Sheesh, what a butchery of a Fiero. Those coil over perches look to be structurally unsound, and I wonder what the story is on the cut roll cage cross beam on the DS side.
This is a perfect example of what happens when someone takes on a customization that they obviously do not have the mechanical skills to do the job right.
That's one way to eliminate shock tower clearance issues. Eliminate the shock towers.
I don't know that it's horrible. But it's different.
Edit... Upon further inspection, it's pretty horrible. They could at least get the towers symmetrical. Lots of other "randomness". The final destination may be workable, but it appears to have been a very winding road to get there.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 11-24-2013).]
I like the "outside of the box" thinking & engineering, and I'm sure there are going to be more haters out there, if only they pill a LITTLE more effort in it. It's seems like a body guy bulit the while car, the body isn't hateful, I kinda like it. as long as it runs with a LSx under the hood it's gonna be quick. but the half ass way the coolant lines are run, and the upper strut mounts and a few other odds & ends has me scratching my head.
I first asked myself what the forward facing scoops on the deck lid would accomplish, but then I realized they were there just to hide the overly tall strut towers. I too would be concerned about the strut mounting system... especially the passenger side one where there doesn't appear to be much holding the top of the strut in place. The body work isn't bad though.
I'd buy it remove the wing, scoop things and rather silly hood and transfer the body and engine to a non butchered frame, or if whats left is workable correct the hack yard frame work and ghost strut tower supports. The way the body is done it looks like a madarch imsa kind of vibe going on.
[This message has been edited by Macs86GT (edited 11-24-2013).]
The suspension perches are stronger than stock by a signficant margin.. I am really always confused as hell why fiero people are convinced that those shocktowers see some insane loading... because they dont.
Originally posted by darkhorizon: The suspension perches are stronger than stock by a signficant margin.
Stronger? In what sense? Do you think the passenger side strut mount is sufficiently triangulated and the upper frame rail is stiff enough to resist the torsional loading applied to it from the cantilevered mount? Transient vertical loading of the mount could easily exceed 4G placing nearly 3600lbs on that one perch (((3000lb car X 0.6 frt to rear weight dist) / 2 rear wheels) X 4G). Then you must consider the cyclical nature of the loads and factor in the longer term fatigue related issues of the loads. You mustn't forget that those upper frame rails are only attached to sheet metal at the front.
Stronger? In what sense? Do you think the passenger side strut mount is sufficiently triangulated and the upper frame rail is stiff enough to resist the torsional loading applied to it from the cantilevered mount? Transient vertical loading of the mount could easily exceed 4G placing nearly 3600lbs on that one perch (((3000lb car X 0.6 frt to rear weight dist) / 2 rear wheels) X 4G). Then you must consider the cyclical nature of the loads and factor in the longer term fatigue related issues of the loads. You mustn't forget that those upper frame rails are only attached to sheet metal at the front.
1. The whole rear half of the car is replaced/reinforced with thick walled tube/square stock, then its tied to the cage in the front. 2. 3600lbs is not much to a quarter inch piece of steel... even less when you have almost 12 inches of it grabbing the shock mount. 3. Im not a metalurgist, but you are going to have a hard time convincing me that quarter inch plate steel is going to crack apart. 4. You mustn't forget that the fiero stock strut towers are connected to sheet metal at the front (see number 1 for wrongness of your statement)
Originally posted by darkhorizon: You mustn't forget that the fiero stock strut towers are connected to sheet metal at the front (see number 1 for wrongness of your statement)
You missed the point. The stock strut tower ties the upper and lower frame rails together in the vertical plane. Nothing accomplishes this in this design except the thin sheet metal at the cabin in the front. The torsional loading on the upper frame rail due to the offset spring mount will only be resisted at the front by whatever means he used to attach the upper rails to the cabin. On the stock Fiero, the upper frame rail resists the same forces by having the mount connected to both the upper and lower rails, in-line with where the forces are applied.
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon: ...you are going to have a hard time convincing me that quarter inch plate steel is going to crack apart.
I'm not going to try. The design and the quality of the workmanship that does show is indicative of the thought put into the rest of the design that can't be seen in these photos.
Just noticed that the struts are vertical. With a Chapman strut, in jounce, the rear roll center would take a nose dive several yards underground, and in roll, the roll center would also fly infinitely far to one side or the other depending on the direction of the turn. The roll characteristics of the rear end would change so fast and so unpredictably that it would be difficult to drive this car on anything but the straight and level. Even then, with one strut tower apparently being solid and the other flexible I would seriously doubt even the straight line performance, not to mention how it would behave in a slalom. If I were a betting man I would bet a stock Fiero would win against this setup hands down.
I think the car has some good parts (widebody, LS1/F40), but clearly has some execution issues in its current form. I would probably transfer the good parts to an 88 chassis and never look back.
I assume this is car used an Archie LS kit, but not the F40 kit. Mainly because the engine is about 3" too far to the passenger side. I think he is using a stock G6 axle on the DS, which pushed the engine to the passenger side. This engine placement was the likely cause for eliminating the stock strut towers and the passenger lower frame rail has had to have had some "work" done to it as well.
The passenger side strut tower is the scariest part for me (its just cantilevered off the upper frame rail).
