PDA

View Full Version : stealth/3000gt AWD in to a g-body



shelbyplaya
11-08-2009, 05:27 PM
Ok, So I dropped my rear sub frame out of my stealth a few days ago and got to thinking that with some custom fabed mounts the rear end looks like it could be a pretty simple install with verry little cutting of the stock body.

WITH OUT getting into a discusion about the custom work on the front end. hypothetically speaking lets say it`s done with the , lets JUST talk about a stealth TT/3000gt VR4 rear end in the car and the pros and cons.

Pros:
- total of a 5" wider rear end
- All-Wheel steering
- ablity to run a wide tire (250+)
- ablity to run coil overs and have more suspention optons
- signifagently handeling
- All-Wheel drive
- Better break options
- More aftermarket support
- MUCH higher top end speed

Cons:
- Heavy
- Parts cost more and hard to get
- Aftermarket parts are costly
- Costly install
- Not much room if your running a full exhaust
- tires sticking out to far (depends on rims i guess)

Other thoughts and considerations:
- What gas tank would you run?
- would you have to reinforce the rear of the body?
- making a custom drive shaft possable?
- will the stock break MC be able to support the new breaks?
- will the stealth style suspention be 'to still'
- would you keep the AWS or remove it?

t3rse
11-08-2009, 05:42 PM
cons: All wheel steering....overcomplicated...

Much higher top end speed? What are you smoking?

shelbyplaya
11-08-2009, 08:33 PM
cons: All wheel steering....overcomplicated...

Much higher top end speed? What are you smoking?

The AWS isnt that complicated.

Daytona tops out at around 200kmh, stealth tops out at about 270kmh...

I must be smoking crack:o

Reaper1
11-08-2009, 09:18 PM
MY Daytona tops out WAY over 200kmh(without AWD). So yeah, what crack ARE you smoking!?

Big_P
11-08-2009, 09:37 PM
Top end speed? :o

Reaper1
11-09-2009, 12:11 AM
Here's the BIGGEST con...how are you going to get power to that rear end? I don't think the Chrysler PTU has the same gear ratio needed to make it work.

The AWS stuff, as you've stated, is heavy, yes, it IS complex, and the support is very lacking! There's a reason most owners of 3Si's get rid of it!

The rear suspension of our cars, while not "techincally" advanced, works VERY well. It is very simple, and can be made pretty darn light. I'm VERY positive that coil overs *could* be run on it, but several people have already adapted ways of using adjustable spring perches already that accept aftermarket 2.5" diameter springs.

We don't NEED better brakes in the rear than the 11" vented option we already have(which is WAY overkill). More powerful brakes in the rear would actually be something of a burden to get around!

A wider rear end makes for a more stable car in a straight line, but takes away from it in the corners. Not only that, but it goes against what aerodynamics call for, a body that tapers from a wider aspect ratio, to a smaller one as presented to the air stream. We can already run pretty darn wide tires in the rear. It's the front that has issues.

As for top end speed, as I stated before, my Daytona has the ability to reach at LEAST 150mph, and given the power I put to the ground it's actually faster considering a Daytona IROC R/T was capable of 155mph top speed with 224hp at the crank...I've got that at the WHEELS. Oh, and those cars had the same old torsion beam rear suspension as the rest of us! :thumb:

My opinion....don't mess with it!

Murphy
11-09-2009, 12:52 AM
with a 3.5 FD, i think power is gonna be more of of your top speed deciding factor. according to squirrelpf, you have gearing for 200mph with a 3.5 568 at 6500 RPM

Polygon
11-09-2009, 12:53 AM
My opinion....don't mess with it!

This would be my opinion as well just for the simple fact that you're looking at A LOT of fabrication to make it work. Way more than it's worth. I love me Stealth and it might be complicated but it's cheap fun just like my LeBaron.

Also, with about 550 HP you will break 200MPH with the a 3S.

Reaper1
11-09-2009, 01:10 AM
Also, with about 550 HP you will break 200MPH with the a 3S.

The same can be said for TM's given the correct gearing and provided the engine can make that power needed at the rpms needed to do so.

I think I came out with being able to do something like 215mph at 7200rpm with my 3.5FD 555/520 hybrid and 25" tires. Honestly...where the crap are you going to do that!? :confused: I know *I* won't try it on an open public road! :amen:

Polygon
11-09-2009, 01:22 AM
The same can be said for TM's given the correct gearing and provided the engine can make that power needed at the rpms needed to do so.

I think I came out with being able to do something like 215mph at 7200rpm with my 3.5FD 555/520 hybrid and 25" tires. Honestly...where the crap are you going to do that!? :confused: I know *I* won't try it on an open public road! :amen:

Well, that's just being obtuse. You can't compare a TM and 3S. The 3S was built to be fast. It's a heavy car and I've had mine up to 130MPH and it's very stable. Stock they will do 160 MPH. Also, I don't need to anything to my Stealth beyond get it to mid 500 HP range and it will do almost 210 MPH. The gearing and aerodynamics are already there. Beyond that it doesn't matter how much power I throw at it as it's limited to that by gearing.

Reaper1
11-09-2009, 02:30 AM
Well, that's just being obtuse. You can't compare a TM and 3S. The 3S was built to be fast. It's a heavy car and I've had mine up to 130MPH and it's very stable. Stock they will do 160 MPH. Also, I don't need to anything to my Stealth beyond get it to mid 500 HP range and it will do almost 210 MPH. The gearing and aerodynamics are already there. Beyond that it doesn't matter how much power I throw at it as it's limited to that by gearing.

I'm not trying to be obtuse or belittle 3Si's by comparing TM's to them.

TM's were also built to be fast. I've had mine to a calculated 133, and I've ridden in a Spirit R/T at a calculated 153(in both cases the speedo stops at 125, so rpm reading was taken and speed calculated based on gearing and tire size). If you mean that the heritage is not of that of a sports car..point taken, but the Daytona was ALWAYS marketed as a "fast" car, and was designed aerodynamically that way from the beginning. From the one source I found the Cd is about the same for the 3kGT as it is for a Daytona, and I'd be willing to bet the 3kGT has more frontal area! Quite a few sources stated that the cars were electronically limited to 155. I'm not saying they couldn't go faster, for certain they can. The fact is that a stock 555/568 can get a Daytona to 172 at a very doable 7200rpm. With a gearing change it is much higher!

It is true that you will have much more work in a TM to get there, but the fact remains that it CAN(and HAS) be done! Lest we forget that a coupe LeBaron held a land speed record at Bonneville for MANY years at around 205mph IIRC?

The fact remains, what would adding the rear suspension off a 3Si have anything to do with the top speed of a TM? Nothing! (unless you want to account for the parasitic drag of the gearing and such taking away from the power being put to the ground)

Polygon
11-09-2009, 02:44 AM
I'm not trying to be obtuse or belittle 3Si's by comparing TM's to them.

TM's were also built to be fast. I've had mine to a calculated 133, and I've ridden in a Spirit R/T at a calculated 153(in both cases the speedo stops at 125, so rpm reading was taken and speed calculated based on gearing and tire size). If you mean that the heritage is not of that of a sports car..point taken, but the Daytona was ALWAYS marketed as a "fast" car, and was designed aerodynamically that way from the beginning. From the one source I found the Cd is about the same for the 3kGT as it is for a Daytona, and I'd be willing to bet the 3kGT has more frontal area! Quite a few sources stated that the cars were electronically limited to 155. I'm not saying they couldn't go faster, for certain they can. The fact is that a stock 555/568 can get a Daytona to 172 at a very doable 7200rpm. With a gearing change it is much higher!

It is true that you will have much more work in a TM to get there, but the fact remains that it CAN(and HAS) be done! Lest we forget that a coupe LeBaron held a land speed record at Bonneville for MANY years at around 205mph IIRC?

I wouldn't call the a TD in stock form fast, quick yes, fast no. Are they easily made fast, of course. I'm also not saying that you can't get to high speed in a TD. I know that the G and J body are pretty aerodynamic. I thought people were trying to say that the 3S did not have a high top end. I was merely stating that it is a purpose built sports touring car while the TD are not.


The fact remains, what would adding the rear suspension off a 3Si have anything to do with the top speed of a TM? Nothing! (unless you want to account for the parasitic drag of the gearing and such taking away from the power being put to the ground)

Now, this I did not catch on to. You're absolutely right it has nothing to do with speed. If anything it would make the TD slower.

Reaper1
11-09-2009, 02:53 AM
Ah..so we are on the same page! Cool! :thumb:

Polygon
11-09-2009, 02:57 AM
Ah..so we are on the same page! Cool! :thumb:

Yep. :)

If you want the setup just buy a 3S. I think that the AWD system from the Minis would be much easier than the 3S setup. Also, with the 3S setup you'd have to ditch the center diff (VCU) as it's worthless and makes the car understeer like a pig and replace it with a torsen unit. The only ones you can buy cost about $2,500.

shelbyplaya
11-09-2009, 01:27 PM
i clearly didnt make my point, you guys seem to be focusing purly on the 'top speed' of the cars. basicly what im getting at is that when it comes time to retire my stealth in a cuple years that its drive train will be solid and that I will have the capabiltys to do the fab my self.

Im not looking for 'why would you do it?' fact is, i've done a few 8v and a 16v. I was verry pleased with most of my set ups, it would be nice to get into a truly unique set up. my stealth has around 300AWHP and runs 9.00 in the 1/8 and cuts 1.9 60's with verrry few mods and weights almost 4000lbs. same drive train into a car that weights 1000lbs less!?!?!? the potentional is there for 600-800AWHP out of the turbo 6G72 motor when would running a gutted g-body into the what, verry effing fast range!


Also, i dont know menny 3si owners who have removed the AWD set up from the cars. I know a few, my self included who have removed the AWS, not cuz its over-complacated. But cus it costs to much to replace and parts USE to be hard to find....


I think a 500-600AWD g-body would be pretty fricken awesome regardless of what motor is in it! auto-x and dragracing would be a differnt experince thats for sure

Captain Chaos
11-09-2009, 02:01 PM
I've ridden in a Spirit R/T at a calculated 153

If that was against the white SR20DET Sentra or 200 SX, I remember that night, I was in the back seat, lol.

Polygon
11-09-2009, 03:01 PM
i clearly didnt make my point, you guys seem to be focusing purly on the 'top speed' of the cars. basicly what im getting at is that when it comes time to retire my stealth in a cuple years that its drive train will be solid and that I will have the capabiltys to do the fab my self.

Im not looking for 'why would you do it?' fact is, i've done a few 8v and a 16v. I was verry pleased with most of my set ups, it would be nice to get into a truly unique set up. my stealth has around 300AWHP and runs 9.00 in the 1/8 and cuts 1.9 60's with verrry few mods and weights almost 4000lbs. same drive train into a car that weights 1000lbs less!?!?!? the potentional is there for 600-800AWHP out of the turbo 6G72 motor when would running a gutted g-body into the what, verry effing fast range!


Also, i dont know menny 3si owners who have removed the AWD set up from the cars. I know a few, my self included who have removed the AWS, not cuz its over-complacated. But cus it costs to much to replace and parts USE to be hard to find....


I think a 500-600AWD g-body would be pretty fricken awesome regardless of what motor is in it! auto-x and dragracing would be a differnt experince thats for sure

Alright, so let me get this straight.

1. You've got a Stealth TT with BPU.
2. It's about time to retire it....
3. So, you pretty much want to take the Daytona body and put it on the Stealth?
4. Then you want to get it up 500-600 AWHP range.
5. You're eager to do this work yourself?

Well, then let me list the pros and cons.

Pros:


Imporved handling with more suspension options.
Better brakes and more brake options (only relevant on the track).
Platform designed for top speed as well.
All wheels drive, also I would have kept the AWS.
Much more support than the TD platform.


Cons:


This is going to be VERY hard.
You might have to cut out a lot of support structure to fit everything.
That stupid VCU.
Exhaust can't go down it's normal path since a drive shaft would be there now.
Even though you're doing it yourself I think it's going to be expensive.


I think it's a shame to hack up a TT 3S and I still think that the Minivan AWD system would be easier and it mounts to a 6G72 as well. Seems like the more logical choice to me.

t3rse
11-09-2009, 03:51 PM
----...go for it.

or better yet, just gut your 3si and go balls to wall

Reaper1
11-09-2009, 05:51 PM
If that was against the white SR20DET Sentra or 200 SX, I remember that night, I was in the back seat, lol.

Yup, it was a white 2nd gen Sentra SE-R with a SR20DET swap...the ONLY clue was a slightly large exhaust, a little lowered, and a small sticker on the quarter window with "SR20DET" on it. Other than that, SLEEPER!!! :nod:

Yeah, I just remember Tom shifting to 5th(I had to look to make sure), then looking at the tach and thinking to myself..."OH SH*T, these are 'T' rated tires (as the speedo was BURRIED past 125 and the tach was STILL climbing, and that little Sentra was still ahead of us by a good 4 lengths!)". The guy in the Sentra said he ran out of gear and we were reeling him in...at 150mph! :yuck:

shelbyplaya
11-09-2009, 06:09 PM
Alright, so let me get this straight.

1. You've got a Stealth TT with BPU.
2. It's about time to retire it....
3. So, you pretty much want to take the Daytona body and put it on the Stealth?
4. Then you want to get it up 500-600 AWHP range.
5. You're eager to do this work yourself?

Well, then let me list the pros and cons.

Pros:


Imporved handling with more suspension options.
Better brakes and more brake options (only relevant on the track).
Platform designed for top speed as well.
All wheels drive, also I would have kept the AWS.
Much more support than the TD platform.


Cons:


This is going to be VERY hard.
You might have to cut out a lot of support structure to fit everything.
That stupid VCU.
Exhaust can't go down it's normal path since a drive shaft would be there now.
Even though you're doing it yourself I think it's going to be expensive.


I think it's a shame to hack up a TT 3S and I still think that the Minivan AWD system would be easier and it mounts to a 6G72 as well. Seems like the more logical choice to me.

I agree it would be a shame to hack up the stealth, but unless devine intervention happens I wont have a choise but to part it out in 2-3 years.

the VCU would simply get welded seeing as it wouls be a track car. Right now its more or less discusion only, still far away from putting the pen to paper.

Vigo
11-24-2009, 10:05 PM
Im a little late in reading this, but i dont think anyone should talk about going 170 or 200 in a daytona just because you can gear it for that. You're going to need a lot of body mods to make it stable enough to be safe, i think.

Ive never driven anything over 130 something, and i intend to change that, but Im NOT going to go off talking about how much gear my aries has left without even trying.. And i doubt i would have the nerve to get a car like that past 140. As said earlier.. no weight, no aero, scary!!

Reaper1
11-25-2009, 01:46 AM
Nobody was really ever saying they were going to try to do it...only that it could be geared to be done. Besides that, the conversation somehow got all screwed up(possibly by me, I admit) in to talking about the top speed capabilities of these cars. Not that anybody is going to actually try to go that fast, just that the gearing is there.

I think you'd be surprised at how stable a Daytona is at higher speeds though. Remember that the IROC R/T could do 155mph off the showroom floor! The trick is to deflect the air from getting under the nose. My '90 is a baseline car and didnt' have a deep front chin spoiler. At around 115 the front started to float. On top of that, it has no rear spoiler, and while some may argue about the functionality of stock wings, I'll be the first to tell you that the Daytona wing is there for more than just looks! It's kinda scary when the rear of the car tries to step out on you while doing 127 around a very gradual corner! :O My '88 that has both the front chin spoiler and the lower rear wing(which will be upgraded to the newer one at some point) NEVER felt that way, even going faster. On track(Roebling Road, Savannah, Ga) it was also very stable on the front straight where I'd hit 120mph.

Something else to keep in mind is that when the Daytona took over for the IROC series, all the drivers commented on how stable the car was to drive...MUCH more so than the Camaro it replaced. To this day that body is heralded as one of the nicest cars to drive at speed. Now, I DO understand that was a full tube frame car with a body "resembling" the stock car, however it did have to fit within the stock dimensions and such, so it was a fair rendering.

The Spirit R/T I rode in at 153mph was pretty darn stable as well. Given I wasn't driving and I was thinking about the tires, however if the car had felt unsafe at those speeds I think my pucker factor would have taken note! LOL

To finish this post out, IMHO the only real body mods I'd do to prepare a Daytona to go 170-200mph is I'd run a DEEP front chin spoiler, I'd install side skirts, and I'd also put on some sort of vortex generator for the rear window to keep the airflow attached to the back of the car to reduce rear lift and help with stability. I REALLY need to get my models in the wind tunnel here at school, because I want to share that info with the community! :)

Dusty_Duster
11-25-2009, 07:54 AM
...
Im not looking for 'why would you do it?' fact is, i've done a few 8v and a 16v. I was verry pleased with most of my set ups, it would be nice to get into a truly unique set up. my stealth has around 300AWHP and runs 9.00 in the 1/8 and cuts 1.9 60's with verrry few mods and weights almost 4000lbs. same drive train into a car that weights 1000lbs less!?!?!? the potentional is there for 600-800AWHP out of the turbo 6G72 motor when would running a gutted g-body into the what, verry effing fast range!
...

The Stealth weighs more because of the AWD system.

I think you're going to need two tanks of NOS. The big ones.

Garffus
11-25-2009, 08:37 AM
In mid 2008 i was about ready to quit on my OEM AWD plans for my G Body having come so close and fallen at the last hurdle several times.

Still, determined to build an AWD G body i bought a JDM GTO TT to swap all the gear out of and in to the Daytona. After driving it for all of 1/2 a mile those plans ended, i owned a 3/s and was keeping it :)


Im a little late in reading this, but i dont think anyone should talk about going 170 or 200 in a daytona just because you can gear it for that. You're going to need a lot of body mods to make it stable enough to be safe, i think.

Indeed, I took my Daytona to around 120 - 125 and i can honestly say it was the scariest thing i have ever done in a car that i am in control of. It was ready to put me in the guard rail at any moment. You can't take a car that will bump steer +-5deg from driving over a pebble to 200mph and be safe. Driving the salt flats is a different ball game, and the 'baron was extensively modified as such.




Something else to keep in mind is that when the Daytona took over for the IROC series, all the drivers commented on how stable the car was to drive...MUCH more so than the Camaro it replaced. To this day that body is heralded as one of the nicest cars to drive at speed. Now, I DO understand that was a full tube frame car with a body "resembling" the stock car, however it did have to fit within the stock dimensions and such, so it was a fair rendering.

This is a complete contradiction. The IROC cars had nothing at all in relation to a G body!? one is a badly made unibody, the other is a custom fab'd space frame, how can you draw any comparison in the slightest? Don't get me wrong, you can make a Daytona a good handling and predictable car, i am going to prove it one day, but there are many many things to address first.

To the OP, i say do what you want, your plans would work under a G body and i still think it would be very cool to do, but im attached to my 3/s now and it will stay in one piece, but i would be putting extensive time and effort into improving that chassis and using the 3/s suspension as well as running gear all round if it is your intention to take a g body over 150mph for any amount of time.

Ondonti
11-25-2009, 08:48 AM
the base models weigh about 3200 and the TT AWD's weigh about 450 pounds more. Thats not an incredible amount of extra weight from ALL that good stuff.

Reaper1
11-26-2009, 02:23 AM
Indeed, I took my Daytona to around 120 - 125 and i can honestly say it was the scariest thing i have ever done in a car that i am in control of. It was ready to put me in the guard rail at any moment. You can't take a car that will bump steer +-5deg from driving over a pebble to 200mph and be safe. Driving the salt flats is a different ball game, and the 'baron was extensively modified as such.

Wow, if your car bumpsteers that much maybe you shouldn't be driving it at all, much less over 100mph!

The 'Baron was lowered and had a front airdam on it IIRC. Other than that I think you'd be surprised how "stock" it really was. I'd be willing to bet there wasn't much hocus pocus with the suspension either. The most important thing, besides making sure all the parts are in top shape, is to have a good alignment. Without that the car won't feel right, react right, or perform right.




Something else to keep in mind is that when the Daytona took over for the IROC series, all the drivers commented on how stable the car was to drive...MUCH more so than the Camaro it replaced. To this day that body is heralded as one of the nicest cars to drive at speed. Now, I DO understand that was a full tube frame car with a body "resembling" the stock car, however it did have to fit within the stock dimensions and such, so it was a fair rendering.

This is a complete contradiction. The IROC cars had nothing at all in relation to a G body!? one is a badly made unibody, the other is a custom fab'd space frame, how can you draw any comparison in the slightest? Don't get me wrong, you can make a Daytona a good handling and predictable car, i am going to prove it one day, but there are many many things to address first.

To the OP, i say do what you want, your plans would work under a G body and i still think it would be very cool to do, but im attached to my 3/s now and it will stay in one piece, but i would be putting extensive time and effort into improving that chassis and using the 3/s suspension as well as running gear all round if it is your intention to take a g body over 150mph for any amount of time.

I fixed my quote so that hopefully it will be fully read this time. You DO realize that those cars have to fit profile templates taken off of production cars, right? My point to this was that the body style has an inherent aerodynamic stability to it. Yes, I DO know that the race cars had aids added to them, but the basic shape is still there.

As for making a G-body "good handling and predicable", it's already been done. Shelby did it. Mike Stimac has done it. Chris Still has done it. I've also done it (according to several people who have driven my car on track at race speeds, not just my own opinion). The formula is pretty simple: upgrade the suspension and brakes with good parts, get a good alignment, get decent wheels and tires, tune accordingly! I'm not saying this is all the can or should be done, but it's a step in the right direction. Chassis stiffeners help too! :thumb:

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, adapting 3/S suspension to a G-body is NOT needed to make the car safely able to achieve and maintain 150mph or greater. It serves no purpose other than a "wow" factor. It adds complexity and weight for no good reason. :amen:

88C/S
11-26-2009, 06:58 AM
I found my '85 was quite stable at 145+. It did have Suspension Technique springs, koni struts and shocks, spearco intercooler and the Direct Connection Intercooled Turbo computer. My '88 is very stable at 125+.
I agree that what helps is minimizing the amount of air that gets under the car. My '88 has the Chevy S-10 chin spoiler and it becomes effective at 65+.
The Stealth drive train is proven, but the AWD Caravan appears to be proven too. Save the Stealth if you can and get the Caravan AWD components. There is a tread that has info on how to proceed.

Garffus
11-26-2009, 12:10 PM
Wow, if your car bumpsteers that much maybe you shouldn't be driving it at all, much less over 100mph! :)

The 'Baron was lowered and had a front airdam on it IIRC. Other than that I think you'd be surprised how "stock" it really was. I'd be willing to bet there wasn't much hocus pocus with the suspension either. The most important thing, besides making sure all the parts are in top shape, is to have a good alignment. Without that the car won't feel right, react right, or perform right.

:) i didn't ever go over 100 with it again. maybe not +-5, perhaps 5 total, but enough to make it pretty nervous. for one, the steering rack position and arm lengths bare no relation to the wishbone heights and angles, building in bump steer which is a no no in any sport orientated platform and this is just one of several factors.

I should say the 93 RT i have is a lot better at speed, i think the dual pivot arms on the later cars make a good improvement to stability



I fixed my quote so that hopefully it will be fully read this time. You DO realize that those cars have to fit profile templates taken off of production cars, right? My point to this was that the body style has an inherent aerodynamic stability to it. Yes, I DO know that the race cars had aids added to them, but the basic shape is still there.

I did read your post, the body shape of the Daytona as we both know was and still is very efficient, but stability and handling are not just based on body shape and aerodynamics. Certainly good aerodynamics are essential to a fast and predictable car, but as well as that, the IROC cars had an incredibly stiff chassis, and the suspension setup was 100x more advanced to what you find under a k based car, there were no common factors at all.



As for making a G-body "good handling and predicable", it's already been done. Shelby did it. Mike Stimac has done it. Chris Still has done it. I've also done it (according to several people who have driven my car on track at race speeds, not just my own opinion). The formula is pretty simple: upgrade the suspension and brakes with good parts, get a good alignment, get decent wheels and tires, tune accordingly! I'm not saying this is all the can or should be done, but it's a step in the right direction. Chassis stiffeners help too! :thumb:

Shelby did it?

Mikes car is testament to what can be done, but he has an awful lot of work into that car. I am not familiar with Chris' car?? can you link me?

British roads 'draw out' any inabilities and short comings in a car, if you ever drive here you will see what i mean. Certainly Lotus had the car working pretty good. Paul Harvey the current head of chassis development there had just started out there when Chrysler pulled the plug, he had good things to say about them, and John Miles who carried out the work said it was as good as the offerings and cars in development of the day, on tarmac.. (Deltas, Quattro’s, GTiRs..) (This is third person - Paul Harveys words, i have not spoken with John Miles)

My 87z to which i refer had coil over suspension manufactured for it, you could dial out the bump steer by raising the compression damping so high that it didn't move, but that reall wasn't practical, and the car was set up, with the small adjustments you have for geometry, by Baz Cannon. Look him up if you want, RPM Engineering (http://www.rally-world.com/rpm/about-us.htm) he is a chassis and suspension designer and was head R&D engineer for certain aspects of the original Quattro rally car, and later the Ford RS1700T and RS200s, then onto various Touring car and GT car projects for numerous international race teams and manufacturers. He now runs a private race prep business, we never saw the improvements this made really, since we blew the turbo seals accelerating out of his yard towards my house, and i, rather than replacing the turbo, stripped the whole car and began an all-out build.

I knew it was tired we had been trying to make the most of it while it worked, i already made an oil catch tank to go in the AC bracket, CC pressures were through the roof, but it was in vein :lol:


I've said it once, and I'll say it again, adapting 3/S suspension to a G-body is NOT needed to make the car safely able to achieve and maintain 150mph or greater. It serves no purpose other than a "wow" factor. It adds complexity and weight for no good reason. :amen:

True, but it depends if you want an extensive R&D project, or lots of mucking about trying to make a tried and tested system fit....

Thanks for arguing constructively with me Reaper!

BadAssPerformance
11-26-2009, 12:57 PM
Im a little late in reading this, but i dont think anyone should talk about going 170 or 200 in a daytona just because you can gear it for that. You're going to need a lot of body mods to make it stable enough to be safe, i think.

Ive never driven anything over 130 something, and i intend to change that, but Im NOT going to go off talking about how much gear my aries has left without even trying.. And i doubt i would have the nerve to get a car like that past 140. As said earlier.. no weight, no aero, scary!!

My Daytona is prettty stable over 130.. even was before the cage with stock body and suspension to boot.

IROC R/T's will top 150 stock... and ride nice.

Shelbyplaya - you propose an interesting idea, and I might have missed why your Stealth has to die in a couple years, but there are many out there with blown up drivetrains... maybe body swap yours? I guess I just like the Stealths the way they are?

shelbymonster
11-26-2009, 01:29 PM
last year i saw a 87 daytona with a 6g72tt converted to one turbo , reversed intake , and a 3.0 5 speed trans , never saw that car running but look so nice under that hood , i would like to see the gbody tt awd seriously

gkcooper
11-26-2009, 01:40 PM
My Daytona R/T has done a GPS verified 156mph.

Aries_Turbo
11-26-2009, 09:38 PM
Ive never driven anything over 130 something, and i intend to change that, but Im NOT going to go off talking about how much gear my aries has left without even trying.. And i doubt i would have the nerve to get a car like that past 140. As said earlier.. no weight, no aero, scary!!

ive done 141 in the k car.... on the way to the racetrack. :)

it wasnt that bad but then again, i used to ride in old muscle cars all the time doing over 120 so im used to float. :)

stock k car going that fast would have been terrifying im sure. i have konis which help with some of the floatiness. i dunno about the eibachs though but i have them too.

Brian

Reaper1
11-27-2009, 02:51 AM
:) i didn't ever go over 100 with it again. maybe not +-5, perhaps 5 total, but enough to make it pretty nervous. for one, the steering rack position and arm lengths bare no relation to the wishbone heights and angles, building in bump steer which is a no no in any sport orientated platform and this is just one of several factors.

I'll have to take a look at my book, figures, and model again, but just from personal experience the stock height cars, or cars that aren't lowered too much don't experience bump steer issues as bad as you describe. Now, cars that are lowered too much DO have this issue, but they are also putting themselves at other disadvantages by doing that. Something to look into is to shim up the rack off the K-frame to help with the tie rod geometry. The issue with this for some would be downpipe clearance. I still stand my ground that a good alignment goes a long way in to improving the feel and overall performance of these cars. :nod:



I should say the 93 RT i have is a lot better at speed, i think the dual pivot arms on the later cars make a good improvement to stability

I have to agree with this. It is a much more efficient design than the older style suspension. Not in any way perfect, but definitely better.



I did read your post, the body shape of the Daytona as we both know was and still is very efficient, but stability and handling are not just based on body shape and aerodynamics. Certainly good aerodynamics are essential to a fast and predictable car, but as well as that, the IROC cars had an incredibly stiff chassis, and the suspension setup was 100x more advanced to what you find under a k based car, there were no common factors at all.

Again, I agree about the chassis, but I was only citing the aerodynamic properties. The suspension and chassis is like comparing apples to potatoes! Not even close! LOL



Shelby did it?

Yup, albeit with a prototype AWD system(I think you've commented on those cars before IIRC). However, in a way you can also argue for the CSX's and Lancers as being cousins in the respect that they are K-based chassis as well.



Mikes car is testament to what can be done, but he has an awful lot of work into that car. I am not familiar with Chris' car?? can you link me?

Sure! http://www.csracer.com/




True, but it depends if you want an extensive R&D project, or lots of mucking about trying to make a tried and tested system fit....

Thanks for arguing constructively with me Reaper!

My whole thing is that what is on the car CAN be made to work quite well with some adjustments and tuning. Why mess with something that can work fine and replace it with something that isn't even close to similar dimensions that adds complexity and weight to the side of the car that needs it the least? I'm all for doing some work to the front suspension. I've been kicking around the idea of figuring out how to alter the mounting points for the control arms on the front in my head for a while now. Still not 100% sure on it, but I've been wanting to do a tubular K-frame for a LONG time, and I think that would be part of the solution. :eyebrows:

BTW, I enjoy healthy conversation and discussion. It's nice that it is possible to do that over the 'net with some people, because as I'm sure you know, the 'net has a funny way of not conveying a message in total detail and loosing some of the translation along the way.

Vigo
11-27-2009, 05:51 PM
last year i saw a 87 daytona with a 6g72tt converted to one turbo , reversed intake , and a 3.0 5 speed trans , never saw that car running but look so nice under that hood , i would like to see the gbody tt awd seriously

I think i saw a pic of an 86 (first gen, white car) with that setup once.. you sure it was an 87?



i used to ride in old muscle cars all the time doing over 120 so im used to float.

See, thats what's terrifying to me. If you only feel safe going straight at that speed, that means you are probably one attempt at swerving around something thats not going 140 mph from death. I look at a daytona and i cant help thinking that even if they feel good going straight, the back end probably only has 13 lbs holding the tires down at 150+... and one twitch of the wheel is all it would take. anything adding downforce to the rear would help that, but thats what i see as the deathtrap part of trying to go 150+ in a stock body daytona.

thefitisgay
11-27-2009, 06:58 PM
i think these would actually look nice on a daytona http://www.octanemotorsports.com/images/ESP-79FD-MUSSL-RW.jpg

shelbymonster
11-27-2009, 10:20 PM
yeah white , can be a 86 , built by a shop i know


I think i saw a pic of an 86 (first gen, white car) with that setup once.. you sure it was an 87?




See, thats what's terrifying to me. If you only feel safe going straight at that speed, that means you are probably one attempt at swerving around something thats not going 140 mph from death. I look at a daytona and i cant help thinking that even if they feel good going straight, the back end probably only has 13 lbs holding the tires down at 150+... and one twitch of the wheel is all it would take. anything adding downforce to the rear would help that, but thats what i see as the deathtrap part of trying to go 150+ in a stock body daytona.

Vigo
11-27-2009, 10:28 PM
Id love to see more pics and info on that thing. I kinda want to do a dohc 6g72 in my caravan.

shelbymonster
11-27-2009, 11:08 PM
Id love to see more pics and info on that thing. I kinda want to do a dohc 6g72 in my caravan.

i would like some pics but dont know if he still got it , he wanted 2000$ for it

Reaper1
11-28-2009, 12:26 PM
I know what car you guys are talking about. The guy really wasn't very forward with how or who did the conversion. It used to be on Cardomain.

As for the rear of Daytona's being unstable...I'll vouch for that if they don't have the rear wing! Other than that, I still feel fine about it.

Having said that I DO want to so some experiments to see about helping with boundary laryer separation off the back of the car to help with drag and reduce lift. I've already got the OK to use the smoke tunnel at school, I just have to find the time to come up with the experiments and build the model and test bed.

Vigo
11-28-2009, 04:04 PM
I just read something interesting about using the coanda effect to make air follow the corners at the end of a vehicle instead of tearing off and creating a low-pressure area and turbulence. Seemed pretty cool, used low pressure air jets right at the corner of the vehicle to do it.

Reaper1
11-29-2009, 02:07 AM
I just did some reading on the Coanda Effect. Interesting I don't remember it being brought up in any of my aero classes, but maybe we used a different term.

At any rate after reading about it there are a few things I'd like to point out.
#1: there is no good way to introduce an excitation air jet to the back of the car in the area needed without obstucting the view, added weight, and possible added machinery.

#2: while there are several times it is mentioned that this effect also helps create thrust, the problem is it does it by fist accelerating the airstream. This has the effect of lowering the pressure, creating lift...the exact opposite of what we want to do!

In my opinion it is best to simple "trip" the boundary layer a little to create small eddies (aka vorticies) as a slightly turbulent flow (aka unstable flow) has the ability to follow contours better than a perfectly laminar flow, especially at high angles of attack, such as the rear window of a G-body. Not only that, but it will slow the flow down a little, which will reduce some of the lift. It's a win-win situation without a lot of work. The only question that remains is, what is the best way to accomplish this, and where should the devices be placed for maximum effect? These are the answers I'm looking for and want to test for! :)

Vigo
11-29-2009, 10:12 PM
#1: there is no good way to introduce an excitation air jet to the back of the car in the area needed without obstucting the view, added weight, and possible added machinery.

Eh? im not going to argue but i guess you'll be missing out on the government grants given to universities to develop this already. I guess those people patenting their version of the idea are throwing their money away too.

Reaper1
11-30-2009, 12:19 AM
All I'm saying is that from the little bit of information I read about it, it seems to me that you need to introduce a high velocity jet along the curve right about where the normal boundary layer separation would take place. Since we don't drive turbine cars, how are you going to do that? On top of this what is your mechanism? Then comes the fact that this also speeds up the flow, which reduced pressure in that immediate area which produces lift. Exactly the opposite of what we want.

On airfoils that use high lift devices such as multilayer flaps and slats this is the best thing since sliced bread. It also works very well for spoilers on race cars. I can see it being used in THAT context, but NOT for the purpose we are talking about.

I'll be taking vehicle aerodynamics next fall, which incorperates quite a bit of CFD. If I remember, I'll try to take a look at it. I can tell you that most of the teams working on it this year are using dimples to reduce the induced drag from a separated boundary layer. Whether this is the exact principle they are basing that off of, or simply because a slightly turbulent flow likes to follow curves more (as seen with golf balls), I don't know, but I can find out as I have a good friend who is taking that course this semester.

Vigo
12-01-2009, 12:30 AM
ahh, well what i read indicated you only needed .25 psi. That could be done with tiny ducts redirecting airflow through the body from high pressure areas to low, not even moving parts i would guess. That's probably where the huge difference of opinion resides!

Reaper1
12-02-2009, 12:58 AM
Well, I'll read on it a bit more as well... :thumb: