Posted By: dOrk !
How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/04/08 08:29 AM
.... I have a Bud that would like to join the street-rod crowd but NOT with a 10 mpg engine. Anyone ever think about a 2.2 or 2.5 moder ?
How about a FWD drive-train ...??
Posted By: moparx
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/04/08 12:05 PM
the thing that would concern me would be the width of any FWD setup fitting under the front sheet metal of most rod candidates. what about considering an EFI system for a conventional rear drive setup ? with od. and a reasonable [mild] engine/trans combo, i don't think 20+ mpg would be out of the question. and you would get much more performance than a 4 cylinder could provide. just my 2cents............. 
Posted By: dOrk !
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/04/08 12:36 PM
You DO have a good point about the width .. how about putting the 4 banger in the rear ?
About the EFI - are there any reliable systems out there ? ... I have heard horror-stories about the Eddy system.
About the EFI - are there any reliable systems out there ? ... I have heard horror-stories about the Eddy system.
Posted By: Joatha
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/04/08 04:24 PM
Yes, actually I've been thinking about something like that. And, there's a guy over at turbododge.com that was selling adapter plates to put a small block transmission behind a 2.4L - which is fairly plentiful. I was considering dropping one in my 69 Cuda to make it a good gas mileage car and maybe a daily driver.
You should be able to put one in with that adapter plate and make it a rear wheel drive car. The 2.4L will easily handle the weight of a rod and making it RWD will negate the issues of putting a FWD chassis in.
You should be able to put one in with that adapter plate and make it a rear wheel drive car. The 2.4L will easily handle the weight of a rod and making it RWD will negate the issues of putting a FWD chassis in.
Posted By: NoFrills
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/04/08 10:29 PM
you could put a 2.2 or 2.5 turbo and make it rear wheel drive with a 2.5 dakota trans and bell I had plans of doing this but never got around to it
Posted By: 4speeds4me
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/05/08 02:19 AM
The early Dakota is a great candidate for this, and as evidenced in many threads here, is a good frame choice already for alot of these cars.
Posted By: shinnery
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/05/08 06:24 AM
The LH series drivetrains with the engine fore and aft would not be as wide as the transverse FWDs. They definitely have the rack and pinion mounted in an interesting place, above the tranny.
I allways remember seeing a 65-69 Corvair with a 455 Toronado drivetrain setting midships.
Bryce
I allways remember seeing a 65-69 Corvair with a 455 Toronado drivetrain setting midships.
Bryce
Posted By: DirectSubjection
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/06/08 05:14 AM
Quote:
I allways remember seeing a 65-69 Corvair with a 455 Toronado drivetrain setting midships.
I built my own 66 Toronado - 425 with a reversed TH400 connecting the convertor to the trans by a heavy duty chain. Motor was offset 3" to the right.
I think the LH setup is an excellent idea.
Posted By: DaytonaTurbo
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/06/08 06:13 AM
The dakota 4cyl trans is not noted for it's strength. All the serious guys use the dakota bell but bolt it up to a toyota supra trans which happens to bolt up to the dakota bell. A guy is making the adapter plates, and a 2.2/2.5 run the same bolt pattern as a 2.4 with the exception of one bolt being different. You'd have to either skip that bolt or bend up a L bracket if you wanted to run a 2.2/2.5. The 2.4 with it's DOHC makes as much power as a T1 2.2/2.5 anyway, and has more HP potential when you boost it. You could chop up a factory harness out of an 80's turbo mopar to work or run an aftermarket EFI controller. Or if you really want to keep it simple, run a carb 2.2L bolted up to a 904 w/ that adapter plate.
Posted By: SattyNoCar
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/06/08 11:39 PM
Back in the late '80's, early '90's, there was a magazine article on one. If I remember correctly, it was a kit, or it was going to be a kit. Used a fiberglass Merc body, and a LeBaron floorpan/drivetrain. Even used the stock LeBaron dash.
Anyone remember the car? I think the article was in Street Rodder magazine.
Posted By: Mopar Ron
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/07/08 03:36 AM
Quote:
Back in the late '80's, early '90's, there was a magazine article on one. If I remember correctly, it was a kit, or it was going to be a kit. Used a fiberglass Merc body, and a LeBaron floorpan/drivetrain. Even used the stock LeBaron dash.
Anyone remember the car? I think the article was in Street Rodder magazine.
I remember seeing that car in the magazine
Posted By: patrick
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/12/08 12:01 PM
like others have said, the LH cars already have their engines mounted fore-aft, what about yoinking a 3.2 or 3.5L and using an adapter plate for a RWD tranny?
heck, check out hotroddave's super duper MPG thread in the Q&A, he built up a simple 318 that has good power and is getting ~20-23city and 26-29 highway. it's basically a 0 deck 318 (using KB167's), 273 mechanical cam, and 302 heads, Tquad (I think), lockup 904 and a 2.76 rear. you could do a slight variation on that for more power and less maintainence with probably no sacrafice in economy by starting with a magnum 318, use the same pistons, and run the smallest comp or hughes hydraulic roller with the stock roller lifters. if you wanted a manual, I'd use an A833OD and 2.94 or 3.23 rear.
heck, check out hotroddave's super duper MPG thread in the Q&A, he built up a simple 318 that has good power and is getting ~20-23city and 26-29 highway. it's basically a 0 deck 318 (using KB167's), 273 mechanical cam, and 302 heads, Tquad (I think), lockup 904 and a 2.76 rear. you could do a slight variation on that for more power and less maintainence with probably no sacrafice in economy by starting with a magnum 318, use the same pistons, and run the smallest comp or hughes hydraulic roller with the stock roller lifters. if you wanted a manual, I'd use an A833OD and 2.94 or 3.23 rear.
Posted By: 4speeds4me
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/12/08 05:28 PM
Quote:
like others have said, the LH cars already have their engines mounted fore-aft, what about yoinking a 3.2 or 3.5L and using an adapter plate for a RWD tranny?
heck, check out hotroddave's super duper MPG thread in the Q&A, he built up a simple 318 that has good power and is getting ~20-23city and 26-29 highway. it's basically a 0 deck 318 (using KB167's), 273 mechanical cam, and 302 heads, Tquad (I think), lockup 904 and a 2.76 rear. you could do a slight variation on that for more power and less maintainence with probably no sacrafice in economy by starting with a magnum 318, use the same pistons, and run the smallest comp or hughes hydraulic roller with the stock roller lifters. if you wanted a manual, I'd use an A833OD and 2.94 or 3.23 rear.
That whole thread warrants a good read for those who haven't yet. There is really good info for putting together ANY package for it's most optimum fuel economy.
Posted By: moparx
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/12/08 07:20 PM
more cubes also makes for more fun when you want it !
Posted By: RodStRace
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/12/08 09:26 PM
The guy that did the Merc body over a Lebaron was Gene Winfield. He was concerned that they were going to do stuff like they did to Boytd with Kit cars (IE, it had to have modern equipment).
Otherwise, I think a FWD drivetrain in a rod is a square peg in a round hole, unless you stuff it in the back. There was a rodder (Lived in So Cal) that did one years ago, then built OHC conversions for Chevys and Harleys. Forget his name
.
I agree that if you want a MPG rod, you can go with a modern 4 or 6, or even an optimized V8 and just drive the rear wheels, rather than try to design a cradle, suspension, steering and exhaust that fit an early body. Take a look under the hood of a PT to see the issues with a FWD drivetrain in a narrow nose.
Otherwise, I think a FWD drivetrain in a rod is a square peg in a round hole, unless you stuff it in the back. There was a rodder (Lived in So Cal) that did one years ago, then built OHC conversions for Chevys and Harleys. Forget his name
. I agree that if you want a MPG rod, you can go with a modern 4 or 6, or even an optimized V8 and just drive the rear wheels, rather than try to design a cradle, suspension, steering and exhaust that fit an early body. Take a look under the hood of a PT to see the issues with a FWD drivetrain in a narrow nose.
Posted By: dOrk !
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/12/08 09:37 PM
Quote:
heck, check out hotroddave's super duper MPG thread in the Q&A, he built up a simple 318 that has good power and is getting ~20-23city and 26-29 highway. it's basically a 0 deck 318 (using KB167's), 273 mechanical cam, and 302 heads, Tquad (I think), lockup 904 and a 2.76 rear.
What is the exact title of that thread ? .. I remember back in the 90's - a Bud of mine set up his FIL's Dippy with a 318 (just simple bolt-on stuff(no internal mods) ....he was getting 26 or so with that.
Posted By: 4speeds4me
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/13/08 05:01 AM
Posted By: 79powerwagon
Re: How about a FWD drive-train ...?? - 07/18/08 11:41 AM
I like the idea of using a FWD Mopar engine for a hot rod. But just the engine.
There is a rod that graced the cover of Summit's catalog that was built on an S10 4x4 chassis, and they modded the driveline to act as an AWD sport suspension (versus off road capable). Kind of a neat idea, really!
FWD in the rod? Nah, no good. But a 2.5 as a power plant? That'd be great!
There is a rod that graced the cover of Summit's catalog that was built on an S10 4x4 chassis, and they modded the driveline to act as an AWD sport suspension (versus off road capable). Kind of a neat idea, really!
FWD in the rod? Nah, no good. But a 2.5 as a power plant? That'd be great!