4 5 6 7 8
oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
7/15/20 9:46 a.m.
DarkMonohue said:

 

If it ain't too late, I'm going to cast a vote for a less flashy finish, more like something you would have seen on the car when new.  Maybe a solid color, like Ford's Grabber Orange.  Actually, I dig the original metallic blue, too.  The green example you posted on page three is gorgeous as well.  I really like that softer metallic OEM paint look.

 

 

 

Color code 704, Samoa Turquoise Metallic appears to be one year only... although the listing says it was available for two (72&73).   I tried search for a good clear photo of the color - trying to keep an open mind...  but turquoise is not a favorite color... not even close.   I've only had one "red" car... deep burgundy actually, a more red car would be new for me.... more importantly...  I've not found a color that I like more.........

 

 

Now on to more engineering........   I'm looking for some custom springs, I contacted about 6 shops that still provide custom wound springs.   From Coiling Technoligies I got a request for the "Motion Ratio".   This is new to me, but essentially it is, "The motion ratio is essentially the spring movement vs. the wheel / tire movement".  In all the cars I've modified over the years...  I'm GUESSING that the motion ratio were worked out by the spring makers?????

  Motion ratio

 

 

more to come........ smiley 

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
7/15/20 11:26 a.m.

Hmmm, learning a bit more about motion ratio....... a LOT depends on spring placement!   In most Toyota rwd cars (and many fwd too) the springs sit (more or less) in line with the wheel - in other words the wheel moves nearly the same as the spring moves.   

 

The suspension on my Mark II is different, neither of the springs work/move directly at the same distance as the wheel, because neither spring(front or rear) work directly inline with the wheel.

 

 

More to come...... smiley

Dusterbd13-michael (Forum Supporter)
Dusterbd13-michael (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
7/15/20 11:40 a.m.

Yup. Motion ratio is tough. Always confuses me when i get to spring rate vs wheel rate vs...

I.just happy to read this thread. 

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
7/16/20 4:51 p.m.

One bell housing... 2 transmission options... AR5 (copy of R154) on top, and A340E on the bottom. (edit forgot photo, now added)

 

 

The adapter fits very nicely.  

 

Still undecided as to how to route the hydraulic lines for the internal slave/throwout bearing assembly.   There is a small gap @ the bottom of the bell housing...  or a small hole could be drilled to route the lines through

 

 

 

 

more to come........  smiley

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
7/20/20 1:30 p.m.

Well...  back to the suspension...  

 

After a days worth of correspondence, and phone calls, I've found my custom spring maker....  http://www.coilsprings.com/.     I had contacted 7 companies around the US for custom wound springs.   Making a long story short Coil Spring Specialists will be making me custom springs based on as much information as I was able to supply.   There were sent the FSM page[s] on spring rates..... 

 

as well, a drawing showing the springs and their locations

 

 

 

 

And last I sent them one front, and one rear spring.......

 

 

Now what my desire is for this car...   1/2" down in front, stock ride height in the rear, 10% stiffer suspension rate..... we shall see......  we shall see

 

 

more to come.......   smiley

mjrj (Forum Supporter)
mjrj (Forum Supporter) New Reader
8/2/20 2:10 a.m.

you bought this car 2 miles, or 3.218688 kilometers from me!  The hills give it away.

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
8/20/20 5:15 p.m.

first attempt in mating engine to trans in the car.........  not quite  the tail end of the trans in it's current configuration will require a great deal of tunnel modifications - mostly at the back - do to the current shifter.     

 

 

I did buy a new shifter, and while that will move it forward of the Solstice/Sky location - to the black X.....  it still is about 4" too far back...

 

 

So I've done a bit of digging and the truck version  of the AR5 has it's shifter location quite a bit more forward... 

 

 

It turns out about 1" too far forward... but that can be worked with far easier....

 

my "new"(used about 70k miles) AR5....

 

 

Once everything has its place(mounts and such), and we know more... I'll likely sell the Solstice/Sky version.

 

 

more to come....  smiley

Really spectacular work. How the factory should have done it-so to speak.

GIRTHQUAKE
GIRTHQUAKE Dork
8/23/20 1:07 p.m.

I think you're gonna go for the AR5, but man, both options are honestly great. The A-series are loved by AMC fans for good reasons and they're easily controlled with aftermarket boxes.

So it's a fact the AR5 is a copy of the R154? Hot damn that's good.

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/15/20 10:39 a.m.

So... I've had the car for over 9 months now, and while I've "seen" (online, not yet in the real world) quite a few Mark II's, not many have been worthy of posting.... until now - below is a well restored example........

 

 

 

That's really nice, but some more retro wheels would make it exceptional,

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/16/20 3:33 p.m.
wheelsmithy (Joe-with-an-L) (Forum Supporter) said:

That's really nice, but some more retro wheels would make it exceptional,

 

agreed... as does the new owner.   He contacted me after I shared this on fb, he is looking for something a bit more period correct.

 

on other news....  Coil Spring Specilties sent my new springs....

 

more to come...... smiley

Carbon (Forum Supporter)
Carbon (Forum Supporter) UltraDork
9/17/20 11:03 a.m.

Awesome build man. 

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/18/20 1:39 p.m.
oldeskewltoy said:

first attempt in mating engine to trans in the car.........  not quite  the tail end of the trans in it's current configuration will require a great deal of tunnel modifications - mostly at the back - do to the current shifter.     

 

 

I did buy a new shifter, and while that will move it forward of the Solstice/Sky location - to the black X.....  it still is about 4" too far back...

 

 

So I've done a bit of digging and the truck version  of the AR5 has it's shifter location quite a bit more forward... 

 

 

It turns out about 1" too far forward... but that can be worked with far easier....

 

my "new"(used about 70k miles) AR5....

 

 

Once everything has its place(mounts and such), and we know more... I'll likely sell the Solstice/Sky version.

 

 

more to come....  smiley

2nd, and finally 3rd times the charm....  below are 2, 2 panel photos showing the engine, and trans in its 2nd, and finally 3rd location....

 

The tunnel needed clearance, no waay around it....

 

and at the firewall....

 

from above.....

 

 

and from below....

 

 

now that the location is set - time to build the mounts.........

 

 

more to come.... smiley

L5wolvesf
L5wolvesf Reader
9/18/20 2:21 p.m.

Will the cyl heads clear?

Love your build and approach to it.

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/18/20 7:55 p.m.
L5wolvesf said:

Will the cyl heads clear?

Love your build and approach to it.

Heads... no problem... driverside header... still unknown, passenger header no problem

 

and now (soon) I'll have stopping power to match the Hemi's go power... a Wilwood brake kit for it..... surprisesurprise

 

Features wilwood 4pot dynapro dust boot calipers , Peugeot 283mm rotor custom mounting brackets and adr approved braided lines.

 

 

 

more to come....... smiley

DarkMonohue
DarkMonohue New Reader
9/18/20 8:22 p.m.
oldeskewltoy said:

Heads... no problem... driverside header... still unknown, passenger header no problem

Have you given any thought to nudging the engine over to starboard an inch or so? It won't suit those who are fashionably afflicted with pretend OCD, but in the real world, OEMs do it regularly to make big plants fit in less-than-ideal engine rooms. It works.

 

 

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/22/20 12:32 p.m.
DarkMonohue said:
oldeskewltoy said:

Heads... no problem... driverside header... still unknown, passenger header no problem

Have you given any thought to nudging the engine over to starboard an inch or so? It won't suit those who are fashionably afflicted with pretend OCD, but in the real world, OEMs do it regularly to make big plants fit in less-than-ideal engine rooms. It works.

 

 

While the engine could be nudged some to the passenger side, it wouldn't be enough because we can't move the engine/trans combo left - essentially the area would only change minimally because the trans tunnel is too narrow, so the tail end of the trans can't move at all - too tight. 

 

To better describe, the front of the engine does have some room to move, but the trans output would need to stay relatively where it is... so a 1" move at the front may only be 1/2" at the problem area...........

 

So... on this subject.....  I had a brainfart, one engineer friend said "NO", while a friend at a race shop didn't see a reason why it couldn't work..........

 

A steering "transmission" - description: 2 - 1.5" sprockets, with a HD chain (think a double row timing chain) connecting them inside a machined housing.  Half way between the two sprockets would be 2 tensioners/bearings - overall size about 4" wide by 1" tall.  One sprocket mounts to the shaft coming from the rack - as close to the rack as possible, the other sprocket mounts to the steering shaft coming from the column.  Horrible drawing to follow....

 

So...  where are my GRM engineers....????   Will/would this work???

 

DarkMonohue
DarkMonohue New Reader
9/22/20 12:40 p.m.

Yes, it would work, and it's been done for after-the-fact RHD conversions of LHD cars. But man, is that ever cobby.  Totally out of keeping with the OEM-like approach you are taking with this build.  There has to be a better way to accomplish whatever it is you are trying to do.

 

 

Stefan (Forum Supporter)
Stefan (Forum Supporter) MegaDork
9/22/20 12:54 p.m.

That's essentially how steering quickeners work that are used by dirt track cars.  There's still slop in them, so that's not great.  A belt system would have less slop, but obviously one wouldn't want to break a belt.

What about swapping to a front steer solution?  Would that provide the necessary room to route things properly?

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/22/20 12:55 p.m.
DarkMonohue said:

There has to be a better way to accomplish whatever it is you are trying to do.

 

 

While it may be possible to sneak something past this....

the passage is to just too tight not to get a whole bunch of stuff too hot..... my thought was to remove the arm entirely.....

DarkMonohue
DarkMonohue New Reader
9/22/20 1:05 p.m.

A front steer approach might give you the room you need.

Barring that, you may be able to shorten the input shaft on the rack and maybe make a few other changes to buy yourself a little daylight.

Brake pipes and fuel lines can and should be rerouted.

And you don't need a long tube 4-1 header to make this thing run decent. A good 4-2-1 could save some space. 

 

 

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/22/20 1:27 p.m.
Stefan (Forum Supporter) said:

 

What about swapping to a front steer solution?  Would that provide the necessary room to route things properly?

 

not that I can see......

If you look back at the new brake kit you can see the backside of the front spindles - a completely new arm would need to be made to steer from the front.... additionally, if you look at the photo showing the engine in place from above, the golf tee is about where the front rack would go - I see no way of routing the steering shaft through the frame with out serious fab work.

 

There is the option of finding another rear steer rack - one where the pinion comes out further to the left - the issue then becomes the overall rack length, and if too long it can interfere with suspension travel at the extremes of steering...

 

That's essentially how steering quickeners work that are used by dirt track cars.  There's still slop in them, so that's not great.

My thoughts on the slop(minimizing, or eliminating it) was the tensioners would be adjustable with a set screw,  and the actual route the chain took was narrower between the sprockets

 

oldeskewltoy
oldeskewltoy UberDork
9/22/20 1:33 p.m.
DarkMonohue said:

A front steer approach might give you the room you need.

Barring that, you may be able to shorten the input shaft on the rack and maybe make a few other changes to buy yourself a little daylight.

Brake pipes and fuel lines can and should be rerouted.

And you don't need a long tube 4-1 header to make this thing run decent. A good 4-2-1 could save some space. 

 

 

no long tube headers... not even sure I'll be able to make a 4/2/1, it may require more of a log type... which doesn't thrill me... but would suffice... again my concern is there may not be a large enough passage past the steering shaft/head/firewall/frame rail

DarkMonohue
DarkMonohue New Reader
9/22/20 1:44 p.m.
oldeskewltoy said:

no long tube headers... not even sure I'll be able to make a 4/2/1, it may require more of a log type... which doesn't thrill me... but would suffice... again my concern is there may not be a large enough passage past the steering shaft/head/firewall/frame rail

Maybe you can rotate the rack rearward a few degrees. Get the U-joint down as close to the rack as you can. And see if you can find a shorter U-joint. That one looks unnecessarily bulky. Get the steering shaft as far out of the way as you can, and then see what size single exhaust tube will fit, and what size tube you can fit two of side by side, through the available space.

 

 

4 5 6 7 8
Our Preferred Partners
RrPYnKSiYjuBGoeLwNJ4ty1GXq9qKANyG6LxEqKlD9DgYcTmn8pVpCasOtebUzWG