Jump to content

Helmantel

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Helmantel

  • Rank
    IB Apprentice

Recent Profile Visitors

270 profile views
  1. The other suspension pick up points are all centered and level within 1 mm so that should be OK. But you're right that's it's not easy and every movement of some section influences another one.
  2. Small update: I made a mount for the rear shocks. As you can see, it does not sit level so the next step is push and pull until it does. The question was if one side needed to go up or one side up and the other one down and if so, in equal or different amounts, hence my quest for the position of the upper shock mounts. In the end, the ends of the chassis legs (where the rear engine mounts are located need to be at the correct height and equal and the shock transverse member needs to be level and centered. You can also notice that making a body from galvanized sheet metal is a good idea, as long as they're not shaped as a trap for dirt, water and salt (e.g. the kidney beans and various other spots in the wheel wells. BTW (and maybe you knew this), the bodies were welded together from galvanized steel parts, not dipped in a galvanizing bath after being finished (which is also possible). You can see that wherever there are welds (regular, not spot welds), which are all rusty.
  3. Thanks for the measurement, Peter. Very helpful. I just checked mine and found ~442 on the right side and ~435 on the left side. I already knew that they were uneven so that was no surprise. You are of course right that the exact height of this point, being the mounting point of a telescopic damper, is not all that critical. The reason I started to wonder about this dimension is that the rear cross member was smacked up and the chassis legs bent down with the right side being the worse. I cut through the rear cross member down the middle and jacked up the right chassis leg. After some checking I found that even though the back end of the right leg (around where the rear engine mounts are located) was still lower than the left one, the right shock mount sat higher. Unfortunately, I didn't check the shock mount positions before I start jacking up at the end. Then I started to wonder where these points should be, because I wanted to avoid to bent things back and past the point where they should be. I'll just make sure that the shock mounts are even on both sides and that the ends of the chassis legs (and rear engine mounts) are in the correct position, then all should be fine. Again, thanks for the help. I'll post some updates of the work when I make any.
  4. That's about as sharp as my pdf, but thanks anyway. Besides, 333,5 mm is about two inches too short, so the drawing is wrong. One possibility is that the distance is to "plan O" instead. This is the reference line across the car and 42 mm above the torsion bar center. Thanks for the help anyway, @oliverjamesthomas: If it's not too much effort, it would be nice if you had a look
  5. Mine was also beaten up and didn't realize either that two of the dents were supposed to be there. I pulled out some of the dents (to some degree) with a slide hammer but had to cut out another piece that was too beaten up. Under there I found a 41 year old cigarette butt One disadvantage of welding in a new piece is that you loose the protective paint on the inside (at the welds at least). As you can see, it looked still like new in there until now. Of course, for most of us, these cars are nice weather summer cars by now so they will live forever regardless.
  6. I realized that, after (quickly) browsing through his restoration thread! My operation seems rather modest in comparison
  7. Thanks! I realize that I can't be picky about the quality of the measurement but it would need to be measured relative to a reference point/line (like the transmission mounting points), with the car level. I'm using a cross line laser but I don't know if you have one. If you want to try it, then of course I appreciate it but it takes quite some effort and time before you can make a valid measurement.
  8. Well, the original plan was to take it to a specialist but after a few "sorry, not this year" replies I decided to do it myself. Here some examples of the jigs and mounts I made. I got the front end pretty much back in place. The first picture shows pulling the left side front 5 mm down and the second one it being level again and welded to the jig to keep it in place when adjusting the rest. The first picture also shows the mount for the front pivot points for the control arms (standing up straight, as a support for the jig) Now I started on the backside where the most of the damage is . I could figure out all the attachment points from the drawings except for the rear shock mounts. So if anyone has a better drawing it would be much appreciated.
  9. Hi all, I'm working on the body of my 79 SC which I managed to crash a few years ago. The work includes straightening the body at several points, for which I converted my four post lift into a straightening bench. It's quite a task and labor intensive for an amateur like me, but I'm making progress. Anyway, my question is about the rear shock absorber mounting upper points. There are various workshop manual drawings you can find on the internet that have a dimension written but the one that applies for a 79 (73-83 workshop manual) has the wrong dimension. Unless either my shock mounting points have moved two inches (which they haven't) or I'm misreading the drawing. When I scale the length of the arrow that indicates the upper shock mount to the horizontal one between transmission and rear engine mounts (1144 mm), the dimension should be ~372 mm, which is a lot closer to dimension I'm measuring. Unfortunately, the drawing is rather blurry and the exact position of the upper measuring point isn't very clear either. Does somebody have a better drawing that is more useful? The same drawing but sharper would also be helpful. Note that many of the drawings that can be found online are for the earlier models (shocks angled rearward). Some of those drawings are a little better, but unfortunately of no use. Thanks, Arjan
  10. You're right, some small detail differences don't matter to me. I was just curious.
  11. I was searching (like an Ebay, etc) for 8x16 Fuchs wheels to convert from my current 16x6 and 16x7 setup to 16x7 and 16x8. As usual, I shook my head at the (asking) prices of around 4000 Euro for a full set (7+8 x 16) or around 2500 Euro for a pair of 16x8s. Out of curiosity I looked the part number for 16x8s up at my usual supplier and was surprised that they offered new original ones for around 1050 Euro each. The Porsche classic site showed about the same price. Not that they're cheap by any means, but that makes them actually cheaper than what people ask for used ones? Does anybody know if these new Fuchs wheels are any differed from the ones that were installed when the cars where new? I also remember seeing an add for what where claimed to be new original 16x9 wheels with stamped, rather than cast-in part numbers as the old ones have.
  12. I usually say that by the time you've finally found out how a 911 heating system is supposed to work, you realize that it doesn't work as it's supposed to When I got mine I and couldn't figure out how it worked, I took out the manual, read the descriptions of the different controls and it all made sense. Then came a page with descriptions of what to do in various situations and it seemed the opposite of they way I understood it
  13. How is the wheel-flywheel conversion done? By measuring the rolling resistance (press the clutch, let it come to stand still and record the negative torque) or a "rule of thump" factor? The reason I ask is that the difference seems rather high at 54 HP or 23%. That being said, it seems to run great and I certainly wouldn't mind if the engine in my 1979 SC ran like that.
  14. When was the linked pdf with articles published? It speaks of SC prices in the 8-15k pound range (from rough to really lovely). I don't know about the UK, but those days are gone in Sweden.... Although not that long ago, because I bought my SC in 2014 for 180k SEK, which is around 17k (1979, good condition)
  15. I think I've been in that museum with a school trip once, in 1998. A nice mix of all kinds of interesting machines.

Gatherings organised via IB

Anyone attending a meet or event organised via ImpactBumpers.com does so at their own risk. ImpactBumpers.com is not responsible in any way for damage or personal injury sustained while attending any such gatherings. Please behave responsibly.

IB & Mighty Motor Media

ImpactBumpers.com is part of Mighty Motor Media Limited: UK company 07983578. The Impact Bumpers name and all logos are ©Mighty Motor Media Ltd. We have no connection to DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG or any of its subsidiaries.

Respect Creative Copyright

We do not endorse the sharing of copyrighted images. Individual users are responsible for all content they post. It is impossible for admin to check every upload but we will remove disputed images swiftly to support copyright holders. Contact us anytime.

More JG websites

Using The Sheriff's other websites supports the IB forum! Please share my valuation services with anyone needing assistance.

×
×
  • Create New...