Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What frame would you use?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Bob, if this is going to be s streetable, Stude powered car, you won't need the 'X' member. The PBW doesn't have that 'X' member and the frame has held up with 365 HP at the wheels. If this is going to be just a 4 barrel car, you're not going to hurt the frame. If this was a race car, I'd say go with the extra reinforcement. In this case, I'd save the weight.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tom - Valrico, FL

    1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $1828.98)

    Tom - Bradenton, FL

    1964 Studebaker Daytona - 289 4V, 4-Speed (Cost To Date: $2514.10)
    1964 Studebaker Commander - 170 1V, 3-Speed w/OD

    Comment


    • #17
      OK Tom (sbca96), I probably wasn't clear enough thus far; here are a few details of the car I want to build:

      1. 1962
      2. Daytona
      3. 2 dr. HARDTOP
      4. Skytop
      5. 289 Studebaker V8, 4 BBL
      6. 4-speed transmission
      8. Studebaker TT rear end
      7. 100% totally stock appearance, down to the hubcaps

      These items are, for this car, non-negotiable. I have the running gear already- engine, trans., rear end. I don't want a 4 door, or 2 door post. I have 3 earlier Larks (2-59s, 1-60), and don't like the 64-66 as well. I wanted a 62 or 63, but I have a complete 62 Skytop roof- so that rules out a 63. NO interest in a rollcage- I want my family to be able to get in and out! As stated, this will be mostly touring car, very little race car.

      Again, I want this car to be ALL Stude-powered. I accept that the Stude engine is limited in it's capabilities. This won't be a race car, so it doesn't matter. The idea is to learn more about Stude engines; I can envision it as a never-ending test bench (like most, I suppose!). I'm sure I'll warm it over initially, and likely will over time get more involved with it. I read what guys like Ted Harbit, Nimesh, and Mike Van Veghten are doing with interest; maybe they'll inspire me to go further. I'm also working on a local guy with a couple r1s and at least 2 r2s; if he'll let one go that may change my direction, but the fuel requirements and road manners are a turnoff, so maybe not.

      I've read other posts you've written about buying wrecked late-model Camaros and putting that drivetrain in a Stude body. Frankly, I couldn't agree with that more! For some reason I've seen you ridiculed over this concept- which makes no sense! Only problem is if someone wants to stay all Stude- as in this case. This is why I bought a complete, rusty 62 GT with the running gear, and a complete, rusty Skytop with a complete, operable top. Down the road, I may build another one going your route; just not for this car.

      I can imagine the car you describe. I just can't imagine me building it...

      However, if YOU build it, I'll be glad to watch

      Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
      Parish, central NY 13131
      http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2358680/1

      Comment


      • #18
        quote:Originally posted by Swifster

        Bob, if this is going to be s streetable, Stude powered car, you won't need the 'X' member. The PBW doesn't have that 'X' member and the frame has held up with 365 HP at the wheels. If this is going to be just a 4 barrel car, you're not going to hurt the frame. If this was a race car, I'd say go with the extra reinforcement.
        I'm definitely not thinking race car; but who knows what the future holds? I'm trying to prepare for that possibility...

        Mostly, though, I'm thinking about how to possibly stiffen up the body, and whether the frame will make any difference.

        Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
        Parish, central NY 13131
        http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2358680/1

        Comment


        • #19
          From someone that has owned two V8 Skytop hardtops - I do not believe that you need the X-member. With the remainder of the roof in place the bodies of the Skytops seemed as good/rigid as the bodies of other hardtops without the Skytop. The top is not able to flex like a convertible or a sliding roof Wagonaire. You do need a good body and frame. It would be good if you can get a good '62-'63 hardtop frame to start with. I don't see why you can't use a '63 hardtop body, unless you are concerned with numbers matching. Of course it wouldn't take much trim change to make a '63 look like a '62. IIRC, the entire hardtop roof assembly on a '62 is the same as on a '63. Also. your Skytop asembly can be used on any '61-'63 Lark type sedan or hardtop.

          Gary L.
          Wappinger, NY

          1959 DeLuxe pickup (restomod)
          Gary L.
          Wappinger, NY

          SDC member since 1968
          Studebaker enthusiast much longer

          Comment


          • #20
            If you were going to weld in the skytop, which I assume you are, gary is spot on... but I suspect the roof stamping *is* different because both the windshield and rear window are different between '62 and '63. also the cowl is different so the '62 dash won't fit in a '63, and I have to admit I prefer the styling of the '62 even if there is no easy way to mount a tach other than a mini-tach in the clock hole or an aftermarket tach strapped on the column.

            nate

            --
            55 Commander Starlight
            http://members.cox.net/njnagel
            --
            55 Commander Starlight
            http://members.cox.net/njnagel

            Comment


            • #21
              Bob, it sounds to me like you want your car to handle, more than you want to win 1/4 mile drags, right?

              I'd say go with the X frame. Sure, it adds weight, probably close to 200 pounds if the weight of an X-member I took out of an old Wagonaire frame is any indication. But the added weight is low in the body, and is more or less centered between the axles. I'd suggest that this would both lower the roll center of the car, and tend to reduce the polar moment of inertia, both of which are GOOD THINGS if handling is your objective.

              I expect you would also want to add Turner brakes, a model 44 TT rear axle, and front and rear sway bars. Note that these items all add weight to either the front or the rear of the car, and tend to increase the polar moment of inertia. So some of the benefits of these items are spent on compensating for their extra mass.

              I'd suggest you query RoadraceLark about this. He may have some insight. Somebody, somewhere probably has a computer simulation where you could plug in various numbers for component weights, and see what it does to the car's theoretical handling properties.

              Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands
              Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

              Comment


              • #22
                Sounds like you are going the same direction as me with my Avanti.

                My R1 is going to get a shortblock rebuild, and then get the heads off
                my 60 Hawk engine. These are originally '64 heads with SST valves for
                intake and exhaust (1.92/stock). The intake valves are extended Chevy
                valves for use in NASCAR, they are the same length as Stude. All the
                shrouding was removed, ports gasket matched, and runners smoothed. I
                have about 2000-3000 into the heads. I feel that I will use the "R3"
                cam regrind also from the Hawk engine, and the Mopar lifters with the
                shortened pushrods. I will also use the Levesque HEI distributor, AFB
                Edebrock carb, "R3" exhaust manifolds and a 2-1/4 Silvertone exhaust.
                In the Hawk engine with hyperutechnic pistons I had plenty of power on
                tap. A T56 6-speed will be backing up the R1, and putting power thru
                the Dana 44 TT. Bilstein shocks will be on all around, and the also
                the largest swaybars I can find. I was considering ones from T-bow,
                but I have a wrecked '94 Firebird I might just swipe the front and rear
                sway bars from - considerably larger than Stude. I already have the 13"
                disc brake setup I designed, and will be adding a matching 12" vented
                rear. I am playing with the idea of fiberglass rear springs, and also
                a torque arm traction control to the rear of the T56 trans. One other
                item on the table is a panhard bar. I want to be able to take the car
                to road courses, and not look like a fool.

                FYI, I will have whats left of the Hawk engine for sale, rebuilt short
                block with above mentioned pistons, cast rings, michigan 77 bearings,
                R1 cam, aluminum timing gear approx 20k miles. Had 180-188 compression
                with the above mentioned heads. The block is 'drilled' for a GM trans
                adapter kit.

                Tom
                '63 Avanti R1, '03 Mustang Cobra 13" front disc/98 GT rear brakes, 03 Cobra 17" wheels, GM alt, 97 Z28 leather seats, TKO 5-spd, Ported heads w/SST full flow valves.
                Check out my disc brake adapters to install 1994-2004 Mustang disc brakes on your Studebaker!!
                http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...bracket-update
                I have also written many TECH how to articles, do a search for my Forum name to find them

                Comment


                • #23
                  Thank you all for your responses- all appreciated!

                  Gord- As stated, this is more touring car than anything; no drags, no road course. Where I live it's mostly open road; so I want a car that can be comfortable at 70+ MPH, and give a good ride doing it. I'm not real worried about weight; more about durability and body integrity long-term. I will have dual master, front disc, and already have the 44 TT. I'll build the car with this in mind; but from experience I know that these things are evolving; so I'm sure,as in the past, I'll make changes as I get to know the finished car. I will be referring to this thread many times as I get underway; and truly appreciate your suggestions!

                  Does anyone have a bottom picture of a car with x-frame and dual exhaust? I've had Vettes, and always HATED the cobbled look of exhaust that had to be worked around the car's underpinnings as an afterthought[xx(] A Lark has enough room to tuck the exhaust up out of the way without vibrating against the floor; I'd like to see how the pipes go through or around the X.

                  Tom- I'm trying to stick to the subject of this thread; but will reiterate, I have the engine, trans., rear I'm using already! I'll have enough questions in this area, and you can bet I'll have threads on those also!

                  I think lots of people envision what they think will be their "ultimate" car, and spend tons of money and time building it, only to find they're disappointed with the end result, for any number of reasons- power, drivability, handling, ride, etc. But they've already over-committed to big-dollar engines, suspension parts, etc. that take too much to change... so their toy mostly sits in the garage ignored until it hits eBay at 30 cents on the dollar...

                  I'm taking the time to plan a little more; and the logical place to start is the frame! I have my overall theme and "feel" decided; I'm sure this will adjust as I proceed.



                  Robert (Bob) Andrews Owner- IoMT (Island of Misfit Toys!)
                  Parish, central NY 13131
                  http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2358680/1

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    This is Karls "old" exhaust, but you get the idea.



                    I felt I was on topic, with extra info, frames were brought up, and it
                    was suggested to use an X-member frame - thats what my Avanti has. The
                    offer on the engine was to move you ahead of the rebuild, machining
                    process, up to head work. I read that you have an engine, but I just
                    assumed it was a rebuildable core - not ready to install. Sorry. The
                    basics to what you described, is a mild road course car. Granted I'm
                    going further down that "road", but setting up the suspension is one
                    of the items that fits hand in hand with the frame. I think that Ted
                    doesnt have issues with the Tomato or PBR because its NOT going thru
                    the "twisties". Body roll & hard cornering will twist a Stude frame.
                    The X-member resists that. Granted there is twisting going on from a
                    hard drag strip launch, but a hard corner will want more.

                    If you dont plan on beating it around corners .. than its overkill. It
                    sounded like that was part of the plan.

                    Tom

                    quote:Originally posted by bams50
                    Does anyone have a bottom picture of a car with x-frame and dual exhaust? Tom- I'm trying to stick to the subject of this thread; but will reiterate, I have the engine, trans., rear I'm using already!
                    '63 Avanti R1, '03 Mustang Cobra 13" front disc/98 GT rear brakes, 03 Cobra 17" wheels, GM alt, 97 Z28 leather seats, TKO 5-spd, Ported heads w/SST full flow valves.
                    Check out my disc brake adapters to install 1994-2004 Mustang disc brakes on your Studebaker!!
                    http://forum.studebakerdriversclub.c...bracket-update
                    I have also written many TECH how to articles, do a search for my Forum name to find them

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I agree....
                      Just add some local bracing, front and rear sway bars, traction bars, and run the snot out of it...
                      You do not need an X-member to go fast.....
                      You think a Stude engine has enough torque to tear it apart?
                      Eventually...sure, but probably not in your lifetime.
                      Just put it together and drive it...
                      You'll wait a long, long time for it to break.
                      Jeff[8D]


                      quote:Originally posted by sbca96

                      Why not do one better? Instead of robbing a convertible or Avanti of
                      its X-member - take the dimensions, and have one made out of 6061 or
                      7075 aircraft grade structural aluminum. It will be as strong as you
                      design it, and be 1/3 the weight. Add stiffening braces to the area
                      between the spring perches and the a-piller crossmember.

                      Tom

                      '63 Avanti, zinc plated drilled & slotted 03 Mustang Cobra 13" front disc/98 GT rear brakes, 03 Cobra 17" wheels, GM alt, 97 Z28 leather seats, soon: 97 Z28 T-56 6-spd, Ported heads w/SST full flow valves, 'R3' 276 cam, Edelbrock AFB Carb, GM HEI distributor, 8.8mm plug wires
                      HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                      Jeff


                      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                      Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X