Jump to content

Mach1 Driver

Members
  • Content Count

    1,062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Mach1 Driver last won the day on January 17

Mach1 Driver had the most liked content!

About Mach1 Driver

  • Rank
    v8 powered poster

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Atlanta
  • Interests
    I'm a retired engineer who is the original owner of an unmodified 69 Mach1 351w, H code with an FMX. It was a daily driver for many years and now that I'm retired I intend to restore the car of my youth.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,317 profile views
  1. Mach1 Driver

    1970 Mustang Exterior Lights (turn signals)

    FYI, Midlife is the harness expert and runs a harness refab business. He says there are quite a few wire changes in the 70 Stangs. The ones I'm vaguely familiar with: it is the first year to have fusible links, the turn signal change, and Mid said there were changes to the dash harness I believe. In my opinion It would be best to find a good 70 wire diagram.
  2. I found a post on VMF by Klutch that modifies HF's parts washer to add an electric water heater element. He found that Oil Eater works OK when cold but very well when heated. I took his lead and added a few more modifications to make parts the washer easier to use and last longer. See the attached Word.doc. This was written in LibreOffice on a Ubuntu operating system and then converted to Word. I opened it on a Windows machine and all was fine for me- I hope for you too. Parts washer.doc
  3. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    Yes those programs have been around for years and I have used them also. However in my opinion it would not be "easy". In the CAD programs I have used, first you need to make an accurate 3D model of all the chassis parts. Then you have to connect them together in an assembly (with lots spot welds), and then you can do a structural analysis. I wonder how many thousands of hours that would take? Ford never did it because the technology wasn't around then. Maybe Dynacorn could do it now, but they are in the business of supplying replacement parts, not redesigning the car. But boy it sure would be nice.
  4. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    I watched the three videos you had linked. If there were more I didn't see them and based my conclusions on the three. I'm glad to hear they went back for more testing. But since all the changes were on the car they couldn't tell which changes did what. I have stated several times that members have added SFCs and feel real differences. All I'm stating is that in Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe, Stangnet.com in test 1, 2 and 4, that SFCs did zero. He made some significant additions to the SFCs. This is From post # 60 on page 3, just prior to test 4: Jacking rails In preparation for the next round of testing I have finished the jacking rail/sfc assembly. The SFCs are from Heidts and the jacking rail kit came from Global West. I purchased it from Summit Racing for about $130. Since it was made for Global West SFCs there was quite a bit of modding and fabrication required. The 1 inch square tubing welds to the rocker panels. The portion that extends forward will tie into the front torque box. The kit appears to be designed for installation on a car without front torque boxes so more mods were necessary. You will see in the summary that this still did zero and that surprised the heck out of me. As far as the meaningless comment: from post #24 page 2 CraigMBA is relating what his wife who is a structural engineer said: You can measure deflection at the core support, but the measurement is meaningless because you don't apply any torque there anyway. I think something was lost in the translation from wife/engineer to CraigMBA. It isn’t meaningless at all. Who cares if torque isn’t applied there? You have to measure somewhere and this is a before and after comparison to give a percentage, not an absolute defining measurement. Look at the setup. The car has jack stands at three points: RR, LR, and LF. The RF is free to flex so the logical place to take the measurement is at the forward most RF corner where you will see the most deflection. This car has significant changes but it is still a 67 Mustang. It has a newly constructed firewall for a big engine, the shock towers are removed, there are braces from the cowl to the front frames, and he has fabbed "export braces". The point is that he is measuring deflection before and after he makes changes to see how much (percentage wise) the change affects how much the chassis flexes. Here is the summary from post 79 on page 4: Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe, Stangnet.com The improvemens in % are the relative changes compared to the previous step, so the for the Export Brace: (0.64-0.48)/0.64 = 25% Test1 (post 1 page 1) Baseline 0.66" Factory crossmember 0.64" 3% Export Brace 0.48" 25% Monte Carlo bar 0.48" 0% Passenger torque box 0.48" 0% Subframe connectors 0.48" 0% Subframe X brace 0.475" 1% Test2 (post 1 page 1) Baseline 0.67" Cut shock towers 0.69" -3% MII cross member 0.63" 9% Subframe connectors 0.63" 0% Subframe X brace 0.61" 3% Test3 (post 23 page 2) Baseline 0.62" rear mounting point forward 0.52" 16% front mounting point rearward 0.35" 33% Test4 (post 66 page 4) Baseline 0.44" Firewall to subframe braces 0.42" 5% Weld braces to aprons and shock tower panels 0.41" 2% Diagonals ("Export Brace") 0.36" 12% SFC 0.36" 0% SFC X brace 0.36" 0% Jacking rails 0.35" 3% Rear seat divider 0.31" 11% Test5 (post 75 page 4) Baseline 0.35" rear mounting point forward 0.19" 46% Removed SFC X brace 0.19" 0% Removed seat divider 0.23" -21% Removed seat pans 0.23" 0% Front mounting point forward 0.40" -0.74% Most effective changes test 1 Export Brace 25% 4 Diagonals 12% 4 Rear seat divider 11% 2 MII cross member 9% 4 Firewall to subframe braces 5% 2 Subframe X brace 3% 1 Factory crossmember 3% 4 Jacking rails 3% 4 Weld braces to aprons and shock tower panels 2% 1 Monte Carlo bar 0% 1 Passenger torque box 0% 1,2,4 Subframe connectors 0% It's interesting to see that the simplest mods seem to have the greatest effect. But, as mentioned before, one should keep in mind that although some mods showed little to no improvement in this particular test, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are therefore worthless.
  5. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    If you notice the "model" used was a basic wire frame. It could tell them where they needed to stiffen the chassis, but not how to do that. They guessed how best to accomplish that. They probably made some good guesses, but without confirming tests its not possible to know what helped.
  6. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    I thought I missed something, but apparently not. I've got to agree with aslanefe. The tests you point to only refer to a Barracuda, not a Mustang. They added some bars, stitch welding, plates on the inner fender aprons, new lower radiator support and boxed the top support, then SFCs welded to the floor. There was no data of how anything helped and no followup test to show the improvement. This is definitely and apples and oranges comparison and in my opinion is of no value to a classic Mustang owner. Yes I would still go with the guy in the garage doing testing on a Mustang because he showed the changes one at a time and what the change did or didn't do, and SFCs did nothing for the Mustang. For that matter, you don't know if the SFCs did anything to the Barracuda either. They made all the changes at once and then took it out to the track and make no mention of retesting at Multimatic. They guessed at what to change based on a model. Its a very good start, but they didn't quantify the changes to verify what worked. Sorry, but its poor practice and half the job.
  7. Mach1 Driver

    Ever want to punch one of these guys ?

    I never would have got that, I had to look up the movie reference. Besides, residential is single phase 240v, not 220. That always bugs me when its called 220. Mexico is 220 and we're being invaded, so maybe that's where it comes from? Lets build the wall and keep those 220s, 221s out ;)
  8. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    Its pretty hard for a guy in his garage to compete with a business resource wise. Is any of that test available to the public, and where could we see it?
  9. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    I've lost 3" since high school, I'm gonna need a bumper seat pretty soon.
  10. Mach1 Driver

    Ever want to punch one of these guys ?

    the usual way- T A X E S, and its not free at all... if you work. I've heard that less than half the population works now- how appalling is that? Welfare is the most addictive thing in the world. You can thank LBJ and his Great Society.
  11. Mach1 Driver

    Ever want to punch one of these guys ?

    Ronald Reagan is on a rotisserie constantly flipping over in his grave, seeing what his state has become. Many believe the Dems have been taken of by politicians that are literally insane. Maybe all that sunshine cooks their brains? I still call it home, but I'm very glad I left.
  12. Mach1 Driver

    1970 Convertible Restoration

    I like your little fixture on the band saw
  13. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    Yeah, I know- lots of people do, but its not my opinion, its the result of the test ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  14. Mach1 Driver

    Fastback inner rockers

    My fastback is all stock, a southern California car with 77k on the odometer and no rust. I tried picking it up from the drivers front torque box. The front passenger tire stayed on the ground but the suspension unwound, same with the rear drivers tire. So three down one up. Just out of curiosity I'll have to see what goes on with the coupes construction (behind the rear seat?) that stiffens it up. I wonder if I could get three in the air if I put in an export brace and a solid plate behind the rear seat. From the torsion test the export brace gives a 25% improvement, and a rear seat divider is 11%. A Monte Carlo bar does 0%- it just keeps the towers separated. Welded-in SFCs without cross bracing give 0%.
×