XXO/BVGC '38 Chevy Coupe Build

38flattie · January 13, 2011, 05:44:14 PM

Rick, here's a couple more for you.

RICK · January 21, 2011, 07:10:41 AM

There's something about the NEW shape of the quarter window that I can never get used to. But don't get me wrong,,,,, The chop turned out BEAUTIFUL. Until you do one, it's hard to appreciate the planing, pie-cuts, and stretching, how much difference a hack saw blade width cut can make. Your guy did GOOD.

Now the question; In the 'VINTAGE' body classes, you have to KEEP the drip rails? How about the little awning above the front vent window? Or for that matter,,,can you do away with the vent, and make it one piece door glass? The 38 door has a slight 'KINK' at the rear of the 1/4, front of door window.

Just curious, RICK

38flattie · January 21, 2011, 01:18:13 PM

Car looks okay, but I kind of liked it better before the chop- and yes, that rear quarter window is different! Shannon did a nice job on the chop, overall.

Yep, drip rails must remain in Vintage Coupe! I do have written permission to remove the wing windows, and use a one piece Lexon window.

All of this, though, is a moot point! I'm no longer going to try and build the car to run in BVGC.

After mocking the car up last night, I just decided it wasn't worth it. The 2% engine setback rule doesn't bode well for the Flatcad! I set the engine in, and the rear cylinders are in the same location the stock engine's rear cylinder would be. To meet the rule, the engine sets, in my opinion, way to far forward-after moving the engine as far as I can, I would have to move the engine an additional 2.5" forward. In addition, I have a transverse front spring. To set the engine far enough forward, I would also have to raise the engine 2". If I installed an IFS, or similar, I wouldn't have to raise the engine.

Moving a 1000 lbs 2.5" forward. and up 2", is just too much. I really want to bring the engine DOWN another 3". I'm not comfortable, having all that weight, that high up in the air, in that location.

Instead, we're going to concentrate on building a car that should be more 'balanced', with a low CG. We'll set the engine back probably 10-12%, and concentrate on BVGCC, and BVGALT.

4-barrel Mike · January 21, 2011, 02:29:00 PM

2% engine setback on a vehicle with a 112" wheelbase means that the frontmost sparkplug is 2.24" behind the centerline of the front suspension.

And you have to raise the engine 2" to achieve that?

Mike

38flattie · January 21, 2011, 02:39:18 PM

Quote from: 4-barrel Mike on January 21, 2011, 02:29:00 PM

2% engine setback on a vehicle with a 112" wheelbase means that the frontmost sparkplug is 2.24" behind the centerline of the front suspension.

And you have to raise the engine 2" to achieve that?

Mike

YEP!

Right now, the set back is 4.75", The front of the block is almost against the front crossmember, that has the tranverse spring under it. In order to go forward 2.5", I would have to raise the block 2", or do some drastic changes(like IFS) to the front suspension.

I could go solid mount, get rid of the spring, and notch the crossmember, but I would still have a lot of weight pretty far forward...

Skip Pipes- Thank you very much! The chiller/intercooler and water pump arrived, and they are everything you said they were!!!

Richard 2 · January 21, 2011, 05:10:46 PM

38flattie, Where did you get the electric water pump.

38flattie · January 21, 2011, 05:41:57 PM

Richard, it is a Stewart water pump. I'm just using it to circulate the chiller.

Here is a pic of the problem area, with 5.5" setback, and a couple mockups at 5.5" It still needs to go back about 6", and down.

4-barrel Mike · January 21, 2011, 05:45:21 PM

Ah! I'd forgotten about that!

Now, if you had stuck with "GM" engineering (parallel leaf) instead of Ford (traverse).....

Nice build though!

Mike

Richard 2 · January 21, 2011, 06:38:43 PM

Thanks 38, I like your build, You would think an old motor would fit in a old car.

38flattie · January 22, 2011, 10:24:23 AM

Richard, you'd think, huh!

Mike, you're correct- traverse not transverse spring! I guess if I use the correct terminology, it would be easier to understand what I'm trying to say!

Here we are 14 1/2" (13%) setback down 4" the first pics show it without intercooler but with the injector gives you an idea where it will be in relation to the hood. The next ones show it with the intercooler. The blower should be just under the hood with the injector just poking through. The next pic shows the scrub under the car the piece of tubing is 2" square the oil pan is about 3" above the floor and the scatter shield is 1 1/2" so I will have to raise the front of the motor about 1/2" to level it up.

Is the 1-1/2 inch clearance of the scattershield enough?

Stan Back · January 22, 2011, 11:01:39 AM

I was just thinking -- with that blower location, you could plumb a line to the vacuum wipers and really get them flailing (or not).

Stan

Milwaukee Midget · January 22, 2011, 11:03:21 AM

Wow - First off, the chop is beautiful.

1 1/2" with springs. I don't know for sure, but it sure doesn't sound like enough for a suspended car. By the time you add the rest of the weight to the front end, I think you'll be shoveling salt. You've probably got at least 1/2" deflection in the tires alone. If the track gets soft in places, I could see it porpoising off the front of the adapter.

You'd hate to lose that engine location. Can you raise the suspension height and frame a couple of ticks, and channel the body over it? There's got to be a compromise we're not seeing here.

38flattie · January 22, 2011, 11:59:26 AM

Quote from: Milwaukee Midget on January 22, 2011, 11:03:21 AM
Wow - First off, the chop is beautiful.

1 1/2" with springs. I don't know for sure, but it sure doesn't sound like enough for a suspended car. By the time you add the rest of the weight to the front end, I think you'll be shoveling salt. You've probably got at least 1/2" deflection in the tires alone. If the track gets soft in places, I could see it porpoising off the front of the adapter.

You'd hate to lose that engine location. Can you raise the suspension height and frame a couple of ticks, and channel the body over it? There's got to be a compromise we're not seeing here.

Thanks for the kind words! It is starting to look like a formidable machine

I think we will shoot for 2" clearance, at finished stance height. I'm really against a lot of spring travel in this application. The suspension was set up 4-link front and rear for adjustability, and in case I ever decided to put the car on the street. We will limit down travel to 1/2"- 3/4", and up travel 1/2 inch.

I don't know if this is right or wrong, but it is what it is!

Tman · January 22, 2011, 12:38:01 PM

No, transverse is correct.

Sorry to see you guys having to change classses.

Geo · January 22, 2011, 01:30:24 PM

QuoteAll of this, though, is a moot point! I'm no longer going to try and build the car to run in BVGC.

Wow! You really had me worried that we lost you and this great build to some other form of racing or street only because you did not fit the class. But then you saved me from despair at the end...

QuoteInstead, we're going to concentrate on building a car that should be more 'balanced', with a low CG. We'll set the engine back probably 10-12%, and concentrate on BVGCC, and BVGAL

Looking forward to more on this one!

Geo

News:

XXO/BVGC '38 Chevy Coupe Build