|
|
I have added a section to my web page covering my 142s. It's at
http://www.inso.org/hudson or click here
Peace,
hudson
|
|
-
|
|
Yeah, the 142 is BEAUTIFUL without any bumpers on. I wish i could be that way, but i'm not willing to risk it after i messed up that one time, even though it was a 1 time thing. STOOOPIDD!!!!!!! AHHHHHH! yeah... If you don't know what i'm talking about, check out my website. And another tip i have for you, is take off the rectangle reflectors on the sides of the car that stick out, they are UGLY and if you are a psycho like me, even think about the air resistance that they add. Even though i don't really travel at speeds where lower resistance really comes into play. But for me, usually every little bit counts... :) Car looks good by the way, (the blue one). It doesn't look bad at all, no signs of the rust really in any of the pictures... Peace
--
Kyle - attending Ore. State, while my lil 68 142 (74 b20, broken m40) sleeps... (check out my website, www.cardomain.com/id/kneedsacar
|
|
-
|
|
|
...Aerodynamics is for people who don't know how to build engines!
__________________________________________________-----Enzo Ferrari
--
George Downs, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Central US
|
|
-
|
|
|
Kyle,
I have read your web page.. and I know how you banged up the front and back :) Hopefully it wont happen to me.
The blue one does look nice.. but trust me, she is rotten and would cost a small fortune to repair properly. Looks mint from 20 feet though.
Speaking of body modifications. I plan on deleting the front and back side markers, weld the seems and remove them at the back end, remove the rain gutter over the door / windows, roll the fenders so I can get the wheels farther out, and put a roll cage in her.. not too elaborate, I haven't decided if I want a back seat or not yet, but I plan on putting a bar in and around the back right against the panel where the back bumper mounts. (which will proabbly render the rear crumple zone inefectual.. but it's just an idea at this point)
The modifications are more for esthetic rather than aerodynamic reasons. If I wanted something aerodynamic, I wouldn't have bought a 140.
A main reason for putting the cage in the car aside from looks (I don't think the 140 chassis really warrants a cage for stiffness, it's stiffer than most cars stock IMO) is that one of the PO's decided it would be a good idea to hack out that structural member that runs under the front seats... looks like he did it to get aftermarket seats and mounts to fit... stupid idea anyways and he did a bad job of it.. but since he hacked it out I am thinking about going cage and after market seats instead of trying to repair the damage (all the front seat mounts are butchered as well).
One of the main reasons I am going to throw a b23FT in her is because the wiring harness has melted insulation in many places and has been spliced in other places.. so it's a complete mess. The one in my blue car might be in good condition but I have found a B23FT for cheaper than it would cost to rebuild a b20...
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yeah, sounds good, I totally agree with all of your body modifications, I will be looking into some of that in the future. And i'm also not sure on whether i want a back seat or not. For the trunk, where you said you were thinking of putting a bar back there, well, you could probably just put a smaller diamter/thickness bar back there and thus i wouldn't take out all of the crumple zone, but it would help, i'd consider it a good idea.
As far as the "aerodynamicness", I know :), it looks much better without the markers, but i like to say it helps aerodynamics too, just because i know it would if i was going REALLY REALLY FAST, which i can't really do.... but still, its fun to say.
And then the 140 I like to think is a more aerodynamic car than the 240s, and it looks better in my opinion(even more aerodynamic), it isn't as much of a "brick".
Why are you deleting the rain gutter? Just to make it smoother and more clean? but don't you want it to still be there? I've never thought of doing that before, but it does sound kind of intruiging. Later,
--
Kyle - attending Ore. State, while my lil 68 142 (74 b20, broken m40) sleeps... (check out my website, www.cardomain.com/id/kneedsacar
|
|
-
|
|
|
I would worry more about the low air pressure zone after the rear window and the massive amount of air under the car before I worried about the side markers.. but I get your point. Why don't you build a superbird or daytona clone? :)) At one point I dreamt about trying to turn a dart, valiant or A body cuda into a kind of superbird like car... that would be nuts :)
The 140 beats the 240 hands down in the looks department.. I am a lover of most cars from the early 60's to 72ish. 142s are the ultimate combination of stock features, size, looks, and price (im no millionare). (in my opinion of course) What else manufactured in that time period is in that size range, has classy sedan styling, and has 4 wheel discs, etc, etc... not much and definately nothing north american :)
About deleting the rain gutter.. I like clean simple lines.. no bling bling for me or other things cluttering it up. I'm not a fanatic that shaves door handles etc, but the rain gutter is mighty ugly. I am worried that it is infact a seam however.. infact I am almost sure it is...
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yeah, i know what you mean, I've been looking into some kind of spoiler setup for the front. What would you think about solving the low pressure at the back? Yeah, 140s kick ass in the features/price style and age.
As for the Rain gutter, why would it matter if it is a seam? I agree that it probably is, but you still could just weld it... I don't think i'd be intersted in the shaved handles either, but i would like the later style flush ones. If i went without handles, there would be the added wiring, complexity, and weight of the solenoids and actuators and whatever else is needed to do that. Peace man! I'm off to a chem midterm..... w000h000
--
Kyle - attending Ore. State, while my lil 68 142 (74 b20, broken m40) sleeps... (check out my website, www.cardomain.com/id/kneedsacar
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hi All,
Have considered this on many cars but it always comes down to the con's out-weighting the pro's....
pro's:
- nice 'smooth' look with shaved gutters
con's:
- rain will get in through the doors, have a look at a modern car without rain gutters and look how different the rubber door seal is to compensate for the lack of gutters.
- structural integrity, mono-constructed vehicles, ie those without a seperate chassis rely on all of the welded together panels of the car providing the strength to absorb the torque of the motor the stresses from the road transmitted through the suspension etc etc and most importantly to provide protection in crashes.
Sure if you were going to shave the gutters off a car a volvo would be a good chice as it is pretty damn solid to begin with, but I think it would still detract from the structural integrity of the car, even if you weld the seam after the gutters have been cut it would definately not be anywhere near as strong as the original, that being said the volvo's have built in roll-over bars anyway so you would still have protection above you.
Daz
--
'69 model (delivered in '68) B20/auto 142, keep the mods coming!
|
|
-
|
|
|
Daz,
I agree about the sealing problems. I was thinking that 242 doors and glass might help resolve that.
As for structurally... if the rain gutters are a major structural element then we are all in trouble.
|
|
-
|
|
|
If you want fuel economy a front spoiler would help.. I am hoping to get one from IPD before they are all sold out... (if they arn't already).
The easiest way to solve the low pressure area at the back is to drive a wagon :)
Yeah it probably is a seam, and yes you could (would have to) weld it.. it's just a lot more work :)
Speaking of work, it's time for me to go to work.. been sick all week with the flu.. not feeling good and want to go to bed... going to have a great time playing loud music !
ah well
peace,
dj hudson
|
|
|
|
|
