stealthstylz
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 14,843
Club RR Member Number: 174
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 11:11:52 GMT
|
Ah cool. I also think a Rover would be perfect. Too many people suggest powerful engines when people ask for suggestions, probably having never fitted one before themselves. A Rover is perfect for cruising about. Yes you could chuck a Chevy/Ford in there and get a lot more power per pound (for the engine), but once you factor in a complete drivetrain revamp they're bloody expensive.
Matt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that if you use the Rover P6 water pump, then the motor will fit an FB/FC Victor without cutting. I'd say that a remote oil filter wouldn't hurt either. Nor sure about the autobox in the trans tunnel though.
|
|
1953 Minor (Long term project) PT Cruiser
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
Ah cool. I also think a Rover would be perfect. Too many people suggest powerful engines when people ask for suggestions, probably having never fitted one before themselves. A Rover is perfect for cruising about. Yes you could chuck a Chevy/Ford in there and get a lot more power per pound (for the engine), but once you factor in a complete drivetrain revamp they're bloody expensive. Matt indeed. by the time youve done a rear axle, 3/4/5 link, brakes, uprated suspension to take the weight and power, its essentially a different car. the other factor to take into consideration is when this thing was made, monocoque car construction was still in its infancy, and the designers were still on a learning curve. this thing has so little inbuilt strength its scary, id expect to flexes all over the place when just driven down the road as a stocker, you just don't notice it cos of the '50s suspension. all the floors are flat, more or less unribbed and unbraced, and they seem to rely on the sills for the majority of the strength of the car. if I SBCed it, id need to build a full chassis for it as well!!
|
|
Last Edit: Feb 1, 2011 16:58:20 GMT by Dez
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
I remember reading somewhere that if you use the Rover P6 water pump, then the motor will fit an FB/FC Victor without cutting. I'd say that a remote oil filter wouldn't hurt either. Nor sure about the autobox in the trans tunnel though. youve read my mind i didnt want to say anything in case it jinxes me, but after a cursory measure up the other day, I'm 90% certain that once the sump is modded, it will fit in the engine bay without cutting. exhausts will be tight(as they always are on v8s anyway really) especially on the drivers side, but i think a set of lightly modded RR P38 stainless ones will do the job. the tunnel is my 'unknown' worry as well, but they did offer these with a powerglide transmission, and it does look overly large for the task it was currently fulfilling, so heres hoping it fits in without it sitting too low. I'm off to pick up the engine and box tomorrow, so i guess ile find out soon enough!
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
i managed to get my jobs finished a little early again yesterday, and wanted to progress with this but as i didnt have the engine yet (collecting today!), i didnt have loads i could do. so got in an hour figuring out how to drop the back of it. as previously mentioned, it doesnt use u-bolts on the back, but its not quite as straightforward as some blocks and longer bolts, because of the strange way the axle is located. heres a 'before' pic. it wasnt settled here as it had been jacked up and dropped down again to get the prop off, so its a fraction higher than it would normally sit. first job, remove these godawful things. they're those bolt-on 'universal' extra bumpstops. i don't know if they're standard/optional extra/dealer fit, as there is (the remains of) a pad for them to hit welded to the chassis, or if theyve been put on for towing or to overcome the knackered shocks, as it already has another bumpstop on there in front of the axle, but they're knackered and are going in the bin. plus i didnt like the way the brake pipes were stretched around them. then i removed the shocks. they're the originals datestamped 1967, so i think they're long overdue replacement!! i want to get something a bit stiffer on there, but they appear to be same fitment as VW beelte so it shouldnt be too hard to source something uprated in that fitment next i took out the 4 big bolts holding the axle on, levered it up so there was a gap, and checked the size of the centre pin on the springpack. it was 5/8", but the leftover 3" lowering blocks i had only had a 1/2" pin, although were the perfect width. its crucial that the block is a tight fit over the peg on the springs and into the hole on the axle mount, otherwise the axle can wander, but luckily i found i had a length of tubing that was a tight knock-on fit onto the 1/2" diameter allen key bolt head, but had a OD of 5/8"- perfect! like so- then i just drilled the hole on the bottom side out from 1/2" to 5/8" and the block could go straight in, it was a nice tight fit and couldnt move at all. the blocks themselves are a set of 3" ones i made for something else but ended up not being needed, so i just had them lying round. the next issue, was that if you look at the pic of the suspension before it was disassembled up above, the axle mounting flanges are designed to bolt up tight onto the bottom saddle plate, to bottom out of you will, and the spring them passes through the 'box' formed by this, but is rubber mounted. ive never seen a setup like this before, and tbh it seems fairly pointless to isolate the axle from the spring as well as the spring from the car, but to keep the original design integrity and keep it safe, i needed to make up a set of spacers the same height as the lowering block so it still performed in the same way- without them, the axle would never truly be mounted solidly. so, out with the grinder and cut a set of these for each side- which are made from the extremely thick wall CDS tube i use for making up new trackrods, as it just allows a M10 bolt to slip inside, as you can see- heres the job they do- i want to add a plate between the two tubes on each side, even though they cant twist or move at all, i just looks weird with them like that!! thats as much as it can be lowered on blocks and keep the scrubline ok. and here it is straight off the jack, unsettled. by the time its settled i think the rim will meet the arch to make it look nice and low i still need to finish off the other side as i ran out of light, plus I'm gunna cut off the old tatty bumpstop plates on the chassis rails as they're a dirt trap. then once its got some new shocks on thats the back about dropped!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good to see you today, Dez - I hope the engine drops in easily enough.
|
|
|
|
Neil
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,485
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice lowering job! Are you going to use any bumpstops at all on the back end, or will it not need them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Progress, progress. Looks good and low there Dez
|
|
Club Retro Rides Member
|
|
|
|
|
I know it's a different model but it's the same family, my FD fitted the Borg-Warner model 35 3-speed much better than the model 65 (found possibly in the P6B and definitely in the SD1) as the valvegear sits way down low and leaves a smaller profile up top which is much better suited to the shallow tunnel in the FD. Model 35 Simple to set up, deffo workable with column shift. Will slop into gear under light throttle, thump in under heavy and can be tricked to change when you want it to in traffic by feathering the throttle Looking forward to how this progresses --Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Borg Warner was the factory fit box for the early Victor 2000 (1968-1970). I think they used the model 35. They moved to the GM180 in late 1970. That was also used with the 3.3 straight 6. The GM180 was also also used in the Rover SD1 and 3500 V8 applications.
None of the bellhousings are the same of course. That would be far too convenient.
|
|
1937 Austin Street Rod - 1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1976 Rover V8 - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
On my FD the primary clearance-issue was the bellhousing up against the top front of the transmission tunnel. It either fouls there or the sump doesn't clear the front crossmember. The further back it sits, the less trouble there is with the steering gear getting in the way in its way past to get to the rack, P5B 4-1 cast manifolds, although horrible for flow, are a period OE option that helps. But y'all knew that --Phil
|
|
|
|
v8ian
Posted a lot
Posts: 3,766
|
|
|
another thing with short rover engines, if you go for the later 4.0-4.6 serpentine engines are about 30mm shorter than the P5/6, the downsides are the engine is fitted with lots of ancillaries that will probably not wanted, bit of a pain as the water pump runs counter clockwise so an idler system is required, but it can me done, I have a way to do this, so its doable, the other thing is the oil pump, it runs off the crank, and the oil pickup pipe hangs quite low, and sort of prevents the sump being run close to the block,
|
|
Atmo V8 Power . No slicks , No gas + No bits missing . Doing it in style. Austin A35van, very different------- but still doing it in style, going to be a funmoble
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
Good to see you today, Dez - I hope the engine drops in easily enough. Cheers james, me too!! heres the side-by-side pics of old and new once id unloaded it- as you can see, its bigger, but not my that much. I'm pretty sure the engine will fit in the same space once the sump is flipped, itll be the gearbox thats the issue.
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
intresting reading, it would be interesting to see how they did it, but i guess its been dead for many years now. Nice lowering job! Are you going to use any bumpstops at all on the back end, or will it not need them? they're still there mate- the originals are in a funny place, mounted in front of the axle, just out of view in the pics. theres been a few developments since then though, and i think I'm going to have to rethink the rear axle mounting
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
ian, thanks for all the info., i definatley wont be running a later engine though. i picked up a early water pump off ebay yesterday to go on this one, just got to sort the bottom pulley to match.
alistair/phil, i believe the box i have is the bw65. i did kinda want the gm180, as I'm more familiar with that type of box, but right place, right time, right price. looking at the pics youve posted phil, i can see little different in terms of size between the 35 and 65? would probably be more apparent when they're side by side though i guess. downwards clearance will be an issue on this, as it will be quite low, so i quess I'm probably better off with the 65 from what you say.
the steering setup on an FC is totally different to an FD though, from what ive seen. i have no rack, jsut a more conventional steering box and draglink setup at the back of the engine bay, with the crossmember right at the front- so mine needs to be swapped to front sump to get it away from the steering.
i think my clearance issue with be with the bellhousing in the tunnel too. i planning to kind of view it as 2 seperate jobs. make the engine fit the engine bay, then make the tunnel fit the box, if it needs any work. this way the engine is in the right place within the bay, which is probably the most important factor given how little room i have in there. as its an autobox with remote shift, the gearbox location is of secondary importance.
|
|
|
|
Dez
Club Retro Rides Member
And I won't sit down. And I won't shut up. And most of all I will not grow up.
Posts: 11,714
Club RR Member Number: 34
|
|
|
well, i suppose its time for an actual proper update! whilst i was waitng to sort out sourcing and collecting the engine setup, as well as lowering the back i also set my mind to sorting the wheels it would be rolling. now, if youre aiming to build a good '60s style custom, you really need to nail the wheel and tyre combo. tbh there isnt many choices, to be period correct its more or less down to painted details steel wheels, or 'mags'- typically a chromed steel 5 spoke like a astro supreme or a cragar SS. maybe tourque thrusts if youre flush. as i was running a bolt pattern its pretty hard to puck up anything interesting in, i opted for the first option. my issue with this the wheels on the victor are ridiculously skinny- a whole 4x13!! this mean the centres were very 'bulgy'. the centre stuck out more than the rims, which isnt a look I'm into. so it was time for a bit of banding action! i measured up once the rear was dropped, and figured out the absolute max width i could go to was 6.5", so a 2.5" band in them. heres how i did it- take the stock spare wheel, fit it up in the lathe, and part it off- then, knock up a band 2.5" wide in 2mm steel, tack it on, check its true in the lathe, tack the outer on, check thats true too, then weld it all up. it then looks like this- cleaned up- and then painted. after much deliberation between red and dark blue for the colour, i went with my original instincts and opted for dark metallic blue. i just picked a vauxhall colour from the range at the local motor factors. ive sealed then up here too. then, tyre choice. i agonised over the size and profile for a while, as it was a close call between what would fit under the arch, the amount of stretch being right, and the profile looking 'right'. basically, low profiles are a definate no, as they didnt exist back then so would ruin the look. it was full profiles, or maybe as low as a 70 or 65 if the width was high enough. but, i was very tight on arch space on the back especially with the width of the rim which cleared the arch lip by only a couple of mil, so i needed to run mild stretch (as was done back in the day) for clearance. so in the end, i opted for 155/80R13. and here they are fitted up- at the minute it still looks more nascar stocak car than 60s custom, but that will soon be sorted with a set of bullet wheel bolts and bullet caps to emulate the ubiquitous 'spider cap' look that was so popular in the 60s. they will also be shod with narrow whiteband tyres to further accentuate the look. plus another little twist or two ile show you all soon enough the only other thing ive done is fit the lowering bits to the other side rear. this has thrown up a few problems though. the axle isolating rubbers are knackered, and are made of unobtainum. on top of that, this side axle mounts are rotted out, and need repairing. not too much of a problem, but I'm going to have to do away with the strange axle mounting setup, and revert to a more conventinal solid axle-to-spring mount, and fabricating new axle mounts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice work Dez! I love the period '60s look, this is going to turn out great!
|
|
|
|
qwerty
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 2,410
Club RR Member Number: 52
|
|
|
That sits absolutely perfectly! The tyre arch lowering combo is just perfect!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey that's a superb job on those rims, you make it all look and sound so easy! Looks great on the drop too.
|
|
|
|
|