MonteCarloSS.com

What I have been waiting for!

Posted By: 1 Slow SS

What I have been waiting for! - 01/18/20 10:09 PM

This is a build I have always wanted to see, I just had this emailed to me from LSx this week. I would love to build something like this! The Monte Carlo here is being transformed into the best build we can imagine IMO!


https://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/...-secretly-packs-c6-corvette-performance/



[Linked Image]

Posted By: SSLance

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/19/20 01:00 PM

I'm friends with Gordie the builder and have followed this build from the start. I've even been offered a chance to sit in the drivers seat which I will take advantage of if I can. Awesome build.
Posted By: 1 Slow SS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/19/20 04:27 PM

Lance,

With your knowledge and inside awareness of the build you should share with us some more details and performance expectations. Will he sell the car once done, or has someone commissioned the build?

What ever happened to Dan with the Schwartz chassis car? Did he walk away from everyone to avoid the competitive BS? That car was the best build to date that I'm aware of?

Ron.
Posted By: SSLance

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/20/20 04:34 AM

Gordie and Aaron Oberle designed chassis brackets to use to adapt Corvette suspensions onto universal frame rails. Gordie built a Duster first and is now building the G6, plus a couple other cars for customers. Aaron is building a GTA using a similar plan.

They are using them to showcase how their kits work.

Dan is still around. Had a bout with cancer but is doing well now. He is still racing the Monte a bit, even had a little mishap with it at NCM last fall so it's currently being repaired and put back together. 2 years ago he built a killer little Willys truck for his daughter. Saw him and it at SEMA last year.
Posted By: PB86SS/87LS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/20/20 02:10 PM

Very cool but the drawback (for me) is kind of what I assumed and after seeing the one picture in the article, that the interior will just about unrecognizable even when complete. But I doubt the owner cares thumbs
Posted By: SSLance

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/20/20 03:22 PM

Here's a video on his Duster... Project Recycled...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LkgOW-5pwM
Posted By: 345HP87SSAC

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/21/20 12:56 AM

wow.
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/21/20 10:02 PM

Hi Folks,

Intriguing! Whenever I see something this interesting, I like to make a list of pros and cons of what I see. Helps to track parallel lanes of thought development.

Pros
1. Better weight distribution: possibly close to 50%-50%.
2. Much wider track, apparently the same as a C6 minus possibly a deeper rim backspacing.
3. Better suspension geometry.
4. Better chassis torsional rigidity.
5. Ease of adapting various LS engines.
6. IRS and the numerous benefits that entails.

Neutral
1. Roughly conserved COM height aside from suspension height bias. A bit more precisely, the COM height of the sprung portion of the car's weight is roughly conserved.

Cons
1. $$$
2. $$$
3. $$$
4. IRS's limited anti-squat.
5. Simple, hacked-off wheel well perimeters with no pretense of the body extending out to the wheels scream, "I'm fond of the Dukes of Hazzard."

By the time I see $$$$$$$$$, I think, "I could do better for possibly less money starting with an electric drivetrain." The engine is still on the wrong end of the car. That's not to say at all, however, that the base chassis concept doesn't have a lot of merit to it.

Best,
MAP
Posted By: SSLance

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/21/20 10:33 PM

I'm not sure the $$ part of it is that bad. Gordie built his Duster #projectrecycled under basically the same principle for $22,000 all in. I expect this one to come in around the same price. The bang for the buck at least track performance wise is there. Comfort wise and street manner wise will be on the light side but it'll be a monster on track.
Posted By: 1 Slow SS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/21/20 11:23 PM

Its a killer build for the money and for sure not a daily driver. If I had the car I could make a sweet set of flares and a well fitted dash and interior, to kind of resemble the street car appearance. These builds are based on low investment and function by the video and pictures. Skinning car bodies has become more and more popular. These guys have a good thing going I think.

Electric cars do nothing for me, I could careless how fast they are or any other positive. If it doesn't have a choppy idle with good exhaust note and some less desirable street manors what fun is it?

Ron
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/21/20 11:52 PM

One thing is how much it cost Gordie to build it, and another is how much he would charge to do it for a customer. We too could go online, buy a $10k-$15k C6 rolling chassis, build a frame, and get an SS body for around the same total price. Also, if he sells only the chassis and drivetrain, then would the potential customer be willing to invest the considerable time and effort to adapt their donor body to the chassis?

In the end we either spend $$$ plus a mountain of time, or $$$$$$$$$$ for the finished product. If time <=> money, then no matter how you slice this, as the end customer, you're looking at $$$$$$$$$$.

About street versus track: with enough torsional rigidity improvement, let's say on the order of at least 3:1, the new package might have much considerably better NVH than the OE chassis when mated to the stiff tires prevalent nowadays. So, it might make a great daily driver too.

Electric: no problem SlowSS - forget that - just put the ICE in the rear where it belongs, like the C8 smile

Best,
MAP
Posted By: 1 Slow SS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 01:38 AM

MAP, cars have went crazy from the factory now days, the new corvette is awesome and we can't ever make a G body one of those. When I think how fare to take a G body this post is about the best it will be. Although it's not a G body anymore it sure resembles one.

I will just implement to my G body AFX spindles, complimenting geometry changes and a true coil over suspension with additional frame support. And don't forget a power house of an NA engine. Racing auto cross races and drag strips doesn't have my interest anymore. I would much rather have a clean car than one that's tattered from abuse, different strokes for different folks, doesn't mean anyone is wrong or right, we all have our own ways and expectations from the builds.

Ron
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 03:15 AM

Hi Slow,

Very sensible and reasonable point of view. Sometimes I need to take myself out of stratosphere mode and get my feet back on the ground.

So is there any word on how much he might charge for a G-body, and what one gets for that price?

Thx,
MAP
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 05:49 AM

After revisiting that Chevhardcore site and taking a closer look at the photos, some further thoughts:

https://www.chevyhardcore.com/news/...-secretly-packs-c6-corvette-performance/

1. They had to chop-out the firewall and the entire floor extending into the trunk. No doubt the original rear fenderwells are gone too. Just this aspect alone of the build is major time and/or money.

2. 3:1 improved frame torsional rigidity compared to stock is a cinch. They might have even hit 10:1, suggested by the later shots that show more frame structure along the centerline of the car. No doubt the body will be hard-coupled to the frame, so NVH in this sense may take a hit. Or not - NVH is a complicated and oftentimes unintuitive thing.

3. Those hacked-out wheel openings look embarrassingly cheesy to my eyes. The cuts take out a bunch of body rigidity out too: if you look closely at the left rear quarter, you'll see they put a crease in the sheet metal above the wheel. Presumably new wheel well housings would fix that.

4. Any sort of body extension that would extend out so far as to cover the wheels might look very strange too, if not quite as cheesy. The difference in width between a C6 and an A/G body (on the order of six inches as I recall,) is simply too big to bridge with any sheet metal that's going to look stock. Or even stock-ish. Better to cut the body down the middle and widen the whole thing, especially considering how narrow the seats need to be to clear that large central frame box. How to handle the glass is beyond me: Marcus seemed to have something in mind years ago that would have surmounted this when I proposed my widened A/G body, but he never elaborated. Another option: widen the body right below the cabin superstructure, tapering the widening to stock at the extreme front and rear. I remember Paul C.has photos of a model of a racing MCSS with this theme. On the face of it, at any rate, the look is going to be somewhere between cheesy and very strange.

5. Done correctly, this could be a very driveable car on the street. But the cabin needs to get wider for comfortable seats with that large central frame box.

No matter how I look at this, I see $$$$$$$$$$. There's no way a customer is going to come in with an old MCSS and drive away with a finished car with all the goodies those photos suggest for less than $100k unless he's giving away his labor.

Of course, I'm open to being proven wrong, in which case I'd love to see his business model(!)

Best,
MAP
Posted By: Travis Jones

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 06:55 PM

With C7's dropping into the 30k range, it would be hard to justify doing this.

Plus at what point does it stop being a G-body and become something else? Not much of the original car there.

Very cool, but not for me.
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 09:06 PM

Great point. If all we're left with us is the exterior cosmetics, is it still an A/G body? I think it's become a given that if we want modern-day high performance in a configuration conceived more than a half-century ago, it's going to take radical surgery no matter what. And the cost will follow suit - it won't be cheap.

That's why I keep on saying that this hobby will eventually vanish as the cost of upgrading forever escalates, and the fans of the original design forever evanesce.

Radical surgery means, by definition, an exchange of a significant part of the car's original character for the enhanced performance we're looking for, to the extent original character and performance are mutually exclusive. And often, they are. So, we'll have to get used to keeping less and less of the car's original character to get that modern performance.

The saving grace here, however, is that I don't think we need to give up the car's appearance to do this. And appearance is, for me, the ultimate deal-breaker. I could be very happy with a car that looks like an A/G body, but handles and accelerates like a C8.

Back to this project: the increased width is probably driven by a desire to keep the swap simple by not having to narrow a C6 chassis. That's very understandable. And coupled with the package's reduced ride height (4-ish inches compared to a stock MCSS?) we get reduced lateral load transfer in a turn, increasing maximum transverse acceleration. But, we could keep the stock width of the car stock and get the same benefit by reducing the sprung mass' COM, and although I'm not trying to tout electric here by any means, I will say that electric accomplishes that and more. I mentioned putting an ICE in the rear for better weight distribution to suit a street car, but can you imagine trying to do that with an A/G body? The rear seat would be gone for sure.

Anyway, we keep on circling back to the theme that big performance gains will mean big surgery and big $$$$$$$$$ no matter what. Sad to say, that's 2020 for you.

Best,
MAP
Posted By: PB86SS/87LS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 10:14 PM

Fortunately there is a lot of middle ground from "stock/original" to taking a C6 chassis and putting a body skin on it for optimal performance. Some people are happy with bolting on better/improved parts and seeing/feeling the results of that. And some still and will always enjoy hoping in a stock version and cruising around in it.

It's nice to see different builds and approaches to these cars, I sure wouldn't mind driving it but assume it would pretty much be a C6 with different sight lines from that racing seat. Not surprisingly I'm also in the "very cool but not for me" camp with this, even if I had the funds for it ready to go I'd probably rather do something else with that money. I think once the interior/floor is basically gutted it loses too much of what makes the car appealing to me and what the car is, or it's soul. In some ways its a nicer (ok much nicer) version of what some stock car guys do with g-bodies, taking roof skins/body panels and putting them on some chassis or back on a caged/tweaked g-body chassis.
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 10:28 PM

Hi PB,

Yes, I keep on thinking about the bleeding edge of performance while ignoring the huge middle ground where most of us could live happily ever after. So hope, after all!

But I keep scratching my head when I see that Monte with wheel openings looking for all the world like they were cut by a third grader with a crayon that got carried away with a Sawzall. The shapes of the openings look awful. "Circle track" and "Dukes of Hazzard" again...

I think the only option left that makes any sense at all is that this is a "look" that the builder thinks is distinctive for his brand, and isn't too offensive for the potential buyer. Plus, he can apply it to any car, so it's a minimum-fuss solution.

But talk about a look that violates the car's original character!

Anyway, for me too, I'd pass, even if I had the money burning a hole somewhere. I firmly believe that a 4" increase in maximum body width is as wide as you can go without transitioning into an unacceptably weird appearance.

Best,
MAP

Posted By: 1 Slow SS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/22/20 11:08 PM

As someone that loves to fabricate, I appreciate the build. If it was me I would split the car in half widening the entire body then flaring the wheel openings similar to a GNX but with steel. In personally would need to retain the OEM look and interior with a fit finish close to factory. I would never do anything like this to MY SS though. The car means way too much to me, heck I can't even stomach knocking in the frame rails and mini tubing it. This execution will evolve most likely with more refined examples as others dive in. All in all I'm stoked to see this as I have always wanted to see a C6 under a Monte Carlo.
Posted By: BadSS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/23/20 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Travis Jones
With C7's dropping into the 30k range, it would be hard to justify doing this.

Plus at what point does it stop being a G-body and become something else? Not much of the original car there.

Very cool, but not for me.


I agree with Travis. It's cool that folks are willing to go to the extreme with a G-body. However, I have multiple sentimental attachments to mine and just couldn't take it to that extreme. I have to admit, it's been used and abused at times, but I'm bringing it back out with minor suspension mods and a little tamer engine to be more "driveable". I never thought the handling was terrible when it was stock, but about all the spirited driving I did other than a straight line was hitting the on ramps a little faster than most. I may feel differently when I get it going after driving a G8 GT for the past 10 years - lol

Also agree (and I'm not really a Vette guy) - before I would drop the coin on something like a frame swapped Monte, I'd drop the dime on a low mileage C6 (I can get in and out of it better than a C7) and throw a Magnuson on it (or buy a high mileage one on the cheap and build a 427 with killer heads and smallish cam). Maybe do some bang for the buck suspension mods with sticky street tires and call it a day..
Posted By: mmc427ss

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/23/20 06:46 AM

My two cents, build what you want, to each his own.
Got to give the guy credit, he has the desire and talent to do a build like that. So the cost of such a build for him is parts. I know for the thousands of hours I have in my car the return would be about 2 cents an hour when the car gets sold. We have all seen the 100 grand street rod build that sold for 30 grand.

In his Duster video he mentions Aaron Oberle as a close friend who drove the Duster at LS Fest. I'm thankful that i had the opportunity to meet Aaron and actually get three ride-a-longs at UMI King of the mountain event this past Fall. Aaron's 65 Malibu has a Mast LS, a frame designed/build by Aaron and gets around an autox course very well. I can see how Gordy and Aaron play well together.

Do I like the stock car wheel wells look, not really but again to each his own. Do I like the huge tires on the car, YEP.

Several years ago at Super Chevy there was a early 60 red Vette that had a C5 chassis/driveline under it. It was impressive at the time, very expensive build but you wouldn't know it visually from the outside. That's more my speed, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Bob
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/23/20 09:11 PM

I agree that if the body is going to get 6" wider, then the best way to do that is by widening as much of the original body as possible. But ultimately the body needs to taper back to original width at the front and rear so that the factory front and rear fascia pieces and bumpers can fit. The biggest obstacle is the windshield and rear window. How to deal with that? Graft a 6" section of glass in the middle of each with a silicone elastomer butt-joint bond leaving two very ugly witness lines? I wish we could get Marcus back here to share his vast custom-fabbing knowledge. Btw, that chassis is probably going to be 100-150lb heavier than a stock A/G body. The engine, if aluminum, may be about 100lb lighter than an SBC, but there's easily 200(+) lb of extra mass in that very substantial frame. And I don't think that extra mass has been spent in the best places to gain maximum rigidity - for example, I think that big central box inside the cabin is unnecessary and its benefits could be duplicated by a growth in the side rails. What a great project for some FEA mechanical modeling! Even building scale models could yield a lot of insight, as Herb Adams used to advocate.

I think I've seen efforts to narrow a C6 chassis too, along the lines of deeper rim backspacing and/or shortened control arms and axle halves. I'd concentrate on the best combination of C6 narrowing/MCSS body widening to get the job done, and I suspect the "sweet spot" of that compromise would be a 4" growth in body width, concentrated at the location of the wheels. Zero growth in cabin width, and get rid of that big central frame box, so wide, comfortable seats can still fit. That way the package can be tuned for the street and the track, instead of just being relegated to the very specialized, and thus small, niche market of track use alone.

Here's a concept drawing of an MCSS stretched by 3.5"; 4.0" would still be feasible:

[Linked Image]

I wish I could say I currently own an MCSS that I wouldn't want to hack (and how I can appreciate that sentiment,) but imagining myself in your shoes as I easily can, I would buy another A/G body expressly for this project.

Basically I agree that if we want the best bang for the buck, buying a used Corvette makes way more sense. I remember some posts with Mark Stielow where I basically asked him why he was contorting himself in so many difficult and expensive ways to make a first-gen Camaro perform well when he could just start with a Corvette, but he answered something to the effect that it boils down to a love for the original car.

So for Mark as well as for us, if we want to have Corvette performance in our cars, it's going to cost some major coin.

Any news about how much Gordie would charge for a turn-key MC(SS) modified as we're seeing here?

Thanks,
MAP
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/25/20 02:18 AM

Speaking of narrowing the C6 platform, this company seems to offer very nice options:

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/bolt-corvette-irs-suspension-project/

They offer narrowed IRSs and narrowed front suspensions based on C5 and C6 chassis. Plus a mid-engine option to mount an ICE right where the MCSS back seat area is, of necessity turning the car into a two-occupant driver. I found the "type IV" conversion most interesting, because it's a mid-engine S10 (same track and wheelbase as an A/G body,) that uses a Mendeola SDRS rear.

I'm sure this is $$$$$$$$$ too. At least the resulting car wouldn't look like Fred Flintstone built it - forgive me.

Best,
MAP

Posted By: Tunedss86

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/25/20 02:43 PM

There for a while I was trying to design something similar. Wanted to narrow it so the wheels are tucked in, or flare the fenders a bit like GM did on the Monte they built. Also I made the front frame so it wasn't so straight, thought this would provide some crush zone if ever in a front end crash. Yea I know, lower front crossmember isn't attached. Thought maybe if I ever bought a front cradle I would incorporate it, but have it narrowed a little bit.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]
Posted By: Tunedss86

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/25/20 02:53 PM

According to Google, the width of an 87 Monte SS is 71.8 inches. And according to Cleveland Performance, the outside dimension of rear tires is 71 inches. So it wouldnt take much narrowing to make it work. You would have to use deep backspacing wheels like the OEM Vette ones.


[Linked Image]
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/28/20 08:39 PM

Hi Tuned SS,

Nice CAD work! Solidworks? NX?

The encouraging thing here is that it's clear that an entire universe of options exists as constrained by track width, that ranges somewhere between stock width for an MCSS, and the full width of a C6.

And virtually all of them would permit an enormous increase in stiffness, which is something an MCSS needs very, very badly.

Gordie's chassis certainly fits the bill, but it intrudes so severely and complicatedly into the cabin space, that I don't see it as being feasible, at least not for the street. Now if he developed a package based on the C6 that conserved its virtues while minimizing its detriments, then he might broaden its appeal greatly for the track and the street. Yes, I know this means more development cost that he'd have to amortize into sold units, but if he could get the cabin to bolt-up mount to his frame just as GM did it, he might be able to pull a ton of cost out of the adaptation aspect so that he (and the customer) still come out ahead of where they are now from a business perspective. Yes, I know that not chopping-up the interior makes it harder to increase chassis rigidity as much as we'd like, but if we'd be willing to give-up an inch or two of ground clearance under the frame rails, and hard-mount the cabin to the frame, then maybe we'd get all of the rigidity benefit without the pain of the interior modification.

In my opinion, he should consider this very seriously.

On edit: with this and other developments in mind, maybe now is a good time to update the pluses/minuses list:

Pros
1. Better weight distribution: possibly close to 50%-50% with rear-mounted transmission.
2. Much wider track, apparently the same as a C6 minus possibly a deeper rim backspacing.
3. Much better suspension geometry.
4. Much better chassis torsional rigidity.
5. Ease of adapting various LS engines.
6. IRS and the numerous benefits that entails.

Neutral
1. Roughly conserved COM height aside from suspension height bias. A bit more precisely, the COM height of the sprung portion of the car's weight is roughly conserved.

Cons
1. $$$
2. $$$
3. $$$
4. IRS's limited anti-squat.
5. Simple, hacked-off wheel well perimeters with no pretense of the body extending out to the wheels scream, "I'm fond of the Dukes of Hazzard."
6. Difficulty of adaptation to an A/G body is severe and drives a significant part of $$$$$$$$$. It also mandates narrow seats due to big torsion-tube tunnel. Conclusion: not feasible for the street.

Best,
MAP
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/29/20 10:43 PM

In pondering this further, I think I see more reason to believe the crudely hacked-out wheelwell openings are a branding statement and intentional, rather than a concession to make the adaptation easier. The "more reason" is their choice of MC for this build: a simple non-SS MC that has, of all things, a vinyl roof. This is consistent with the ugliness, in my opinion, of the wheelwells. And if this were driven by ease of adapation alone, then why is it that the extreme modification to the cabin would be countenanced?

So, I conclude, "ugly" is built into the package. I for one, will pass, and especially since it's not impossible to keep all or most of the curb appeal of the MCSS' original appearance without sacrificing the benefits that a C6 chassis would bring. (In saying this I want to re-emphasize that I'm only speaking for myself. YMMV.)

Best,
MAP

Posted By: Tunedss86

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/30/20 02:19 PM

Thanks MAP,


CADD software is NX.

Wish I could find, or find someone that could get it, the CADD data for the Corvette. I'd make it happen for sure then.....

Wish I could get something like this but with the frame & cradles:
[Linked Image]

I bet..... the Monte tunnel wouldn't need changed much, if any, for the torque tube. Not sure, I don't know the diameter of the tube, but it doesnt move like the driveshaft would, so it could be setup close to the tunnel & not have to worrry about interference.

Any thoughts as to how the suspension mounts points would have to change if the width is narrowed a couple inches per side?
Posted By: Buick Runner

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/30/20 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Tunedss86
Thanks MAP,


CADD software is NX.

Wish I could find, or find someone that could get it, the CADD data for the Corvette. I'd make it happen for sure then.....

Wish I could get something like this but with the frame & cradles:
[Linked Image]

I bet..... the Monte tunnel wouldn't need changed much, if any, for the torque tube. Not sure, I don't know the diameter of the tube, but it doesnt move like the driveshaft would, so it could be setup close to the tunnel & not have to worrry about interference.

Any thoughts as to how the suspension mounts points would have to change if the width is narrowed a couple inches per side?





Reminds me of my tractor which uses a similar torque tube, despite being over 70 years old.
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/30/20 10:56 PM

Hi Tuned,

Where on earth did you grab THAT amazing profile view? Nice to say the least! NX - my hat's off to you for mastering that massive chunk of software. No one buys that for a personal machine - may I ask how you use it? Just curious. Points 1 and 2 (anti-squat and anti-dive static centers) are certainly at or close to where I'd put them. Mounting points of that chassis relative to an MCSS: I haven't the foggiest.

That torque tube, for all I know, may have as much or more than, the torsional stiffness of an entire A/G body over that same length of the chassis highlighted in lime green(!)

Best,
MAP
Posted By: Tunedss86

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 01/31/20 10:07 PM

Map, I found that image on a forum where someone was putting it in an old chevy pickup truck. Don't remember who. I have had that pic for a while.

How did I master using Siemens NX software......? LOL

Well I started using it as a designer for Delco Remy when I got out of college designing ABS & Speed sensors. Then went to work for a company that made turbo chargers. I was hired in to help them understand how to use it to design it in 3D ( up to that point they were using it only to make drawings). Then I went to work direct for Siemens about 21 years ago. Have been a consultant with them ever since. Am currently on a project in Virginia with a company that deisgns/builds aircraft carriers for the US Navy. I have been using Unigraphics, UG, NX in some form or another for about 28 years.
Posted By: SSLance

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/01/20 02:52 PM

When I get some time, I'll snag some of Aaron's pics off facebook and post them here of his GTA he is building using the same concept as Gordie. Only difference is Aaron us going to run 275 tires and not cut the fenders. It's going to be awesome and a bit more tame looking than the G6.
Posted By: SSLance

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/01/20 04:52 PM

Aaron Oberle
January 22 at 8:08 PM ·
Had a productive afternoon on the #transvettite today. Thanks to @projectrecycled for coming by to lend a hand.
I got the shortened torque tube back from Dynotech yesterday. Last night I was able to shorten the shifter tube the same amount. Today, we put the motor in first by raising the body and chassis with the lift, then put the motor in the front cradle. Dropped the chassis back down over it. We then put the torque tube and trans in thru the rear hatch.
Everything lined up perfectly so far, pretty happy with it.
Now I can make some more progress with the cage.
#c5c6chassisbrackets #tubechassiseverything #corvetteinside #holleyperformance #ridetech #forgeline

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

You can find the whole post here, I think it's public...

https://www.facebook.com/aaron.oberle.3
Posted By: SSLance

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/01/20 04:56 PM

Ron Myers: Love this project Aaron! How’s the track width?

Aaron Oberle: Per my calcs, track width with a 275 square setup will be right around 61" (center to center of tire). Outside width would be around 72-72.5" The front will be tight to tuck in the fender. The rear shouldn't be a problem since the body is 2" wider in the back.

Lance Hamilton: So wait, small tires and no flares!?!? Yes..... 😀

[Linked Image]
Posted By: 1 Slow SS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/01/20 05:19 PM

That's really cool, and awesome fabrication skills to say the least. I still would love to slice a body in half and widen the track width. The glass is no big deal as you always need custom safety glass made when we chop roofs and such. I'm curious with how much further back the front seats will be offset back when doing these builds?
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/01/20 09:58 PM

Hi Folks,

Interesting pictures and developments! If it were my MCSS, I'd widen the body at the wheels by 4" (the maximum, in my opinion, to avoid visual weirdness,) so I could use wider tires. Maybe at that point, rims with about 1" deep backspacing would fit using a stock-width C6 chassis. I'd only check front scrub radius to make sure nothing untoward arises.

In no particular order:

1. 1 Slow SS: Very interesting thought about custom safety glass- wish you'd share more? I really wonder about the feasibility of that with an A/G body because the glass has curvature in two planes rather one, although curvature in one plane is very much less than in its orthogonal counterpart. But if custom glass could be made that amounts to the existing front and rear glass with very nearly flat sections added to the middle 6" of the car, then hands-down, I'd widen the entire body between the front and rear axles, then taper-back to stock width at the extreme front and rear.

2. Tuned SS: impressive. I took a crash course (three online presentations and one that was one-on-one) on NX and I think my head still hurts. Again, my hat's off to you! You ought to be able to export those 3D models, add thickness and material properties, to evaluate things like chassis stiffness. Please take no offense but in Gordie's (Aaron's?) and your design, I still see changes in geometry that could reduce weight in relation to stiffness. The basic scheme is: 1. triangulation, and, 2. make members as straight and gently-curved as possible with as few bends and joints as possible, so that imparted stresses are more nearly normal rather than in bending.

3. I'm curious whether that F-body chassis is destined to get the torque-tube structural cage that they used for the '85 MC? That feature is the interior-space killer. Again, if they eliminated that and made the side frame rails larger in cross-section, they might conserve torsional stiffness. For a tube of constant wall thickness, torsional stiffness grows as the cube of diameter, so this isn't as infeasible as one might imagine. The objective is to eliminate chopping-up the interior to make this vastly friendlier for a street conversion.

I should update the pros/cons list of the C6 chassis as used in that '85 MC:

Pros
1. Better weight distribution: possibly close to 50%-50% with rear-mounted transmission.
2. Much wider track, apparently the same as a C6 minus possibly a deeper rim backspacing.
3. Much better suspension geometry.
4. Much better chassis torsional rigidity.
5. Ease of adapting various LS engines.
6. IRS and the numerous benefits that entails.

Neutral
1. Roughly conserved COM height aside from suspension height bias. A bit more precisely, the COM height of the sprung portion of the car's weight is roughly conserved.

Cons
1. $$$
2. $$$
3. $$$
4. Roughly 100-250lb added weight to the frame.
5. IRS's limited anti-squat.
6. Simple, hacked-off wheel well perimeters with no pretense of the body extending out to the wheels scream, "I'm fond of the Dukes of Hazzard."
7. Difficulty of adaptation to an A/G body is severe and drives a significant part of $$$$$$$$$. It also mandates narrow seats due to big torsion-tube tunnel. Conclusion: not feasible for the street.

Best,
MAP

Posted By: 1 Slow SS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/01/20 10:41 PM

Just a quick example as I’m flying over Chicago now.

https://www.curvedglasscreations.com/


Regards
Ron
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/01/20 11:38 PM

Interesting. I wonder how much a custom windshield would cost, and can they duplicate the shape well enough to seal against the factory mounting flanges? Thx - MAP

Also: does anyone have measurements of the maximum width of an MCSS body over the front and rear axles?
Posted By: 1 Slow SS

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/02/20 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by MAP
Interesting. I wonder how much a custom windshield would cost, and can they duplicate the shape well enough to seal against the factory mounting flanges? Thx - MAP

Also: does anyone have measurements of the maximum width of an MCSS body over the front and rear axles?


When building high dollar cars that window will be a drop in the bucket. There are several qualified service providers for glass.
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/02/20 03:27 AM

Hi 1 Slow SS,

Makes sense. I'm still curious about the cost because that could factor into how, or even whether, folks would widen the car.

MCSS width: it took a couple of hours of digging, but going back to measurements I made 15 years ago, the width of an MCSS over the axle centerlines is 71.75" at the front, and 70.81" at the rear. These are probably reliable to about +/- 0.05" on a sample space of one car, but that car had been hit in the right quarter, so the rear width might be a bit off. Tuned SS: in retrospect, I should have searched your previous posts better where you cited a Google figure of 71.8".

Best,
MAP
Posted By: Tunedss86

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/03/20 07:44 PM

Map, you keep mentioning non existent Anti-squat with IRS.

If that is a big deal, how come most performance cars produced in the last 10 years or so has IRS? Just thinking off the top of my head, Vette, Viper, Camaro, Mustang, Charger, Challenger all have IRS. So how do they perform without it?

Thx
Posted By: Travis Jones

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/03/20 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Tunedss86
Map, you keep mentioning non existent Anti-squat with IRS.

If that is a big deal, how come most performance cars produced in the last 10 years or so has IRS? Just thinking off the top of my head, Vette, Viper, Camaro, Mustang, Charger, Challenger all have IRS. So how do they perform without it?

Thx

Launching a 5th gen with a stick without launch control is a handful to say the least.
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/04/20 05:46 AM

Hi Tuned,

IRSs are capable of limited anti-squat. Time for a free-body diagram of the wheel hub, looking at the forces transmitted at the ball joints. Failing that, maybe page 75 of Herb Adams' book Chassis Engineering would help. Basically, if the rear control arms aren't horizontal, then forces transmitted to the BJs will resolve into components parallel and perpendicular to the control arms. It's in those perpendicularly-resolved forces that we can generate force at the rear to lift (or lower) the car under forward acceleration.

The fact that IRSs are used on so many modern performance cars doesn't mean that they're helping the car to accelerate; they may in fact be hindering it despite the fact that modern cars are using stickier tires, and have more weight on the rear than our A/G body cars, and have traction control. Or to say that differently, if you were to put a live stick axle under those modern cars with something like 125% anti-squat (I used to run,) then they would actually accelerate harder than with the IRS for the same weight distribution. That's why, for example, for the drag strip, you'll see folks occasionally convert from an IRS to a live axle for better traction.

IRSs, however, are used for a bunch of other good, compelling reasons in those cars. But I wouldn't use one without at least 50-ish% of the car's weight statically on the rear wheels.

Best,
MAP
Posted By: Tunedss86

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 02:47 PM

Going to add this in case anyone is curious, and so I can find it later ;-).

Stock G body rear flange to flange width is 58" plus rotors/drums is about 58.75" . Bernie Duplan just put vette wheels on his Monte with 3" spacers per side, making theoretical flange to flange width 64.75".

Stock c5/c6 vette is 66.75".

So either the rear mounts points have to come in 1" per side, or the fenders need flared.

Would 2" narrower adversely affect suspension without changing geometry?
Posted By: Travis Jones

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tunedss86
Going to add this in case anyone is curious, and so I can find it later ;-).

Stock G body rear flange to flange width is 58" plus rotors/drums is about 58.75" . Bernie Duplan just put vette wheels on his Monte with 3" spacers per side, making theoretical flange to flange width 64.75".

Stock c5/c6 vette is 66.75".

So either the rear mounts points have to come in 1" per side, or the fenders need flared.

Would 2" narrower adversely affect suspension without changing geometry?


a 3" spacer is going to throw the wheel into the wheel well about .75 of an inch. MC96 pulled a 68.75 rear quarter lip to rear quarter lip measurement, frame is 46.5 inches across.

Would be cool for us to codify as many chassis/body measurements as we can.
Posted By: MC96

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 07:48 PM

I was going to send this to you just because of that measurement Travis.

Oh and I was going to see if you wanted to meet up at the motorsports expo in Novi but of course I cant go now.

Autorama? I feel bad I have your rotors hostage
Posted By: Tunedss86

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Travis Jones
Originally Posted by Tunedss86
Going to add this in case anyone is curious, and so I can find it later ;-).

Stock G body rear flange to flange width is 58" plus rotors/drums is about 58.75" . Bernie Duplan just put vette wheels on his Monte with 3" spacers per side, making theoretical flange to flange width 64.75".

Stock c5/c6 vette is 66.75".

So either the rear mounts points have to come in 1" per side, or the fenders need flared.

Would 2" narrower adversely affect suspension without changing geometry?


a 3" spacer is going to throw the wheel into the wheel well about .75 of an inch. MC96 pulled a 68.75 rear quarter lip to rear quarter lip measurement, frame is 46.5 inches across.

Would be cool for us to codify as many chassis/body measurements as we can.


Would throw the stock Monte wheel into the fender, but a deep backspacing vette wheel wouldn't. That's why I said Bernie just put vette wheels on his Monte with 3" spacers per side"

Pic:

[Linked Image]
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 09:24 PM

Hi Travis,

Something doesn't make sense here. You said MC96 measured 68.75" outer lip to outer lip at the rear, and I measured 70.81". One, or possibly both, of those numbers have to be wrong.

Thx,
MAP
Posted By: Hunter79764

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 09:59 PM

Is that inside lip vs outside lip? ~1" lip seems reasonable to me, but I'm operating on poor memory and limited experience.
Posted By: MC96

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 10:06 PM

I measured the *inside* of the outer lip, if that makes sense.

Not the outermost part of the body
Posted By: MAP

Re: What I have been waiting for! - 02/13/20 11:21 PM

Hi MC - thanks, that definitely clears that up. I remember, like Hunter, that the width of that flange was on the order of an inch. Best - MAP
© 2020 MonteCarloSS.com Message Board