Are there even lift points on the frame that this lift can reach? The photo makes it look like a bit of a stretch.
And I'll admit I have fewer square feet of garage floor visible at the moment.
Still would go with a belt-driven water pump. Electric power steering is fine, but I don’t see much reason to bypass the normal water pump in favor of an electric model. I can’t imagine there’s any benefit to going electric there.
I may change my mind on this, but remember part of my goal is to have as rev-happy of an engine as possible. A water pump is a parasitic drag that will hurt that (yes I realize the alternator will be providing power, but that'll be a constant). Another advantage is that I'll have a constant water flow regardless of RPM, so that'll help with cooling especially after a hard run. Plus I also just want to experiment with an all-electric setup. I may change my mind on this and I don't have to make a firm design decision yet.
I don't see it "freeing up" anything regarding the revs, at least nothing significant at these power levels. The belt-driven water pumps won't cause any noticeable parasitic loss that an alternator drawing the increased load (to run an electric water pump) would be doing. I get that you want a clean engine bay, but I don't think the extra pulley above the crank with no mechanical fan attached will look much different than stuffing an electric pump somewhere in the engine bay. I just wouldn't want to introduce another failure point, especially on a component which is typically fails rarely and has fewer failure modes than an electric pump. If this were a pure drag car, or possibly a road-race car that you needed every ounce of HP and wanted high water flow at low engine speeds, I could see it. However, it's tough to beat the durability of a belt-driven pump on a mixed-use vehicle. Just my .02 you didn't pay for!
Oh I get it. The high water flow at low engine speeds is another benefit, and like I said much of it is just for the novelty.
The biggest thing that might convince me on a standard belt-driven water pump is the pulley aspect. The water pump and alternator can be driven by a single belt so while it would be another pulley it wouldn't be another belt. I've heard some people say that the electric water pump can make it difficult to put in belts for powering anything, but obviously that's not insurmountable. I haven't figured out where I want to mount the alternator yet, but I'm thinking I want it mounted low.
I don't know how your setup will go, but my 351w has a single belt driving just the water pump (no fan) and alternator (marine application). Granted it's a V-belt, not a ribbed, but I'd think you can get a pulley to run off of one belt instead of multiple.
(Notice the alternator mounted low, single belt despite dual belt crank pulley)
The Ford modular V8 philosophy, put the alternator top front center, and bury everything else under the heads. At least it makes mustang, truck, and crown Vic alternator changes a walk in the park, but it doesn't suit your application at all.
I will say that I don't find the duratech alternator location below the head, trapped between the firewall, block, and half shaft to be remotely fun to deal with. Unbolting subframe members and lowering 3/4 of an inch, and taking out a half shaft aren't things I expect to have to do to change an alternator.
At least it seems to beat what I heard had to be done on last generation mercury cougars, and cutting wheel well sheet metal.
At least they're not water cooled alternators like on some BMW models. Water cooled alternators, WTF??? Only the F'n Germans come up with overengineering crap like that...
With the weekend approaching, I've been giving some thought to what I want to work on with the car. The polyurethane steering rack bushings arrived from FFR, so I think the one item I'd like to check off is the steering rack and get that done, as well as connecting the tie rod ends. At that point the steering system will be "complete." I put it in quotations since I'm still planning on adding power steering, but I've decided not to spend money on that unless it 1) goes on sale 2) I get more to a point where it's something I need to do.
With the lift in I contacted the guy who wants the engine and transmission from my parts car to see if he wanted to pull it this weekend. He wasn't available, so we'll pick another weekend to get it pulled out. I also sold the extra set of 351 headers that FFR sent me. My total invested at this point is just over $19k, which when you consider that a "complete kit" costs $20k without shipping or options is pretty good. At this point the only major items that I need to buy are the engine and transmission.
I've also been thinking some more about engine options for the car and looking at various short block options. I know that I want a roller cam, and by the time I get myself to a 351W rebuilt roller block with decent pistons, it's not that much more to do a 408W stroker, and a 347 stroker short block is in that range. My heads will work for any of those engines, and they're all popular choices. One of my friends has a Cobra that he built with a 351W and then after he blew that up he put in a 408W. At first he'd said the 408 was a bit too much as he was breaking tires loose in 3rd and 4th, but he said that since getting stickier tires he's really enjoying the 408. That gives me some things to think about. The 302-based velocity stack EFI that I'm wanting to use costs around $1k more than the same setup for the 351-based engines (I have no idea why), which pushes towards the 351/408. But the 347 saves 50 lbs, and less weight is a good thing, and the engine is smaller which makes it fit in the engine bay better.
I suspect I'll be happy either way, but it's something to think about. What I think I'm more likely to do once I get the rear end in is look around for a driving Mustang that's got a motor and transmission on the order of something I'd want and try to pick that up as donor car #3, but it would have to be a running and driving car (or at least running), unlike the first two. Any Mustangs that fit that criteria seem to be priced such that I probably can't do much better vs. buying the parts I need new anyway, but we'll see what's out there.
Another item I've been kicking around is the idea of rebuilding a T-5 with an upgraded straight cut gearset and putting that in instead of a TKO. I've always wanted to do a straight cut box in a car, and that would be an opportunity. The benefit of this is the T-5 saves 15 lbs over the TKO, and rebuilt it has similar strength, plus it fits right in. The negative is that to do the mid-shift conversion is a bit more involved as it requires a tailshaft swap, and ultimately the casing isn't as strong. Also, then it's a straight cut gear transmission which is harder to run on the street. Not that I've ever let such things bother me too much, but Laurie is going to be driving it some. I generally figure if I go 408 it's a bad idea, if I do 347 it may be alright to do.
I take it that this straight cut gearset also uses dog ring engagement, and thus is non-synchromesh. The Formula Ford I drove had a Hewland Mk 9 gearbox that used a similar setup. It works very well on the racetrack, but it would make for a pretty hard edged street car. In my racer, I used a 17:35 first gear and either a 24:26 or a 24:25 fourth gear, depending on the track, so the ratios were very close, 2.06 to 1 for first gear and 1.04 to 1 for top. I was shifting at 6700 rpm when going from first to second and 6400 for the 2-3 and 3-4 shifts. If I remember correctly, the rpm drop from first to second was about 1100 RPM and about 900 RPM for the other two, so it was a close ratio setup. In a street car you'd typically want a low first gear for parking lot duty and a fairly tall top gear for highway cruising. When you get a bigger RPM drop it's more challenging to pull off a smooth shift in with non-synchromesh transmission, hence the nickname "crash box". Old cars and heavy trucks have slow turning engines, and it's fairly easy to match the engine and gearbox speed, but with a high revving engine this gets much harder.
If you're building a track focused car, I think that would be a good transmission, but if your driving is mostly going to be on the street, it's not something I'd want. There is a certain amount of appeal to being able to upshift without the clutch, and the gear whine is pretty neat, but for a street car I'd want a synchromesh transmission. Of course, if the straight cut gearset you're thinking of using does keep the synchros, then it's mostly just a cost issue.
T5 (TKO or otherwise) are synco-trannies. I can’t imagine it’d be beneficial to drive a non-synchro tranny anywhere but the track. Just getting into reverse/1st can be a chore if you didn’t stop at the right spot in the gear mesh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let the clutch out briefly with the transmission in neutral, then put the pedal back down. If you're wanting first, guide the gear lever gently into first, it will engage. If you need reverse, wait a few seconds for the input shaft slow or stop, then try for reverse. With reverse, you're pulling an idler gear into the driveline, and they're relatively fragile, with first, you're just trying to get the dogs to engage, and they're stout.
I take it that this straight cut gearset also uses dog ring engagement, and thus is non-synchromesh. The Formula Ford I drove had a Hewland Mk 9 gearbox that used a similar setup. It works very well on the racetrack, but it would make for a pretty hard edged street car. In my racer, I used a 17:33 first gear and either a 24:26 or a 24:25 fourth gear, depending on the track, so the ratios were very close, 1.96 to 1 for first gear and 1.04 to 1 for top. I was shifting at 6700 rpm when going from first to second and 6400 for the 2-3 and 3-4 shifts. If I remember correctly, the rpm drop from first to second was about 1100 RPM and about 900 RPM for the other two, so it was a close ratio setup. In a street car you'd typically want a low first gear for parking lot duty and a fairly tall top gear for highway cruising. When you get a bigger RPM drop it's more challenging to pull off a smooth shift in with non-synchromesh transmission, hence the nickname "crash box". Old cars and heavy trucks have slow turning engines, and it's fairly easy to match the engine and gearbox speed, but with a high revving engine this gets much harder.
If you're building a track focused car, I think that would be a good transmission, but if your driving is mostly going to be on the street, it's not something I'd want. There is a certain amount of appeal to being able to upshift without the clutch, and the gear whine is pretty neat, but for a street car I'd want a synchromesh transmission. Of course, if the straight cut gearset you're thinking of using does keep the synchros, then it's mostly just a cost issue.
T5 (TKO or otherwise) are synco-trannies. I can’t imagine it’d be beneficial to drive a non-synchro tranny anywhere but the track. Just getting into reverse/1st can be a chore if you didn’t stop at the right spot in the gear mesh.
Let the clutch out briefly with the transmission in neutral, then put the pedal back down. If you're wanting first, guide the gear lever gently into first, it will engage. If you need reverse, wait a few seconds for the input shaft slow or stop, then try for reverse. With reverse, you're pulling an idler gear into the driveline, and they're relatively fragile, with first, you're just trying to get the dogs to engage, and they're stout.
Right, I just mean to say that slow moving/stops become a bit more of a chore with non-synced transmissions. Once you learn the tricks with any tranny it becomes easier, but every now any then it can be a pain, especially if you miss a gear. If I’m driving something on the street as much as it’s on the track, I’d rather not worry about trying to keep the gears from ratcheting on every shift that didn’t have revs matched perfectly. I did like the whine from the ‘67 Vette we had with the M-22 “rockcrusher” which was synchro’d but had straight-cut gears.
I've been thinking also about going with timing gears instead of a timing chain
We used reverse rotation cams in our race engines. Only gears are one on the crank, one on the cam. Even with race mufflers the exhaust noise covered up everything, so I can't say if there was any gear noise. I think the timing gear sets that use an idler gear make a lot of gear noise.
You’re nuts (in a good sort of way). With that chassis, you’re gonna get instant dis-traction, regardless of how “soft” some of your other components are (timing chain, hydraulic lifters, belt driven parasites). I’d bet you wouldn’t feel the difference, only cuz the rest of the setup behind the engine isn’t exactly soft. But that’s what will make this ride personal and unique.
Crazy-on dude.
P.S., need more pics of car now that panels are on, and pics of the lit garage (the messier the better, so I can feel better about mine).
You’re nuts (in a good sort of way). With that chassis, you’re gonna get instant dis-traction, regardless of how “soft” some of your other components are (timing chain, hydraulic lifters, belt driven parasites). I’d bet you wouldn’t feel the difference, only cuz the rest of the setup behind the engine isn’t exactly soft. But that’s what will make this ride personal and unique.
Most of the people with timing-gear sets describe the noise as being like a whining power steering pump, and usually note that more vibration is transmitted through the drivetrain/bearings.
One of the more aurally interesting motorcycles I've owned was my '96 VFR750F, Honda's 750cc V-4. It had gear driven cams, and that gear whine combined with the NASCAR like sounds coming from Staintune pipe made for one righteous sounding bike!
Similar bike with the same exhaust. Love that lopey idle with the whiney gears...
Side pipes and a solid lifter engine are a marriage made in heaven. I bet Robert will be the only kid in the 5th grade who knows what a feeler gauge is for.
View attachment 70939
Cobra front. Note the steering rack installed but not connected to the spindles, need nuts for that.
One of the more aurally interesting motorcycles I've owned was my '96 VFR750F, Honda's 750cc V-4. It had gear driven cams, and that gear whine combined with the NASCAR like sounds coming from Staintune pipe made for one righteous sounding bike!
Similar bike with the same exhaust. Love that lopey idle with the whiney gears...
So, since you are running a hydraulic rack dry, and also with the lines removed, what do you do to keep dirt and road grime out, but not turn it into a big air spring?
What, if anything do you need to do to replace the lubrication you aren't getting from the hydraulics?
Don't the valve spools usually contain some spring rate that is part of how they sense? Is there a conversion part to get the direct feel back?
Nice pics. I think you should drive it around for a while with Clecos on all the panels...that would look cool.
I like the garage lighting.
Ted, check the toe-in on that. Looks a bit... well... aggressive????
Looking good to date! Keep us in pictures, and thanks!
Not sure if these are really as fine as might be optimal, but one option might be sintered bronze air mufflers like these, with some form of dust/splash protection over them:
https://www.amazon.com/Breather-Ven...132171&sr=8-8&keywords=sintered+bronze+filter
Part two of this is that you really only have to worry about allowing air flow to the two ends of of the cylinder, and pressure equalization likely to only one, maybe two of the valve ports. The rest can be plugged tight.
I would consider an adjustable Jesel belt drive for the cam. Being able to change the cam timing in a few minutes will allow you to optimize the tip in to a certain extent.
Am I the only one wishing Ben Haas was around to weigh-in on the engine?
This may be a stupid question, but back in the day a mechanic told me that carbs are way more responsive that FI. I do miss the response of a direct linkage carb setup compared to a throttle by wire FI, but I dont know if its the throttle by wire or the FI that is the culprit. But I do miss the sound of the carbs opening up and sucking down lots of air when driving aggressively. I dont miss the fuel gauge heading to E when I did though..
Just reading the lengths you are going to for a responsive feel made me think about that.