@Bored&Stroked Yeah, it's not perfect, but not bad. If I can, I might put my mini belt sander down there to relieve it a bit. Might work.
Quick update on the flathead: Getting everything pulled together. All the parts are in, the crank should be done today, porting and polishing by Mike gets done next week. Vern had a rebuilt 12V Generator with a fan that we're going to use instead of PowerMaster. Vern is saying maybe 3 weeks until it's all going to together and getting it on the test stand. Unfortunately, it will probably be done just in time for my 10 day trip to Japan for work, but I'm OK with that. I'll have time over the holidays to get things put together. Other updates: Still working on my upper shock mounts in the front. I've got two designs and I'll be asking for votes on which ones to use soon. And I still need to figure out lower shock mounts for the front. I've got a couple of new ideas that could be cool. We'll see. I got my steering box put back together and adjusted. Still need to see if the '40 drag link will work or if I need to modify it. That's all for now, I'll get some pictures up of the shock mounts when I've got them closer to done.
As mentioned, I've attached a few pictures of the front upper shock mount options. Please tell me which one I should use: #1 - bolts to fender brace holes on side of frame horn (first two pics) #2 - bolts down with headlight stand bolts and one bolt on side of frame horn (second two pics) #3 - don't be stupid, just use F1 mounts like everyone else. I know, I know...the headlight post is backwards...
All three are good choices. I lean towards #2 just from a structural integrity/strength vantage point. That said; structurally there's probably no actual difference. Aesthetically it's a three-way toss-up.
I see some guys mounting shocks off the side of the frame like that - option 1 - and they add a plate to the inside of the frame with a similar foot print to the mount. The same bolts run through the mount and plate sandwiching the frame rail between them. I’m thinking it helps keeping the mount front from ripping the holes. Though maybe having bolts in the side of the frame and the top like option 2 would negate some of that? only other thought is you need to mock up ride height and lower shock mount. Unless you’re building a tall car that seems like a pretty low upper shock mount with most commonly available shocks.
My vote is option #2 because I prefer seeing fewer fasteners on the inside of the frame rail. If you're worried about a prying action or stress, maybe combine option #1 and #2 and weld some material to it so it mounts with the two headlight stand bolts and then one bolt in the bottom center fender brace hole?
@atch Yeah, I don't think there's much difference in structure. Both have three bolts. @Tim I like the idea of a plate on the inside. Spread the load out some. Maybe just on the side, but anything more wont hurt. Right now, with the shock fully extended (SoCal Speed shop shorty shocks), the lower mounting hole is just above the center line of the axle. I measured the amount the frame moved up when the engine and transmission were removed, and it will put the shock about half way through it's full travel. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, at least I didn't weld these to the frame... @Tim Both have 3 mounting points. Option 1 has them all on the side (which is why there are spacers on either side of the shock), and Option 2 has one on the side (bottom hole) and the two on the top. I'll get better pics with them off the car for y'all. Thanks for the input!
Made a pattern for my chopped windshield. Shop is closed through Thanksgiving so I’ll drop it off after. They didn’t actually need the pattern (should have called first) just the frame. They’ll cut the glass, and install it with bedding tape.
Added a cover to the grinder with a small window for the shoe to rotate through. Hooked the outlet up to my shop vac and gave it a tumble. Works pretty good. New shoes arrived last week, and the drums were turned as well. https://youtube.com/shorts/qlatN1jEvb8?si=6Qre1QvVa_ciNGTN
I think it may have had a cover at one time, but it wasn’t with the grinder when I bought it. It really sucks the dust out well. I connected it to my vacuum and it worked great.
Has anyone used this fuel pump from Vintage Auto Garage? Looking for feedback on reliability and noise? Or, if you can recommend another fuel pump for my roadster. Application is 2X2 Stromberg 97's on a 275 cu in Flathead. Thx.
I have been using an Airtex E8016S that is low pressure (about 3.5 psi) and not noisy at all compared to a Holly blue or red when mounted to the frame using rubber sandwiched in between. It looks very similar to the one you pictured. I have two. One powers a 2x1 216 chevy I6 and the other a single 500cfm 4bbl 316 pontiac V8 so the volume is sufficient for a V8 not to starve even though low pressure. Listed as fitting the following on RockAuto though out of stock currently: NISSAN 620 PICKUP 1972-1979 NISSAN 720 PICKUP 1980-1983 TOYOTA TERCEL 1990
Thanks, Crusty. Looks like there are lots of pumps with similar shape and size that are called E8016S. Maybe they’re all pretty similar. I have a Carter in my truck and it’s not too noisy but I can hear it. I’d like something quieter
I use the K&N 80-0400 to feed 2 Strombergs. It is rated at 2 lbs and has never failed me. It is on a banger but the 97s don't like any more fuel pressure. Mine is mounted under the dash and you hear it on startup, but when the engine is running you never hear it. Warren https://www.summitracing.com/parts/knn-81-0400
Nice rainy day here. Blew the chassis apart to sandblast it as well as a bunch of other parts. Also welded up holes up front where the spreader will go to clean it up a bit.
The Jalopy Journal
