NS F355 Project (Page 45/73)
Yarmouth Fiero SEP 03, 07:09 AM
Hi Bob, I just have a rough deck plane in my 3D model that I measured while visiting Blooz a while back. I didn't consider any structure on the underside of the deck but allowing say 2" for structure and a little air space above the engine and this set up might be pushing it. I am trying to get some measurements from Edelbrock but I haven't heard from them yet.

edit to add: on my drawing, allowing 2" for deck thickness and air space, I am showing 27" clearance to the lowest point of the engine cradle.

[This message has been edited by Yarmouth Fiero (edited 09-03-2014).]

Bloozberry SEP 03, 08:34 AM
Be careful Graham... The 308 is completely different than the 355 in that area. The top of the 355 deck lid is just about even with the bottom of the rear glass whereas the 308's is several inches above that.

Also keep in mind that the problem Don was having with his old 355 kit was that he couldn't get the car to sit low enough for the wheels to look right in the fenders without bottoming out on the suspension. The way I solved that problem was by raising the cradle (among other several other things), which also raises engine mounting points and reduces the under hood clearance.

For example, with my chopped cradle having 125mm ground clearance, and the oil pan being 10mm above that, and with the engine being 1325 663mm tall, I have 20 mm clearance under the deck lid. That means that if you're aiming for the same geometry as me, then your engine can be no taller than 1355 693mm, and even at that height, the oil pan will be flush with the bottom of the cradle and the topside will be touching the underside of the deck lid. As you know, you need some wiggle room for vibration and torque reaction. Any more than 1355 693mm and you're either hanging below the cradle or sticking up above the deck lid.

If you choose not to raise the cradle to give yourself more under hood clearance, then you'll either have to accept compromised suspension angles or larger wheel gaps at ride height as Don found. We can talk more about it when your here on Sat.

Edited to correct engine height numbers.

[This message has been edited by Bloozberry (edited 09-03-2014).]

Yarmouth Fiero SEP 03, 09:19 AM
Thanks for the info Blooz. With regard to the engine cradle, I will be building a completely new one to suit the wider frame rails and whatever engine I decide on. I can certainly raise it and looking at my suspension geometry using the stock cradle, I would have serious problems if I didn't raise the cradle.

Your measurements of 1355mm have me a little confused. I'll have to check my drawing again because I don't seem to have anywhere near that. I'll post a drawing shortly.
Yarmouth Fiero SEP 03, 09:28 AM
Here is a side view showing the rough deck height that we had measured from your 355 body. I am showing 33.3" or approx. 845mm. Your 1355mm measurement has me concerned.

Sorry for the low resolution of the drawing.
Bloozberry SEP 03, 09:35 AM
Ooops! Used the wrong scale... recalculating...
Bloozberry SEP 03, 09:46 AM
There. I fuxed it. (I had used a damned cut and paste scale on my engine drawing without checking to make sure it was correct)
Yarmouth Fiero SEP 03, 10:15 AM
So-o-o-o-o-o my measurement is somewhat accurate? Good thing I accidently doubled up on my blood pressure meds this morning.
355Fiero SEP 03, 01:25 PM
Guys;

The top of the engine deck lid sits 1" above the top of the Fiero firewall at the front. I had a 1x2" square bar that was used as my bracing for the convertible top. The deck lid is about 1" thick with very little under it so if you use 1.25" thickness you will be about.25" under the Fiero firewall top for the bottom of the engine lid. the back of the engine bay, the engine lid is about .5" above the edge of the front trunk wall.

the engine lid also has a section in the centre that raises about 1"+ where the intake would be.

Using these measurements, you should be able to get a pretty close approximation of where the lid goes in relation to the engine setup.

Good luck
Don
Yarmouth Fiero SEP 03, 01:52 PM
Thanks Don. When we sat the body and deck on our chassis I don't recall if everything was sitting exactly down tight or not. I know on my car, it wasn't completely correct because the roll over hoops were in the way of the rear clip sliding all the way forward. I suspect it was all pretty loose. Also, I think my measurement may have been the highest point on deck which was that little bubble / intake area. I am sure before I get to purchase an engine, I'll have test fitted the body back on my chassis again for a second look at clearance issues.

Thanks for sharing your keen memory with us.



edit: to add a pretty picture

[This message has been edited by Yarmouth Fiero (edited 09-03-2014).]

Yarmouth Fiero SEP 07, 12:37 PM
I am proceeding ahead with the planned modifications to remove the lower frame rails, strut towers and all the other miscellaneous sheet metal. The lower frame rails were in pretty good condition and may even show up in another project at some point. The strut towers are a bugger to remove with all their overlapper layers of sheet metal and still keeping the upper frame rails intact. It took me all morning to remove the passenger side strut tower. As I mentioned earlier, I am going to fabricate new lower frame rails from 4" x 2" x 1/8" HSS and it just so happened that when I did the original 3" chassis stretch, the inserts I fabricated for the lower frame rails were sized to fit inside 4" x 2" x 1/8" HSS so its going to be a nice strong fit to slide the new rails over my original extension stubs.

Here are a few images of the proposed new frame rails.





Considering that the upper rails are in great shape, the lower rails are more robust and straight and only slightly off center from the upper rails and the rocker frames I added to the chassis tie both rails together and end close to where the new strut towers are going to be, I am hopeful that with a strong strut tower design I can possibly eliminate the transverse frame between the strut towers that the stock chassis had ( forward side of the trunk). Also keep in mind that I am moving the struts outward and as close as possible to the upper frame rails so their leverage on the chassis is reduced. That would certainly open up my engine bay for my SBC installation.

Here are a couple pictures with the passenger side stut tower removed and the lower frame rail mocked up in position. This engine bay is going to be cavernous.







As you can see, I'll probably replace the stock engine cradle with a custom cradle more suited to the SBC installation. Too bad because the cradle is in mint condition except for the 3" stretch.