Separate names with a comma.
This is why the people who in attendance should take *LOTS* of pics.....
Have you got it running yet with that cam?[/QUOTE]
This video was from a few days ago by Xenon, before the the fenders & hood went back on. The rattling noise was from the dust shield on the transmission, which has now been fixed.
We had the back wheels lifted off the ramp yesterday, and she shifts through all the gears and has reverse.
Gotta tighten them belts!!
It's an optical illusion because of the white lettering on the belts.
Had to swap out that alternator because of a bad bearing. The new one from the auto parts store is made of cast aluminum, and the 1/2" bolt that connects to the bracket stripped out when tightening it into place. After a run to the hardware store for helicoil, and then re-tapping the hole on the alternator, it'll hold up better now.
It's out in the open air...
I just watched a video of Tim driving it out of the garage, kick ass! By the way, that YouTube channel has some great videos
It needs to lose the fender skirts! Looks too heavy in the back.
Otherwise, beautiful and a joy to behold seeing it running and driving after all the hard work by all involved.
Sounds great and shifts nicely. A great trip ahead..........................
Normally I agree with saforwardlook, but I gotta say...Keep the skirts...it's a New Yorker after all.
The video shows both, with and without the skirts.
Sorry Steve, I like it better with the skirts.
@saforwardlook I'll be taking her to the alignment shop in a few hours, and will be sure to have them follow the instructions we discussed.
The inner fenders are still out of the car, so the tech should have plenty of room to work.
I understand your points, because at least the fender skirts on a New Yorker are scalloped out some but then in time maybe get the springs in the rear re-arched or replaced to match the quality of the other work. I noticed that without the skirts in the first part of the video it looked better to me, less so in driving it in the garage with them on. It just looks too tail heavy to me leaving it the way it is.
But maybe that helps the burnouts create more smoke
I believe a car needs to have a proper stance to "pop" and I thought at least Polara 71 agreed with that philosophy in the past - maybe his preferences have changed with age.
One advantage C body Dodges in general have is a lighter/balanced look than the Chrysler models since they have greater rear wheel openings that improve the balance of the fuselage design overall.
If one likes low cars with short belt lines, then the Formal designs should be their destination. They look like they weigh 10,000 lbs and have boxy styling with prominent radiator ornamentation. That is when I jumped off the C body train. And probably at least one reason Elwood Engle jumped off the train in 1973. At least when he designed a formal looking vehicle, e.g. the 1961-63 Lincoln Continentals, they looked great. And their rear wheel openings were balanced to get that result. He rated up there with Virgil Exner in my book. I never liked the formals that were designed by someone else:
The skirts also help with the aerodynamics.
They'll keep some air out of the huge rear quarters when drivin at high speeds.
Yep, at about 14 mpg at highway speeds with a 440HP and 3.2 gears, it will really make a difference!!
One thing about car looking like it has a full trunk of luggage and a full tank of gas, it will tend to have better directional stability, because it affects the alignment to have a little more caster. But I would rather have the caster set to maximum positive on these C bodies since they were designed for bias ply tires that need less caster than radials to steer straight, and Chrysler didn't seem to leave much room for most of their cars to handle enough caster to have a good straight ahead feel even with bias plies, much less radials IMO. More caster also makes turning the steering wheel require more effort, which mutes the lousy too light feeling of their "full time assist" mentality. I really like the feel of todays' vehicles in directional stability and turning effort as opposed to the generally lousy too light, lack of directional stability on C bodies with radials on them. Even Chrysler's other bodies are poor in this regard for the same reasons IMO.
The most caster you can get, a tick of negative camber and a little bit of toe in and it will drive sweet.
Great thread! Very inspiring.
(A set of Firm Feel tubular UCA’s would do wonders to the adjustability. You’d get both negative Camber, and lots of positive Caster, at the same time. I went that route once, and will do it again, eventually. Absolutely.)
Id have to see it in person to be honest. You are probably right.
I would consider that route if they looked stock, otherwise, I will find a way to get more caster with the original ones if I have to on a particular model. I usually want at least 2 degrees positive caster for the car to steer decently. If the alignment on these cars isn't set correctly, it will be all over the road and feel really insecure. They were never designed for radials. That coupled with steering that is too light, makes for no fun.