LocostUSA.com

Learning how to build Lotus Seven replicas...together!
It is currently May 26, 2018, 11:17 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 1, 2016, 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 9, 2016, 8:46 am
Posts: 311
Location: New Jersey
Apologies if this is a duplicate thread, I did not see it show up from this morning, and other posts did. So...
After lurking on this forum for a couple of months, I just could not take it anymore. I had to start a build of my own. Bought the steel last week. 1-1/4" 14 gauge mechanical tubing. Began cutting up the pieces yesterday, and plan to have the build table done over the weekend and begin tacking up. Game plan is a +442e chassis, 1987 Tuned Port Small Block Chevy with either a Borg Warner Super T-10, or a T-5 World Class from a 1988 Camaro. Not sure which yet. Rear end components from a 2004 GTO with custom a-arms and home made uprights machined from the original bearing carrier of the trailing arms.
I know you guys love pictures, so as soon as I have some progress, I'll get them up. Any suggestions, comments, critiques, etc. would be appreciated as this progresses. I'm pretty thick skinned, so don't hold back! One of the things that convinced me to move forward on this is this forum. I have perused many over the years, in all different automotive genres, and this has to be one of the best run, helpful that I have seen. While there will always be differing opinions and an occasional spat, I have noticed for the most part that the folks here are looking to help, learn and encourage others. Some of the builds that I have gone over from stem to stern include Trochus 5.0 build, Rob7's 5.0 build, and Rod's Locost 5.0. Phenomenal! Now, I have a comment and a question. Nowhere on here have I seen a Gen 1 SBC build. A few LS variants, but not SBC. Other than the obvious issue of the distributor interfering with engine setback, anyone have any compelling reason (Other than possibly weight) why this is not a great idea? I already have the engine, and it was rebuilt for another project that cannot use it. Looking at around 325 Hp, all 50 state legal mods.

_________________
Dismantalus, Fabricatus, Assemblus.....
Certified Welder, Certified Welding Inspector, Full Time Car Freak...In New Jersey no less!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 1, 2016, 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 17, 2010, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1266
Location: Gainesville, Mo.
Can't think of any reasons that a Gen-1 SBC wouldn't fit, especially with a +442 chassis. I don't think the rear mounted dizzy would be much of a problem given the usual shape of a Locost firewall. Keep in mind though that I haven't built a car yet, but I have played around with a few Chevy V-8s of both the "Mouse" and "Rat" families. Good luck with your build! :cheers:

_________________
Mike - Read my story at http://twinlakesseven.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 1, 2016, 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 27, 2005, 1:04 am
Posts: 1303
Location: Kamloops, BC, Canada
Same here, I can't think of any reasons why it won't work with a Chevy either. I think the Ford small blocks are probably more popular because of the weight you mentioned. The rear mount distributor will make for more hood clearance in a locost, so no issue there either. As far as engine setback, that won't be a problem. My car has a Ford V6 with the distributor at the back, and the engine is set back far enough that I used a block plate between the engine and transmission that is bolted to the firewall as an engine mount. It's not like a production car where you're trying to squeeze it under the cowl.
Kristian

_________________
V6 in a book frame build. Now registered.
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=7587


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 2, 2016, 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: January 31, 2012, 12:49 pm
Posts: 1483
Location: Louisville KY
I'm using the T5 from a 95 Camaro, but using the V6 from that same unit instead of the SBC. All fits nicely so far in the Haynes build, which I think is 221.

The Camaro bell housings have the T5 tilted towards the driver -- either to save some space, or point the shifter towards the driver, or maybe both?

_________________
***************
Geek49203 aka
Tim Wohlford
Louisville, KY
Hayes front, S10 +2 rear, Lalo body.
Girlfriend thinks I'm nuts for building this....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 2, 2016, 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 2, 2009, 1:03 pm
Posts: 1392
Location: The Humid State of North Carolina
Dismantalus wrote:
...all 50 state legal mods.
Except maybe NJ! :cry:

Welcome to the Gang! Looking forward to seeing what you're playing with!

From the couple of NJ residents that have posted their struggles to register their cars here, it may not be so cut and dry! Dig around in the search box and see what you're up against before you get too deep. It appears that NJ has some even more draconian rules than even Commifornia!

Good luck with it on all sides!

KS

_________________
Check out Firearm Finishes & Coating for options to ceramic coat your Locost parts. Hundreds of stock or custom colors including Chrome and Clear Coating options now available! High Temp options for hot bits!! Plastics too!!

Never become a pessimist. A pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events.-Robert A. Heinlein


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 2, 2016, 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 9, 2016, 8:46 am
Posts: 311
Location: New Jersey
botbasher wrote:
Dismantalus wrote:
...all 50 state legal mods.
Except maybe NJ! :cry:

Welcome to the Gang! Looking forward to seeing what you're playing with!

From the couple of NJ residents that have posted their struggles to register their cars here, it may not be so cut and dry! Dig around in the search box and see what you're up against before you get too deep. It appears that NJ has some even more draconian rules than even Commifornia!

Good luck with it on all sides!

KS

The three worst states from what I have heard are 1) California, 2) New York, and 3) New Jersey. I heard one about a guy with a Cobra did not have the proper documentation for the engine in New York, and they impounded the whole car. Had to get a lawyer to get it back.
I actually am fairly intimate with the requirements at this point, as I went through all of it with the Asbury Park guys that are most familiar with this stuff on a '33 Vicky street rod build. It's fairly straight forward from a technical standpoint. Emissions match and function from donor engine. OBD1 and earlier, visual inspection of components, tailpipe sniff. OBDII, must function as any other OBDII system. With the OBDII, it is not so bad with the multiport efi engines, but these new direct injection engines, and the way the various versions of the can-bus tie everything together, it can be difficult if not impossible to cut out the "excess" and still have the system not complain about it. Any welding must be done by a certified welder. I'm a CWI, and a Certified Welder, so I have that part covered. Oh, and just in case it comes up with other folks on their builds: The certification that the welder holds has to be to AWS D1.9, not D1.1 Anything under 1/8" thickness is considered sheet metal by the code.

_________________
Dismantalus, Fabricatus, Assemblus.....
Certified Welder, Certified Welding Inspector, Full Time Car Freak...In New Jersey no less!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 3, 2016, 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 15, 2014, 8:13 pm
Posts: 160
OK, this is why I started and stopped going down the self-build frame. I'm not a certified welder, and the liklihood of me becoming one for this project is non-zero, but you'd need a lot of decimal places. It also explains why this is the third time living in the state. the little things can just be so painful.

Anyhow, I was wondering about the swap afterwards. Any chance they pop the hood and start asking questions? All my current rides are OBDII, so I haven't experienced the sniffer process.

Since you have been through it, I'd like to bend your ear sometime.

_________________
Figuring out how to build in the bucolic garden state
Build log: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=18224


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 3, 2016, 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 9, 2016, 8:46 am
Posts: 311
Location: New Jersey
Omterry wrote:
OK, this is why I started and stopped going down the self-build frame. I'm not a certified welder, and the liklihood of me becoming one for this project is non-zero, but you'd need a lot of decimal places. It also explains why this is the third time living in the state. the little things can just be so painful.

Anyhow, I was wondering about the swap afterwards. Any chance they pop the hood and start asking questions? All my current rides are OBDII, so I haven't experienced the sniffer process.

Since you have been through it, I'd like to bend your ear sometime.



Not particularly worried, as once it is given the blessing by the state at the first safety inspection, the only thing they check during an inspection is that the catalytic converter is in place (which it would be for OBDII as well), and do the tailpipe sniff. The worst thing that could happen would be if it failed for something like hydrocarbons. I'd have to get it "fixed", then come back and have it rechecked.

Bend my ear anytime, always willing to help a fellow gearhead!

_________________
Dismantalus, Fabricatus, Assemblus.....
Certified Welder, Certified Welding Inspector, Full Time Car Freak...In New Jersey no less!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 4, 2016, 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 9, 2016, 8:46 am
Posts: 311
Location: New Jersey
Ok, so the tubes are all cut up, except for a few in the back. All marked for mitering. I'll try to get them done over the weekend, and do the build table as well.


Attachments:
File comment: Tubes all cut up and marked for mitering.
20160303_151102.jpg
20160303_151102.jpg [ 1.14 MiB | Viewed 3398 times ]

_________________
Dismantalus, Fabricatus, Assemblus.....
Certified Welder, Certified Welding Inspector, Full Time Car Freak...In New Jersey no less!
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 7, 2016, 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 9, 2016, 8:46 am
Posts: 311
Location: New Jersey
So today I got all of my mitering done. Did a quick layout of the lower frame on the shop floor (Not where I am actually going to build the chassis), and noticed a couple of issues. Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen it. My overall dimensions from the "B1" tube to the front of the "LD" tube is 97.25". The 442e plan shows a dimension of 95.9" I checked and rechecked my cut dimensions, and everything is correct. Also, my "G1" and "G2" lengths come out abut an inch and a half long with "E" and "C" tubes in the proper locations. I don't think it is the end of the world, but I am curious as to why this may be. And if it IS a big problem, hopefully someone could comment?

_________________
Dismantalus, Fabricatus, Assemblus.....
Certified Welder, Certified Welding Inspector, Full Time Car Freak...In New Jersey no less!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 7, 2016, 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 22, 2010, 4:43 pm
Posts: 298
Location: Livermore, Calif.
Dismantalus wrote:
So today I got all of my mitering done. Did a quick layout of the lower frame on the shop floor (Not where I am actually going to build the chassis), and noticed a couple of issues. Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen it. My overall dimensions from the "B1" tube to the front of the "LD" tube is 97.25". The 442e plan shows a dimension of 95.9" I checked and rechecked my cut dimensions, and everything is correct. Also, my "G1" and "G2" lengths come out abut an inch and a half long with "E" and "C" tubes in the proper locations. I don't think it is the end of the world, but I am curious as to why this may be. And if it IS a big problem, hopefully someone could comment?


The dimension from the back of LD to the back of B1 is 95.9", not to the front of LD. So adding roughly 1" for the width of LD you get roughly ~97" which is what you are measuring.

I would not cut all of the tubing first. In building two chassis I only cut the pieces as I went along checking the dimension needed for the next piece against the drawing and what would actually fit. This is especially true when you get to some of the diagonal bracing. You might have to adjust the dimension slightly.

As you can see from sheet 8, "Bottom Rail Layout" of the 442e sketches, G1 and G2 need to be about 31". Going to sheet 49, "Engine Mount Bottom Inside Rail", McSorley calls for a 31.1" overall length with a slight angle which means G1 and G2 are not quite perpendicular to the C and E tubes. I'm not quite sure why they are not perpendicular but certainly could be. The engine mount tubes will have some flexibility in location depending which engine you will use and what engine mount design you use.

_________________
Build log http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16510


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 7, 2016, 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 9, 2016, 8:46 am
Posts: 311
Location: New Jersey
RoyzMG wrote:
Dismantalus wrote:
So today I got all of my mitering done. Did a quick layout of the lower frame on the shop floor (Not where I am actually going to build the chassis), and noticed a couple of issues. Maybe this has been covered before, but I have not seen it. My overall dimensions from the "B1" tube to the front of the "LD" tube is 97.25". The 442e plan shows a dimension of 95.9" I checked and rechecked my cut dimensions, and everything is correct. Also, my "G1" and "G2" lengths come out abut an inch and a half long with "E" and "C" tubes in the proper locations. I don't think it is the end of the world, but I am curious as to why this may be. And if it IS a big problem, hopefully someone could comment?


The dimension from the back of LD to the back of B1 is 95.9", not to the front of LD. So adding roughly 1" for the width of LD you get roughly ~97" which is what you are measuring.

I would not cut all of the tubing first. In building two chassis I only cut the pieces as I went along checking the dimension needed for the next piece against the drawing and what would actually fit. This is especially true when you get to some of the diagonal bracing. You might have to adjust the dimension slightly.

As you can see from sheet 8, "Bottom Rail Layout" of the 442e sketches, G1 and G2 need to be about 31". Going to sheet 49, "Engine Mount Bottom Inside Rail", McSorley calls for a 31.1" overall length with a slight angle which means G1 and G2 are not quite perpendicular to the C and E tubes. I'm not quite sure why they are not perpendicular but certainly could be. The engine mount tubes will have some flexibility in location depending which engine you will use and what engine mount design you use.


Doh! :BH: Not enough sleep, too much work this weekend! How did I miss THAT obvious tidbit! Thanks RoyzMG! The G1 and G2 still overlap the C tube by about 1-1/2". Since everything else looks to be in line with the plan, I'll just fit as needed. Mind you, I'm not complaining, just observing. Too late on cutting and mitering everything, except for a few pieces on the rear, they are all done. I left them each a bit long to allow for fitment, and easy hand adjustment if needed. The quick floor layout looks like everything else on the bottom frame is good, with nice tight fit.

_________________
Dismantalus, Fabricatus, Assemblus.....
Certified Welder, Certified Welding Inspector, Full Time Car Freak...In New Jersey no less!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 7, 2016, 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 22, 2010, 4:43 pm
Posts: 298
Location: Livermore, Calif.
I just realized you are using 1 1/4" steel tubing and not 1". I assume you are compensating for this difference. Also keep in mind McSorley's sketches are really just a starting point. They don't show how the suspension is mounted nor the engine, tranny or differential. You may (read "will") have to modify things for these "little" details. Also a lot of designs have been changing the front tube configuration for better front suspension locating/mounting.

Good luck,
Roy

_________________
Build log http://www.locostusa.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16510


Last edited by RoyzMG on March 8, 2016, 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 8, 2016, 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 9, 2016, 8:46 am
Posts: 311
Location: New Jersey
RoyzMG wrote:
I just realized you are using 1 1/4" steel tubing and not 1". I assume you are compensating for this difference. Also keep in mind McSorley's sketches are really just a starting point. They don't show how the suspension is mounted nor the engine, tranny or differential. You may (read "will") have to modify things for these "little" details. Also a lot of designs have been changing the front tube configuration for better front suspension locating/mounting.

Good luck,
Roy


Yes, being very mindful of the difference in tube size. I figured on the requirement for innovating, and that the plans were just a starting point. I just wanted to keep as close to a standard as possible for a first.build. Thanks for the comments Roy.

_________________
Dismantalus, Fabricatus, Assemblus.....
Certified Welder, Certified Welding Inspector, Full Time Car Freak...In New Jersey no less!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: SBC +442e build
PostPosted: March 8, 2016, 11:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 2, 2009, 3:34 pm
Posts: 564
Location: Alberta
Dismantalus wrote:
Yes, being very mindful of the difference in tube size.


I'm not sure exactly how you're doing this, but your method makes a big difference if you plan on using any standard sized items such as a preformed scuttle. Just something to keep in mind.

_________________
Trochu Motor League


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 191 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY