Jump to content

Ckerch

Members
  • Posts

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ckerch

  1. I am more of your option 3 person. Nothing crazy. In the middle of a front disc brake conversion and decided to go through the front suspension while I have it on the lift. When talking to Coil Spring Specialties, they were guessing I might have roughly 1/2" sag over the 56 years. So I was looking at a 1" drop similar to fxrspjc's car on page 10 of this post but think he might be running 18's. Might be a flip of the coin because I really like yours. QA-1's sounds intriguing but have not seen any post of people doing it on a Riv. Thanks again for the feedback Carl
  2. Art Love the stance and the wheels. Nice touch. Did you need wheel spacers to use that wide of a rim? Is your car stock height or lowered?
  3. On my 64, I am trying to remove the top bolt that goes through the brake anchor pin. I have sprayed it with penetrating oil and using an impact wrench but neither side will move. I am wondering if it is just a stubborn bolt or possibly a reverse thread. Could not find anything in the service manual discussing the removal of this bolt. Does anyone know if it is a normal thread or a reverse thread? Carl UPDATE: Answered my own question. It is standard thread.
  4. Could not find that part number (25-3142259-7) on there website so it must be an internal number. They did not get back to me yet (probably due to the holiday) but hopefully tomorrow. It will be a lot easier with a part number. Thanks again for the feedback Carl
  5. Thanks, I have a call into them Carl
  6. When fixing my radiator, I ran into the same side seal that need to be replaced. Did anyone start selling these? Carl
  7. Zimm63 Those spots you you use are the ones I am shooting for. That aligns more to chevy X frame. It would be a tight fit to get a pad in rearward of the lower control arm bracket before it slopes up. I thought about getting under the LCA bracket/frame but worried I would bend the bracket because it sits slightly lower than the frame. I am with you about having all the weight above my head but sure beats being on a crawler. Thanks for everyone's feedback Carl
  8. Good job on the extenders Do you remember the metal wall thickness or did you use solid bars ? Did you create new pads or use your lift pads? I take it when you say they are locked in, you used round sleeves welded into the extender and that is inserted into the lift arm hole on the end. Is that correct? Did you position the pads per the lift points below or on top of the lower control bracket? The reason I ask is the frame in the rear location starts angling up shortly after the bracket. I have seen ones that have a notch with gussets for the drive shaft but that seems that it would be near impossible to get on the lift. Your design looks more practical . I would imagine after some practice, it gets easier the more you use it. I know this is a lot of questions but would like to learn from your experience. Thank You Carl
  9. Tom Both front and rear arms are fully extended. With is being an asymmetrical lift, the front arms are shorter so I positioned the car so I could get the pad in the correct front lift point and that left the rear in the point in the picture. The other concern was, by positioning the the car so the front is on the correct lift point, it cause the car to also be more rearward in the relation to the lift columns. According to the lift instructions, Challenger likes the columns to a aligned to the front of the drivers seat and I know every car balance point is different but that is probably a good rule of thumb. Right now it is positioned close to the middle of the floor board. Not off much (maybe 6-8"). I am new to having a lift ( actually this is only the second vehicle I have had on a lift) so I don't have much experience with this and if this is a problem. It seems to be level at this position.
  10. Actually that is a lot of help. For the price of safety, this would be a good option then I am not guessing if I used the right size tubing. Thanks Carl
  11. I might have to go that way because it does seem bouncy. With the car up about 18", I rocked it pretty hard and did not move at the pads but concerned when raising/lowering the car. I would want to make sure the extender is not the weak link and not having a Mechanical Engineering background, do you remember what size tubing and wall thickness you used? I assumed you made one for the front and one for the rear. Do you remember any bowing in the extender? Thanks for the feedback
  12. Tom Took these this morning. It is kind on similar to the Chevy X frame lift points. I would assume this would shift my balance point using the Chevy method. My only other option is to make up a frame extender similar to below. Not sure if this would be any better.
  13. Tom It is definitely rearward of the X and adjacent to the bracket. I can get a picture tomorrow
  14. Just in front of the lower control arm bracket(closer to the X part of the frame)
  15. New to using a lift and I thought my rear arms were long enough but could only reach the point on the frame just before the lower control arm. It does make it a little more bouncing than my other vehicle but that is probably because the arms are fully extended. I check but they don't make extenders for my lift. Probably will go to Harbor freight and buy a couple of under hoist safety stands for good measure. Thanks for the feedback.
  16. You don't by chance ( and I don't know what the correct name is) have a spring the goes into the door hinge to keep it open to the detents?
  17. I am wanting to work on my 64 Riviera and put it on my Challenger 2 post versymmetric lift. When looking for lift points, I came across this thread. In the picture above, it looks like you would put the rear pad just rearward of the lower control arm connection point at the X frame. However, looking at point, the frame starts sloping up just shortly after. Not sure I can get he whole pad on a flat surface. If I go forward of the connection point, that puts it closer to the X part of the frame. Does everyone use these lift points shown in the picture above or do you use other ones?
  18. Nice job and excellent write up!! It seems that the ACdelco master cylinder you used isn't available anymore (at least I can't find it online). Looking at other 67 Wildcat Disc/Drum master cylinders, it looks like those are 1 1/8" bore and our Power Booster is made for a 1" bore. Did you have to make any modifications to fit the master cylinder into the 64 Power Booster? Also, how did you determine between Bendix or Morane capable master cylinder and if it was shallow piston hole? The block that you used, did it have any metering function to it or was a straight through block? Thanks, Carl
  19. I guess it is based on comfort level and/or maintaining originality. Carl
  20. Tom Very good writeup but do have a couple more questions. Master cylinder/power Booster I was planning on keeping with the Rivera line and use the 67 disc/drum dual reservoir master cylinder. Because the 67 master cylinder is 1 1/8 bore and the 64 is 1" bore, I will also purchase the power booster as well. I thought I read someway that the power booster has the same firewall bolt pattern as the 64. Hopefully that is true. Going from a 64 1" bore to a 67 1 1/8" bore master cylinder I will lose some pressure but can't see it being enough to affect rear brake performance. I did confirm also that the 76 Cadillac calipers that the bracket was made for does use a 1 1/8" bore master cylinder so there should be no front performance issue there. 1) Any thoughts on my assumtions? 2) I have read where the drum brake like to have a preload of 10LBS. With using a metering block where the lines are directly plumbed from the master cylinder to the rear cylinders, would there be a need for a residual pressure valve or does the master cylinder keep a preload on the rear brakes? 3) With going to a 1 1/8 bore master cylinder, would that necessitate me increasing the rear backlines to 1/4" ? Also not sure if going to a larger line would cause any sealing issues at the rear wheel cylinders. Brake valves From reading your writeup and doing metering valve vs proportioning valve vs combination valve google writeups , aside from the size penalty of the proportioning valve, the one thing I would lose by not using a proportion valve is a brake light indication that one of the circuits (front or rear) has failed. I would think that would be apparent at the brake pedal. The only other thing I may lose is under extreme braking the proportioning or combination valve is suppose to help with rear wheel lockup. However, with me going from a 1" bore on the 64 to a 1 1/8" bore from the 67 master cylinder, that should help with rear wheel lock up under those conditions. 4) Am I kind of on the right track with my thought process? Thanks again for everyone's help Carl
  21. If this helps, the markings on my bracket are: RIV B27 WLD USA Carl
  22. Yep, I was focusing on Scarebird duplicating the GM system and had tunnel vision. With Scarebird selling alot of these for so many years, I figured I had to be missing something. I received feedback from Scarebird and they said the bracket had changed and can no longer use the Riviera caliper and rotor parts. Hopefully the the Deville caliper will bolt up the same way. I don't see why they wouldn't. Now I just have figure out the rest of the system. Thanks again Carl
  23. Tom With the 64 Riviera using 1 1/8 wheel cylinder in the front, 1" wheel cylinder in the rear and a 1" bore master, I would assume the rear lines would be the smaller ones 3/16". I have not verified it yet but believe that is what currently is used. Since the lines have never been replaced, the 1" bore must be able to supply enough volume to the smaller rear and larger front. However, with the Scarebird system calling out a 71-76 Deville caliper, that bore size is 2.94 inches. It seems that the piston in the disc brake should have less distance travel but would that affect the master cylinder bore size? Not sure and bigger is not always better. Swapping out spindles and system from another model is way above my level of confidence. Wish I did have that knowledge. Interesting that you talk about install sleeves. Because the Vettes are not usually (especially in the north) driven regularly, it is common to have them sleeved with stainless steel. I don't see that use here. I have not messed with a metering block. It looks like it has only one master cylinder input so would you use a single reservoir master cylinder? Also if it waits until the rears get up to pressure before firing the fronts, if your rears fail, would that take down the whole system? Is there something about the proportioning valve you don't like or the metering block just less finicky? Thanks Carl
×
×
  • Create New...