Sorry to bud in here, this is a very interesting topic for me, I have been involved in building and repairing many car frames over the years. I just wanted to ask about the 70's VS 80's chassis on these cars, how I understand it (besides better rust proofing) the chassis's are basicly no diffrent, is this true?, could anyone get me up to speed if there are any real diffrences. I can really understand the need to beef up the chassis on these cars if a person wants to put more power into them being De tomaso did not design the chassis for a 500/600hp power plant. Would a cage design be any diffrent from a 70's to 80's car?
Thanks dan but I will fabricate it myself. It will probably mean building a new gas tank to provide room. I have several things to fabricate actually. I enjoy the fabrication process probably more then any other step.
393Boss,
What do you wnat ot do with the car? I think you have to know that first.
What do you wnat ot do with the car? I think you have to know that first.
Based on wanting to put a 600hp engine in one and use it, In the past I have heard about all sorts of issues with the chassis design on these cars. Just wondering if the chassis on the 80's vs 70's cars have any "real" benifits to them over the older ones.
quote:Originally posted by comp2:
Thanks dan but I will fabricate it myself. It will probably mean building a new gas tank to provide room. I have several things to fabricate actually. I enjoy the fabrication process probably more then any other step.
Gary, on the fuel tank I am betting the santioning body will make yo use a listed fuel cell anyway. Probably self sealing bladder type. And don't forget to leave room to plumb your fire extinguisher system, they will make you do that too. Better check out flame retardant suits while you are at it and see how new your helmet has to be. And how often you will have to buy new tires to pass tech inspection. And don't forget insurance. They may tell you what kind of trailer you have to buy for the car to be covered under their polocy. Let's see, what else am I forgetting???
OK, I remember something, even if it isn't required by any rules, you may want to attach a kevlar shield tou that fiberglas engine cover that is right next to your right elbow. If one of your pullies lets loose at 6000 rpm, you will be glad you did. What I would do is talk to one of the Pantera racer guys like Matt or Mad Dog and find out what the racing life is like.
> Based on wanting to put a 600hp engine in one and use it, In the past I have
> heard about all sorts of issues with the chassis design on these cars. Just
> wondering if the chassis on the 80's vs 70's cars have any "real" benifits to
> them over the older ones.
When Ford pulled out after the 1974 model year, they broke up much of the
tooling. If you look at the rear iner fenders of my 1974, you'll see a shape
of compound curves. Later Panteras were flat plates welded together in that
area. Some of the early Panteras had problems and were re-worked by Holman-
Moody before Ford got the quality control issues ironed out in Italy. I also
recall an issue where some of the later cars didn't get the reinforcement
tubes at the rear suspension pick-points. Anyone recall the details?
Dan Jones
> heard about all sorts of issues with the chassis design on these cars. Just
> wondering if the chassis on the 80's vs 70's cars have any "real" benifits to
> them over the older ones.
When Ford pulled out after the 1974 model year, they broke up much of the
tooling. If you look at the rear iner fenders of my 1974, you'll see a shape
of compound curves. Later Panteras were flat plates welded together in that
area. Some of the early Panteras had problems and were re-worked by Holman-
Moody before Ford got the quality control issues ironed out in Italy. I also
recall an issue where some of the later cars didn't get the reinforcement
tubes at the rear suspension pick-points. Anyone recall the details?
Dan Jones
I have heard a few guys talk about the engine bay area "edges" on the 80's cars but have not really seen anything on what makes this better, just guys saying it is.
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
They may tell you what kind of trailer you have to buy for the car to be covered under their polocy.
DT, you write with an accent.
I found a couple of pictures of factory GT4's. I have to scan them and I'll have to do that later.
Bottom line, there ain't no cage in the car from the factory.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
> Based on wanting to put a 600hp engine in one and use it, In the past I have
> heard about all sorts of issues with the chassis design on these cars. Just
> wondering if the chassis on the 80's vs 70's cars have any "real" benifits to
> them over the older ones.
When Ford pulled out after the 1974 model year, they broke up much of the
tooling. If you look at the rear iner fenders of my 1974, you'll see a shape
of compound curves. Later Panteras were flat plates welded together in that
area. Some of the early Panteras had problems and were re-worked by Holman-
Moody before Ford got the quality control issues ironed out in Italy. I also
recall an issue where some of the later cars didn't get the reinforcement
tubes at the rear suspension pick-points. Anyone recall the details?
Dan Jones
All I remember is that this was apparently THE MAJOR issue Ford had with Detomaso.
New cars under waranty were rusting through.
It is certainly a player in why Ford dropped the Pantera like a hot potatoe.
Some magazine way back Dan warned about this issue. No Dan I don't remember which one.
It is in my opinion the main reason why the car has a reputation as a rust bucket.
I think that the boxed out tubs that EMBO did were a correction, not a substitute.
That chassi may need less bracing for HP use.
DeTom, that's all stuff I need to think about. I wouldn't mind a fuel cell up front but the weight changes with fuel usage. I don't even know if that's a big issue but something to concider. I don't think I can have "everything" unless I want a purpose built race car.
quote:Originally posted by DeTom:
Gary, on the fuel tank I am betting the santioning body will make yo use a listed fuel cell anyway. Probably self sealing bladder type. And don't forget to leave room to plumb your fire extinguisher system, they will make you do that too. Better check out flame retardant suits while you are at it and see how new your helmet has to be. And how often you will have to buy new tires to pass tech inspection. And don't forget insurance. They may tell you what kind of trailer you have to buy for the car to be covered under their polocy. Let's see, what else am I forgetting???
OK, I remember something, even if it isn't required by any rules, you may want to attach a kevlar shield tou that fiberglas engine cover that is right next to your right elbow. If one of your pullies lets loose at 6000 rpm, you will be glad you did. What I would do is talk to one of the Pantera racer guys like Matt or Mad Dog and find out what the racing life is like.
You know Detom, I always thought if I wanted a purpose built race car I would do a mid-late 80's corvette and save the valuable Pantera. Corvettes are a dime a dozzen and I could wreck one without feeling like I have lost anything.
In fact, I thought about making a trailer for the Pantera out of Corvette parts. Wouldn't that make a statement!
Don't get me wrong Gary, a race car can be a blast. You get totaly in a whole nother world behind the wheel. But it sure is an expensive high. You could buy a hell of a lot of cocaine or whatever, for what it costs you for a two hour rush on the race course every weekend.
If I was rich, I would race, but even if someone flat out gave me a race car for free, I couldn't afford to race it.
Being poor sucks.
If I was rich, I would race, but even if someone flat out gave me a race car for free, I couldn't afford to race it.
Being poor sucks.
One has to pick and chose what one want's to do in life. I see making it to the track a couple times but not a regular thing. I already am ignoring my other hobby; R/C airplanes. My family comes first and all this stuff comes only after everything there is going well. This is one of my 100cc Bearcats:
The photo was too big. I just changed it to a link.
http://www.rc-tech.net/per/gear/firstb.jpg
The photo was too big. I just changed it to a link.
http://www.rc-tech.net/per/gear/firstb.jpg
Panteradoug and DAN JONES .... take my word for it the 79 is a muuuuch nicer chassis car and my thoughts have been to take the car to the Recycling place to wiegh the car. I just have a gut feeling that from observation and the way the car handles its heavier .. but in a good way. It seems much more sturdy.
Panteradoug... honestly I know these cars rusted ... but have you seen any worse then the FORD Mustang ... LOL there is a bunch of us up here in NY & NJ and god knows we have our share of salted roads in the winter and the rust on our cars is no worse then any FORD product I have ever seen. could it be FORD employees just were a little too loyal to an american car manufacturer.
Just a thought.
Ron
Panteradoug... honestly I know these cars rusted ... but have you seen any worse then the FORD Mustang ... LOL there is a bunch of us up here in NY & NJ and god knows we have our share of salted roads in the winter and the rust on our cars is no worse then any FORD product I have ever seen. could it be FORD employees just were a little too loyal to an american car manufacturer.
Just a thought.
Ron
Again why is this better?, I was told the sheet metal is the same gauge?. Anyone got any more tech on this?. Fixing many frames over the years I know just having "edges" for diffrences does not nessasaraly make the design better. To me what I see is that this "edge" design is just easyer to make but I don't see where it is better... it's just differnt... but still the same.
I don't like taking pics of the wrecks I work on but I deal with structural issues all the time.
Fred Flinstone car
I don't like taking pics of the wrecks I work on but I deal with structural issues all the time.
Fred Flinstone car
quote:When Ford pulled out after the 1974 model year, they broke up much of the
tooling. If you look at the rear iner fenders of my 1974, you'll see a shape
of compound curves. Later Panteras were flat plates welded together in that
area.
Interesting Dan. I always wondered why DeTomaso stopped using the smooth stamped steel engine tubs and went with the angular welded panels.
quote:Some of the early Panteras had problems and were re-worked by Holman-
Moody before Ford got the quality control issues ironed out in Italy. I also
recall an issue where some of the later cars didn't get the reinforcement
tubes at the rear suspension pick-points. Anyone recall the details?
Dan Jones
Charlie has the details since he went through this with his GT5S. I do know there's been several examples of later model Panteras having their rear suspension arms pull through the frame rails where they mount. Bad news..at any speed.
Josh
The EMBO Coach cars were hand made cars. That could be good or bad from my observation it looks much better structurally.
Square panels were easier to manufacture.
Ron
Square panels were easier to manufacture.
Ron
quote:Originally posted by comp2:
One has to pick and chose what one want's to do in life. I see making it to the track a couple times but not a regular thing. I already am ignoring my other hobby; R/C airplanes. My family comes first and all this stuff comes only after everything there is going well. This is one of my 100cc Bearcats:
That is a cool plane. When I was young, I wanted to be an air force fighter jockey. By the time I volunteered they laughed. I was told I was too big. I always thought they was lieing to me. One day I was at the air force museum at wright patty. They had a phantom jet that people could climb up and sit in. So I had to climb the ladder after all those years. They were right, I couldn't even fit my foot in the cockpit.
The photo was too big. I just changed it to a link.
http://www.rc-tech.net/per/gear/firstb.jpg
Here are some more. I haven't even had these out this year:
quote:Originally posted by accobra:
Panteradoug and DAN JONES .... take my word for it the 79 is a muuuuch nicer chassis car and my thoughts have been to take the car to the Recycling place to wiegh the car. I just have a gut feeling that from observation and the way the car handles its heavier .. but in a good way. It seems much more sturdy.
Panteradoug... honestly I know these cars rusted ... but have you seen any worse then the FORD Mustang ... LOL there is a bunch of us up here in NY & NJ and god knows we have our share of salted roads in the winter and the rust on our cars is no worse then any FORD product I have ever seen. could it be FORD employees just were a little too loyal to an american car manufacturer.
Just a thought.
Ron
The advantage that the US Fords have was being vat dipped in primer. The rocker panels on the Mustang are also heavily galvanized.
The pantera needed to be vat dipped in a Rustoleum type primer to get inside the strange little tubes and channels that Detomaso used.
Had that been done much would be changed in everyday durabilaty to the car.
Since rust was an issue between Ford and Detomaso I can extrapalate and say that the primering of the car most likely was an issue as well.
Agreed Doug ...
Hey I seem to remember .. was it Kirk Evans who made a rear tube frame ?? how does that do in the ridgity subject. Anyone have any pic ??
Ron
Hey I seem to remember .. was it Kirk Evans who made a rear tube frame ?? how does that do in the ridgity subject. Anyone have any pic ??
Ron
The entire rear is a tubbed frame. I think that's ok for a race car but I don't think it is a solution for a car that want's to keep existing chassis behind the firewall.
G
G
Well, I take it back about the GT4 factory car. It does appear to have at least a 4 point cage.
It is so tight to the interior structure that it is difficult to see in these scans of the old factory photos.
Since these are out of Super Ford, August 1980, they may be the same as is Wyss' Detomaso book (I don't have that to verify). They are factory photos, probably Detomasos. I'm going to try to upload them now if I can get them down to PI size.
If you look close it looks like there is a diagonal brace on the roll bar, behind the driver.
I don't have any pictures of what is in the engine compartmentor front luggage compartment and don't remember ever seeing any either.
I only saw the Toppe car when it was white and several years into racing. It was hardly factory stock at that point.
It is so tight to the interior structure that it is difficult to see in these scans of the old factory photos.
Since these are out of Super Ford, August 1980, they may be the same as is Wyss' Detomaso book (I don't have that to verify). They are factory photos, probably Detomasos. I'm going to try to upload them now if I can get them down to PI size.
If you look close it looks like there is a diagonal brace on the roll bar, behind the driver.
I don't have any pictures of what is in the engine compartmentor front luggage compartment and don't remember ever seeing any either.
I only saw the Toppe car when it was white and several years into racing. It was hardly factory stock at that point.
Chassis rigidity has been discussed for many years. Some people will get rid of crackings that occur at different spots, others are looking for better racing responce. The issue is closley related to safety and the use of a roll cage, and some people may even be interested in the "racing look" a roll cage provide, or at least dont want anything uggly or starnge looking bracing on the car even if functional. We must separate those questions in order to agree what we talk about.
If we talk chassis stiffness as serving suspension movements, it is the diagonal forces over the four coilover mountings in the chassis that is of interest. A-arm mountings do affect driving responce but in a different way. Rubber mounting does also flex more that mouting frame rails.
We have a few things to keep in mind.
1, the weight of the car.
2, the tires in use.
3, shocks and springs.
Those points are in relation to each other in order to determine the stiffness needed. If the car has racing slicks, I presume the driver is using this to the full, or else there isnt enough load requiering big stiffness numbers. With stock tires, springs and shocks there are newer load enough to justify the cost of stiffening the chassis. Exept for rust.
A stiffer chassis is not easely detected by an non experienced driver. It is not so that the car feels soft from 5000fp/dgr and harsh if 20000fp/dgr. They almost feel exatley the same, (presumed the driver dosent know the car has an "rigidity kit"). Cracking effects on the other hand needs a totally different strengthening than do torsionally stiffening. In fact the stiffening made on my Hemipanter may actually worsen cracking problems.
Torsionally stiffness is only had by "locking" areas that show a change in distance under twisting forces. The only way to tell is the use of a proper twist bench or we will get incorrect readings or become a victime of guesswork.
So, why should one put effort in stiffening the car? To me this is strictley racing stuff. Especialy shocks require good chassis stiffness or else the car will not answer from shock settings. This is also due to that racing shocks is using another bump to extension ratio than street shocks that put higher demands for stiffness.
Again, this things needs serious test driving with and without bracing using different shock settings over the same road over and over again to be detected. BUT, it is very important under a highley competitive racing condition where anything may separate the winner from the looser.
Regards
Goran Malmberg
If we talk chassis stiffness as serving suspension movements, it is the diagonal forces over the four coilover mountings in the chassis that is of interest. A-arm mountings do affect driving responce but in a different way. Rubber mounting does also flex more that mouting frame rails.
We have a few things to keep in mind.
1, the weight of the car.
2, the tires in use.
3, shocks and springs.
Those points are in relation to each other in order to determine the stiffness needed. If the car has racing slicks, I presume the driver is using this to the full, or else there isnt enough load requiering big stiffness numbers. With stock tires, springs and shocks there are newer load enough to justify the cost of stiffening the chassis. Exept for rust.
A stiffer chassis is not easely detected by an non experienced driver. It is not so that the car feels soft from 5000fp/dgr and harsh if 20000fp/dgr. They almost feel exatley the same, (presumed the driver dosent know the car has an "rigidity kit"). Cracking effects on the other hand needs a totally different strengthening than do torsionally stiffening. In fact the stiffening made on my Hemipanter may actually worsen cracking problems.
Torsionally stiffness is only had by "locking" areas that show a change in distance under twisting forces. The only way to tell is the use of a proper twist bench or we will get incorrect readings or become a victime of guesswork.
So, why should one put effort in stiffening the car? To me this is strictley racing stuff. Especialy shocks require good chassis stiffness or else the car will not answer from shock settings. This is also due to that racing shocks is using another bump to extension ratio than street shocks that put higher demands for stiffness.
Again, this things needs serious test driving with and without bracing using different shock settings over the same road over and over again to be detected. BUT, it is very important under a highley competitive racing condition where anything may separate the winner from the looser.
Regards
Goran Malmberg
Hi Goran,
It's nice to see your name on this forum. I always enjoy looking at your fantastic website to see what you have been up to..
Johnny
It's nice to see your name on this forum. I always enjoy looking at your fantastic website to see what you have been up to..
Johnny
Thanks Jonny. I havent had very much time latley for forum activities, but I might show up with a few words now and then.
Goran
Goran