1970 GTO Version 2.0
#121
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
#122
Thank you.
Jesse
#123
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
You're welcome Jesse.
Big day today. After a rather dismal, windy day yesterday, the weather today was just amazing. I needed a little inspiration so I decided that it was time for the GTO to move under its own power. I so installed a seat, put on some wheels, cleared out the tools, and pulled it out of the garage.
Of course I couldn't resist. So I went around the block. The clutch is silky smooth. Converting from the old Z-bar to the hydraulic release was definitely worth it. The clutch actuation is just like on a modern car. Super smooth. I still don't have exhaust so the drive was short. The brakes felt solid so the MC is working well. I also noticed some noises which I think are the result of my messing around with driveline angles. I raised the back of my transmission to get the angles perfect, but now the u-joint is grazing the floor. More on driveline angles later.
Notice how much higher the front sits. I bet it's up a minimum of 2". I can't wait to get the thing scaled. I am also contemplating getting a fiberglass hood and ditching the shaker. The stock hood is probably 40-50 lbs, plus another 10 lbs for the shaker. A Glasstek fiberglass hood is probably about 25 lbs. I am open to opinions.
Andrew
Big day today. After a rather dismal, windy day yesterday, the weather today was just amazing. I needed a little inspiration so I decided that it was time for the GTO to move under its own power. I so installed a seat, put on some wheels, cleared out the tools, and pulled it out of the garage.
Of course I couldn't resist. So I went around the block. The clutch is silky smooth. Converting from the old Z-bar to the hydraulic release was definitely worth it. The clutch actuation is just like on a modern car. Super smooth. I still don't have exhaust so the drive was short. The brakes felt solid so the MC is working well. I also noticed some noises which I think are the result of my messing around with driveline angles. I raised the back of my transmission to get the angles perfect, but now the u-joint is grazing the floor. More on driveline angles later.
Notice how much higher the front sits. I bet it's up a minimum of 2". I can't wait to get the thing scaled. I am also contemplating getting a fiberglass hood and ditching the shaker. The stock hood is probably 40-50 lbs, plus another 10 lbs for the shaker. A Glasstek fiberglass hood is probably about 25 lbs. I am open to opinions.
Andrew
#126
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
This is an update for the techno geeks. If you like looking at pretty pictures, stop reading now, and move on. If being diligent about every little technical detail of your car is something that you enjoy doing, than please read on.
Ever since I have owned my car, all 23 years, I have had some sort of vibration in the driveline at speeds about 70 MPH. Most of the equipment on my car has changed numerous times. The only constant being the ride height. In recent weeks I have really been studying what actually happens with these cars when they are lowered. I give a lot of credit to Troy, I forget his user name here. LOL He and I have exchanged some messages back and forth and he has really helped me to understand what it will take to make my car smooth. This is a thread that he started on Chevelles.com:
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213271
There is also another great website that I used:
http://www.vibratesoftware.com/html_...aft_Angles.htm
This is by far the best website for explaining and measuring driveline angles.
The problem with GM A-bodies is that as the cars are lowered in the rear and front working angle increases dramatically. While it is possible to match the the rear working angle to the front working angle with adjustable upper control arms in the rear, this still does not address the problem of just having too much working angle.
I have no doubt that I will get 10 different opinion on this post. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information when it comes to driveline angles. I feel that the information in the above website is the most accurate that I have seen to date.
For the sake of this discussion I will always refer to something pointing UP when it is pointing from the back to the front of the car. Like this:
[front] \ [rear] = UP
[front] / [rear] = DOWN
I made a spacer which raised the back of the transmission about 1/2". My final readings were as follows:
Transmission: 2.5* UP
Driveshaft: .3* UP
Pinion: 2* DOWN
Front working angle: 2.5 - 0.3 = 2.2*
Rear working angle: 2 + 0.3 = 2.3*
I ran the car on jackstands and took it up to about 4000 RPM in 6th gear, which is over 5000RPM driveshaft speed. It seemed very smooth. Much more so than at other setting. The ultimate test will be how the car feels at speed.
Andrew
Ever since I have owned my car, all 23 years, I have had some sort of vibration in the driveline at speeds about 70 MPH. Most of the equipment on my car has changed numerous times. The only constant being the ride height. In recent weeks I have really been studying what actually happens with these cars when they are lowered. I give a lot of credit to Troy, I forget his user name here. LOL He and I have exchanged some messages back and forth and he has really helped me to understand what it will take to make my car smooth. This is a thread that he started on Chevelles.com:
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213271
There is also another great website that I used:
http://www.vibratesoftware.com/html_...aft_Angles.htm
This is by far the best website for explaining and measuring driveline angles.
The problem with GM A-bodies is that as the cars are lowered in the rear and front working angle increases dramatically. While it is possible to match the the rear working angle to the front working angle with adjustable upper control arms in the rear, this still does not address the problem of just having too much working angle.
I have no doubt that I will get 10 different opinion on this post. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information when it comes to driveline angles. I feel that the information in the above website is the most accurate that I have seen to date.
For the sake of this discussion I will always refer to something pointing UP when it is pointing from the back to the front of the car. Like this:
[front] \ [rear] = UP
[front] / [rear] = DOWN
I made a spacer which raised the back of the transmission about 1/2". My final readings were as follows:
Transmission: 2.5* UP
Driveshaft: .3* UP
Pinion: 2* DOWN
Front working angle: 2.5 - 0.3 = 2.2*
Rear working angle: 2 + 0.3 = 2.3*
I ran the car on jackstands and took it up to about 4000 RPM in 6th gear, which is over 5000RPM driveshaft speed. It seemed very smooth. Much more so than at other setting. The ultimate test will be how the car feels at speed.
Andrew
#129
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
Today I got the notice of approval from Grundy Insurance. On Monday I will go get the car registered and it will be legal to drive on the street. I also ordered a new 3" to 3" Dr. Gas x-pipe. This will just make the exhaust work a little simpler and cleaner. That should be here on Monday.
My car is not orange..LOL
Andrew
My car is not orange..LOL
Andrew
#131
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
I was going through some old paperwork this afternoon and I found my old corner scale sheet. Here are the numbers with driver:
[Front Left]-------------------------[Front Right]
1218----------------------------------1153
[Rear Left]---------------------------[Rear Right]
929------------------------------------884
Total Weight = 4184
56.7% front
43.4% rear
Andrew
[Front Left]-------------------------[Front Right]
1218----------------------------------1153
[Rear Left]---------------------------[Rear Right]
929------------------------------------884
Total Weight = 4184
56.7% front
43.4% rear
Andrew
#132
I cant tell you how much help your thread has been to me! I have a 68 chevelle and your attention to detail has been a huge help. Thank you very much! Great build! Great lookin Goat!
#134
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
My new x-pipe should be here today. I can't wait to get the exhaust buttoned up. I am really not into the open header thing...
Andrew
#136
Andrew,
Just a quick bit on the tach stuff. Not sure if this will be any help to you at all at this point, but the VDO gauges work just fine with Gen III and Gen IV PCM tach outputs, even with my FJO progressive controller pulling on the circuit as well.
I had two different autometer tachs, one from ~1985 and one from 2007, and the 1985 tach worked great for me... the 2007 tach was exceedingly jumpy. Apparently they broke something in their design between "then" and "now".
Car is looking great, I'm looking forward to seeing it all put together.
Just a quick bit on the tach stuff. Not sure if this will be any help to you at all at this point, but the VDO gauges work just fine with Gen III and Gen IV PCM tach outputs, even with my FJO progressive controller pulling on the circuit as well.
I had two different autometer tachs, one from ~1985 and one from 2007, and the 1985 tach worked great for me... the 2007 tach was exceedingly jumpy. Apparently they broke something in their design between "then" and "now".
Car is looking great, I'm looking forward to seeing it all put together.
#137
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
I think the Gen IV outputs must be a little different than the older Gen III.
Today I got the exhaust buttoned up. A new Dr.Gas x-pipe was installed and connected the headers to the mufflers. The car is very quiet. Almost too quiet. I has a nice deep tone. It is a hair louder than a new ZO6 Corvette. I got the wideband hooked up as well and as suspected the car was a little rich. Once I drove it a little the ECU started trimming the A/F ratio and now it is very close. I may not have to get it tuned at all. We'll see how the WOT A/F ratio is on the dyno.
I also weighed the car on the new scales at Beech Bend. I had 1/3 of a tank of gas, no hood, no passenger seat, and I was in the car. I think I am about 275.
Anyone care to guess what the car weighed?
Andrew
Today I got the exhaust buttoned up. A new Dr.Gas x-pipe was installed and connected the headers to the mufflers. The car is very quiet. Almost too quiet. I has a nice deep tone. It is a hair louder than a new ZO6 Corvette. I got the wideband hooked up as well and as suspected the car was a little rich. Once I drove it a little the ECU started trimming the A/F ratio and now it is very close. I may not have to get it tuned at all. We'll see how the WOT A/F ratio is on the dyno.
I also weighed the car on the new scales at Beech Bend. I had 1/3 of a tank of gas, no hood, no passenger seat, and I was in the car. I think I am about 275.
Anyone care to guess what the car weighed?
Andrew
#139
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 10,222
Likes: 1,511
From: The City of Fountains
With me in it, no hood, no passenger seat, 1/3 tank of gas, it was 3828.
3823
minus 275 for my fat ***
add 50 for hood
add 25 for seat
3623
So it looks like the car lost a little under 300 pounds from the swap. Not bad. It will be really interesting to get the corner scale data.
Andrew
3823
minus 275 for my fat ***
add 50 for hood
add 25 for seat
3623
So it looks like the car lost a little under 300 pounds from the swap. Not bad. It will be really interesting to get the corner scale data.
Andrew