Thread: How and Why I do It like I do????????

Tweet

I've decided to show some of my construction methods and tooling fixtures I've built to make things easier and more consistant to achieve the necessary end results-





https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resi...nt=photo%2cJPG




U can look back to pic #29 for this-the pics prior to that are for direct injection cylinder heads--sorry

If this worked, this is a fixture that I made to help in building 32, 33, 34 fords. It allows me to rest about any engine except GM LS and Ford FE series blocks on the oil pan rails of the block which will locate crankshaft centerline exactly at top level of frame rails. With the normal ride height set up that I use it will have adequate oil pan clearance and scrub line compliance.
This 32 ford is built with a IRS rear with the pumpkin centered so the drive line does have some angle altho it is sideways but same principals apply- equal angles front/rear U joint. I'll have to search for more pics and see if I can continue this.


In these various views you can see the slight sideways off set in the driveline angle because of the centered pumpkin and offset pinion

Jerry, I don't expect it to matter to you one iota but let me explain briefly why I would never use your approach. First, let's establish some numbers as talking points, but agree not to get hung up on exact figures because these are all based on some assumptions that may change build to build.
1. Assume a 1932 Ford, 106" wheelbase.
2) Assume a hot rod, and from Roy Brizio the "ideal" rubber rake is six to eight inches. Let's assume 8" drop back to front, because that's what I like, 32" rear height, 24" front, and I'm doing the math.
3) Block mounted dead parallel with the top of the frame, as you state as your preferred method.

Now running the numbers, that rubber rake gives you a 4.3 degree forward tilt (Tangent = 8/106), and since the engine is level with the frame, the crank is now sitting tail high, nose low and if the OEM manifold had a 3 degree tilt it's now sitting at 7.3 degrees rear high. Now all angles, pinion angle, crank angle, and carb plate angle are relative to the same plane, and that's mother earth's gravity - the force that affects the bubble in the level. By mounting your engine dead even with the top of frame, and then establishing the "attitude" that is desired for the chassis I believe that you've caused yourself a whole new set of problems that can be very easily solved with a bit of basic setup in the motor mount to tranny mount to chassis, with the chassis sitting "at attitude". Why not consider the carb angle as one of the inputs, along with oil pan clearance, header clearance, radiator clearance, ad infinitum, and make life simpler.

Now like I said, I don't expect you to agree, nor do I expect you to change your ways. I'm just pointing out that I don't agree with your approach, and I recommend that anyone contemplating a new build do enough research to understand all of the issues, and make informed decisions. It doesn't have to be difficult.

I seem to have been blocked from continueing so hope this takes-
Some issues that you don't seem to be considering is that the frame is straight and level but curved-also your issue of tire rake doesn't stand because its irrelevant what the tire size is for drive line angle but amont of pinion drop from the axle centerline-the 9 inch is about 2 .5 inches and is more than any of the other rears commonly used unless its a quick change with the lower shaft being really down there.


SO--at this point I want to clear that to set driveline angle, the rear must be at a ride height setting amount on the rear travel--------the front doesn't matter-------and at this point I would have the #1 main at center level with the top of frame, a heavy wall 2.750 tube in the other mains and extended into a 9 inch rear creating an EXACT ZERO misalighnment or in other terms-bore sighted????


Now this is where I do the fabrication and will do it on a fixture, suspended at 3 points so as not to create any twist and with various tools and lazors ( great inventions) insure that the rear is straight/equal to the front end and I willfab trans crossmember and mounts for the rear end bars/arms/etc.


When the car gets assembled it only takes a small shim up at the trans mount and a little lower/upper arm adjust to tilt pinion down to get the angles------even if the car is a centered hump build with the pinion offset to the right, it still takes a degree or so up and stay in the 3 degree target range so the u joints have good life ( I only use the Spicer spl joints-no grease zerks)


This method gives my builds good road clearance for the oil pans, a pretty decent amount of room for exhaust inside the frame, room for brake system under drivers floor, and as can be seen in some of my stuff-a fuel system that is protected totally inside the frame rails.


My procedure puts the drive angles right on and first try-none of that " I've got a vibration somewhere"


I've been around a lot of builders of some very high quality stuff and learned lots from them plus of course all my own experience growing up a farm boy driving mule teams at 6 years old------


My builds have won shows, races, set national records, been in many magazines ( congrats on Cragar calendar) and besides best appearing have also won several best engineered----------

Roger you are assuming things-first I don't set the motor dead level with the frame. I set the front part where the centerline of the front main of crank is level with the frame tops---the back will point at what ever angle I need to be proper driveline alighnment. In addition to the fabbed channel iron piece in the pics, I have a heavy wall tube that is fitted into a 9 inch ford rear pinion support so that actuall the driveline angle is initially set up dead on center lines-------with this as an initial process to set up my builds, it only takes a slight tweek to do the U joint angles--My process literally makes it a deal to mis alighn instead of alighn??


You view about the block setting square / flat to the top of frame is incorrect-is that where you are having a problem accepting what I'm trying to say?

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

You view about the block setting square / flat to the top of frame is incorrect-is that where you are having a problem accepting what I'm trying to say?

Jerry, I can only go by what you say - can't read your mind. From the original post above,

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

It allows me to rest about any engine except GM LS and Ford FE series blocks on the oil pan rails of the block which will locate crankshaft centerline exactly at top level of frame rails. With the normal ride height set up that I use it will have adequate oil pan clearance and scrub line compliance.

As for the rubber rake, you are 100% right, only 4" count so the angle would be 1/2 what I stated. I was wrong, which I have no problem admitting when it happens.

As for the dig, I'll just consider the source and bid you good day.

Roger-one other thing-with your 8 inches of rubber rake-------only 4 inches count

Removed by author.

Even with carbs , the engine angle can be whatever is needed---you just might have to level the carb some by an adapter plate or maybe machining the mounting flanges/bases




Roger does the next picture look like 8 inches tire rake?

Jerry, true to form you are ignoring the original point. Whenever we have an engine that is not purpose built for the car/truck that we're building, we have to consider the layout of that engine in the way it's set up in the chassis. It goes without saying that the driveline angles are most critical, and no one has said anything different. The whole point is that in the original design by the OEM engineering team for the vehicle that the engine/tranny came out of, they set it at a driveline attitude that worked, and if carbureted had the carb pad very near dead level at normal driving conditions on level ground. The engineering was done, was done right, and worked for essentially all situations. Also, the driveline angles were set to ensure long, trouble free operation of the entire driveline, and granted, the factory engineers didn't start at the carb and hope for the best on the driveline. Let's not be stupid here. The point is, after getting the driveline right, they then made the carb attitude right, which is level on level ground.

To ignore that basic point is, in my opinion, questionable at best. We know that the carb performs best when level, and we know that for a specific engine it was built to perform best in the chassis it came from. Why does it not make sense to use this piece of information in mocking up the engine & tranny mounts. Assuming the engine came out of a passenger car or 2WD pickup truck, if you set the carb pad level when you then check your driveline angle you will quite likely be DONE fussing with motor & tranny mount locations, other than side to side for clearance, alignment, etc, etc.

I'm not the first person to promote this method. It's stated in virtually every book, magazine article, and how-to instruction that's been written about hot rod engine swaps. Now once again I don't expect you to agree (at least in print), I don't expect you to admit that you've ever considered the carb angle as a starting point, but it's all but second nature, and it makes good sense!

Oh, and BTW, I'm not impressed that you managed to post the picture of the Deuce, especially since it wasn't even in the post with the question you asked (attempt to change the subject, true to form again).

I guess you didn't notice who it was???????




For everybody with the exception of Roger---------


Early cars had enclosed drive lines-no rear U joints------and up flow carbs with gravity feed fuel systems---------

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

I guess you didn't notice who it was???????
For everybody with the exception of Roger---------
Early cars had enclosed drive lines-no rear U joints------and up flow carbs with gravity feed fuel systems---------

....and yet another change of the subject. You're getting to be to predictable, Jerry.

I'm done here. Nothing's ever going to change.

Your the one who mentioned Roy--------I just took the picture of his car parked as close to mine as he could get----------


Do you want to co operate on a thread that is about how to set up suspensions and drive lines including various other collateral issues? If so , I would consider , with you and a couple of others, to undertake the project. It would follow a very strict format, starting off with selection of wheel and tire types, stance, ground clearance, and working into the primary engineering design qualities that are a must for reaching a end result that is safe and practical without any of those problems that seem to be common to the street rod community-shake, wobble and wander followed by unreliable performance of mechanical issues-cooling, charging, fuel systems, and/or unnecessary uncomfortable travels because of harst rides, heat, exhaust smell/noise/co issues------


And as a follow up a primer on title and license issues of keeping records of parts etc of the build-


And I would welcome the input of others on a constructive basis, but not on the combative type of exchanges that me and Roger seem to have settled into. Its got to change around here for this site to grow or even survive and I'm ready to step forward to either be up front or I'll get out of here before its too late---------

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

Do you want to co operate on a thread that is about how to set up suspensions and drive lines including various other collateral issues? If so , I would consider , with you and a couple of others, to undertake the project.

I personally would love to see a co-operative thread on building hot rods!

Originally Posted by 36 sedan

I personally would love to see a co-operative thread on building hot rods!

I withdraw my comment. No co-operative effort can exist in the mitts of rhetorical rederick.