You mean fabrication techniques like this?
| 4g61t.org http://www.4g61t.org/forum/ |
|
| Fabrication techniques in question http://www.4g61t.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=27226 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | SpinMasta11 [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Fabrication techniques in question |
With all the AWD swaps I've seen over the course of my time on this forum I've come to a realization that a majority of these swaps tend to end up overly complex in their fabrication techniques. Obviously this is coming from my point of view, so some may see this as sharp criticism, yet that is not my intention for the post. My intention is to merely try and understand why people built their AWD CSMs the way they did. Many of the swaps I'm seeing include a large removal of the framerail for the front two rear subframe mounts. For what reason would that be? Also, I'm seeing many front motor mount braces that are, at least from where I'm sitting, incredibly complex for such a simple singular structural function. I'm always up for new fabrication techniques and engineering ideas, although I must confess my personal principles are simplicity and effectiveness. I think this thread is a decent starting point for such a discussion. I'll post a couple of pics soon of my front engine brace, and reasoning for such a design. |
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
You mean fabrication techniques like this?
|
|
| Author: | dsmcolt969 [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
^^^whos swap is that? |
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
Quote: ^^^whos swap is that?
Friend of mine, he sold the car a couple months ago. He's a member on here, but he hardly ever posts. ColtGT4g63
|
|
| Author: | SpinMasta11 [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
I wouldn't consider that fabrication work in all honesty. We'll maintain that picture as void of any noteworthy discussion. |
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
Quote: I wouldn't consider that fabrication work in all honesty. We'll maintain that picture as void of any noteworthy discussion.
I posted it as a joke, because I knew you'd say something like that. 
|
|
| Author: | colt200 [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
For that frame rail part I can give you my interpretation of why some remove it. I think almost everyone has removed it. I have not. When it is removed and you make a new plate, you are able to mount the front of the sub frame up higher in the car. This according to what I read online about custom drive shafts for 4x4 and hot rod projects is better because there is less of an angle between the input for the differential and the tail stock of the transfer case. From what I remember seeing, everyone that has gone this route has had to modify the rear part of the exhaust tunnel because the drive shaft is up too high and causes clearance issues. I went a different way. I did not remove those pieces. This did not cause a problem with my exhaust/drive shaft tunnel while I was using stock parts. It did make the drive shaft come close to the stock rear sway bar. About a 1/4'' clearance. Here is a pic of 1/2'' tubing on top of the drive shaft.  While I was building it, I thought the drive shaft would be coming really close to the front cross over piece, so I lifted the center section. This was not needed.  I replaced the stock dsm sway bar with a bigger unit since then, and it still did not cause a problem with clearances. I only came into problems with the exhaust/drive shaft tunnel when I changed the drive shaft from a dual piece to a single piece  . I then had to raise the rear most part of the tunnel, I think it would have to be raised more if I removed those frame rail pieces. I do not suggest going with a single piece. Its great and everything because there is no bearing to worry about mounting, leaves more room for the exhaust and less u-joints. It works fine driving normally or even accelerating hard, but when I leave the car in gear at upper engine rpms there is enough engine braking that the drive shaft starts to vibrate horrendously. Once I push the clutch in the vibs are gone. I since found a drive shaft bearing that I am going to order up that should fit better than the stock dsm unit and change back to a two piece shaft.Those are my ideas. What is easier than one tow hook spot to the other tow hook spot for the front motor mount? I do plan on changing a few mounts and stuff on the car over the next year. Hopefully for the better. |
|
| Author: | SpinMasta11 [ Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
From my measurements, mounting the subframe higher up in the car resulted in the diff being higher than the centerline for the driveshaft in accordance with the transfercase. It also resulted in the subframe nearly touching the floorpan of the car. My driveshaft is two pieces, and its as straight as an arrow. The mouting height for the subframe was taken into account with the centerline of the transfercase/driveshaft. For the front motor mount brace I left the OEM toe hooks. I welded 1.5" diameter 10 gauge tubing to the toehooks. From there I brought up two pieces of 1/4" thick flat steel in between the engine bracket, and welded a piece of tubing in between the flat steel for the bolt to go through. Its an identical design as Buschur's evo, also happens to be rediculously easy to fabricate. My rear brace is identical to the front, its just turned upside down. Many people who look at my car, DSMers even, are completely unaware of the engine braces. |
|
| Author: | Bill Spruill [ Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
Tow hooks? Tow hooks?! We don't need no stinking tow hooks! We don't break down. (with appologies to "The Treasure of The Sierra Madres" --a classic line.) Seriously, I haven't gotten to tow hooks. I just want to get the thing rolling. 
|
|
| Author: | MR HYDE [ Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
In all honesty, I like some of the overengineering that has gone into some of the AWD swaps. I'd rather see overbracing/welding, as oppoesed to underbracing, or weak welding techniques. |
|
| Author: | TrevTec [ Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
So do you have to cut the trunk out completely??? |
|
| Author: | oil-burner [ Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
I'm the same way, over engineer it, do it once and done. Here are some other projects going on... Prototype intake for new Kenny Bell Mamoth blower   Titanium gas pedal for a sprint car   CNC tig welded rod end (no filler wire used)  cleaned up on a scotch brite sander  scot |
|
| Author: | SpinMasta11 [ Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
If you run a cell I think you can get away with cutting out about 1/2 the spare tire well in a hatchback car. That isn't over-engineering oil-burner, that is just good fabrication. My question hovers around the idea of many nuts and bolts for such simple things as mounts, bracketry, framerail cutting, etc. The welds have to be sound or the car will break, that is a pure safety function, but from a design aspect I prefer simplicity for asthetics and in case something should need to be wrenched on. |
|
| Author: | SpinMasta11 [ Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Fabrication techniques in question |
 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-05:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|