Separate names with a comma.
I've seen multiple people try it, with mostly negative results though I have not personally tried
Thanks, I guess I will need to do some research on that. I thought other than the brake mounting system and the ball joint sizes that the steering geometry of early and late were the same. John
Oh god, I was reading in the brake section and a conversation pop'd up about lug pattern size. I saw that my lug bolts on my 69 barracuda are reverse thread on the driver side (if I recall correctly) which is a 4 wheel drum car. I am trying to target 4.5 on 5 bolt pattern, and I don't think the early setup is that. More research needed John
I am so going back and forth on this. Assuming I wanted to buy Wilwood Brakes (which I really don't, but for the sake of the discussion), I can buy the same brake setup for the early spindle as I can for the later spindle. And I looked at other brake manufactures such as SSBC which shows the same options where I can buy the same kit (obvious different part number) for both the earlier spindle as I can for the later spindle. So if brakes options is not a reason for moving up to the larger ball joint, what is? Why would someone want to move to the 73+ ball joint? Other than the very common single piston brake setup available for the 73+ spindle.
So the month of June was crazy for me. And now its mid July and I have so much to share. (pictures to come) I have the following new parts in my possession... -K-Member -Adjustable Upper and Lower Control arms -Coil Over Shocks -Power steering Rack (15 to 1 ratio) -Steering Arms to move steering forward of K-Member -Loose Metal to build clamp on Motor Mount After much looking into it, I have decided to follow the pack and run wilwood brakes on 73+ spindles. Not the path I wanted, but didn't have much of a choice at this time. So I am looking for a set of 73+ spindles and rotors so that once I install the new K Frame and suspension, the car can sit on the ground again. Afterwards I will start working on the fabrication for getting the engine in. I am so hoping to have this engine/tranny setup in and engine starting by the end of the summer. May miss the deadline, but making a effort. If anyone in the Western Wa area has a set of Knuckles, I am interested. I have found them NEW on Jeg's, but not in a position to fork out the $500 (if I recall correctly) for the pair which has prevented me from installing the new setup. Keep everyone posted. John
Spindles found. Now I need to find a set of junk rotors to install so the car can sit on it's front tires. At which point I can start planning the engine placement. Things are starting to move again on this project.
Sounds awesome, where did you find the spindles? Also if you intend to use a factory brakes setup you can buy a pair of rotors for a late 70s B-body off RockAuto, they are the bigger 11.75" diam. ones and you only need the correct caliper brackets to make it all work.
The spindle situation is a bit of an embarrassment for me. I had made the same request of 2 members on this forum. The first member reached out to me and I deal was worked out on Fri for just the spindles. The second person reached out to me on Sun and I thought it was the same person from fri. Sadly the second person got the paypal invoice to me first and was paid. When I saw his Forum conversation post I had realized what happened and apologized to the first person. Luckily only 1 set is being shipped. I ended up getting a complete spindle and stock brake bracket setup. In both cases, I was saving a lot as compared to buying from Jegs or Summit (forgot which one had the stock spindles). I am unsure I need brakes that big on this project. I may see about wildwood 11 inch brakes later on. But my accidental purchase of the of the complete setup means purchasing new stock rotors and bearings ($150 from napa) gets my car on the ground quickly and low cost compared to aftermarket options. Now to get some tube clamps ordered so I can start planning out the engine cradle and mount setup.
So here is a question. New rotors have a coating on them to keep them from rusting. Does anyone know what I can do to maintain that tacky coating to protect the rotors. My only other option is to just buy or find a set of junk rotors to throw under till the car is road worthy.
If you just want to roll the car around, mount the rotors without the calipers. Or leave the pads out for now. Remove the coating and install the pads when you are ready to start driving. If you actually are going to use the brakes, the coating must go.
That coating gets scraped off the first time the brakes are used but I've found it's pretty resilient otherwise, as long as it's a quality piece. They shouldn't rust unless they have been used but even so I think just a bit of wd-40 every now and then would keep the rust away. Rotors are kind of "expected" to rust anyway. +1 on that last post just keep the calipers off until the brakes are ready to be used
So there has been way too much talk from me with NO pictures lately. I will see if I can correct that this week. Most likely will be this weekend so I have the week to clean the garage in prep for pulling the car back into position for working on it. Currently the car is on rollers pushed against the side so I can work on other projects I have going on. I will get pictures of the new parts on this thread soon. As long as the car has a ebrake, I am not concerned about hydro brakes at this time. Car has no running engine. I may take this week and see if I can find some junk rotors first. With my last resort buying new. If I do buy new, I will leave the coating on. No need to install calipers at this time.
blah blah blah......no pics.....blah blah blah . lol
And as promised. More pictures... So here are images of what everyone has probably seen numerous times. Nothing special, except that its mine. -K-Member -Upper and Lower Control arms I am going to have to double check on this as I thought for sure I bought adjustable. -Coil Over Shocks -Power steering Rack (15 to 1 ratio) - I am guessing this is the coil over shock support The things I didn't take pictures of are the lower ball joint steering arms and the misc metal. Now to make time to get this stuff installed and take measurements for the engine. I am super stoked.
So apparently I did not purchase the race control arm setup. The control arms you see is what I bought. I know I spent a lot of time with the owner going over my choices and I am sure there must have been a reason I went with the non adjustable control arm setup. All in all, I am very happy with the end product and look forward to the install.
John, I know it's too late in this build to change anything; you are already well-past the point of no return and I understand that. Be that as it may, I was just curious as to why you chose the AMC engine to power this Barracuda when it entails so much adaptation and fabrication, not that there is ANYTHING at all, wrong with the motor chosen.... there's not. As sixes go, it is definitely one of the very best. My own, personal. choice for this project would have been different from yours,though. My first choice would have been a turbocharged slant six. There are several reasons for my choosing this engine, not the least of which would have been, it is a "bolt-in" with NO adaptation of anything, since it is a factory option for this particular car. That factor, alone, would have saved a lot of money. Second, you have had considerable experience with the mechanical vagaries of the slant six, having already built two (?) of them... There should have been virtually no "surprises." Third, the performance capabilities of a turbo slant six are astounding, to say the least, and I am aware that you are not building a race car, but it would seem that a 400 horsepower slant six in this car would give it all the acceleration you'd ever want/need, and is not very hard to attain. A turbo slant six is a docile street engine, and even a 400 horsepower version has a smooth idle, good road-manners, and runs the best, both at the drags strip and on the street, with a 2.76:1 final drive ratio (so, no overdrive is necessary for the hiway.) And, turbos eem to like automtics, so, a 904 would fill the bill, nicely. The 225 slant six is an unusually robust engine, having been designed as an aluminum engine with thick mainbearing webs, thick block sidewalls (no thin-wall castings, here...) and a very hardy, thick, top-of-the block deck (maybe 5/8" thick,) with a matching cylinder head gasket sealing surface in the 80+-pound head that is also unusully robust. The forged-steel crank (in the early engines, has 4 main bearings that are the same size as the mains in the 426 Hemi, so, it's not indestrucable, but is about as close as youre're likely tp find in an nline six. I have a friend who has run as much as 37 pounds of boost in his 225, as an experiment, with no apparent damage. The cast iron engines share all the design parameters with their aluminum bretheren... I realize that you already know all this.... I am just trying to point out (to people reading this thread, who might not know,) the reasons for the decision I would make, given the opportunity you have with this car. And, I was just curious as to whether you had ever even considered a turbocharged slant six for your project. Tht engine is not very well-known... it's a too-well-kept secret, I think... The cylinder head that is the only one available for the slant six, is so restricted (in ways that can't be fixed,) that it can't be made to flow enough air to make much over 300 horsepower, and at that perforamce-level, the cam and carburetion you have to use to get a naturally-aspirated engine to produce that 300+ horsepower, make the naturaly-aspirated version, not much of a "street engine"... too radical. But, turbos don't seem to work well with lots of cam-timing; too much overlap.... so, the high horsepower (400 and up) blown slants only have cams with short-duration.... so, they idle like a stock motor. Lots of low-end torque. I applaud your project; I think it will be a HUGE improvement over the stock car it replaces!!!! I'll be watching your very interesting progress reports. Keep doing the great job you have done so far!
Thanks, for the question. And I have a very good answer to that which I will start writing now. Please stand by.
First Comment I am not one to follow the crowd. While my buddies were building v8’s (350’s, 360’s & 351’s), I built my race slant six which was good for an easy 13.9 second quarter mile. At some point I will build a stroker slant six. When I do that build, I don’t see the point of going .100 over, but going .060 is worth it and should only be a 3 or 4 cid loss at roughly a 207CID (using the 170 block). Second Comment That’s kind of the point. There are no surprises with the Slant Six. Though I will build another one at some point, and it was considered for this project, I had better ideas of something many have talked about but never done. Use the 4.0L in an A-Body. Many have talked about it, but none have tried. Third Comment Unlike the Slant Six, there are several aftermarket performance options including stroking to over a 5.0L. Let’s not forget the fact that factory fuel injection with 1 of the easiest and budget minded fuel management designs out there. And with the 4.0L, I can turbo or supercharge it with aftermarket support. Personal Thoughts In all, I am very fond of the Slant Six. It’s one of my favorite engines out there second to the 4.0L. But it was not in the works for this project. In the end, this 4.0L will be pulled out and installed in one of my future Jeeps as a 265 inline 6 hemi will be installed. The largest benefit to going the 4.0 route is that I can focus on wire lay out and fuel injection setup which will be used on the 265 in the years to come. And I don’t have to fabricate the fuel injection setup to the engine. With the 4.0L, I know the fuel management is meant for the engine and should work correctly. If it’s not, I can treat it like a jeep and focus on correcting the problems. With a slant six, I cannot be so sure. I have to question engine design such as cam profile and intake/exhaust configuration. What about the fact that it’s a slanted engine and fuel being injected in that combustion chamber not combusting in an expected way? With everything worked out while running a 4.0L, I can drop the 265 in and I should have minor tweaks to make so that the fuel management will work well with the larger displacement engine. Keep in mind that the 265 is a inline engine and not slanted. I am not able to jump right into a 265cid engine as much as I want to as prior to the 265 engine I have 2 boys to put thru college now, and 2 girls shortly afterwards. At this point, I have done little work. Mostly just research, planning, and purchasing of parts. And lots and lots of talking. But with this recent purchase of the suspension and K-Member that’s all about to change. I need to hit the wrecking yard for a couple of front stock rotors, I am hoping by the end of the summer to have the enter front suspension on with the car on all 4 wheels and the engine/tranny secured in. I would like to be dealing with fuel management this winter. Lets hope all goes as I expect.
John's First Comment "I am not one to follow the crowd. While my buddies were building v8’s (350’s, 360’s & 351’s), I built my race slant six which was good for an easy 13.9 second quarter mile. At some point I will build a stroker slant six. When I do that build, I don’t see the point of going .100 over, but going .060 is worth it and should only be a 3 or 4 cid loss at roughly a 207CID (using the 170 block)." John, Nobody would accuse you of "following the crowd" if you had built a turbocharged slant six for the Barracuda, as there are probably fewer than ten of those engines in existence in this whole country (my opinion, only) and virtually, no "CROWD"... I built one and was hard-pressed to find information from people who had them, who could give me advice.... LOTS of modified, naturally-aspirated slant sixes out there, but that blown engine is a totally different animal. Second Comment "That’s kind of the point. There are no surprises with the Slant Six." Which brings me to the question: How many turbocharged slant sixes have you worked on? How much information, in your experience, do you have about what these forced-induction engines "like?" Are you aware that they only need 18 degrees of total spark advance to run the best, as far as power-output is concerned? And, that tests have shown that the rear axle ratios that yield the best quarter-mile times and speeds, are in the 2.76:1 range? No need for a 4.56 at the drags... And, that these 500 horsepower engines have a low redline... only 5,500 rpm.... and, they are done. How many people know that? Not many, I'd say, so the turbo slant has a few surprises up its sleeve... Third Comment "Unlike the Slant Six, there are several aftermarket performance options including stroking to over a 5.0L. Let’s not forget the fact that factory fuel injection with 1 of the easiest and budget minded fuel management designs out there. And with the 4.0L, I can turbo or supercharge it with aftermarket support." The idea that you would need more than 231 cubic inches (a slant with a stock stroke and .045"-over pistons,) is not a subject that you'd expect to come up, because the 500+ horsepower available from a boosted slant would be sufficient to power A bodies of even the most demanding drivers, you would think. But, maybe not.... The AMC engine could easily be made to out-perform the 225 with forced induction. That is, IF it were strong enough to withstand the same (elevated) boost pressures that make the slant six the stellar performer it is. And, the 4.0 or 258, probably is that strong... Speaking of the boosted slant motor, John said: "But it was not in the works for this project" and, I was curious as to why. The "hairdryer" 225 has plenty of power, bolts right in, and is pretty-much bulletproof in the long-run. The engines I have seen make 500+ horsepower (400 would be a cakewalk,) have Holley 4bbl carbs with no need for the time-consuming research that is part and parcel of adapting efi to these turbo motors.... so, they can be up-and-running pretty quickly. The OEM fuel injection that comes from the factory with the AMC engine would have to be modified, big-time, to work well with forced induction, especially, if it were going to make power in the neighborhood of the forced slants'. Your "easy" 13.90s are good for a naturally-aspirated slant six, but, consider this: My '64 Valiant runs high 11s in the quarter (a long way from a 13.9-second e.t.,) with a turbo 225, 1 4bbl carb and an automatic (904) transmission, using only 15 pounds of boost. It has a ported (shade-tree,) head with 1.75"/1.5" valves and a 9:1 compression ratio. According to the online Wallace calculator, it makes 370 horsepower. And, it's a docile engine with a smooth idle. A naturally-aspirated slant can only make about 320 horsepower, absolute max, and has to be a "full race" version with a ragged idle and really high compression, to do that.. and has terrible driveability problems. No contest. So, I am convinced that a boosted slant six has so much going for it that it makes NO SENSE to build anything else, if a slant six is what you are working on. But, I fully agree that a slant six is NO MATCH for a 265 Hemi. Blown or unblown! In the meantime, have fun with your AMC six; those are great engines, too!!!
Bill D, I guess everyone on this forum now knows who to talk to for information about boosting a slant six. That's great to know. And some day when I tackle another project that I believe a mod'd slant six would be fun use, trust I will have a build thread and reach out to you for added information. In this thread I am doing something many have talked about, but as far as I can find, none has done. Hope you find it to be a good read filled with information as I cut the trail on something which has never been done before. Who knows, I may have to leave this car powered by a jeep engine and build another Plymouth/Chrysler/Dodge for the Aussie 265 in the future.
More news as to my project. The spindles came in today. I am super stoked. But at the same time I made a dumb mistake. I forgot to ask about spindle nuts, washers, and crown locking ring (unsure the proper name for it). More importantly, I have come to realize just how old I am. I thought no big deal, call a few wrecking yards and pick up a couple of used rotors. Yeah, after several calls and 1 person laughing at me, not so easy. They dont exist in my area. Shoot, one wrecking yard told me they have nothing older than 1990... WTF???? lol So I ended up buying new rotors and bearings from the local napa. They also sold me the securing nuts, washers, and that crown piece I have no clue what its called... lol To anyone who has swapped out a K-Member. Is there anything I need to be worried about? Any extra parts? Bushings and such? I dont have a manual as of yet. But will be picking up one quickly as this starts moving forward. Thanks for everyone's interest and support, John
A K swap is pretty straight forward: remove the front brace, drop the LCAs and steering box (or remove the steering column from the box), remove the 4 large bolts holding the K in. I use an impact and they come right out. Reassembly is the reverse or thereabouts
Hey Dartman, thanks for the quick reply. Long time no chat. Given how far torn down my car is, I may try to tackle this tomorrow. Is it safe to say its a 1 day job? Any good tricks for removing the torsion bars? John