misteralz
Posted a lot
I may drive a Volkswagen, but I'm scene tax exempt!
Posts: 2,500
|
|
Aug 28, 2021 22:24:49 GMT
|
I'd do a bus bar type earth loom for sure. One big loop of battery cable inside the body, then connect it to the chassis at each end. You need to explain more. One issue with plstic cars is always earthing and running systems. In control panels in industry there's often a BIG lump of copper in there that everything is earthed back to. In a plastic car earthing is a ballache, as you know. If there's one big cable that you can tap into, that's also tied into the chassis, you've basically replicated that. |
| |
|
|
|
|
glenanderson
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,361
Club RR Member Number: 64
|
|
Aug 28, 2021 22:48:19 GMT
|
This ^^^ Using the engine, gearbox, wiring, dash instruments, column/switchgear, and anything else that makes sense to do, like wiper motor, heater blower etc. makes a huge amount of sense, but getting into subframe swaps and major chassis mods, with the spectre of IVA (actually the inevitability of it given the build is being done in public on a forum), is the kind of "project creep" that takes a quick, cheap, fun endeavour and turns it into a nightmare. I thought you could add to an existing chassis but not take away? There looks to be plenty of room for the rear subframe to mount and give about a 12" drop. Or is it a points thing? Sorry, I'm german, what does fail on points mean in this case? Yeah, it's a points/identity thing, not a physically possible/impossible one. The car is, currently, registered quite legally as an Eagle kit. Regardless of what has changed, regulations wise, in the 30-odd years since it was built, it was 100% legal at the time it was put together and registered. That means the original specification of Cortina running gear and Eagle chassis is what it needs to retain all the points for identity under the system we have today. As a kit car built from an older donor, and registered in 92 on a Q plate, it's also exempt from the emissions regulations applicable to new cars at that time, so it would still pass an MoT without a cat or fuel injection. It's a bit of a shame that whoever built it originally didn't take the necessary steps to retain the donor car's date of manufacture (keeping receipts etc and having documented/plausible proof that the donor parts all came from one vehicle), because then it would have been given a new age-related number that matched the donor, which would almost certaily be more than 40 years old now and thus tax and MoT exempt. Maybe it was built from more than one Cortina, a written off one, or bits bought piecemeal from breakers. We'll never know. Anyway. Back to today. You get five points for an unmodified chassis. - in this case the Eagle kit one. Two points for the suspension - Cortina front and rear. Two points for the steering - a Cortina rack. Two points for the axles - Cortina front and rear (and they both have to be unmodified, you can't modify one and keep one point, it's all or nothing, same as the suspension). Two points for the gearbox - I assume it was originally a Cortina 4-speed. One point for the engine - again, I'm assuming it was likely a 1.6 Pinto from a Cortina. There's fourteen points in total and you need to retain a minimum of eight of them to keep the Eagle's identity, five of which must come from an original and unmodified chassis. Now, we know that the system will allow a certain latitude for strengthening and bracing, and as long as the revisions are not too radical you're unlikely to run into any problems, but I would personally think that the necessary reworking to use the MX-5 subframes complete would be way more than you'd get away with. Even if they weren't, you're losing three points by fitting the Mazda engine and box. If you use the subframes too then you'll lose the two points for the suspension, the two for the axles and the two for the steering - leqaving you with five dubious ones for the chassis, that even if they weren't dubious they're not enough; so you're going to be well into IVA territory and, even if you argue that it's a single-donor build (the MX-5), and you put it through IVA, it's not only got to pass that, it's got to be built to pass emissions regulations for the 2000 - X plate Mazda, not the 1977 (or whatever) Cortina that died in 1992 to be reborn as a Rezin Rocket. Keeping the existing running gear the standard Cortina design, and the modifications basic and discrete (lowered springs, revised mounts), and simply replacing the engine and gearbox retains a healthy and undisputable eleven points that pretty much nobody can argue with. |
| |
My worst worry about dying is my wife selling my stuff for what I told her it cost...
|
|
braaap
Posted a lot
Posts: 2,751
|
|
|
|
|
WOW, excellent explanation, thank You very much for that.
I always thought building modified cars was an easy game in the UK with all those creations which can often be seen here at RR, especially body-swaps, that would never be possible over here.
Or twin-engine cars, self-banded steelies, Edd China's pan-caked cars, etc.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Drove past your new donor before  KFW is only a couple of miles from me, top chap he is. Absolutely agree. Known him for a long time. Generous and kind to a fault, really lives the true values of kindness and Karma in my opinion. You need to explain more. One issue with plstic cars is always earthing and running systems. In control panels in industry there's often a BIG lump of copper in there that everything is earthed back to. In a plastic car earthing is a ballache, as you know. If there's one big cable that you can tap into, that's also tied into the chassis, you've basically replicated that. Gotcha, makes a load of sense. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought you could add to an existing chassis but not take away? There looks to be plenty of room for the rear subframe to mount and give about a 12" drop. Or is it a points thing? Sorry, I'm german, what does fail on points mean in this case? Yeah, it's a points/identity thing, not a physically possible/impossible one. The car is, currently, registered quite legally as an Eagle kit. Regardless of what has changed, regulations wise, in the 30-odd years since it was built, it was 100% legal at the time it was put together and registered. That means the original specification of Cortina running gear and Eagle chassis is what it needs to retain all the points for identity under the system we have today. As a kit car built from an older donor, and registered in 92 on a Q plate, it's also exempt from the emissions regulations applicable to new cars at that time, so it would still pass an MoT without a cat or fuel injection. It's a bit of a shame that whoever built it originally didn't take the necessary steps to retain the donor car's date of manufacture (keeping receipts etc and having documented/plausible proof that the donor parts all came from one vehicle), because then it would have been given a new age-related number that matched the donor, which would almost certaily be more than 40 years old now and thus tax and MoT exempt. Maybe it was built from more than one Cortina, a written off one, or bits bought piecemeal from breakers. We'll never know. Anyway. Back to today. You get five points for an unmodified chassis. - in this case the Eagle kit one. Two points for the suspension - Cortina front and rear. Two points for the steering - a Cortina rack. Two points for the axles - Cortina front and rear (and they both have to be unmodified, you can't modify one and keep one point, it's all or nothing, same as the suspension). Two points for the gearbox - I assume it was originally a Cortina 4-speed. One point for the engine - again, I'm assuming it was likely a 1.6 Pinto from a Cortina. There's fourteen points in total and you need to retain a minimum of eight of them to keep the Eagle's identity, five of which must come from an original and unmodified chassis. Now, we know that the system will allow a certain latitude for strengthening and bracing, and as long as the revisions are not too radical you're unlikely to run into any problems, but I would personally think that the necessary reworking to use the MX-5 subframes complete would be way more than you'd get away with. Even if they weren't, you're losing three points by fitting the Mazda engine and box. If you use the subframes too then you'll lose the two points for the suspension, the two for the axles and the two for the steering - leqaving you with five dubious ones for the chassis, that even if they weren't dubious they're not enough; so you're going to be well into IVA territory and, even if you argue that it's a single-donor build (the MX-5), and you put it through IVA, it's not only got to pass that, it's got to be built to pass emissions regulations for the 2000 - X plate Mazda, not the 1977 (or whatever) Cortina that died in 1992 to be reborn as a Rezin Rocket. Keeping the existing running gear the standard Cortina design, and the modifications basic and discrete (lowered springs, revised mounts), and simply replacing the engine and gearbox retains a healthy and undisputable eleven points that pretty much nobody can argue with. THANK YOU VERY MUCH glenanderson That pretty much summarises what I needed to know, (and -possibly others) and also why I am staying well within the lines with this build. Better a legal car on the road than a track day tool or pile of effort and wasted cash. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WOW, excellent explanation, thank You very much for that. I always thought building modified cars was an easy game in the UK with all those creations which can often be seen here at RR, especially body-swaps, that would never be possible over here. Or twin-engine cars, self-banded steelies, Edd China's pan-caked cars, etc. Agreed there mate. It is too easy to screw up and end with a worthless paperweight. The TüV tests are tough, and here we get a certain amount of leeway, but I would not mess with the law. Also, voided insurance could be a real problem. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Keeping the existing running gear the standard Cortina design, and the modifications basic and discrete (lowered springs, revised mounts), and simply replacing the engine and gearbox retains a healthy and undisputable eleven points that pretty much nobody can argue with." I posted the picture of the front and back mazda subframe to give you an idea ("picture worth a thousnad words"  ) of the mamouth amout of work to fit 'em Totally agree with glenanderson here, stay with the Ford engine / gearbox, no expensive DMF clutches, no excessive electronics to get the thing running... and with a moderate (comparitavely)spend you can get quite a lively engine going with a 1600 pinto (cam, exhaust and inlet ...) |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, on with reporting the rest of yesterdays work. I really went at a reasonably slow pace, deliberately as it is great actually visiting with friends and getting stuff done, rather than the usual flat out pace to just get a job done. Fil is great company and comes up with some great ideas, like the voices in my head. After all, he named the S10 as Rumblegrizzkin. So the first job that needed doing and needed two sets of hands, was to remove the body table we put the Jeep body on two weeks ago. Lift rear, fit taller box under floor to then free rear of table, lift front, fit a pair of axle stands either side, and a 2x4 on them, put body down, slide table out. Easy Peasy. So while I did some other stuff like gathering tools, finding coach screws, Fill cut the four legs off the table.  Then drill pilot holes for the,wheels, zip in the coach screws with Mr Rattle gun.  Once the rolling table was done, we got the body back onto it, tried it out with the two steering trolley wheels in,front, moved it about to test……  Then things got silly just before we went in for some coffee and toast. Fil fetched Glen’s spare glassless screen frame and we grabbed a broomstick, the RX8 drivers seat…..….. oh, and some wheels and hey presto.  Got in, cautiously  Steering wheel needs to be lower and a touch further away from the driver. Then Fil got a turn to sit in the drivers seat, and we tilted the screen back a bit, as the plan was to cut it shorter and fit new glass, but this may work, depending on how the ex-56 Chevy roll cage/hoop from Paul Y may force my hand on the aesthetics department if I cannot tilt it back to follow the body/B-pillar, screen and seat line.   Next job was to get the canvas ready for the sand blasting of the frame, and then moving the frame onto the axle stands, on there. Planning.  Once placed, the wheels came out again.  Tally-Ho Mo-Fo’s !!!  And finally ready to start blasting as soon as the air dies in the morning.  Wish me luck with the compressor and enough air volume. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like the windscreen angle ... looks good .
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... an observation for you.
I've noticed that when I've had the roof down, Volvo, MGB, passengers automatically reach for the windscreen surround to lever themselves out or take their weight getting in ... just a thought to consider when designing the windscreen mounts etc ...
|
| |
Last Edit: Aug 29, 2021 9:55:13 GMT by westbay
|
|
totti
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,153
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 10:02:34 GMT
|
|
Tach!
To be honest:I'm not a big fan of this project.Still waiting for progress on the 66' Chevy!
But:Your choice!
Put a standart Pinto into it....it's enough fun to drive and simple,too!
Greet
|
| |
65 'Ford Taunus 17m
66' Ford Taunus 17m Turnier
73' Ford Taunus
63' Ford Taunus Transit 1250
72'Ford Escort 2000cc
71'Ford Escort 1700 4 door
89'Ford Escort Express
87'Ford Fiesta Diesel
64'Ford Cortina 1500 deluxe
57'Volvo PV 444 Califonia
54'Peugeot 203 Commerciale
2004 Harley Davidson Fat Boy
78'Zündapp ZR 20
88'MZ ETZ 250
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 11:35:31 GMT
|
... an observation for you. I've noticed that when I've had the roof down, Volvo, MGB, passengers automatically reach for the windscreen surround to lever themselves out or take their weight getting in ... just a thought to consider when designing the windscreen mounts etc ... People do this in my SLK. Irritates the nads off me!! |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 11:42:59 GMT
|
Like the windscreen angle ... looks good . Thanks, may be a setting between the two posted. ... an observation for you. I've noticed that when I've had the roof down, Volvo, MGB, passengers automatically reach for the windscreen surround to lever themselves out or take their weight getting in ... just a thought to consider when designing the windscreen mounts etc ... Olive oil up there. ... an observation for you. I've noticed that when I've had the roof down, Volvo, MGB, passengers automatically reach for the windscreen surround to lever themselves out or take their weight getting in ... just a thought to consider when designing the windscreen mounts etc ... People do this in my SLK. Irritates the nads off me!! I get you. Though in theory, I could tell them to grab low down, or even fit a small handle to the dash at the screen/dash/A-pillar junction, may help. I also have a real shouty voice, reserved for special occasions and orgasms |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 11:45:18 GMT
|
Tach! To be honest:I'm not a big fan of this project.Still waiting for progress on the 66' Chevy! But:Your choice! Put a standart Pinto into it....it's enough fun to drive and simple,too! Greet Hey Thörsten, I totally understand your frustration with my progress, I used to feel that way, but I waited a bit longer and the feeling went away. The truck is patient for me to return. I do hope this project satisfies me and allows me to return and get started and complete the build of the C10. . |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 11:46:45 GMT
|
|
So next question.
HYPOTHETICAL
If the CAT was removed (CAT-back fitted ) and you had a straight through pipe (or at a push a small silencer en-route) and a Cherry Bomb at the rear…….
Just how noisy would that be for the MOT guy ?
Or the general public.
Think anti-social thug but not quite getting stoned by the village.
Make sense ?’
|
| |
|
|
glenanderson
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 4,361
Club RR Member Number: 64
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 12:25:52 GMT
|
|
You won’t need a cat for the MoT I shouldn’t think. The original pinto setup wouldn’t have had one. Fitting one isn’t a big deal though, and will obviously work with the original ecu/wiring etc.
You might find it more than a little antisocial though. I had a de-cat pipe fitted to my 1.6 Mk1 MX-5 for a very brief period and it was waaaaay too loud. Suck it and see, but if you don’t have a cat, then you might want a small silencer in its place.
|
| |
My worst worry about dying is my wife selling my stuff for what I told her it cost...
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 14:44:51 GMT
|
I had a single box exhaust on my old Mini. It sounded glorious, but I was doing a bit of mileage at the time (I was young and silly) and it did get tiresome on longer journeys as it droned a bit. However as this is an occasional vehicle, as long it's not "too" loud you shouldn't have an issue. Note: my new Midas exhaust is a single box on a straight-ish pipe with 2 30 degree bends in it. I am expecting fruitiness  |
| |
|
|
mk2cossie
Club Retro Rides Member
Posts: 3,063 
Club RR Member Number: 77
|
|
Aug 29, 2021 16:18:01 GMT
|
So next question. HYPOTHETICALIf the CAT was removed (CAT-back fitted ) and you had a straight through pipe (or at a push a small silencer en-route) and a Cherry Bomb at the rear……. Just how noisy would that be for the MOT guy ? Or the general public. Think anti-social thug but not quite getting stoned by the village. Make sense ?’ Personally, I'd get as big a silencer as possible in the middle section (straight through/perforated tube type) and then a silencer at the rear to tune the sound output to your preference. MOT used to be "emits a noise like a standard exhaust in average condition" but its been a while since I've swotted up on that part of the manual  |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"8.1.1. Noise suppression system You must inspect: exhaust silencers under-bonnet noise deadening material fitted as original equipment - you do not need to inspect this for Class 3 vehicles You must use your judgement to assess exhaust noise:  during the emissions test for the vehicle rev the engine to around 2,500rpm or half the maximum engine speed if this is lower on vehicles not subject to an emissions test
Exhaust noise from the vehicle must not be unreasonably above the noise level you’d expect from a similar vehicle with a standard silencer in average condition. Defect Category (a) Exhaust noise levels in excess of those permitted Major (b) Any part of the noise suppression system: (i) insecure (ii) likely to become detached Major Dangerous" |
| |
Last Edit: Aug 30, 2021 7:57:39 GMT by westbay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You won’t need a cat for the MoT I shouldn’t think. The original pinto setup wouldn’t have had one. Fitting one isn’t a big deal though, and will obviously work with the original ecu/wiring etc. You might find it more than a little antisocial though. I had a de-cat pipe fitted to my 1.6 Mk1 MX-5 for a very brief period and it was waaaaay too loud. Suck it and see, but if you don’t have a cat, then you might want a small silencer in its place. That is great advice Glen. And good to know,from,your,real world experience that it is not ideal. I think I will play around with it a bit. Also need to remind myself that it is a fibreglass , open car with zero insulation. So a small amount of noise will become intrusive very quickly. I had a single box exhaust on my old Mini. It sounded glorious, but I was doing a bit of mileage at the time (I was young and silly) and it did get tiresome on longer journeys as it droned a bit. However as this is an occasional vehicle, as long it's not "too" loud you shouldn't have an issue. Note: my new Midas exhaust is a single box on a straight-ish pipe with 2 30 degree bends in it. I am expecting fruitiness I will investigate and speak to MX5 owners There is a cool older guy that often drives by here with one. It is a bit noisy. The way I like it. So next question. HYPOTHETICALIf the CAT was removed (CAT-back fitted ) and you had a straight through pipe (or at a push a small silencer en-route) and a Cherry Bomb at the rear……. Just how noisy would that be for the MOT guy ? Or the general public. Think anti-social thug but not quite getting stoned by the village. Make sense ?’ Personally, I'd get as big a silencer as possible in the middle section (straight through/perforated tube type) and then a silencer at the rear to tune the sound output to your preference. MOT used to be "emits a noise like a standard exhaust in average condition" but its been a while since I've swotted up on that part of the manual Common sense is a great thing. Lets hope that by the time a test is due, that I have exercised enough judgement to be deemed to have some of that too. "8.1.1. Noise suppression system You must inspect: exhaust silencers under-bonnet noise deadening material fitted as original equipment - you do not need to inspect this for Class 3 vehicles You must use your judgement to assess exhaust noise: during the emissions test for the vehicle rev the engine to around 2,500rpm or half the maximum engine speed if this is lower on vehicles not subject to an emissions test
Exhaust noise from the vehicle must not be unreasonably above the noise level you’d expect from a similar vehicle with a standard silencer in average condition. Defect Category (a) Exhaust noise levels in excess of those permitted Major (b) Any part of the noise suppression system: (i) insecure (ii) likely to become detached Major Dangerous" Excellent Tony. Thanks for finding and posting that up. |
| |
|
|
KFW is only a couple of miles from me, top chap he is.
) of the mamouth amout of work to fit 'em 
