Stop in for a cup of coffee

-
Rainy Day Auto said:
This is either really underpriced or sun ting wong

I think something fishy here, but maybe it's just a deal of the century

***coughs SCAM coughs****

[FOR SALE] - 1972 Dodge Demon 340
Click to expand...
Dang, that's pretty. That's what I paid for my Swinger and the orange car is worth way more. Someone may be getting a good deal.
 
71GSSDemon said:
Question for the crew.....If running a front engine plate, is it recommended to solid mount the transmission too? I have rubber mount on trans now. I am hearing something at idle in gear. I know the sketchy guy who built this trans so it could be his fault (me). It seems to work well, shifts well, although doesn't shift as violent as a reverse pattern valve body has for me in the past. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Never use a solid transmission mount with solid engine mounts unless it is a full cage race car. The transmission mount needs to have some flex or you risk breaking the bellhousing when the body flexes under load.

A rubber mount is ok, but generally too flexible for solid engine mounts and they can tear as a result. Best to use a polyurethane trans mount.
 
71GSSDemon said:
Question for the crew.....If running a front engine plate, is it recommended to solid mount the transmission too? I have rubber mount on trans now. I am hearing something at idle in gear. I know the sketchy guy who built this trans so it could be his fault (me). It seems to work well, shifts well, although doesn't shift as violent as a reverse pattern valve body has for me in the past. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
run a rubber mount for the trans. you need some give somewhere or you will brake your trans case.
 
plymouth67 said:
I tried to email and it got sent back to me....guess I'm calling after work to find out where my parts are!!! These are holding me up on finishing the interior...
Click to expand...

Tamrasz carries AMD and has a warehouse near Aurora... They don't charge any shipping if you pick up the parts in person...
 
Long, productive day.
5D482E1D-CD76-4AD2-B16D-D8F1093886FE.jpeg
 
I know a lot of you know a lot more about GM cars than you like to let on, so:

Why do the ends of my Monte Carlo’s front coil springs have to be visible through the first hole in the seat in the lower control arm, but either partially or non-visible through the second hole? The assembly manual says they do, and when I look for a reason why, everybody online dutifully repeats this requirement but nobody says why it’s important. I doubt they know.

There’s a good inch more seat beyond the second hole before they'd hit bottom. Mine were a royal bee-yotch to put in, and I know we were attentive to this manual requirement when we put them in, but today I was under there and looked, and they’re in the slots, but they’re all the way in. They’re visible through both holes. So why is this a problem? Once the car’s on the road, don’t they eventually rattle and shake their way down into the bottoms of the seats anyway? There’s nothing to hold them where they start out, other than tension, and I would think gravity, inertia and their own springiness would push them down into the bases of the seats sooner or later.

If this could cause them to break or something, I sure want to know, and I’ll fix ‘em. But it’s a big pain in the butt to do, so I'd like to know why before I tear into it.
 
PosiRon said:
Get you some metal you could have a nice quonset hut. In atom bomb tests, the only things that held up better than pole buildings were quonset huts. Reason is, both convert all lateral force applied to the shell into downward force to the ground.
Click to expand...
Must be nice; Gomer lived in one.
 
PosiRon said:
Get you some metal you could have a nice quonset hut. In atom bomb tests, the only things that held up better than pole buildings were quonset huts. Reason is, both convert all lateral force applied to the shell into downward force to the ground.
Click to expand...
Good afternoon mr. PosiRon

Hope you're having a great day
 
PosiRon said:
Hello sunshine! I trust you are enjoying a crisp and pleasant ealy autumn day out there in gorgeous Colorado.
Click to expand...
It's still pretty warm, reached upper 80s.
I wish I were outside enjoying the cooldown but I am still taking it easy from a back injury that happened on September 12.

Still working though, organizing and cleaning bolts and listing stuff for sale to clean up.

:) :) :) :) :)
 
PosiRon said:
I know a lot of you know a lot more about GM cars than you like to let on, so:

Why do the ends of my Monte Carlo’s front coil springs have to be visible through the first hole in the seat in the lower control arm, but either partially or non-visible through the second hole? The assembly manual says they do, and when I look for a reason why, everybody online dutifully repeats this requirement but nobody says why it’s important. I doubt they know.

There’s a good inch more seat beyond the second hole before they'd hit bottom. Mine were a royal bee-yotch to put in, and I know we were attentive to this manual requirement when we put them in, but today I was under there and looked, and they’re in the slots, but they’re all the way in. They’re visible through both holes. So why is this a problem? Once the car’s on the road, don’t they eventually rattle and shake their way down into the bottoms of the seats anyway? There’s nothing to hold them where they start out, other than tension, and I would think gravity, inertia and their own springiness would push them down into the bases of the seats sooner or later.

If this could cause them to break or something, I sure want to know, and I’ll fix ‘em. But it’s a big pain in the butt to do, so I'd like to know why before I tear into it.
Click to expand...

frontspringinstall.jpg
 
PosiRon said:
I know a lot of you know a lot more about GM cars than you like to let on, so:

Why do the ends of my Monte Carlo’s front coil springs have to be visible through the first hole in the seat in the lower control arm, but either partially or non-visible through the second hole? The assembly manual says they do, and when I look for a reason why, everybody online dutifully repeats this requirement but nobody says why it’s important. I doubt they know.

There’s a good inch more seat beyond the second hole before they'd hit bottom. Mine were a royal bee-yotch to put in, and I know we were attentive to this manual requirement when we put them in, but today I was under there and looked, and they’re in the slots, but they’re all the way in. They’re visible through both holes. So why is this a problem? Once the car’s on the road, don’t they eventually rattle and shake their way down into the bottoms of the seats anyway? There’s nothing to hold them where they start out, other than tension, and I would think gravity, inertia and their own springiness would push them down into the bases of the seats sooner or later.

If this could cause them to break or something, I sure want to know, and I’ll fix ‘em. But it’s a big pain in the butt to do, so I'd like to know why before I tear into it.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that they are to be installed that way to keep them from making noise. When they are all the way at the bottom of the seats they tend to make a creaking or groaning noise. By positioning them between the holes, the compression on the Spring generally keeps it in place since there isn’t very much rotational force ever applied to make them move all the way down and create the noise.
 
PosiRon said:
Get you some metal you could have a nice quonset hut. In atom bomb tests, the only things that held up better than pole buildings were quonset huts. Reason is, both convert all lateral force applied to the shell into downward force to the ground.
Click to expand...
Got one of them too,40x80.full of crap.
 
Im glad its covered and secured. 4 or 5 days of rain on its way.
Trying to line up a small tractor or skidsteer to move 20 yards of gravel inside.
 
PosiRon said:
I know a lot of you know a lot more about GM cars than you like to let on, so:

Why do the ends of my Monte Carlo’s front coil springs have to be visible through the first hole in the seat in the lower control arm, but either partially or non-visible through the second hole? The assembly manual says they do, and when I look for a reason why, everybody online dutifully repeats this requirement but nobody says why it’s important. I doubt they know.

There’s a good inch more seat beyond the second hole before they'd hit bottom. Mine were a royal bee-yotch to put in, and I know we were attentive to this manual requirement when we put them in, but today I was under there and looked, and they’re in the slots, but they’re all the way in. They’re visible through both holes. So why is this a problem? Once the car’s on the road, don’t they eventually rattle and shake their way down into the bottoms of the seats anyway? There’s nothing to hold them where they start out, other than tension, and I would think gravity, inertia and their own springiness would push them down into the bases of the seats sooner or later.

If this could cause them to break or something, I sure want to know, and I’ll fix ‘em. But it’s a big pain in the butt to do, so I'd like to know why before I tear into it.
Click to expand...
So, these coil springs... I guess that’s like a twisted up torsion bar then. Huh, I guess that could work. Lol
 
City council meeting...........The back row boys just got shut down! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top