MonteCarloSS.com
MonteCarloSS.com

CELEBRATING 20 YEARS!

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#1064940 - 01/28/20 08:39 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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

Last edited by MAP; 01/28/20 10:10 PM.
#1064951 - 01/29/20 10:43 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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


Last edited by MAP; 01/29/20 10:45 PM.
#1064955 - 01/30/20 02:19 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Tunedss86 Offline
15+ Year
Tunedss86  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Eastern Virginia
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?

#1064958 - 01/30/20 05:00 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: Tunedss86]  
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4,799
Buick Runner Offline
10+ Year
Buick Runner  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4,799
Dharma station 1 the Hydra
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.


SBC powered 1987 Regal with TES headers, ZZ4 intake, ZZ4 PROM chip, mini starter, THM2004R, 2500 stall converter, 2040 cam, CCC system, and 3.73 posi rear.

2008 ex NPS P71 Crown Victoria, cop motor, cop shocks, cop brakes.

Never argue with an idiot.
They will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
#1064961 - 01/30/20 10:56 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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

Last edited by MAP; 01/30/20 10:57 PM.
#1064969 - 01/31/20 10:07 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Tunedss86 Offline
15+ Year
Tunedss86  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Eastern Virginia
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.

#1064972 - 02/01/20 02:52 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,126
SSLance Online content
10+ Year
SSLance  Online Content
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,126
Peoria, AZ
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.


Lance
1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car
#1064973 - 02/01/20 04:52 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,126
SSLance Online content
10+ Year
SSLance  Online Content
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,126
Peoria, AZ
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


Lance
1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car
#1064974 - 02/01/20 04:56 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,126
SSLance Online content
10+ Year
SSLance  Online Content
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,126
Peoria, AZ
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]


Lance
1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car
#1064975 - 02/01/20 05:19 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,160
1 Slow SS Offline
10+ Year
1 Slow SS  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,160
Small town KY
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?


Enjoy life, family first!
#1064976 - 02/01/20 09:58 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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


Last edited by MAP; 02/01/20 10:15 PM.
#1064977 - 02/01/20 10:41 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: MAP]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,160
1 Slow SS Offline
10+ Year
1 Slow SS  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,160
Small town KY
Just a quick example as I’m flying over Chicago now.

https://www.curvedglasscreations.com/


Regards
Ron


Enjoy life, family first!
#1064978 - 02/01/20 11:38 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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?

Last edited by MAP; 02/01/20 11:39 PM.
#1064979 - 02/02/20 02:51 AM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: MAP]  
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,160
1 Slow SS Offline
10+ Year
1 Slow SS  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,160
Small town KY
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.


Enjoy life, family first!
#1064980 - 02/02/20 03:27 AM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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

Last edited by MAP; 02/02/20 03:35 AM.
#1064998 - 02/03/20 07:44 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Tunedss86 Offline
15+ Year
Tunedss86  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Eastern Virginia
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

#1065000 - 02/03/20 08:26 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: Tunedss86]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,730
Travis Jones Offline
10+ Year
Travis Jones  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,730
Ferndale, MI
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.


86 SS 6.0L LQ4, TBSS GEN IV intake, 92mm TB, 30lb injectors, Summit Stage 3 NA Cam, Stainless long tube headers, Stainless 3in exhaust, Microsquirt ECU, FABbot AR5 5-speed, Torsen LSD, QA1 Lvl 3 Suspension Kit, UMI Front & Rear Braces. Check out my build blog on Summit Racing's OnAll Cylinders https://www.onallcylinders.com/author/travis-jones/
#1065007 - 02/04/20 05:46 AM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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

Last edited by MAP; 02/04/20 05:50 AM.
#1065098 - 02/13/20 02:47 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Tunedss86 Offline
15+ Year
Tunedss86  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Eastern Virginia
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?

#1065099 - 02/13/20 06:14 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: Tunedss86]  
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,730
Travis Jones Offline
10+ Year
Travis Jones  Offline
10+ Year
Member

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,730
Ferndale, MI
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.


86 SS 6.0L LQ4, TBSS GEN IV intake, 92mm TB, 30lb injectors, Summit Stage 3 NA Cam, Stainless long tube headers, Stainless 3in exhaust, Microsquirt ECU, FABbot AR5 5-speed, Torsen LSD, QA1 Lvl 3 Suspension Kit, UMI Front & Rear Braces. Check out my build blog on Summit Racing's OnAll Cylinders https://www.onallcylinders.com/author/travis-jones/
#1065100 - 02/13/20 07:48 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 802
MC96 Offline
Member
MC96  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 802
St. Johns MI
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

Last edited by MC96; 02/13/20 07:48 PM.

86 SS
400SBC, 4l80e, MSD Atomic injection/trans controller, Tilt glass clip, all tubular arms, corvette brakes, 9" rear
In progress
#1065101 - 02/13/20 08:15 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: Travis Jones]  
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Tunedss86 Offline
15+ Year
Tunedss86  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,377
Eastern Virginia
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]

Last edited by Tunedss86; 02/13/20 08:18 PM.
#1065102 - 02/13/20 09:24 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
MAP Offline
15+ Year
MAP  Offline
15+ Year
Member

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,087
Yuma, AZ
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

#1065104 - 02/13/20 09:59 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,001
Hunter79764 Online content
Member
Hunter79764  Online Content
Member

Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,001
Grand Prairie, Tx
Is that inside lip vs outside lip? ~1" lip seems reasonable to me, but I'm operating on poor memory and limited experience.


Shawn

'85 MC with budget 5.3L swap, TH350 with stock 2.14 rear end
It ain't much off the line, but it's nice on the highway
#1065105 - 02/13/20 10:06 PM Re: What I have been waiting for! [Re: 1 Slow SS]  
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 802
MC96 Offline
Member
MC96  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 802
St. Johns MI
I measured the *inside* of the outer lip, if that makes sense.

Not the outermost part of the body


86 SS
400SBC, 4l80e, MSD Atomic injection/trans controller, Tilt glass clip, all tubular arms, corvette brakes, 9" rear
In progress
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Random Images
500/thumbs/Rolling2.jpg
by SickSpeedMonte
500/thumbs/Copy_of_DSCN0035.jpg
by thomto
500/thumbs/X_MEM.jpg
by SMITHFOG
500/thumbs/monte_back.jpg
by slimsxy
500/thumbs/front_logo_1_.jpg
by Rodney
Help MonteCarloSS.com


Recent Contributors
finallySS
Authorized Vendors
Tell them you saw it
on MonteCarloSS.com!


CustomMonteSSParts.com
Dixie Monte Carlo Depot
GSI Interiors
HRpartsNstuff
Mikes Montes
Savitske Classic & Custom
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0