an easy fix. It will have to wait.
I think it may take precedence over the engine.
How do you fix a rotting frame?
Quote from: FoMoJo on June 17, 2014, 04:46:28 PM
How do you fix a rotting frame?
Start cutting and welding, or if it's really bad just start over. I'm guessing it's not that bad, if he's dumping money into other things(wheels). Otherwise if it was really bad it would normally stop a project in it's tracks.
I don't want to put the car out of commission. It's been bad for 35 years.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/0CA08176-7A28-4216-8DFA-FE3CD46A505B_zps8t7yslj2.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/0CA08176-7A28-4216-8DFA-FE3CD46A505B_zps8t7yslj2.jpg.html)
Teaser pic from my dad
I think you went too small on the tire size. Can barely see them!
Should have gone for silver painted wheels instead of polished/chrome. JMHO.
Quote from: MX793 on June 20, 2014, 09:40:20 AM
Should have gone for silver painted wheels instead of polished/chrome. JMHO.
Eh, they don't really make any.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/79F01EE9-8A7A-4EBE-BE24-1369658501D3_zpsqxohsmpy.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/79F01EE9-8A7A-4EBE-BE24-1369658501D3_zpsqxohsmpy.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/D5B8C2DC-54FF-4694-B0CB-4C24856270C5_zpslip1gyli.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/D5B8C2DC-54FF-4694-B0CB-4C24856270C5_zpslip1gyli.jpg.html)
Car runs like crap, even after the carb rebuild. Same issue, no balls under acceleration, bogging at WOT.
Help me Quadrajet Jesus!
I know it ran fine a few years ago, so all of the rods and jets must be correct, right?
Vacuum hose? :lol:
Ignition and timing are good, yes?
What did you set the timing to?
Are all the spark plugs wires hooked up? :lol:
4* BTDC
Are all the spark plugs tight? How's the fuel pump?
Yes.
Present.
Did you check the accelerator pump?
Hmm, welp, that's the end of my troubleshooting know-how. :P
:lol:
One time I had this funny popping backfire sound in the MG that I just couldn't figure out. I did everything-- new hoses, new ignition, set the timing, replaced all the gaskets around the intake, tuned the carbs, probably sacrificed a Morris Minor to Lucas-god... Turns out I was an idiot, and I didn't disconnect the vacuum advance on the distributor before setting the timing. It was many degrees from right. :facepalm:
Worst part was I had been trying to get help from the MG forum, and was frustrated that people kept suggesting the same things that I was sure I had already done, like setting the timing.
What's the cam in it? Stock?
I would advance the timing and see if that fixes it. Try 10-14* BTDC.
Quote from: FoMoJo on June 21, 2014, 06:50:43 PM
Did you check the accelerator pump?
Also present.
The RH accelerator pump passage to the primary is clogged. LH squirts away, RH is a dribble.
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 21, 2014, 06:56:43 PM
What's the cam in it? Stock?
I would advance the timing and see if that fixes it. Try 10-14* BTDC.
No thanks. This is a 1960's motor running on 2012 gas. Not enough octane.
I run even more than that without issues. But obviously the real issue was the clog.
What's your CR?
8.5:1
That's quite a bit lower than 10.5:1
Most guys still run around 10* with higher CR. But if it runs well at 4* and an unclogged carb then don't worry about it.
You also need to consider the vacuum advance.
Quote from: hotrodalex on June 22, 2014, 09:57:51 AM
Most guys still run around 10* with higher CR. But if it runs well at 4* and an unclogged carb then don't worry about it.
Chances are they've got a big cam with lots of lobe separation, or maybe AL heads or fuel injection, etc.
Have you checked if your mechanical advance is working?
Yes. We rebuilt the distributor.
I fixed the clog, but the float got stuck somehow and puked gas all over the motor. Got it almost reassembled, but the damn mosquitoes were making it too hard to work.
My dad used really crappy Chevy orange paint on the manifold and that's peeling up now. :lol:
Anyone ever buy a Robbins top?
Maybe? I got a top for my old Miata in 2004 that is holding up to this day. It was a cheaper top, might have been a Robbins.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 17, 2014, 07:22:21 AM
http://www.autoextraparts.com/cavalier3.html (http://www.autoextraparts.com/cavalier3.html)
All seasun SR4 is good tire
That's a block away from where I work. :lol:
Quote from: SVT666 on June 24, 2014, 11:23:25 AM
That's a block away from where I work. :lol:
Could you do me a favor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QjTIm-vSKg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QjTIm-vSKg#)
We fixed the carb issues and the car is running well now. I stopped in the middle of our street, reved it to 3 grand, dumped the clutch, mashed the gas...no elevens, no squeel...took a few seconds to hook up. It seems the clutch is fucked.
We pulled off the clutch inspection cover from the bellhousing and the clutch disc looked plenty thick. I noticed that the PO had out washers between the pressure plate and flywheel. :wtf:
We pulled the washers out and tightened the PP back up. Now the clutch pedal goes to the floor because the release bearing isn't pressing on the springs anymore.
It seems that the car has a mystery clutch on it. It doesn't have as many "fingers" as a normal clutch. I don't know what they did, but I'd rather just start over because some moron screwed it up.
What was wrong with the carb?
Clogged accelerator pump passage
Last clutch kit I bought had a bag with about 60 washers in it.
I thought that was normal. :huh:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on June 28, 2014, 07:01:22 PM
Last clutch kit I bought had a bag with about 60 washers in it.
I thought that was normal. :huh:
ADD WASHERS BETWEEN PRESSURE PLATE AND FLYWHEEEL TO REDUCE TIRE WEAR
:lol:
I guess it's as good a time as any to rebuild the old T10. It pops out of second gear and leaks like a sieve.
Chevrolet made it very hard to remove the trans with the body on. The transmission crossmember is part of the frame and not removable.
The existing clutch is a 3 finger type instead of a diaphragm. New diaphragm clutch is on the way.
Clutch looks bad:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/71690FF7-5653-44CF-B44B-CC1418F6893A_zpse7yxk6ng.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/71690FF7-5653-44CF-B44B-CC1418F6893A_zpse7yxk6ng.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/BFBEEE60-0184-49E9-95FA-F357C3F1AB1E_zpsyikmlifc.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/BFBEEE60-0184-49E9-95FA-F357C3F1AB1E_zpsyikmlifc.jpg.html)
Yup.
Was there anything on this car that was good?
No.
I decided early on that I only wanted to fix safety and driveability issues, not add performance or restore cosmetically. Too bad everything I dig into is either incorrect, about to fail, or already broken. :lol:
You mean a car project turned out to require more work than you anticipated?
I've only read about such things in books and heard tales from the elders.
:lol:
Well have fun, should turn out pretty nice with everything you're fixing. This is your dads car right? He better give the thing to you in a few years.
My dad never drives it anyway. I can drive it anytime I want, so it's as good as mine anyway.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 30, 2014, 07:46:00 AM
My dad never drives it anyway. I can drive it anytime I want, so it's as good as mine anyway.
Better yet, let him store it and pay the insurance.
It's a $20,000 classic car for free, effectively.
I'm kind of debating over when to pull the body and fix the frame. I was planning on pulling the motor out this winter and rebuilding it, but I'm wondering if it might be better to leave the oil breathing beast as is and fix the frame.
This is potentially very expensive work as sections would need to be cut out and new stuff would need to be welded in place by specialists. There's a place nearby that specializes in Corvette frame repair, but it would be expensive.
I'm concerned because the door gaps change when the car is jacked up. The passenger side door won't even open when the car is on jack stands. It's been this way for a long time, but I'm wondering if the body is holding the frame together. :mask:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 30, 2014, 09:11:44 PM
I'm kind of debating over when to pull the body and fix the frame. I was planning on pulling the motor out this winter and rebuilding it, but I'm wondering if it might be better to leave the oil breathing beast as is and fix the frame.
This is potentially very expensive work as sections would need to be cut out and new stuff would need to be welded in place by specialists. There's a place nearby that specializes in Corvette frame repair, but it would be expensive.
I'm concerned because the door gaps change when the car is jacked up. The passenger side door won't even open when the car is on jack stands. It's been this way for a long time, but I'm wondering if the body is holding the frame together. :mask:
I'd say that frame/chassis repair is an absolute must. You might risk irreparable if it gets too stressed and something collapses. Get the frame/chassis done and you've got a car that's worth keeping.
I agree, its the first(and only) think you should be doing at this point. If the frame can not be repaired and made sound then you really don't have much on your hands. It needs to be fixed. Might as well bite the bullet and get it done.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/649CCDD9-961C-4F5F-9735-6E439D8D8E19_zpsj3e44yq7.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/649CCDD9-961C-4F5F-9735-6E439D8D8E19_zpsj3e44yq7.jpg.html)
The old Borg Warner T10 is out. I need to check codes on this thing, but it has a cast iron housing with an aluminum tailshaft. I'm told the '63 corvettes were supposed to have all aluminum cases.
There was a lot of metal debris in the oil. The gears look fine, but I'm sure the slides are toast.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/8460A700-0EB1-4B50-80C5-3BF6D16AD84F_zpssvncefyd.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/8460A700-0EB1-4B50-80C5-3BF6D16AD84F_zpssvncefyd.jpg.html)
Broken spring on the clutch fork. Does this mean I have to replace the entire fork?
Well, the transmission was built in 1959 so it's from a 1960 Chevrolet passenger car or Corvette. What a mishmash.
Fancy new wheels all mounted:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/42CBDAAD-829A-4015-B8CF-2E1D956974E2_zpsszqb1fou.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/42CBDAAD-829A-4015-B8CF-2E1D956974E2_zpsszqb1fou.jpg.html)
Flywheel has some cracks and hot spots in it. Should I resurface this one or use the lighter aftermarket one from Autozone? The new one feels about 10 lbs lighter which might make it a PITA to drive in traffic. I'm not a big advocate of lighter flywheels on street cars.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/D4697CDA-E9D2-4807-9081-3BFAFD419492_zpsgqqtt3fl.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/D4697CDA-E9D2-4807-9081-3BFAFD419492_zpsgqqtt3fl.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/F6B0C418-7195-406B-BE79-AE9DBC9011BE_zpsptnzxhja.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/F6B0C418-7195-406B-BE79-AE9DBC9011BE_zpsptnzxhja.jpg.html)
The cast iron bellhousing is incorrect. The car is supposed to have an aluminum one.
If you will recall, the PO put washers between the flywheel and pressure plate which probably brought the fingers out more since the clamp force was less. We removed the washers and bolted the PP back up, but the throwout bearing flopped around without depressing the fingers.
The fork looks correct, the clutch linkage looks correct, the clutch pivot looks correct, throwout bearing is the same as the new one, etc. The only things we know are wrong for a '63 are the bellhousing and old pressure plate. Not sure if the bellhousing or clutch are different enough to cause the issue we were seeing though. :huh:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/23758D1B-E1B6-46DB-84B5-6AEF4867C6AE_zpsrhijumds.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/23758D1B-E1B6-46DB-84B5-6AEF4867C6AE_zpsrhijumds.jpg.html)
I found a picture of this bellhousing with the proper clutch fork. It looks different than the one we have. I noticed that the fork kind of got hung up at a certain point in the travel, like the bellhousing wouldn't allow full movement, so I think this may cure it. The fact that dumbass PO tried to cure the issue with washers between the flywheel and PP is a testament to his stupidity.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1956-62-Corvette-CAST-IRON-Bellhousing-3733365-F187-X-4-speed-bell-58-2x4-FI-/131221165486?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1e8d6415ae&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1956-62-Corvette-CAST-IRON-Bellhousing-3733365-F187-X-4-speed-bell-58-2x4-FI-/131221165486?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1e8d6415ae&vxp=mtr)
Well, pulled apart the trans and everything looks great. All parts are present, synchros look good, dog teeth are fine, slides are fine, gears are fine, all parts present. All I can figure is that the issue is a bad adjustment on the shifter.
That's like the first thing you took apart that wasn't junk. :lol:
Started working on the rear suspension. It had "helper" springs installed because the PO didn't want to fix the sagging rear spring:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/FDA7A942-CDA2-401C-A8C2-5B8C910B5E89_zpsnvz7btki.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/FDA7A942-CDA2-401C-A8C2-5B8C910B5E89_zpsnvz7btki.jpg.html)
Got the rear spring loose. Spoiled the threads on the mounts by doing the ol' impact unscrew-thunk method. Shoulda used a jack to support the spring.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/59CDB181-F5C5-4944-BECB-86236F2BD257_zpsf2unu7x7.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/59CDB181-F5C5-4944-BECB-86236F2BD257_zpsf2unu7x7.jpg.html)
Got the shock loose by cutting the piston rod then cutting the upper mount bolt. The bolt was seized inside the bushing.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/96DC3207-F29A-4699-B08D-0899D80BD0B4_zps9man7mcm.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/96DC3207-F29A-4699-B08D-0899D80BD0B4_zps9man7mcm.jpg.html)
New and old bellhousing. The correct bellhousing is WAY lighter than the old cast iron one.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/65834130-3906-4859-9AA7-96EB6D110FB5_zps0sni1tsr.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/65834130-3906-4859-9AA7-96EB6D110FB5_zps0sni1tsr.jpg.html)
Cracked front cover for the trans. Thinking we should replace:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/75A96B2D-033C-44DB-8C6C-CAE0B7247F8A_zps4uqttr5n.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/75A96B2D-033C-44DB-8C6C-CAE0B7247F8A_zps4uqttr5n.jpg.html)
The only thing I can come up with for what's causing it to pop out of 2nd gear is the slider that connects the hub to the gear.
They have specially cut torque lock sliders that are supposed to prevent this. At $31 a piece, I might as well go for it.
Ordered the sliders and the bearing cover.
I hear a lot of talk about GL-4 vs GL-5 gear oil. Some people say new style GL-5 gear oils are corrosive to brass synchros in old transmissions. I always ran GL-4 (Redline MT-90) in the Z. I bought some of this for the Vette's old T-10:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/bpo-023-7729/overview/ (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/bpo-023-7729/overview/)
I have a bunch of MT-90, for the very reason you stated. When in doubt I'd put the brass friendly stuff in anything.
Pulled out the differential. Turns out it's a 4.11 posi, which is pretty good
The reason why I pulled the diff out:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/D18CD31C-3832-483D-8E38-D5CDA512A0A0_zpsggcd1x7o.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/D18CD31C-3832-483D-8E38-D5CDA512A0A0_zpsggcd1x7o.jpg.html)
Old cover vs. new. New one is reinforced at the mounting area for the transverse leaf spring.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/7A65F344-FFB9-4DEA-B781-31215632455B_zpsmbm9khnx.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/7A65F344-FFB9-4DEA-B781-31215632455B_zpsmbm9khnx.jpg.html)
Crossmember cleaned up, but it's still rusty inside. I want to have it acid dipped. Anybody know where I could look for this service?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/54E8BD0C-45EA-4717-A6EC-7D0ABC006502_zpseabgtfkj.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/54E8BD0C-45EA-4717-A6EC-7D0ABC006502_zpseabgtfkj.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/0BCC426E-6D7D-42D2-BE29-5D57DEB4CF4F_zpsig9jpol0.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/0BCC426E-6D7D-42D2-BE29-5D57DEB4CF4F_zpsig9jpol0.jpg.html)
I know of a place in Cincy but that won't help you much. :lol: Use teh googles.
And if 4.11 posi is "pretty good", what is " excellent"?
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 02, 2014, 09:50:13 PM
I know of a place in Cincy but that won't help you much. :lol: Use teh googles.
And if 4.11 posi is "pretty good", what is " excellent"?
Probably a 3.70. I'm glad it's not a 4.56, since that would be way too rowdy for highway use.
I calculated it out to be 3000 rpm at 58 mph and 3900 rpm at 75 mph. Would be at 105 mph at 5500 rpm. 105 is fast enough in a car shaped like an airplane wing.
Yeah I'd need an overdrive to put 4.11s in. I like my 3000 rpm @ 70.
So would I, but other than NVH, what does it matter?
MPG and engine wear are a non issue.
There's a place called Rustbusters on ten mile east of John R in Madison Heights that acid dips parts like that. There's one on 8 Mile and Wyoming too, but I can't recall the name of it.
Don't know of any on the west side over there though, sorry.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 02, 2014, 09:58:32 PM
There's a place called Rustbusters on ten mile east of John R in Madison Heights that acid dips parts like that. There's one on 8 Mile and Wyoming too, but I can't recall the name of it.
Don't know of any on the west side over there though, sorry.
I'm wondering if a powder coating place would do it.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 02, 2014, 09:59:06 PM
I'm wondering if a powder coating place would do it.
Probably. Its worth asking them anyways.
Depends on the place. Some only do sandblasting. But worth it to ask.
Well, I just need the shit cleaned out of the inside of that piece of frame. I don't think a sandblaster will do that.
Nope.
Looks like this place may do it:
http://www.isstrm.com/chemical.php (http://www.isstrm.com/chemical.php)
I wanted to replace the pinion seal, but apparently there's a crush sleeve in there that has to be replaced when you untorque the pinion yoke.
http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77377 (http://www.digitalcorvettes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77377)
Bummer. I think I'll just let 'er leak.
Yeah, there almost always is.
Why are RWD differentials built like this? When you put a differential inside a FWD transmission, it's easy. When it has it's own box, it's got all this preload and shim bullshit going on.
Idunno boss.
I suppose I'm going to have to pay however many hundreds of dollars to have this thing rebuilt when the time comes.
Transmission and engine are no problem, but the differential, of all things, scares me.
I ordered a bearing retainer for the transmission. Old one is on the left, new one is on the right. Looks like a textbook example of a bad casting. Why did they ship me this junk?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/393AC18B-EB5A-4005-BAA4-0559FBF991D3_zpskx8lqobd.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/393AC18B-EB5A-4005-BAA4-0559FBF991D3_zpskx8lqobd.jpg.html)
Differential is ready for paint. These were originally unpainted, so I think I'll use a cast iron gray paint.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/888BABFB-CDE2-465F-9D1E-F96E4D2082B5_zpsavnsd0np.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/888BABFB-CDE2-465F-9D1E-F96E4D2082B5_zpsavnsd0np.jpg.html)
Painted the diff bracket, clutch fork and strut rods. Nobody sees these part, but at least I know they look nice!
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/85D9F759-D97C-4606-B9A5-75479848B680_zps4pkkpfub.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/85D9F759-D97C-4606-B9A5-75479848B680_zps4pkkpfub.jpg.html)
Strut rod crossmember looks pretty bent. I can get a refurbished one for a 68-79 Vette for $50. Worth it?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/38669EF4-9604-4609-A5D0-C82E2EFD7430_zpszjx9qyhd.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/38669EF4-9604-4609-A5D0-C82E2EFD7430_zpszjx9qyhd.jpg.html)
Rubber bushing removal the quick and stinky way:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/46B91EF3-F074-4F6D-902C-5DA9D6A32020_zpsze66idjj.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/46B91EF3-F074-4F6D-902C-5DA9D6A32020_zpsze66idjj.jpg.html)
Yeah, replace the crossmember.
Here's the 3rd gen Corvette strut rod bracket:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevy-Corvette-Rear-Strut-Rod-Mounting-Bracket-1968-1969-1970-1971-1972-1973-74-/111422595640?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item19f14de238&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevy-Corvette-Rear-Strut-Rod-Mounting-Bracket-1968-1969-1970-1971-1972-1973-74-/111422595640?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item19f14de238&vxp=mtr)
It puts the mounting points lower to the ground for less camber gain, which is good.
New vs. old:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/E70DCA49-A7EB-4978-9216-2E21BF74524C_zpsjbcqxtfw.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/E70DCA49-A7EB-4978-9216-2E21BF74524C_zpsjbcqxtfw.jpg.html)
3rd gen Corvette crossmember lowers the mounting points and emphasizes how bent the old one was. They are the same length, ignore the parallax error.
Due to the previous owner's fuckery, I am forced to buy a new steering coupler and steering shaft. They welded the coupler to the shaft for some reason.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/E80A8DCB-AD31-4619-8405-923722C83224_zpsla3v6edb.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/E80A8DCB-AD31-4619-8405-923722C83224_zpsla3v6edb.jpg.html)
So, has this become a full on frame off restoration yet, or are you still in denial about where its headed?
The body is coming off. That's already been established.
And it's not a restoration. Restorations are for NCRS F.O.G.'s with straw hats and too-short khaki shorts. I don't have enough money to fix the body.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 09, 2014, 09:20:24 PM
Due to the previous owner's fuckery, I am forced to buy a new ______
6 years later and this is still my life on occasion. :lol:
My dad has had this car since 1978. The PO is still fucking us.
New front shocks on. The fronts were in similar condition as the rears. There was some resistance there, but they wouldn't retract back out due to rust on the shaft.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/7090199F-C126-4014-AC3B-72C883A285BD_zpsccvqwwvh.jpg) (http://s.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/7090199F-C126-4014-AC3B-72C883A285BD_zpsccvqwwvh.jpg.html)
These are monotubes, but not Bilsteins. MrH will be disappointed in me. Oh well.
Got the steering coupler apart by loosening a clamp and sliding the whole steering shaft backwards. Looks like I can replace the rubber without buying a new shaft and coupler.
Finally figured out the issue with the clutch. The PO cut and rewelded the pushrod coming from the pedal so it's too short. To compensate for that, he put washers between the PP and flywheel to raise the fingers up. This caused the clutch to slip badly, but hey, he got the clutch to work...so good for him...bad for us.
The plan is to cut the the pushrod again and use a coupling nut and threaded rod to extend it to its proper length until we can get a new pushrod.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/1568A22F-8577-4296-AFF4-78E44013840C_zpsr29ayvwl.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/1568A22F-8577-4296-AFF4-78E44013840C_zpsr29ayvwl.jpg.html)
:facepalm:
Never assume anything.
What the shit?
Quote from: Rupert on August 21, 2014, 10:24:21 PM
What the shit?
Well it may have been bent or cracked which is why it was rewelded too short.
Well, I don't think he cut and welded a perfectly good part.
Is the thread pitch something standard enough to get a threaded rod to match?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 21, 2014, 10:49:40 PM
Is the thread pitch something standard enough to get a threaded rod to match?
It's a Chevrolet, dude.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 21, 2014, 11:37:21 PM
It's a Chevrolet, dude.
Yeah, is that who makes those? Crazy man.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 22, 2014, 12:02:03 AM
Yeah, is that who makes those? Crazy man.
Well, it's probably not 31/64-21 thread.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 22, 2014, 12:07:47 AM
Well, it's probably not 31/64-21 thread.
It might not be 1/2" either.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 22, 2014, 12:13:14 AM
It might not be 1/2" either.
Looks like 7/16-14 to me. All of this English thread talk as of late is making me sick. I want my metric back!
you started it man.
I see that the pushrod is bent too, I don't know if that's correct or not.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 22, 2014, 12:22:23 AM
I see that the pushrod is bent too, I don't know if that's correct or not.
That looks intentional to me.
The threaded portion is a smaller diameter, and I would suspect the failure point on that to most likely be- well exactly where it apparently was.
It does beg the question: how hard do you have to stand on a clutch pedal to bend or break that rod anyways?
PO was granny shifting not double clutching like he should.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 22, 2014, 08:47:57 AM
PO was granny shifting not double clutching like he should.
Street racing 101
Drove the car to the Grand Rapids 28th street Metro Cruise (kinda like the Woodward Dream Cruise).
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/C9C9B4C4-CB53-434D-8C52-4D7E7FAC7D7A_zpsifzbcglr.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/C9C9B4C4-CB53-434D-8C52-4D7E7FAC7D7A_zpsifzbcglr.jpg.html)
Seems to run well except for the front wheel bearings need replacement, the shifter needs adjustment and the brand new throwout bearing is being noisy.
It takes a nice picture.
Also, the 327 feels really weak. It runs OK, but it isn't fast, even with a 4.11 rear.
What modz do I need? I'm thinking cam and possibly new heads. The Quadrajet is rated for 750 cfm so no issue there.
Rebuild with cam and heads?
What intake does it have?
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 23, 2014, 09:45:16 PM
What intake does it have?
A cast iron spread bore Quadrajet one. Not much can be done there since hood clearance is almost maxed out as is.
I kind of want to keep the vintage appearance of the 327 with its oil fill tube and finned valve covers.
I'm thinking these should wake the ol' motor up:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-152123 (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-152123)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-k1103 (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-k1103)
How's the short block? Might be a good idea to refresh it before adding stuff.
Are you going to do anything to the bottom end? Have you done a compression check on this motor?
Don't listen to them. Supercharge it or scrap it.
New heads and cam is part of the rebuild, no matter what. I know the seals are all no good.
What's the stock compression on these?
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on August 25, 2014, 11:25:02 AM
What's the stock compression on these?
Probably about 10.5:1 or something
Really, I didn't think it was that high.
A cam and a good set of heads, I would think, should be good for 350-375hp.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on August 25, 2014, 12:04:11 PM
Really, I didn't think it was that high.
A cam and a good set of heads, I would think, should be good for 350-375hp.
Designed for high octane 1960s gas, mang.
This engine was tuned for a grocery getter with a Powerglide, so I think there's room for improvement.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 24, 2014, 09:02:00 PM
I'm thinking these should wake the ol' motor up:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-152123 (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-152123)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-k1103 (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-k1103)
With that relatively mild cam and stock/low(er) compression you're probably better off with 1.88/1.50 heads. Also, if compression is low/bad bigger cam/heads will just make things worse - bottom end power will die. Since that motor already has 1.88/1.50 heads you're better off with the stock heads if there's nothing wrong.
If compression is good and since you've gone through the distributor and carb I'd look next to a bad cam. Flat tappet cams go bad relatively quick (lobes wear and then get wiped) which absolutely kills performance. Simply pull a valve cover and mic the lift via the movement of the valve (divided of course by the rocker ratio). If lift is any measurable amount less than the spec replace it. I've replaced worn cams on few engines (stock for stock) and the difference is like a new engine.
You've gotta have bad compression or something. If a 327 with 4.11s feel pokey when my 318 with 2.93s and the mildest aftermarket cam on the planet feels fun, something in the basic squeezy-bangness isn't working well.
Yeah, with a high compression 327 with headers, 750 cfm carb, electronic ignition, 4.11 positraction rear with only 3000 lbs to haul around should roast the rear tires...but it really couldn't do it!
This motor needs help.
Also, I must say it rides really nicely with a new rear spring and KYB monotube shocks.
MrH's stuff must be overpriced because these are half the cost! :lol:
I apologize for my dad's featherlite foot. :lol:
1963 Corvette running (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcTueRoFbfg#ws)
Ended up fixing the first gear engagement issue by adding washers under the transmission mount to make clearance for the underside of the short throw Hurst shifter. The levers were hitting the crossmember. Now it gets all 4 gears perfectly. No grinding or popping out anymore. The torque lock sliders solved the issue. A cheap fix for only $30 a piece.
Thinking about the frame issues. I'm not sure if it can be repaired. I can have a new one made from scratch for like $5000. :mask:
It's bent in the front and rusty in the rear.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 06, 2014, 07:34:55 PM
Thinking about the frame issues. I'm not sure if it can be repaired. I can have a new one made from scratch for like $5000. :mask:
It's bent in the front and rusty in the rear.
Sounds like a good investment.
Quote from: FoMoJo on September 06, 2014, 07:40:47 PM
Sounds like a good investment.
Yeah, the car has belonged to my dad since 1978. It's not really an investment, but it might be worthwhile given that the car is unlikely to go anywhere.
The frame issues cause a lot of other issues, so I feel it needs to be resolved for us to continue driving it without damaging the body.
When I swapped engines we had a fun time getting the transmission crossmember back into place. A couple of years later, took it to a frame shop and got it straightened. When I did the clutch a couple of weeks ago, trans crossmember went back in like a Lego block. So apparently the frame shop did a good job.
Oh well ain't that fancy. It's removable! Must be nice!
This frame has complex issues that I don't quite understand the full extent of yet.
The passenger side wheel is further in than the drivers side wheel. Why? I don't know.
Is a solid lifter cam worth the headaches?
I kind of want to duplicate the 365 hp L76 motor using the 30-30 cam.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 10, 2014, 05:54:10 PM
Is a solid lifter cam worth the headaches?
I kind of want to duplicate the 365 hp L76 motor using the 30-30 cam.
For you, who I assume knows to do he adjustments on time, and for a car drive. But occasionally?
Sure, why not?
It might be kinda gutless below 4000 rpm. Right now, the power peak is about 4800.
Supposedly those L76s would pull hard up to 7000 rpm. The tach doesn't go any higher than that. :lol:
I'm wondering if a more modern cam profile could retain the top end power with more low end.
Pass on the solid lifter cam - pretty much no benefit these days for a street machine and there will be major drawbacks (low vacuum, gutless at lower RPM), plus the L76 cam is meant for 11:1 CR which you're not going to be able to run. Cam grind tech has come light years since then. Plus, pretty much most everyone chooses too big a cam.
Anything more than a moderate grind like the Edelbrock Performer RPM on a 327 and you're looking at driveability and vacuum issues (and you might have vacuum issues even). The pinnacle of cam tech is a hydraulic roller but that will get pricy and you'll probably want a shop to do the build.
All in all your best bang for your buck will be a bored/stroked 383 with an Edelbrock Performer RPM and 2.02/1.60 heads (more displacement makes a cam run smaller) and a 9:1 CR. That will provide a lot of smooth usable power that a L76 clone couldn't even dream of providing.
What do I need vacuum for? I don't have any vacuum accessories.
I'll likely go with Summit Racing assembled cast iron heads and an 1105 hydraulic cam. I think the 1103 is unnecessarily mild.
It's got a 4:11 rear, so it's never lugging around anyway. The current cam is way too mild for that rear gear.
No vacuum advance on the distributor?
There is, but that may not be correct for a hotter motor anyway.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 11, 2014, 10:31:31 AM
What do I need vacuum for? I don't have any vacuum accessories.
I'll likely go with Summit Racing assembled cast iron heads and an 1105 hydraulic cam. I think the 1103 is unnecessarily mild.
It's got a 4:11 rear, so it's never lugging around anyway. The current cam is way too mild for that rear gear.
Some old hot rodder long ago said ALWAYS choose the smaller cam ;), and he's right, having been there a few times. It is possible to over cam an engine even with 4.11:1 gears. Unless you take advantage of the cam as it gets bigger it will actually make the car less usable and slower. I've been out of the scene for forever but the 1105 is sorta a big cam for a small small block. If you go stock otherwise - manifolds, dual plane intake, 1.88/1.50 heads, spread bore carb - it won't do much for you, and maybe even hurt a bit. If you go 1105 IMO you should plan on at least headers, Performer RPM intake, and Holley square bore carb.
How is a square bore carb better than a spread bore carb? It's 750 cfm.
It already has full length headers.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 11, 2014, 09:13:51 PM
How is a square bore carb better than a spread bore carb? It's 750 cfm.
It already has full length headers.
They're set up to have smaller than normal primaries for good economy, made up for by the bigass secondaries. I think I might need to limit the secondaries on mine (it feels stronger at part throttle than WOT for most of the RPM range) but I can get 18 mpg and it doesn't have a hint of lean stumble at any time, unlike my old Carter that I couldn't jet down to anything better than 14.
That being said, I don't know if I could accomplish the same just as easily with a modern Holley, but the principle still works regardless.
Change the spring tension for opening the secondaries? I have a book on Quadrajunks.
Not sure how accurate it is, but kinda neat:
http://www.camquest.com/ (http://www.camquest.com/)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 11, 2014, 09:47:09 PM
Change the spring tension for opening the secondaries? I have a book on Quadrajunks.
More restriction in the vacuum pull-off
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 11, 2014, 09:13:51 PM
How is a square bore carb better than a spread bore carb? It's 750 cfm.
It already has full length headers.
Part of it is what is available - most aftermarket performance manifolds and carbs are square bore (Edelbrock has some spread bore manifolds but looks like they discontinued their Quadrajet) and spread bore carbs are in general a PITA to tune and keep in tune.
I don't need a carburetor, I have a good one. ;)
I think that the Rochester Quadrajet design is technically superior for a street vehicle. The smaller primaries, vacuum and mechanical secondaries, and 750 cfm rating make it a very under-rated carb, IMO. I guess it's not shiny enough for most folks. :lol:
The bigger issue with the intake is getting the hood to close. The Professional Products 52001 fits a spread bore carb and fits under a Corvette hood, so I'll probably get that.
750 cfm is huge though - I use a 600 and my dad's Camaro has an 800 with performer rpm air gap intake and other similar level stuff. And even he thinks the 800 is overkill (he contemplated stealing my carb to see how it ran)
That's the beauty of the vacuum secondary, you can't really have "too much carb".
I'm forgetting my first gear tops out at 60, that's probably more of my problem...
I'm glad I don't need to worry about any of that automatic stall nonsense.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 11, 2014, 10:29:04 PM
I don't need a carburetor, I have a good one. ;)
I think that the Rochester Quadrajet design is technically superior for a street vehicle. The smaller primaries, vacuum and mechanical secondaries, and 750 cfm rating make it a very under-rated carb, IMO. I guess it's not shiny enough for most folks. :lol:
The bigger issue with the intake is getting the hood to close. The Professional Products 52001 fits a spread bore carb and fits under a Corvette hood, so I'll probably get that.
Unless it's been rebuilt and professionally tuned an out-of-box Holley or AFB with just a wee bit of work will outperform a Q-jet. The Q-jet will also take a lot of work to keep in tune.
Q-jet and T-quads came into being because automakers wanted a single carb they could slap on anything from a 318 to a 440. They also wanted automatic choke and provisions for various vacuum plumbing to fit all sorts of applications.
It's definitely possible to over do it with a vacuum secondary carb. Jetted for equivalent idle and A/F mixture a square bore 600 will perform better than a square bore 750 on a mild 302. The 750 will tend to bog and the secondaries will be slow to respond to throttle input. (The factory spread bore carbs tried to mitigate this with all the extra hardware).
That manifold doesn't appear to be a great match for that bigger Summit cam.
Holley's aren't good for cars that sit around for extended periods of time.
How's a 4Junk going to take more work to keep tuned than a Holley? I've had mine set up the same for a year now save for adjusting the choke every few months with the weather.
I kinda like the Comp Cams XE268H
CamQuest says it will produce 366hp @ 5500 rpm and 397 ft-lbs @ 4000 rpm. Not sure I believe that, but it would be fun. :lol:
10:1 should be OK with 93 octane, right?
Quote from: Secret Chimp on September 12, 2014, 01:33:13 PM
How's a 4Junk going to take more work to keep tuned than a Holley? I've had mine set up the same for a year now save for adjusting the choke every few months with the weather.
Has a lot more parts.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 12, 2014, 08:43:22 PM
Has a lot more parts.
Not really. It's pretty simple.
The biggest issue is the same with any carb. Clogs due to spoiled gas.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 12, 2014, 09:06:09 PM
Not really. It's pretty simple.
The biggest issue is the same with any carb. Clogs due to spoiled gas.
At least it won't leak out the side like a Holley.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 12, 2014, 07:13:28 PM
10:1 should be OK with 93 octane, right?
Like most things in life it depends. With the motor you've laid out - mild/moderate cam, cast iron heads, and a carb - my hunch is many/most engine builders/shops would say 10:1 CR on street pump gas is quite risky. There are things that can help though:
Bigger cam (lots of duration and overlap): mitigating max cylinder pressure (but bigger cams bring their own issues of course)
AL heads: more thermally conductive (i.e., mitigate combustion chamber hot spots)
Polishing combustion chambers and using certain pistons: mitigate combustion chamber hot spots
Port sequential F/I: more precise delivery of fuel into the combustion chamber
The more I look at the frame, the more nervous I get. I'm finding more and more anomalies.
Looking into buying a C3 frame and moving the body mounts for a C2 body. The NCRS crowd poo-poos the idea, so that probably means I'm on the right track. :lol:
This shows the differences:
http://www.71corvette.com/frames.html (http://www.71corvette.com/frames.html)
Good C3 frames can be had for around $1200. A bargain compared to a $5000-$6000 new frame.
You should put it on a C7 frame.
Looks like the lower ball joints were in such bad shape that they were popping back and forth in the socket. The uppers feel OK, but I may replace them anyway. The front coil springs were also in bad shape. One side had a collapsed coil.
I was wiring brushing the control arm of the Corvette then I looked up and realized I was kicking up a huge cloud of rust and dirt. I think I may have the black lung now, but in the event I survive I think it will look pretty good when I paint it. I really wish I could sand blast it, though.
Are they press-in ball joints or bolt-in?
They were riveted on
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 20, 2014, 11:09:26 PM
They were riveted on
The originals, then. Replacements will have bolts. Definitely just replace them all.
As I remember from doing the same job on Caddies, getting those original ball joints out was sometimes a pain in the ass.
White, tan, or black top? Original was white.
What color is the interior?
Black
Used to be dark blue.
Black.
Black.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on August 23, 2014, 05:28:46 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/C9C9B4C4-CB53-434D-8C52-4D7E7FAC7D7A_zpsifzbcglr.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/C9C9B4C4-CB53-434D-8C52-4D7E7FAC7D7A_zpsifzbcglr.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/3261E43E-8319-4749-B759-17E3281CCB14_zpspzbkfzhg.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/3261E43E-8319-4749-B759-17E3281CCB14_zpspzbkfzhg.jpg.html)
You should bring it to the car show I go to in Columbus every July.
I need a new rear gear. The poor little 327 gets so overwhelmed turning a Miataesque 4000 rpm on the highway.
My dad seems to lean towards a white top and I'm leaning towards black. Ultimately, it's my decision. :lol: White is more correct, but with an incorrect interior and paint color, who even gives a shit anymore?
Also, trying to decide between the Al Knoch top from Corvette Central for $259 or an Acme Auto top from Rock Auto for $150. Seems like the cheaper top could be a piece of shit, but I can't find any information on it.
I'm sure it's a piece of shit. That's way super cheap.
Here is the lower control arm mount on the frame. Notice the kink in the back. I think the whole frame may be trash which is why I'm looking into modding a C3 frame to fit the 63 body.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/F4FFCD16-0745-4620-AECD-5A94B2BCC5FC_zpsrbrjq4ul.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/F4FFCD16-0745-4620-AECD-5A94B2BCC5FC_zpsrbrjq4ul.jpg.html)
Springs look shot. One side had a shim in the coil. It seemed to ride too high, so I don't even know if these are correct.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/F3AAF2E0-18AE-475A-8C81-D10706FF3F6C_zpszfpa2toa.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/F3AAF2E0-18AE-475A-8C81-D10706FF3F6C_zpszfpa2toa.jpg.html)
Weird. My images show up in Safari and IE but not Chrome.
Somebody broke the internets.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 23, 2014, 10:48:14 PM
Weird. My images show up in Safari and IE but not Chrome.
Somebody broke the internets.
I had a similar problem a couple of weeks ago. Turns out I had blocked a specific image (FBC's stupid animated sig) in AdBlock, and that blocked all the images on the forum.
Quote from: Rupert on September 23, 2014, 10:51:40 PM
I had a similar problem a couple of weeks ago. Turns out I had blocked a specific image (FBC's stupid animated sig) in AdBlock, and that blocked all the images on the forum.
Ah! That's it.
FBC is a fucking asshole for that Batman sig.
Is that what got you too? :rage:
Are those progressive or just old?
Quote from: hotrodalex on September 23, 2014, 11:07:36 PM
Are those progressive or just old?
I think they're just old.
Going to pick up the shop crane and engine stand tomorrow.
I assumed that SBC pushrods would be one length and and one diameter, but apparently this is not the case. If the pushrods are not bent, can I reuse them?
Also, it seems that full roller rockers would require me to ditch the cool die cast Corvette valve covers, so that's out of the question. I'm going to go with roller tip rockers.
Yeah, lots of variations in head and rocker design over the years, so lots of different length pushrods.
I know an old school solution to valve cover clearance issues was a spacer block that just raised the valve covers; but those had the issue of creating yet another set of gaskets to leak.
But, the roller tipped rockers will be fine for what you're building.
What a shitty engine. :lol:
Just pulled off the valve covers and confirmed that it has double hump heads. Casting no 3782461
Still sounds like those heads aren't worth rebuilding. Might as well buy the Summit heads with larger valves.
I really don't think aluminum heads are worth the extra $300 over the cast iron ones.
Yes, pushrods can be reused if not worn/bent.
Thing is some roller tip rockers require screw-in studs and guide plates, which will be a PITA if not already present.
I totally think AL heads would be worth $300 all else being the same.
This is the look I'm going for:
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p126/Dynoroom/IM000946.jpg)
A Corvette needs fuel injekshin.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 26, 2014, 08:30:36 PM
A Corvette needs fuel injekshin.
It's $15,000 for a Rochester fuel injection setup. Cool vintage tech, but totally not worth it.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 26, 2014, 08:37:49 PM
It's $15,000 for a Rochester fuel injection setup. Cool vintage tech, but totally not worth it.
Mega squirt a TBI?
Electric carburetor
http://www.jegs.com/i/Holley/510/502-20S/10002/-1 (http://www.jegs.com/i/Holley/510/502-20S/10002/-1)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 26, 2014, 08:14:53 PM
This is the look I'm going for:
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p126/Dynoroom/IM000946.jpg)
Looks awesome.
Spent last weekend with a friend at a WSU football game. He's 98% done restoring a '65 Mustang. Got me thinking...
Considering these heads:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-5089/overview/ (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/edl-5089/overview/)
Also, what kind of pistons? Cast, hypereutectic, or forged?
So what is the entire plan? Having done this before I'd recommend you go with a good speed/machine shop. Tell them the kind of performance you want and they'll be able to choose the right stuff.
Those heads are good but note they can't be used with a roller cam (IMO THE most important upgrade that can be done to an old-school engine outside of fuel injection).
Not doing a roller cam. Too expensive. Gotta draw the line somewhere.
I still may still rebuild the stock heads. No matter how I add things up, it's always cheaper to rebuild the stock heads.
Like a lot of things in life the more you spend the diminished the return. You can spend $20k on a fuelie LSX 454 and it'd be a hoot, but it's not gonna be 20x more fun than a $1k bare bones budget DIY rebuild.
I think if you just went bare bones - had a local shop rebuild same block, rebuild same heads, cast pistons, mild cam, 9:1 CR, and put it all together - you'd be happy as a clam.
The sweet spot though is probably buying a long block 350 from a local machine/engine/speed shop. Ebay has tons of 300 hp 350 motors for $1,500 - $2,000. Not sure I would buy off eBay but there will surely be machine shops in your area that will have similar deals.
This particular motor was rated at 275 hp @ 4800 rpm. Even in net hp, it should still be around 220 hp. It doesn't feel like that at all.
Between the new cam and restored compression, it should be a lot better.
Easy to find out. Just do a compression check. If it looks good (~140 psi min probably on that motor) then it's more than likely a flat cam. Just get a hold of a dial indicator and measure lift on each valve. A cam swap is cheap and relatively easy.
(http://www.pineappleracing.com/ProductImages/tools/DialBase-1a.jpg)
Nah, the rings are fucked. It has bad blowby.
You'd spend almost a grand on cylinder heads, but not get a roller cam? You can get iron Vortec heads for less than half that.
IMO, rebuild everything, upgrade the cam. Don't replace the heads with new unless you're going to go all out.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 28, 2014, 03:18:39 PM
You'd spend almost a grand on cylinder heads, but not get a roller cam? You can get iron Vortec heads for less than half that.
Roller lifters are like $500. The hp loss to friction there is not much.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 28, 2014, 03:18:39 PM
You'd spend almost a grand on cylinder heads, but not get a roller cam? You can get iron Vortec heads for less than half that.
Definitely - mild/moderate roller cam with iron 1.88 heads > with mild/moderate flat cam and aluminum 2.02 heads. It would also cost less, albeit not by much (iron heads would still need to be reworked for screw-in studs and guide plates, and depending on cam, the block may need a bit of rework too).
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 28, 2014, 03:29:06 PM
Roller lifters are like $500. The hp loss to friction there is not much.
Nevertheless, I see no reason to go with fancy aluminum heads for this project. Of course, I say that without knowing what your ultimate goal is.
Also, roller cams have crazy high lifts for race engines.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 28, 2014, 03:36:32 PM
Also, roller cams have crazy high lifts for race engines.
Fuck it. Don't they make overhead cam conversion kits?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 28, 2014, 03:29:06 PM
Roller lifters are like $500. The hp loss to friction there is not much.
True, but you don't do it for less friction or more life (though those are benefits, as is less NVH esp. at higher RPM). You do it for the much steeper angle on the cam lobe.
Roller lifters can climb cam lobe slopes flat tappets can't which results in more A/F mixture entering the cylinder per unit of lift which gives cam designers far more flexibility. The net result is a broader power band and and negation to a moderate extent of the sacrifice of low end power and driveability that typically comes when installing larger-than-stock cams. Behind fuel injection roller cams have been the reason why factory pooprod engines are still alive.
When combined with roller tip pooprods and true roller rockers you'll also get more accurate cam performance (lift/duration) which means more higher RPM power (factory valve trains flex under load and RPM which results in loss in power) and smoother/quieter operation.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 28, 2014, 03:36:32 PM
Also, roller cams have crazy high lifts for race engines.
There are lots of street hydraulic roller camshafts out there from the major mfrs. Of note roller cam specs. esp. lift and duration aren't equatable with flat tappet cam specs.
You also have to ask, How much power can this car handle? Even if everything is in tip top shape drum brakes, BoF chassis, '60s suspension and typical '60s-size tires will limit the ability to safely use big power. Anything more than ~300-325 (gross) hp is probably gonna go to waste (yes, I know these cars came with more but I can only imagine that 427-powered C2 is downright suicidal by today's standards). I think you should just have a local shop do a budget rebuild of the existing 327 with a mild cam or use it as a core on a long block 350 with a mild cam. Should be easy to get 300 hp gross and it'll sound and drive great, and look great if you dress it up as shown. You'll probably spend less than $2k and be happy as can be. If you want more power in the future, well, there's always the future ;).
Yeah I just went with a new crate engine instead of messing with either the 305 smog lump that came in my car or the old 350 from my dad's car. Cheaper and easier, unless you like doing the work.
I'd shoot for 400 at the wheels. SBCs are just too cheap to build to not aim high. Drum brakes are underrated. 18-wheelers have drum brakes!
400 whp = ~550 whp gross. The only way you're getting that in a streetable small block Chevy is with $$$ forced induction or a N/A stroker with $$$ components (including fuel injection).
Big rigs use drum brakes because they're cheap and they've always used them.
500+HP out of a small block ain't that big of a deal. It will cost more than $2000, though.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ul3OUeY6U_sC&printsec=frontcover&output=html_text (http://books.google.com/books?id=ul3OUeY6U_sC&printsec=frontcover&output=html_text)
Yeah drum brakes suck. I can't believe they actually tried to race on them.
400 at the crank in a C2 would be well into the "fun" zone. 400 at the wheels would be well into the "fun but deadly" zone.
Well it's at least got mildly performance oriented 225 tires now.
Anybody ever do American style lower control arm bushings? There's a big metal rod through the bushings so I'm not sure how to get that out.
BFH
Socket of the same size + BFH.
Or a press if you fancy like that.
Wow, nobody ever called me fancy before.
Quote from: hotrodalex on September 29, 2014, 04:21:38 PM
Socket of the same size + BFH.
Or a press if you fancy like that.
No way that's enough.
I don't even know how the shaft comes out of the bushings.
http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?parta~dyndetail~Z5Z5Z50000050b~Z5Z5Z520862~P399.00~~~~S465039B1J75129625350F~Z5Z5Z5~Z5Z5Z50000050B~~~ (http://www.parts123.com/parts123/yb.dll?parta~dyndetail~Z5Z5Z50000050b~Z5Z5Z520862~P399.00~~~~S465039B1J75129625350F~Z5Z5Z5~Z5Z5Z50000050B~~~)
The insides are bigger than the bushing holes. :banghead: I may have to farm this out.
Oh I was thinking of something else.
Mopar arms are so notoriously bad my machine shop has their own separate rate for them. Spend some time researching DIY methods on forums and then call a shop, I doubt the DIY effort will be worth the $50-80 (tops) it'd cost to have someone press out/in bushings for you.
I don't even know where to bring them. If I bring it to some mechanic he's probably going to struggle with it as much as I am and charge me $70 an hour to fuck with it.
Don't you have any Old Man Mechanics where you live? I take all my cars to Old Man Mechanics.
I never use mechanics, so I don't know any.
The engine is nearly out. Just have to get a lift plate. Tear down will commence this weekend. I expect to find shitty rings and seals, perhaps a worn cam, but not much else.
OK, so I need a bigger hoist in order to reach over the wide fenders. Pulling from the front doesn't appear to be an option.
Kink at driver's side lower control arm rear mount:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/AA1C308A-4F64-47FB-ADB5-0C88FD127E12_zpssihksbef.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/AA1C308A-4F64-47FB-ADB5-0C88FD127E12_zpssihksbef.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/570E6208-2982-4872-8574-A37BDD3AD780_zpsolyfhqzx.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/570E6208-2982-4872-8574-A37BDD3AD780_zpsolyfhqzx.jpg.html)
Passenger side lower control arm mount with gangreen weld and irregular hole due to deformation:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/2EBE7A99-3B24-4D9C-B346-0643CF43C248_zpskspvs1m4.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/2EBE7A99-3B24-4D9C-B346-0643CF43C248_zpskspvs1m4.jpg.html)
Underside view of passenger side lower control arm frame mount:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/1B6344DF-DF31-41BD-8DB0-5EBB0BAC9E81_zps43augh2k.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/1B6344DF-DF31-41BD-8DB0-5EBB0BAC9E81_zps43augh2k.jpg.html)
Add all this to the piles of rust chunks inside the frame, and I'd say it's precariously held together with scrap metal.
I found a frame in New Mexico for $2500, but I'm not ready to buy it yet.
How many wrecks has this thing been in?
Jesus. That kind of damage is typically from jumping or bottoming out on RR tracks.
Yee-ikes.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 01, 2014, 05:09:11 PM
Jesus. That kind of damage is typically from jumping or bottoming out on RR tracks.
The whole front crossmember is angled back a bit.
I think dumbass ran into something doing something stupid. The whole right front was in an accident because the glass isn't good.
Eventually, we'll replace the front end with a one piece front end, but that won't be for a while.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 01, 2014, 05:38:46 PM
The whole front crossmember is angled back a bit.
I think dumbass ran into something doing something stupid. The whole right front was in an accident because the glass isn't good.
Eventually, we'll replace the front end with a one piece front end, but that won't be for a while.
How is the body panel alignment? I might worry about everything lining up on a frame that is actually straight.
We'll make it work. The front end is not a structural part of the body anyway.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 01, 2014, 05:47:32 PM
We'll make it work. The front end is not a structural part of the body anyway.
Doesn't sound like any part of the car is structural.
LOL!
It drives surprisingly well for all its problems.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/AEF6F5AA-8D6D-4D40-85C0-AEF8533C471C_zpsez2cmtyx.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/AEF6F5AA-8D6D-4D40-85C0-AEF8533C471C_zpsez2cmtyx.jpg.html)
Somebody wasn't thinking with their dipstick.
Is that first time the engine has been opened? If so that's actually very good for ~50 years. Oils back in the day were awful.
I have no reason to believe it was ever rebuilt.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 03, 2014, 08:43:04 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/AEF6F5AA-8D6D-4D40-85C0-AEF8533C471C_zpsez2cmtyx.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/AEF6F5AA-8D6D-4D40-85C0-AEF8533C471C_zpsez2cmtyx.jpg.html)
Somebody wasn't thinking with their dipstick.
So, you got the engine out?
He's rebuilding it in the car.
:lol:
Found the lost compression:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/97E37103-B0D4-4D40-AC21-5760AB5B37A3_zpskuirdrzv.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/97E37103-B0D4-4D40-AC21-5760AB5B37A3_zpskuirdrzv.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/A1ED894B-AEA3-483C-B9FA-AA090142CCCE_zpsqn6mpncn.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/A1ED894B-AEA3-483C-B9FA-AA090142CCCE_zpsqn6mpncn.jpg.html)
Deep enough to feel it with your finger.
Rod bearings look like shit and the crank is scratched:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/31D19639-F5DA-463F-ABA5-177D789D949D_zpsl1bnir6k.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/31D19639-F5DA-463F-ABA5-177D789D949D_zpsl1bnir6k.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/083CCFD1-0EAD-494A-8DA0-B8DF7A843D47_zpsqxofcnht.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/083CCFD1-0EAD-494A-8DA0-B8DF7A843D47_zpsqxofcnht.jpg.html)
Also, one of the piston rings was broken.
Other than that, it looks fine. It doesn't appear to have ever been rebuilt before. The crank will be ground and we will probably bore it to .020 or .030 over.
Some Slick 50 should have taken all that rust out.
Cam is probably wiped too. Man, a budget 9:1 rebuild with an RV cam will feel like a rocket compared to that.
Man, I'd really love to throw a roller cam in this thing, but I don't think it would be worth $400 extra right now.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 04, 2014, 06:29:50 PM
Man, I'd really love to throw a roller cam in this thing, but I don't think it would be worth $400 extra right now.
Take the block to a machine shop first. If it is shot, a new crate motor is $1500 shipped.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 04, 2014, 07:12:06 PM
Take the block to a machine shop first. If it is shot, a new crate motor is $1500 shipped.
The block is fine.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 04, 2014, 08:11:48 PM
OK. Except for the pitted cylinders.
It's not pitted, it's scratched. I doubt they are more than .030" deep. They're probably only a few thousandths deep.
Bore .300" just to make sure.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 04, 2014, 08:17:50 PM
Bore .300" just to make sure.
Yeah, let's make this a big block. :lol:
I bet you can fit 572 cubes in there
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 04, 2014, 08:22:07 PM
I bet you can fit 572 cubes in there
I need Time Lord technology...the engine needs to be bigger on the inside.
Just let the pistons share cylinders, and maybe grind cutouts into each piston for its neighbor.
Quote from: Rupert on October 04, 2014, 11:53:27 PM
Just let the pistons share cylinders, and maybe grind cutouts into each piston for its neighbor.
Square pistons. Think it will work?
Also I'm going to start fabbing up a new header/intake.
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/11/dei.jpg)
:ohyeah: Can't wait to see how this turns out. Gonna be sick!
Its like a direct turbocharger. Nobody needs all those spinning wheels, anyway.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/7147CAC0-F245-41E1-A2C9-5E42EA4113C8_zpsypjgacsd.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/7147CAC0-F245-41E1-A2C9-5E42EA4113C8_zpsypjgacsd.jpg.html)
Cam lobe is gone
I can see it. Just weld some more metal onto the tip if it is too low.
Found another lobe gone. They are both exhaust valves. They were probably getting about 0.090" of lift instead of the usual 0.400" or so.
I don't know why only 2 are bad. It's also making me think about bending over and paying $600 for a roller cam. All of the talk of ZDDP and flat tappet cam break in procedures is scaring me.
LS3?
I like my classics with a bit of modern "updates"
(http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab83/65silververt/63%20Split%20Window%20Corvette%20Restomod/DSC_0456_zps80064d22.jpg)
Makes me want an old corvette. Just need to win the lottery for something that nice.
http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c1s-and-c2s-for-sale-wanted/3530071-fs-1963-split-window-restomod.html (http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c1s-and-c2s-for-sale-wanted/3530071-fs-1963-split-window-restomod.html)
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on October 05, 2014, 09:46:43 PM
LS3?
Yup. It just drops right the fuck in. And good thing they only cost $500. :hammerhead:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 05, 2014, 10:01:02 PM
Yup. It just drops right the fuck in. And good thing they only cost $500. :hammerhead:
It's a moneypit, might as well put the wheelbarrow away and rent a dump truck and fill her up.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 05, 2014, 05:46:48 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/7147CAC0-F245-41E1-A2C9-5E42EA4113C8_zpsypjgacsd.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/7147CAC0-F245-41E1-A2C9-5E42EA4113C8_zpsypjgacsd.jpg.html)
Cam lobe is gone
Yup. Very common. That was probably your #1 reason for power loss. And even the lobes that aren't wiped are probably a wreck too.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 05, 2014, 08:56:11 PM
Found another lobe gone. They are both exhaust valves. They were probably getting about 0.090" of lift instead of the usual 0.400" or so.
I don't know why only 2 are bad. It's also making me think about bending over and paying $600 for a roller cam. All of the talk of ZDDP and flat tappet cam break in procedures is scaring me.
Just B10 life really - not all bearings go bad at the same time and flat tappet cams wear relatively quickly. I've replaced a number of cams with 100-120k that had lobes wiped.
I wouldn't worry about cam break-in. It's pretty easy. Make sure there is cam lube on then run it at ~3,000 rpm for ~30 minutes upon start up.
Cam life won't be an issue on a rebuild for a hot rod - you'll likely never get close to 100k miles.
This engine was so shot that a basic 9:1 rebuild with an RV cam will feel like big block. I'd skip the roller cam for now.
Cam break-in is pretty simple like Cougs said.
Another thing I can't figure out is what the hell does leaded gas have to do with exhaust valve seats? I get that there must have been lead in the exhaust gases, but how would a significant amount of lead get stuck behind the valve enough to cushion it as it closes?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 06, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Another thing I can't figure out is what the hell does leaded gas have to do with exhaust valve seats? I get that there must have been lead in the exhaust gases, but how would a significant amount of lead get stuck behind the valve enough to cushion it as it closes?
As a couple of tank fulls of leaded gas can contaminate a catalytic converter, it would suggest that there is still a good amount of unburned lead in exhaust gases.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 06, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Another thing I can't figure out is what the hell does leaded gas have to do with exhaust valve seats? I get that there must have been lead in the exhaust gases, but how would a significant amount of lead get stuck behind the valve enough to cushion it as it closes?
Don't need much plus the pressure/flow/turbulence of the exhaust cycle will be pretty high.
Found a '74 frame locally. Would need some modifications to work with a '63 body, but I like $800 + some fab work better than $5800.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 06, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Another thing I can't figure out is what the hell does leaded gas have to do with exhaust valve seats? I get that there must have been lead in the exhaust gases, but how would a significant amount of lead get stuck behind the valve enough to cushion it as it closes?
All I know is the tops of my valve stems were all perfectly even when I last had the rockers off and I doubt my car was religiously run with lead additive. It only matters with big constant loads.
Looking a the Comp Cams XE262H and Lunati Voodoo 60102. They look like similar grinds.
I am leaning towards the Comp cam now because it has the same intake lift as the Lunati, but less on exhaust. With full length headers and 2.5" chambered dual exhaust, there's not much restriction anyway. If I still had stock manifolds, 2" exhaust and quiet mufflers, I could see how it might help.
http://www.lunatipower.com/CamSpecCard.aspx?partNumber=60102 (http://www.lunatipower.com/CamSpecCard.aspx?partNumber=60102)
http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/cam-specs/Details.aspx?csid=85&sb=2 (http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/cam-specs/Details.aspx?csid=85&sb=2)
Looks good man.
Those cams have a fair degree of difference. Seems like a lot of lift for not a whole lot of duration. Will you get advantage with 1.88/1.50 heads and relatively small displacement? Thing is cam choice becomes a bit more sensitive with M/T as there is no converter to stall up against should the cam be a bit aggressive. Of those two I'd choose the Comp Cams, and betcha the car drives/performs better with stock manifolds, 2" exhaust and quiet mufflers.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 20, 2014, 08:47:56 PM
Those cams have a fair degree of difference. Seems like a lot of lift for not a whole lot of duration. Will you get advantage with 1.88/1.50 heads and relatively small displacement? Thing is cam choice becomes a bit more sensitive with M/T as there is no converter to stall up against should the cam be a bit aggressive. Of those two I'd choose the Comp Cams, and betcha the car drives/performs better with stock manifolds, 2" exhaust and quiet mufflers.
I'd bet it drives better if we sell it and replace it with a V6 Camry. :huh:
Wow. No. Dont be Cougstupid. Put modestly sized long tube headers on it.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 20, 2014, 08:54:24 PM
Wow. No. Dont be Cougstupid. Put modestly sized long tube headers on it.
It already has them. It's always had them since my dad got it.
On another note, I'm not sure I should trust the engine build shop's advice. They suggested a lumpy cam with over .500 of lift. Not gonna work with double hump heads. LOL
He also thought 10.5:1 compression would be good. I think stock 10:1 compression is fine (what its always had) but 10.5 is pushing it.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 20, 2014, 08:49:44 PM
I'd bet it drives better if we sell it and replace it with a V6 Camry. :huh:
What does this even mean. Meh, good luck, kinda sounds like you're gonna need it, but in the least it's fairly hard to really screw it up and relatively easy to unscrew it.
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/49178-headers-power-increase/ (http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/49178-headers-power-increase/)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 21, 2014, 07:22:23 PM
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/49178-headers-power-increase/ (http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/49178-headers-power-increase/)
"The header manufacturers sponsered that article, so it is a government conspiracy." -GoPubes
I didn't think the OEM superiority shtick would be applied to a cheap grocery-getter engine from 1965.
Grocery getter?
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 21, 2014, 08:09:15 PM
Grocery getter?
1965 Impala 327 w/Powerglide engine
AKA the 275 hp L30
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 21, 2014, 07:35:30 PM
I didn't think the OEM superiority shtick would be applied to a cheap grocery-getter engine from 1965.
Its been applied to my car, why not yours?
What kind of cam do you have that allows you to make peak power at only 3000 rpm? Is it like .250" of lift or something?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 21, 2014, 08:11:33 PM
1965 Impala 327 w/Powerglide engine
AKA the 275 hp L30
Oh I forgot it's a swapped engine.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 21, 2014, 08:54:19 PM
What kind of cam do you have that allows you to make peak power at only 3000 rpm? Is it like .250" of lift or something?
I don't know- never looked up the stock specs. The HO engines of that year were .444", but this isn't an HO motor.
Quote from: hotrodalex on October 21, 2014, 08:57:27 PM
Oh I forgot it's a swapped engine.
Same number cast in block as the original engine, incorrect stamping on the front pad.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 21, 2014, 08:11:33 PM
1965 Impala 327 w/Powerglide engine
AKA the 275 hp L30
So what good is an additional ~10 rwhp (= 16 hp @ crank) when the peak hp RPM moves up 200 rpm for a tiny motor in a lead sled like a 4,000 lb+ '65 Impala?
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 21, 2014, 08:54:19 PM
What kind of cam do you have that allows you to make peak power at only 3000 rpm? Is it like .250" of lift or something?
You need variable valve lift.
Comp Cams recommended a 218/218 .454/.454 with 110 lobe separation cam. I was actually starting to lean towards that one anyway.
It's come to my attention that flat tappets are supposed to be flat. I guess this is a common issue. I actually thought it was supposed to be dished because they all looked like this.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/95194A99-0F42-4DD2-B192-0C600DF202B0_zpseebi9ylc.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/95194A99-0F42-4DD2-B192-0C600DF202B0_zpseebi9ylc.jpg.html)
Got the bushings out thanks to a 1-1/8" hole saw and a lots of chiseling. This particular arm is questionable. The spring seat is tweaked and it appears to have been welded as well as reinforced for some reason.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/BAFD1F84-4829-43D4-A497-C1EDC815A0E6_zpstjskg7rw.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/BAFD1F84-4829-43D4-A497-C1EDC815A0E6_zpstjskg7rw.jpg.html)
Nice Skechers.
Anyways, man this is really turning into a serious project
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 22, 2014, 04:35:46 PM
Nice Skechers.
Anyways, man this is really turning into a serious project
Nope, I'm just making it driveable. NCRS stay away!
Anybody know if hypereutectic pistons are necessary for a mild build? I can get hypereutectics for $255 or cast pistons for $98.
No, you're not going to be pushing the strength of regular pistons.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 24, 2014, 07:27:49 PM
Anybody know if hypereutectic pistons are necessary for a mild build? I can get hypereutectics for $255 or cast pistons for $92.
You probably don't need them: but for an extra hunnerd dollas; it may be worth it.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 24, 2014, 08:54:37 PM
You probably don't need them: but for an extra hunnerd dollas; it may be worth it.
They also have a special coating on the skirt. I guess that's a good thing.
Also, this normally goes for over $600:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-1964-Chevrolet-Corvette-Chevy-SSBC-Front-Disc-Brake-Conversion-Kit-A137-3-/321557087481?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4ade4bc4f9&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/1963-1964-Chevrolet-Corvette-Chevy-SSBC-Front-Disc-Brake-Conversion-Kit-A137-3-/321557087481?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item4ade4bc4f9&vxp=mtr)
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 24, 2014, 07:27:49 PM
Anybody know if hypereutectic pistons are necessary for a mild build? I can get hypereutectics for $255 or cast pistons for $98.
Hypereutectic is a stupid word that tells you nothing about the actual composition and construction. So rephrase the question with specific examples, or just go with the standard cast piston.
Extra-crispy recipe pistons with silicon seasoning.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 24, 2014, 07:27:49 PM
Anybody know if hypereutectic pistons are necessary for a mild build? I can get hypereutectics for $255 or cast pistons for $98.
Just pistons or with rods? You might want to get some better heads in the future, or put on a blower.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 25, 2014, 06:55:11 AM
Hypereutectic is a stupid word that tells you nothing about the actual composition and construction. So rephrase the question with specific examples, or just go with the standard cast piston.
Well, as far as that goes, so is "cast."
Quote from: FoMoJo on October 25, 2014, 12:22:00 PM
Just pistons or with rods? You might want to get some better heads in the future, or put on a blower.
Uh, no. "Blowers" are for Cletus and Bubba.
(http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1960-1969/1965-Chevrolet-Corvette-Blue-fa-blower-nf.jpg)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on October 25, 2014, 12:29:33 PM
Well, as far as that goes, so is "cast."
True enough. I don't like any of these words. Get a metal piston.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on October 25, 2014, 01:04:49 PM
True enough. I don't like any of these words. Get a metal piston.
Well, I was going to use ceramic, but OK.
I had stock low silicon pistons in my Nissan L28ET with 9-10 psi of boost, so I think a big lazy V8 can survive with them.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 25, 2014, 01:07:47 PM
Well, I was going to use ceramic, but OK.
I had stock low silicon pistons in my Nissan L28ET with 9-10 psi of boost, so I think a big lazy V8 can survive with them.
You'd probably be fine with rough cast pig iron.
Cast iron? Do you think this is a Model T?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Corvette-frame-63-64-65-66-67-/371147288923?hash=item566a1a315b&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Corvette-frame-63-64-65-66-67-/371147288923?hash=item566a1a315b&vxp=mtr)
If it was just a little less money a little less Texan...I'd go for it.
The frame is really the biggest thing holding the car back. I'm actually afraid to autocross the Corvette until I get a new frame because I'm afraid the frame will flex too much and crack the body.
Once the frame is replaced, the rest of the problems are cosmetic. I can live with that.
http://www.ridetech.com/store/musclecars/?subcats=Y&features_hash=V361 (http://www.ridetech.com/store/musclecars/?subcats=Y&features_hash=V361)
Wow great value. :hammerhead:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on October 30, 2014, 11:36:34 PM
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Corvette-frame-63-64-65-66-67-/371147288923?hash=item566a1a315b&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Corvette-frame-63-64-65-66-67-/371147288923?hash=item566a1a315b&vxp=mtr)
If it was just a little less money a little less Texan...I'd go for it.
The frame is really the biggest thing holding the car back. I'm actually afraid to autocross the Corvette until I get a new frame because I'm afraid the frame will flex too much and crack the body.
Once the frame is replaced, the rest of the problems are cosmetic. I can live with that.
If you're serious about making the car something you can enjoy for the long term, you need to take the plunge. Seems you're in a good position now to do that now...before you get too entangled with other responsibilities of life that creep up on you.
Q: So exactly does a frame get dents?
A: Abuse. Should avoid.
I've got a lead on a '66 frame in the southwest.
I saw this car over the weekend, looked pretty good. You could do the same headlights.
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/11/f5fde58229dcfa377aec4c481822610f.jpg)
Quote from: hotrodalex on November 11, 2014, 02:36:20 PM
I saw this car over the weekend, looked pretty good. You could do the same headlights.
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/11/11/f5fde58229dcfa377aec4c481822610f.jpg)
Alas, I no longer have access to projectors from a scrap bin. I think just not driving it at night is a better fix. :lol:
My plan is to leave the fucked up fiberglass alone because fixing it is too expensive.
Pretty much decided on a 60101 Lunati Voodoo cam, cast pistons, and stock intake for now. Looking for 9.5:1 compression so it will run good on premium gas. That will give me a dynamic compression ratio of about 8:1. With a mild cam that saves up the compression, I don't know if 10:1 is safe. Anybody know what DCR corresponds to which octane rating? I'm seeing different recommendations.
It's never had detonation issues before, but with all those grooves in the bores I can't imagine it really had 10:1 compression anymore. :lol:
Doesn't look like there's much to be gained by ditching the stock intake because I can't run a high rise manifold anyway.
Bringing the motor to the machine shop next Saturday. Everything is boxed up and ready to go now. :dance:
I was debating between a racing engine builder and a local hole-in-the-wall machine shop, but their shop looked like shit. They might be cheaper, but I didn't get good vibes.
This is the place I'm going with. Clean, organized, nice equipment:
http://peracingengines.com/ (http://peracingengines.com/)
Finally got the motor over to the shop.
Decided it's not even worth it to recondition the old rods when I can buy these:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/esp-5700bplw (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/esp-5700bplw)
Sounds like the crank will have to be rebalanced with new pistons and (now) new rods. I was thinking that the crank would be balanced independently regardless of piston/rod weights, but I guess not. :huh:
How much $ is it looking like? Around $2k?
Probably more. I don't want to assemble the bottom end by myself.
I told you homeboy, you can't touch this.
I know it would be about the same cost to buy a crate engine, but this is more fun.
Also, this block is the same casting number as the original motor. It has the correct style oil fill tube crankcase ventilation system. I don't really care for the look of vented valve covers, the finned "Corvette" valve covers look way better than anything else.
The scratches are so deep in the bores that they barely came out with a .030 overbore. The builder says there are still some scratches at the very top of the bore but he thinks they would be OK. Debating on going to .040 over. If I do .040 over I probably can't rebuild it again. The block is the same casting number as original (just the wrong stamping)
Also, I can get .040 over pistons are way cheaper than .030 over pistons for some reason.
The scratches are not okay if the rings are expected to seal. Bore it to .040" over, unless you want a low compression oil burner.
I haven't seen it but it sounds like it may be above the ring. I need to see it for myself.
.070" or nothing
Has he said anything about overheating? Typically (or at least IIRC) anything more than 0.030" is usually a no-no for that reason.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 15, 2015, 11:06:51 PM
Has he said anything about overheating? Typically (or at least IIRC) anything more than 0.030" is usually a no-no for that reason.
No. I think that may be a myth.
I've heard that .040 is the max for stock blocks. You can go to .060 over but then it can get flexy.
Do all of the cylinders have scratches?
If it's just a few, you could think about sleeving them.
I guess in the future I could get a new style block and drill and tap the rear of the block for a PCV valve for a stock breather less valve cover look.
Just racked up a $1000 tab with Summit Racing. New rods, pistons, valve springs, cam, fuel pump, oil pump, etc.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on April 25, 2015, 04:09:43 PM
Just racked up a $1000 tab with Summit Racing. New rods, pistons, valve springs, cam, fuel pump, oil pump, etc.
I'm late to this tread but is this a numbers matching Corvette?
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on April 25, 2015, 08:13:23 PM
I'm late to this tread but is this a numbers matching Corvette?
Thank God no
WHEW! LOL!!
Numbers matching Corvettes are for grumpy old farts with straw hats and jorts.
I opted not to do hardened valve seats in the head. The machine shop wanted $200 to install them and I don't really want to invest a lot of money in old double hump heads. After 50 years there was no recession of the valves, so I couldn't justify the cost. :huh:
Had to replace the block. The shop found a crack at the main bolts prior to assembly. They felt bad about missing the crack after magnaflux so they gave me a nearly identical block that was at .030 over and bored it to .040 over.
They called me today to let me know I bought the wrong rods. I got large journal rods instead of small journal rods. :banghead: Hopefully I can exchange them with Summit. They didn't assemble them yet.
Got the front control arms assembled. Tried to replace the tie rod ends (all 4) but one of the ends was rust-welded to the sleeve. I think I'll replace the thin hollow tubes and clamps with modern coupler and jamb nut style:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/gls-adj-4 (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/gls-adj-4)
I thought that the passenger side was the more screwed up side, but that side's lower control arm bump stop fits perfectly into the hump of the frame.
The driver's side misses the bump stop indentation entirely. It's too far forward. I'm a little bit afraid to fuck with anymore fuckery on this car since it still drove OK. However, I think just hogging out the LCA mounting holes and welding this retainer plate to the frame might make it better:
(http://www.chevydiy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/229.jpg)
Honestly this thing sounds like it might be better off with a good wait while you save for an entire new frame.
It's been fucked up for years. There's no rush.
http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/pts/5080728249.html (http://chicago.craigslist.org/wcl/pts/5080728249.html)
:hmm:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on March 14, 2015, 06:09:58 PM
Bringing the motor to the machine shop next Saturday. Everything is boxed up and ready to go now. :dance:
I was debating between a racing engine builder and a local hole-in-the-wall machine shop, but their shop looked like shit. They might be cheaper, but I didn't get good vibes.
This is the place I'm going with. Clean, organized, nice equipment:
http://peracingengines.com/ (http://peracingengines.com/)
Just picked up the motor today. The shop was really good to me and gave me a new block for free since my old one was cracked at one of the main caps.
One of the guys there was telling my dad that they get a lot of customers from that hole-in-the-wall local shop that I looked at. Cheap is rarely good and good is rarely cheap so I'm glad I went with the nicer shop.
I started working on the car again this weekend. I adjusted the valves. Kinda weird. No set clearance, just kinda tighten the rockers until you feel resistance on the pushrod, then turn another 180 degrees. I hate qualitative work instructions like that. Bah.
There's a lot of debate on the exhaust crossover in the intake manifold. Throughout all of the name-calling and "don't you know who I am's?" I was able to gather this much:
1.) The "hot slot" design of the late 60's was suppose to expose the carburetor to exhaust heat through a stainless steel metal shim. It was still way too hot and caused a recall, from what I understand. I picked up a 1/4" NPT tap and shoved some old core plugs from the block in the hot slot holes to keep out the exhaust.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/1963%20Corvette%20Project/IMG_1641_zpsiq9ewotb.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/1963%20Corvette%20Project/IMG_1641_zpsiq9ewotb.jpg.html)
2.) The crossover is not needed on aluminum intakes because aluminum transfers heat better. It is needed on my cast iron intake because it doesn't transfer heat well and I have a divorced choke. Still, I installed some stainless steel crossover restrictors included with the gasket set to reduce the amount of heat.
3.) I need to reinstall the crossover heat shield or else it will leave a pile of burnt shit in the valley.
Wait, why would you want to heat up the carb? :confused:
Might be beneficial on cold mornings, but terrible for normal driving.
Warm up. Not all that important on a classic convertible, but still necessary with the divorced choke.
Also, brass or nitrophyl floats?
I don't want to have a fire.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/C2-Corvette-FIA-Headlights-/222027747045?fits=Year%3A1963%7CModel%3ACorvette&hash=item33b1e28ee5:g:OswAAOSw9N1ViOq8&vxp=mtr (http://www.ebay.com/itm/C2-Corvette-FIA-Headlights-/222027747045?fits=Year%3A1963%7CModel%3ACorvette&hash=item33b1e28ee5:g:OswAAOSw9N1ViOq8&vxp=mtr)
This might be an interesting solution to the lack of original headlights. Getting the pop up lights to work again would be at least $2000.
Looks good.
This
(http://i.imgur.com/Bbrt3Wl.jpg)
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t35.0-12/12961258_10206307764801694_5382186159378329481_o.jpg?oh=dff43acdc3ee358b0c9e0e235eb61b7d&oe=570D0000)
Got the rear valance and bumper brackets off. Looks fux0red, so I'll be looking on eBay for new exhaust panel.
Car is almost ready for body removal.
This just happened:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1748_zpsimmuotom.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1748_zpsimmuotom.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/body%20going%20up_zpsii3nzyng.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/body%20going%20up_zpsii3nzyng.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1750_zps3vqqmgvd.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1750_zps3vqqmgvd.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1749_zpsgn0cputz.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1749_zpsgn0cputz.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1751_zpsctspxiql.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1751_zpsctspxiql.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1763_zpsyoglh5dd.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1763_zpsyoglh5dd.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1764_zpsqbolqame.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1764_zpsqbolqame.jpg.html)
Why we're replacing the frame:
Flaky rust in the rear and all inside the frame:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1759_zpsnhqbhcxq.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1759_zpsnhqbhcxq.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1758_zps9cnmgxbi.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1758_zps9cnmgxbi.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1761_zpsxtj9ycwq.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1761_zpsxtj9ycwq.jpg.html)
Front crossmember is bent. Look at the buckling:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1756_zpsgelpckxv.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1756_zpsgelpckxv.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1752_zpslbix8oq3.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1752_zpslbix8oq3.jpg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/IMG_1754_zpszcofalkd.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/IMG_1754_zpszcofalkd.jpg.html)
A look inside the frame rails. Extensive metal loss all over. There's more metal loss inside than outside.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpssgnpumgd.jpeg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpssgnpumgd.jpeg.html)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v733/280Z_Driver/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsqrtv6ov8.jpeg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/280Z_Driver/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsqrtv6ov8.jpeg.html)
There's a saying about rust...
This is a good move.
Glad you finally got that from sorted.
Now the fun can start!
Woah, that's a lot worse than it looked in pictures. Glad you're getting it fixed.
We also did some measuring and the right front frame rail is about 7/16" shorter than the left hand frame rail. The fucked up lower control arm mount appears to have taken the brunt of the impact.
If the previous owner would have cut off the old LCA mount and welded on a new piece, the frame may not have been so fucked up.
Quote from: Rupert on May 05, 2016, 09:49:11 PM
There's a saying about rust...
This is a good move.
It's nice and crunchy.
I was thinking that if TBI ever got to around $1000, I'd consider it. Well...
https://www.holley.com/brands/holley_efi/products/fuel_systems/fuel_injection/sniper_efi/ (https://www.holley.com/brands/holley_efi/products/fuel_systems/fuel_injection/sniper_efi/)
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/fif-30003/overview/ (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/fif-30003/overview/)
This looks even better and it's cheaper. I have no use for 600 hp support.
I also have no idea how that Holley system self tunes without a wideband O2 sensor.
Damn. Gas tank looked good inside but it had rust pinholes from the foam mounting pads. Cost me another $200.
So far, I've taken about half of the car, and thrown it away. :lol:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 28, 2016, 02:30:34 PM
So far, I've taken about half of the car, and thrown it away. :lol:
lol tell me about it
There's not much to do until the frame gets here. :lockedup: The guy just needs to finish up a few welds, sand blast for the final time and then it goes to powdercoat.
I think it will go together pretty easily. Usually, it takes longer to reassemble than disassemble, but with no body and no rust this time, it should be easy.
Yeah, no rust and dirt caked on = a much more enjoyable process.
Have you bought EFI yet?
Apparently FiTech systems can use the stock mechanical fuel pump.
No. No plans for this year.
And yes, that's true if you want to install their big ol' jug o' gasoline in your engine bay. I'd rather keep the installation stealthy and looking somewhat period correct, so I'm leaning towards the Holley now.
I still don't have my damn frame. :rage:
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 02, 2016, 08:34:50 PM
No. No plans for this year.
And yes, that's true if you want to install their big ol' jug o' gasoline in your engine bay. I'd rather keep the installation stealthy and looking somewhat period correct, so I'm leaning towards the Holley now.
Ah, didn't realize it needed a sump tank. Holley FTW.
I think you need a return line if you don't use the jug o' gasoline.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on June 02, 2016, 08:42:32 PM
I think you need a return line if you don't use the jug o' gasoline.
And in order to use the mechanical pump. I knew that they increased the pressure after the stock pump, but thought the electrical pump was inside the TBI body somehow. It's actually in the sump tank. At that point, I'd rather get one of the nice new gas tanks with built in electric pump and use the Holley system.
The shitty thing is, I have to buy a new gas tank now but I don't want to spend the money on EFI. I could pay a little more for an EFI tank, but then it wouldn't work with the carb setup.
I was really hoping I could reuse the old gas tank but oh well.
I think you just need a pressure regulator and return line if you want to run an electric pump with a carb. My dad was looking at doing it last year.
Too many changes all at once. I'm sticking with the Quadrajunk for now.
Besides, I think front disc brakes are more important. That's my priority for next season. This season is just to get the damn thing to drive again.
What brake swap kit are you gonna get?
I've been pretty happy with my Right Stuff stuff. Not sure if they have any Corvette kits though.
I guess Corvette brakes are just Impala brakes from the GM parts bin. I could get a conversion kit for under $400 for an Impala (for some reason Corvette kits are twice as much) but I'm considering swapping 69-82 Corvette spindles for the OE 4 piston brake setup.
The cheap kits use a single piston caliper and a one piece hub and rotor. I've seen one piece hubs and rotors fail catastrophically, so I'm hesitant.
http://youtu.be/QkBvsBpgGbo (http://youtu.be/QkBvsBpgGbo)
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13077022_10206407134605877_6436838059461623852_n.jpg?oh=0edae5cf7f7c20a4c377b131f1be6ac5&oe=57D9FE39)
:lockedup:
Frame is done! Just needs to be sand blasted again before powdercoat. I'm hoping to pick it up this week!
Anybody want to take the bet that the car is running and driving on the 4th of July? All I have is small piles of parts in the workshop. :lol: