Prev: What do they think they would acheive by trashing a Tyre Store? Ya cant cure STUPID!
Next: Falcon wagon officially dead and buried
From: D Walford on 22 Mar 2010 23:06
On 23/03/2010 9:33 AM, Noddy wrote:
> "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:4ba7e09b$0$8816$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
>> Is that the new Cobra?
>> Bloke who runs a motel in Benalla has one of those, the donor was a BA
>> XR8, awesome looking toy but looking at it I'd be surprised of it was that
>> cheap.
>
> Me too.
>
> Not unless you stole most of the parts anyway.

I think he said the low klms XR8 wreck cost over $10,000 so the kit
would need to be cheap to finish the build under $30,000.
I remember him telling me that his was the first of the type to be
registered in Australia, it had been registered on the day I saw it so
the owner was a very happy man.


Daryl
From: Noddy on 23 Mar 2010 00:15

"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:1269315693.87804(a)idlwebserver.idl.com.au...

> Err. Nope. The NSW rule book hasn't changed in those areas since 1994.
>
> I know that some engineers have broken the rules and certified lap only
> in Falcon hardtops because they thought that the roof frame and the rear
> quarter panels were too weak to mount the seatbelts into.

They pretty much are.

There is nowhere on an XM/P coupe to mount lap/sash belts on the roof, and
although some have mounted them on the inner rear quarter it requires
fabricating a mounting point and that's often difficult to do without it
interferrring with the rear window operation.

It also looks completely shithouse, and makes rear seat access a tripping
trap.

> The requirement is minimum lap/sash outboard and lap inboard, with
> retractors being
> optional before about 1974.

How far back does that go? My understanding is that seatbelts weren't
compulsory for cars built before 1971.

> The collapsible column requirement applies for engine capacities more than
> 45% larger than the largest original option. That means that if the car
> came out with a 250, even a 351 doesn't need a collapsible column, but if
> the largest engine was a 200, anything over 290ci needs a collapsible
> column. That would make a 289 (or 283 chev) a good option.

If you wanted to get *really* technical, you could draw the authority's
attention to the fact that 289 powered early Falcons were offered new to the
public with official Ford backing in Australia in 1966, and the exact same
car was available in the US with either a 260 or 289 new.

As far as my car goes, it was issued with an Engineer's certificate on the
5th of August 1993 by Lohning Brothers Pty Ltd for the fiting of a 302
Windsor and C4 auto, with a brake upgrade of 10 drums on the rear (it had a
9 inch fitted) and 11 inch Ford rotors with HQ Holden calipers (it ran CRS 2
inch dropped stub axles). The rest of the car was pretty much standard,
including the "accessory" front lap belts (it had no rear ones) and the non
collapsable standard steering column.

> Strangely, the capacity limit requirement for collapsible column is not
> affected by supercharging, so a BA turbo 6 wouldn't require a collapsible
> column...

And yet, such an engine would make a standard 2bbl 289 look like the car was
powered by something you pulled out of a Morris Minor :)

> I think that some engineers have also fudged the largest original engine
> size in the past, too, by using the largest engine in the US-market model
> equivalent to the Australian Falcon, even when they were noticably
> different vehicles.

The only difference between the XM & XP 6 cylinder coupe and the '63
American V8 Falcon Sprint coupe is the front and rear sheet metal. The body
tub was identical apart from the steering.

> Out of curiosity, what about it is a problem? Does it alter the position
> of the pitman arm and hence the linkages, or are you just saying that the
> combination of XF box and original linkages sucks?

A bit of both.

The angle of the original XM/P box is different, so in order to pick up the
two main chassis holes and mount the XF box the pitman arm ends up at the
wrong angle to correctly align with the steering linkage. The Pitman arm
also has the wrong sized end to mate to the original Falcon linkage which
means either some form of adapter or reaming and re-splining an original
early Falcon arm to fit on the later box. The later box is also physically
larger than the early box and it'll fowl on the bottom of the spring tower
requiring a notch for clearance.

Of course, there's the *other* problem being that the XF box is a shithouse
steering box to begin with, and it's a hell of a lot of effort to make it
work which will see you end up with steering that's no better than a 25 year
old Falcon at best :)

> Obviously, you'd have to make a bracket to pick up the 3rd hole in the
> box, since the original box relies on the column for stability and the
> extra bolt hole is to replace that.

The original early Falcon box (which uses an integral column) has three
chassis rail mounting holes just like all the later Ford steering boxes. The
difference being that from XR Falcon onwards they went to a wider bolt
spacing which only matches up with two of the three original early holes,
and they changed the position of the holes themselves on the later steering
box which would see a later box tilted too far back if it was mounted to an
early car using the two original holes as reference.


--
Regards,
Noddy.




From: Noddy on 23 Mar 2010 06:17

" Scotty" <scoter1(a)warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ba88fe6$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...

> What, didnt I send you your decoder Ring Noddy?
>
> Its in the mail.

Much obliged :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.


From: Jason James on 23 Mar 2010 20:00

"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:1269315693.87804(a)idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
> Noddy <me(a)home.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, the XW/XY column had a collapsible bottom section.
>
>> The rules must have changed in NSW in the last ten years or so as when I
>> bought my XP from Arncliffe it was V8 registered with an Engineers report
>> and it still had the factory steering and lap only seat belts.
>
> Err. Nope. The NSW rule book hasn't changed in those areas since 1994.
>
> I know that some engineers have broken the rules and certified lap only
> in Falcon hardtops because they thought that the roof frame and the rear
> quarter panels were too weak to mount the seatbelts into. The requirement
> is minimum lap/sash outboard and lap inboard, with retractors being
> optional before about 1974.
>
> The collapsible column requirement applies for engine capacities more than
> 45% larger than the largest original option. That means that if the car
> came out with a 250, even a 351 doesn't need a collapsible column, but if
> the largest engine was a 200, anything over 290ci needs a collapsible
> column. That would make a 289 (or 283 chev) a good option.
>
> Strangely, the capacity limit requirement for collapsible column is not
> affected by supercharging, so a BA turbo 6 wouldn't require a collapsible
> column...
>
> I think that some engineers have also fudged the largest original engine
> size in the past, too, by using the largest engine in the US-market model
> equivalent to the Australian Falcon, even when they were noticably
> different vehicles.
>
>> fitting a later model XF Steering box (which will
>> line up with 2 of the 3 existing chassis holes and isn't recommended as
>> it
>> makes for pretty lousy steering)
>
> Out of curiosity, what about it is a problem? Does it alter the position
> of the pitman arm and hence the linkages, or are you just saying that the
> combination of XF box and original linkages sucks?
>
> Obviously, you'd have to make a bracket to pick up the 3rd hole in the
> box, since the original box relies on the column for stability and the
> extra bolt hole is to replace that.

In the '70s, you could get away with a red motor in a grey-motor Holden
here. So one annual rego inspection guy told me. At about the same time, it
was supposed to be the case, that you could get a V8 conversion done in Vic
for HD/HR Holdens, then get it passed by Vic authorities. It then could be
brought back to NSW no worries. Probably BS ?

Jason


From: Noddy on 23 Mar 2010 22:19

"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:1269355336.119706(a)idlwebserver.idl.com.au...

> The requirement is that any vehicle where the engineering certificate
> describes the engine as "Modified" must have the upgraded safety equipment
> prescribed, which includes seatbelts for all seating positions, as above.
>
> That has been the case since 1994.

Thought as much.

> 1993. Explains it all. A few months later and it wouldn't have passed in
> that configuration.

Which presumably means it won't pass here now like it, even though it's been
registered interstate like that before as it hasn't been registered for
around 7 years now.

> I vaguely remember something along those lines. Given that the RTA won't
> even consider HK/T/G or HQ/J/X/Z as one "model" for the purpose of
> determining the maximum engine capacity permitted, there's a fair chance
> that the minor sheetmetal differences would be enough excuse to reject any
> claim that they are the same basic vehicle. Worth a try, though. :-)

Idiots :)

The only version of that body that was different as far as I'm aware was the
American convertible, as it had a large X frame under the floor to make up
for the fact that it had no turret holding it all together. Cutting the lid
off a standard coupe without doing something similar will see it resembling
a "hammock" before too long :)

> Well, that's fair. The Bendix Bishop variable ratio power steering box
> was a great leap forward in 1971 when it was first put into HQs, but by XF
> Falcon, it was getting a little old...

It was. They're also next to impossible to keep an effective oil seal in
place in the case of power assisted versions.

> I've been doing to much with old Holdens. I was assuming that the early
> box was only 2 bolts as per Holden to HR, and that when they added the
> flexible joint, they also added the 3rd bolt.

Unfortunately not.

> Sounds like a box from something completely different would probably be a
> better option if the sector shaft spline matched the early pitman arm.

Once I get the house and new shed sorted I'm going to get back into the XP
and get it finished before Ford Australia starts hounding me to sell the
thing for their museum :)

I *was* going to fit an early L-300 front end into the thing, but I've
canned that idea now that the car will be going to the wife and I'll only be
putting a small engine in it. One of the steering options I looked at
briefly before putting the thing aside was a power steering rack out of a
Hyundai Getz. A quick measurement suggested that it'd be about the right
width to work in conjunction with the standard front end and hopefully not
induce any bump steer, and it shouldn't be too difficult to make up some
bracketry to support it. The Getz column also uses a couple of neat
universals that would probably adapt well to something like an XY Column,
and the pump and lines are fairly compact.

I'll see how it works out at some future point anyway.

--
Regards,
Noddy.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: What do they think they would acheive by trashing a Tyre Store? Ya cant cure STUPID!
Next: Falcon wagon officially dead and buried