Re: [AMC-list] SoCal TT!

[tom jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 07:39, Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> No, not everyone... you just haven't been LISTENING!! I've been saying my
> 63 handled like a roller skate on rails for years, no one believed me...
> apparently including you!! Want to improve the handling? Forget a front sway
> bar. It only works if you're pushing almost to the limit of control on that
> chassis. You need heavy duty front springs. [...]


Oh I recall, and I believed you, but there's a difference between reading
and driving! I agree on the front sway bar.

In the end the soft springs weren't a BIG problem, but in a sweeper you can
get a lot of energy stored in them, instead of pushing the chassis around,
they stay compressed and pop up when you unload from a turn, sproing! But
it's surprising how relatively flat it stays, that ball point pen spring at
the front corners really works.


> The high mount springs right over the turning center are very roll
> resistant, the stock springs are just too soft! So spend $160 at
> www.coilsprings.com and get a pair of progressive rate springs 12-15%
> stiffer than stock, at stock ride height. I think I ordered mine 1/2"
> shorter, 12% stiffer. You can just tell it's stiffer at low speeds, takes a
> lot of roll out.


That's probably about right. But I wouldn't lower it with springs, because
that ruins bump steer -- when the car is sprung right, the tie rod ends,
lower ball joints, and tip of the pitman arm are all in the same plane, so
when the suspension goes up and down it doesn't create any side to side
motion. Of course while the suspension is up or down it does dynamically.
But I worry about side effects of raising the spindles with a plate, how
will side-loading torque that 50 year old steering knuckle? So I'll see if I
can talk to some suspension geeks about these things.


> For the back end, you also need to stiffen the springs. Rather than order
> new ones, I used "half leaf" overload springs that clamp to the long rear
> part of the spring. Perfect! You need new spring bushings though. What I
> didn't get around to was installing sliders in place of the rear shackles (
> http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Leaf-Spring-Sliders,5817.html?sc=WGB&utm_source=GoogleBase&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=GoogleBase).
> That takes a LOT of slop out of the rear springs!
>

I didn't know about sliders! I don't see a listing for early Rambler...! And
the shackle perch is 4" (from memory...) above the rear spring eye, but I'll
go look at that. Thanks for the tip!



> You don't need to rev the engine if you have really good torque. [...] then
> don't let it get below 45 mph.


Not much choice on that mountain road stuff, where corner radius is 25 feet
or something!

OD really helped here. When I rebuilt the T96 the SECOND time I put in a
non-twin-stick 2nd gear (the twin-stick ratio was "fun" but practically
speaking, the big 2 - 3 gap was a lot of work). So when I could do
2nd/2nd-over it was great -- pushbutton downshift and throttle-up upshift.

 A turbo with mild mild boost I think is easier than fooling with internals.
This particular engine has a leaky rear seal but is otherwise 100% fine --
so I'll turbo that while I slowly build that new short block up. 4 psi boost
should hurt nothing.


That little body is STIFF!! The suspension gives, the body doesn't twist.
> You can't bottom out the suspension either. So it handles like a dream once
> the springing is right!! I told you so.... check the archives!! ;>
>

I was worried about stiffness, thinking the doors would rattle and clunk,
but they didn't. It's a notch stiffer than the Hornet or 63 Classic, in the
simple case of jacking the doors stuck. Not so on the American, but it's
much much shorter overall. The hardtop ought to be worse without a B pillar.
Hard to believe it's all that stiff, it's mainly just light. In any case
it's not a limiting factor here.

You're right -- it never bottomed once! I could bottom the Hornet hardly
even trying, and it was all new springs four corners.

... Everyone is wrong... yeah, I didn't mean to include you in that (nor,
clearly, most or all people on this list...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list-amc-list.com/attachments/20091013/9695f49a/attachment.htm>
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com