Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 04/28/2017 in all areas

  1. Doing a front mount engine plate is the easy way but I don't like the fact that all the engine weight is ahead of the front spindle. I used this on my Cobra II and found it even hurt weight transfer!
    1 like
  2. I run front plate/mid plate on my mustang, pure street duty. I did it to free up room for my turbo headers to make their way up front. Regular rubber trans mount. I have zero complaints about it, it is significantly smoother, less shaky than pre-turbo build with regular motor mounts and a similarly mild cam (comp 268h I think...). My guess is with the standard rubber mounts, the engine only has it's own mass to shake around, and it's shake would occasionally get into resonance with the chassis, making the whole car shake every few seconds. Since it now HAS to shake the entire car to shake at all.. it doesn't really budge. I'll likely go motor plates on my current project car as well. Just my experience! It is a mild cam motor, so if you have a hot motor, maybe don't do this. Crappy video I pulled from a message, but here it is idling and revving.
    1 like
  3. There are many vehicles out there running standard universal joint setups with both lateral and vertical offset in the driving and driven shafts. You just have to adhere to the rules, input and output shafts parallel and yokes on drive shaft phased properly. Parallel shafts insures equal angles on driving and driven yokes. With parallel shafts and proper phasing the drive will produce constant velocities input to output. With shafts parallel and inline laterally (offset vertically only) there is a vertical plane thru the centerlines. If you impose a lateral off set, the plane through the centerlines becomes rotated. Shaft angles then should be measured in the rotated plane. When dilligas puts his shafts inline laterally he can measure angles in the vertical plane. So it makes things a bit more straight forward, easier, but the drive is not adversely affected by lateral offset.
    1 like
  4. Driveline alignment when viewed from above........ When viewed from above I always try to align the crankshaft/tailshaft centerline directly inline with the pinion centerline regardless if it's a street/highway combo or a drag race combo. So if the pinion C/L is offset lets say a 1/2" to the passenger side, then I also offset the engine crank C/L a 1/2" to the passenger side as well. Or if the pinion C/L is dead-nuts in the of the car then I place the crank/trans C/L dead-center as well. Motor plate...... I'm not a fan of using a front aluminum motor plate + steel (or aluminum) mid plate + travel limiter(s) rigid mounting system on any purpose built street driven vehicle that actually truly sees street/highway use. It might be a different story if you can find a way to rubber mount the rigid motor plate + mid plate + limiters to the chassis to reduce vibration. But doing that does kinda defeat the main purpose of the "plate" mounting system in the first place (rigidly tying the engine block to the chassis). IMO true street cars should always have the engine mounted with some form of a rubber/urethane mounting system. And regardless if it's a drag-only car with motor/mid plates, or a street driven car with rubber/urethane mounts, if it has an automatic trans with a thin OEM factory case then the trans tailshaft mount needs to be either rubber or urethane. Never use a solid tailshaft mount (regardless of engine mounting) with a factory thin OEM case auto trans. On a side note I'm also not a fan of using just the front motor plate (by it's self) on a drag car. IMO if a drag car "needs" a front motor plate, then it also "needs" a mid plate as well. Emergency brakes......... The E-brake disk behind the pinion yoke deal is old school ancient tech. If it has a ford 8", 9", or 8.8 rear housing with a 5 x 4.5 bolt pattern you might think about swapping in a late model Mustang (IIRC either Fox Body or SN95 platforms) rear disk brake setup with built-in E-brakes.
    1 like
  5. Could you go with a front motor plate instead of traditional mounts? This would free up space for headers.
    1 like
  6. If you could find 1 3/8" OD mild steel tubing with a .125" wall it would be dead-nuts on. But there really isn't hardly any true "1/8" wall steel tubing anymore. DOM seamless mild steel tubing (but not truly "seamless") would have tighter manufacturing tolerances, but would usually have a .120" wall vs a .125" wall. Cold rolled welded seam m/s tubing (CREW) usually has a little looser tolerance than DOM, (.120" wall CREW can often sonic test down in the .117" to .119" wall range). And hot rolled welded seam m/s tubing (HREW) often has an even looser tolerance wall thickness (I have seen HREW .120" wall tubing sonic test down in the .113" to .115" range). I guess if you could find some 1 3/8" OD tube with a .134" wall (in DOM, CREW, or HREW) you could then cut the inside on a lathe to the desired .125" wall thickness. If the poly bushings have enough meat (OD to inner sleeve) what about trimming the OD of the poly bushing down in a lathe to fit some other OD tubing? What about using poly bushings meant for leafsprings? There might be some usable bushing OD's to work with. Never heard of using a Watts linkage on the front of a car before (vs a long panhard bar). Heh, but then I am more of a a "drag car" guy than a "street rod" guy. If this is mostly a street/highway driven car (and depending on what rear suspension type is used) I would go with a more street friendly "equal-but-opposing" driveline angle profile when mocking up what angle to hang the engine/trans crank centerline in the car. The "drag race only" driveline profile (point the crankshaft centerline directly at the pinion centerline & point the pinion centerline directly at the crank centerline during mock-up) usually doesn't have enough working U-joint operating angle happening at the front/rear U-joints for street/highway use IMO.
    1 like
  7. My 351C stuff always ran better if the Strip Dommy intake had a 2" open spacer. Without the 2" spacer it lost a lot of throttle response.
    1 like
  8. That is interesting dave. I never new he ran fairmont in 81. That car went 8.23. That puts hp at over 800. Either he had head flow near 400 or the cfm rule doesn't apply to these heads.
    1 like
  9. 1st thing i think is long wheel base doesn't take weight penalty, what did the rule book say for weight? maybe a clue here, https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/mus/2010/07/Let-the-Records-Fall---1978-Ford-Fairmont/3474661.html "Despite those two national wins, Glidden concluded that, due to weight-break rules at the time, his Pinto had become less competitive than it had once been. Together with chassis builder Don Hardy, Glidden turned to the longer-wheelbase Fairmont, which prevented him from spotting the competition 300 pounds, instead giving up a mere 150 pounds. Built in the space of two weeks, the Fairmont's box-like body shrouded a 332-cu.in. Ford engine (as time progressed, the engine would displace 340 cubic inches). Its debut at the national level was slated for the NHRA's Summernationals in Englishtown, New Jersey."
    1 like