Jump to content


obscure questions - march madness!


  • You cannot reply to this topic
47 replies to this topic

#21 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:29 PM

This is the definitive early cowl-steering setup...a Franklin steering box. This is shown in Barney Navarro's dry-lakes car. Navarro's car had the sector shaft exit on the right side of the cowl, which was a little unusual. By turning the box over, obviously, the effectice direction of movement on the Pitman arm would be reversed, so it would work equally well on the other side. The steering wheel is at the top left of the photo, and the Pitman arm and drag link are under the R&C logo, bottom right. The tube in front of the box is a part of the structure of the car, and the end of the sector shaft closest to the viewer would be supported as well.

Posted Image

"Early on the preferred steering box for this steering style was the Franklin steering box from Series 9 ('16-21) and Series 10 ('22-24) Franklin automobiles. The Chrisman Brother's famous number 25 dragster, one of the first purpose-built drag cars, utilized a Franklin steering box in a through-the-cowl steering setup, as did many early Midget, Sprint, and Indy cars. As the Franklin unit became scarcer, the Ross center steering unit, found in a variety of forklift trucks, became the steering box of choice. The '48-52 Crosleys also utilized a Ross steering box, but it was not as beefy as the forklift models. Eventually various manufacturers, like Jones, Halibrand, Norden, Schroeder, and others reacted to the racers needs and began manufacturing through-the-cowl, or center steering-style steering boxes specifically for oval track racing applications."

....here's a Ross in a Midget. Notice how the tube the sector shaft runs in is supported on both ends.

Posted Image


And here's a '56 Ford F-100 box modified to use in a through-cowl application. Again, notice the tubular braketry at the top that will become rigidly attached to the vehicle structure.

Posted Image

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 01 November 2012 - 02:07 PM.


#22 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:04 PM

great visuals; thanks.

and now i have yet another forum to peruse!

#23 VW Dave

VW Dave

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,539 posts
  • Location:sorta-southa-Saratoga, NY
  • Full Name:Vee Doubleyou Dave

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:46 PM

For another steering gear option, here's a look at a Schroeder unit in a '32 Ford roadster at the most recent 'winter garage party' at Rolling Bones Hot Rod Shop here in NY:
Posted Image

And a little peek at the 'teardrop' shape added to the cowl where the arm extends out of it:
Posted Image

Early Years Resins offers a Schroeder-style steering gearbox, and Ron is working on a combo kit with a very nice pitman arm, based on this Revell part:
Posted Image

#24 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 02 November 2012 - 12:19 AM

that bracketry looks similar to one of the pictures i found. i kind of like the option of not running the tube (?) all the way across the passenger side.


i'm familiar with Early Years, but who's Ron, and does he have a website ?

thanks


oh; EYR is Ron!


found this out from Racing Lobby

Edited by southpier, 04 November 2012 - 11:09 AM.


#25 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:08 AM

new though du jour:

anyone consider photo-etching a '32 ford K member?

#26 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:28 PM

Posted Image
Pretty easy to scratch from flat styrene.

#27 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:05 PM

it does look less complicated than the diagram in the Tardel book i have.

i found the site that shot came from; looks like a great resource, thanks

Edited by southpier, 04 November 2012 - 05:10 PM.


#28 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:38 PM

i've made up a chart that is helping me with sizes of materials. went through the scrap box and measured a bunch of materials, then cut 1 1/2" pieces and mounted them on a piece of cardstock. as time goes on and "eyeball engineering" takes over, i'll probably refer to it less and less, but for now it's extremely valuable.

then i made up a spreadsheet with dimensions in real fractions, scale fractions, decimals, & millimeters. if anyone wants a copy (6 pages), PM me.

Attached Files


Edited by southpier, 05 November 2012 - 02:46 PM.


#29 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 06 November 2012 - 01:23 AM

engine mounting. can an engine be plausibly mounted at any point along the block, bellhousing, & transmission? or only at certain points which will hold the weight - and i assume dynamic forces of the engine developing its power. can the mounts be welded, or are they all bolted?

#30 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 06 November 2012 - 03:42 AM

Every engine and transmission has its own unique mounting points designed in. Ford flatheads (with closed or 'torque tube' drivelines) for instance, generally use a 3-point mounting, with 2 mounts on either front corner of the block, and one at the rear of the transmission. The mounts are critical in an engine installation with a closed-style driveshaft (a single universal joint at the transmission, no rear universal, and no sliding splines), as much of the driving force to make the car go forward is transmitted through those mounts, as well as the weight of the engine. I mention this because many modelers completely fail to comprehend the relationship the type of driveshaft and suspension a car has to the rest of it. A flathead installed in an open-driveshaft application will still use the two front mounts (which will no longer transmit driving force) but not necessarily the same rear setup, which will depend partly on the transmission used.

Open driveshafts (2 or more universal joints, one at the trans and one at the diff, and a sliding spline arrangement to allow for varying length as the suspension moves) require the driving force of the car to be transmitted through the rear springs and whatever linkage controls rear axle movement, and the engine mounts in vehicles so equipped do nothing but support the engine's weight, prevent it from moving, and isolate its noise and vibration from the chassis.

But however the power is transmitted, each particular block design within a family will have cast-in bosses for bolts to attach engine mounts, and I always research the particular application to double-check where they are and what they usually look like. They're similar but different. What's necessary to convincingly mount an early Olds OHV V8 in front is quite different from the front mounts on a first-gen OHV Pontiac V8, for example.

Engine mounts in production or street driven vehicles usually incorporate some sort of rubber biscuit or doughnut (mmmm....biscuits) between the part of the mount bolted to the engine and the part attached to the chassis, for noise and vibration isolation. The chassis-side bits can be welded or bolted, the latter when several engine options were available in a particular body shell, or in those aftermarket installations where bolting is acceptable.

Racing cars of various types often dispense with noise abatement, and the mounts are often solid, sometimes in the original location on the block, and sometimes redesigned entirely, and becoming plates sandwiched (mmmm....sandwich) between the timing cover and the block, or the bellhousing and the block. In some cases, the rear engine mount sandwiched between the bellhousing and the rear face of the block is also the firewall of the vehicle, an integral part of the chassis.

Because of all of the variables in application and mount design, the best thing to do is to research each build individually if you're after technical correctness.

There is a sub-class of engine mounting, where the engine block itself is actually a stressed member of the chassis (see Ford Cosworth DFV F1 engine), primarily for weight and rigidity management. In some designs, longerons next to the engine carry part of the chassis loads, and in others the engine is the only frame the vehicle has between front and rear mounting plates. F1 cars have gone as far as eliminating any structure behind the front of the engine, using the gearbox as a chassis member too, and hanging the rear suspension directly from it. Needless to say, it takes some real wizardry in engineering to pull it off.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 06 November 2012 - 05:05 PM.


#31 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:20 AM

good stuff; thanks. what i am taking away from this for the immediate, is that i need block support front & aft on a "driveshaft", and block support front on a torque tube. i'll grow into the nuances as i journey down the road.

now, hypothetically, if one had researched, say a '63 chevy inliner, and came up dry, could someone suggest a website that would show full mounting in clean detail?

thanks again

Edited by southpier, 06 November 2012 - 12:32 PM.


#32 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:40 AM

..... what i am taking away from this for the immediate, is that i need block support front & aft on a "driveshaft", and block supprt front on a torque tube.


Well, sorta. I wasn't clear enough, and there are so many variables. With a torque-tube you'll still need support for the engine / gearbox WEIGHT at the rear, but the front mounts on a torque-tube setup control fore-and-aft movement as well as support weight. In a conventional driveshaft, the mounts really only support the engine-gearbox weight. To complicate the pie, some cars, like the Porsche 944, use a torque tube with independent rear suspension, so the engine / gearbox mounts in that case only support weight. There have been dry-lakes cars built where the tail of the trans is solidly bolted to the rear axle and the whole mess pivots on the front motor mounts as the rear suspension moves. Confused yet?

One constant is that there will be at least 3 mounts for the engine / gearbox, sometimes more. Rear mounts can be attached to the bellhousing, and sometimes the rear mount will be under the trans tailshaft, or one on either side of it. Like I said, it depends on the specific application.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 06 November 2012 - 10:23 AM.


#33 2002p51

2002p51

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 705 posts
  • Location:Kingsport, TN
  • Full Name:Drew

Posted 06 November 2012 - 09:52 AM

Ford flatheads, for instance, use a 3-point mounting, with 2 mounts on either front corner of the block, and one at the rear of the transmission.


The mounting tabs on a flathead Ford are actually part of the water pumps, not the block. In this photo you can see the mounting ear just above and to the left of the lower water inlet.

Posted Image

Here's how they look once installed in the car.

Posted Image

#34 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:11 AM

now, hypothetically, if one had researched, say a '63 chevy inliner, and came up dry, could someone suggest a website that would show full mounting in clean detail?

thanks again


Well, this is where the fun begins (if you like research). I first google-searched "Chevy inline 6" and got a wiki site with the displacements and various production years. For '63, 194 and 230 cu.in. engines were common. So, I did a google image-search of "chevy 194 motor mount", and just about everything you could want is there.

https://www.google.c...iw=1563&bih=718

The next thing to do would be to do a similar run at what kind of transmissions came behind the inlines. If you look at the data in the first wiki, it tells what engines came in what cars. So, say your little six came in a Chevy 2. Search "'63 Chevy transmissions". One of your hits will be "powerglide". Seach "'63 Chevy 2 Powerglide". Yup, the PG came in Chevy 2s. Image search "powerglide trans mounts" and you get a bunch of pix of hardware, but you get an idea of what they might look like. Then image-search "powerglide transmission" and scroll through the pix 'til you see something that looks like something from the LAST search, bolted to the underside of the transmission. Jackpot...something close enough to be ...close enough.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 06 November 2012 - 05:07 PM.


#35 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 06 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

The mounting tabs on a flathead Ford are actually part of the water pumps, not the block. In this photo you can see the mounting ear just above and to the left of the lower water inlet.




Okay...I work on this stuff for a living. Daily.....not ALL flatheads mount to the pumps. For instance....

Posted Image

But all the mounts attach roughly AT the front corners of the block.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 06 November 2012 - 10:49 AM.


#36 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 06 November 2012 - 12:48 PM

oye! this gets deep but i do appreciate the help. i'm concentrating on "period correct" gow jobs, so gratefully i can not think about all the possible variations of engine mounts just yet. next genre will be dirt trackers but just trying to get the basics down for now.

i'm okay with the flathead front mounts. in the Tardel hot rod book, the transmission looks like it's sandwiching the K member and bolting through to the little bumpy thing on the end of the torque tube.

Q: is that a correct conclusion?

now i'll go and perform my due diligence on the google* link.

thanks again


*oh, lordy - what have you done to me! gonna be a late night ............

Edited by southpier, 06 November 2012 - 12:50 PM.


#37 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:29 PM

....in the Tardel hot rod book, the transmission looks like it's sandwiching the K member and bolting through to the little bumpy thing on the end of the torque tube.

Q: is that a correct conclusion?


Ummm, basically. There are running changes from year to year on how the old Fords were built. They were learning how to build cars by building cars, so to speak, and improvements were happening hot and heavy. The photo below is a '35 Ford gearbox, I believe, in a '35 Ford. The K-member has evolved into an X-member, but the function is the same...impart torsional rigidity to the chassis while supporting the gearbox and wishbone end. You can see the rubber mount that the gearbox pokes thru...

Posted Image

...and here is a GENERAL view of the mount itself. It bolts to the chassis at the sides, and you can see one of those bolts (silver) in the photo above.

Posted Image

This is a K-member. Front of car is to the left. Trans pokes thru hole in crossmember, mount is similar to the one above, but different.

Posted Image
Just to muddy the waters even more, this is how easy it is to mount a later-model gearbox in a '32 (or an A bone or a '33 thru '48) if the box is designed for a mount under the tailshaft....assuming an open driveshaft.....

Posted Image This trans could be bolted to a flathead and happily use the front mounts illustrated on that beautiful car posted by Drew. The front mounts are far apart enough to counter rocking of the engine due to torque reaction. This trans mount would NOT be a good idea with the more centered front mount on the truck flathead in the rusty shot I posted above. The optimum solution would be to re-work that front mount to carry out to the frame rails on either side, with a biscuit on each end.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 06 November 2012 - 05:17 PM.


#38 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 06 November 2012 - 04:33 PM

oh yeah. i guess that the transmission couldn't mount rigid or else the suspension would wreak havoc with everything in the drivetrain. i'm sorta getting this, albiet slowly.

great K frame shot, too. is the springy thing visible in the center cut-out part of the mechanical brake assembly?

thanks

#39 southpier

southpier

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,657 posts
  • Location:northeast coast
  • Full Name:joe smythe

Posted 08 November 2012 - 01:11 AM

column shifting - i understand it is not used with a "top-loader" transmission, but is there any reason it could not be used in a street rod? my recollection is that it is a less positive method of moving through the gears.

pedals - swing pedals mounted on the firewall strong enough?

front suspension - Flemke. only used on race cars?


thanks

#40 Ace-Garageguy

Ace-Garageguy

    MCM Ohana

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,913 posts
  • Location:Down two, then left.
  • Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted 08 November 2012 - 05:29 AM

Minor point..."top loader" refers to access to the guts when one is servicing or assembling the gearbox. "Top-shift" is the distinction as to where the linkage goes in, like "top-shift '39 Ford" or "top-shift LaSalle", as opposed to side-shift.

Ford top-loader (The internals are partially accessed through the plate bolted to the top. Many gearboxes "load" from the sides or even the bottom.) with side shifter linkage connected to a through-floor shift lever........

Posted Image
You're correct that column-shift linkage works with side-shifted gearboxes. There was a short time when column-shift was a cool setup in customs and rods, because it was the 'new thing' in production cars. I'll check the exact time period if you want.....You're also correct that it is usually less positive feeling than a floor shifter (because of the complexity of the linkage and the need for it to change direction, and to allow for movement of the gearbox on its rubber mount, relative to the chassis / body), hence the return to floor-shift for performance applications.

Though I'm honestly not familiar with the theory or reasons for using the Flemke front suspension setup (although I would guess it was intended to allow for different spring-rates or weight-jacking on either front side, to help in setting up a circle-track chassis for particular track conditions) there's no reason it couldn't be used on a hot rod for something different. Other than the spring, it's pretty similar to a conventional solid-axle installation.

PS. Swing pedals are fine hanging from the firewall or cowl so long as there's sufficient beef in the mounting (either factory strength or local reinforcement) to prevent movement of the fulcrum during enthusiastic operation.

PPS. I did some research and apparently Flemke hit on the design by accident. Seems the wrong front spring was delivered for a race car, so to get a Q&D fix, he cut the spring in half and made up an adjustable weight-jacking rig. It worked well, and the rest is history.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy, 08 November 2012 - 11:17 AM.