Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Rich,, I'm glad you got it back together so quickly,,, but I do hope down the road that Moser is made aware of this, so that they can look into producing a better product in the future. Good luck with your car,, I hope you'll go to Columbus in May.
Danny Durham

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Thanks Danny - I sent a email to Moser about the problem...we will see how they follow up. No concrete plans on where to run this year yet...kind of wait and see how the car runs first. Without any further breakage I should have an idea this coming Saturday.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Interesting, when I ordered my rear from moser I asked if they would install the Calvert perches. I was told absolutely not as they felt there's were much stronger. I wish I remembered my sales person cause I'd love to send him those pics.. Car looks good!!!!!

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Glad you got it back together!! Im gonna look under my car... I have Caltracs, 2* wedges and no spacers... Mine has 100's of passes on it...they must have used better perches on mine...I had them put them on in 2001... Car has made several hundred passes in the 11.50 or faster range...After seeing your failure, it makes me want to have some bracing welded onto mine...

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

I feel like if we had a big block in the car Brent they would have failed in the water box. Ours failed from the very first pass evident from the mph on the time slip...the second launch just sealed the deal. Perry says he has seen this on many stick cars, but nothing this extreme. :eek:

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Nice work.....old school...a heat wrench, and probably a hammer and pry bar. Add some metal and weld it up.....

Parts cost.....zero...

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Thanks Rich...not nearly as pretty as before haha! Beauty queen is out and we are going for function this time. :p

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Looks like the old rear end had the appropriate reinforcement. Oh well....that's racin'.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

I think quadrajetparts.com has a 2 piece solution for you. A 1" extension plus an inverted flare to -8 adapter.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

It did, but the perches on it were welded in the wrong place...had the housing skewed nearly an inch toward the drivers side. If I had it to do all over we would have just cut them off and welded some Caltrac perches on it in the correct spot. My partner was hell bent on a new housing tho...:p

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Dave - This is all I come up with in the search box... http://quadrajetparts.com/rochester-...ing-p-367.html

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Those reinforced perches will probably survive the next world war. However, it might be good to reflect on what happened and try to identify the root cause of the original failure. It is easy to say that the Moser perches are defective/weak/junk/chinese, etc. and that they should know better since they build axles for drag racing and have for many years. But before crucifying them, the posted pictures show that this might well have been a case of mixing incompatible suspension components.

Looking at the end view of the collapsed perch it is apparent that the wedge used to set the pinion angle is too narrow for the perch. The implementation created a pyramidal structure with the spring at the base, a narrower spacer and an even narrower wedge working against an unsupported surface. The compressive force generated by the housing rotation was applied through the unsupported horizontal portion of the perch to the narrow wedge. That force on the horizontal part was more than it could support and it collapsed.

The horizontal portion isn't supposed to take the load, the vertical portions of the perch should be taking the load and transferring it (ultimately) to the spring. The vertical portions of the perch were essentially unsupported in this application as witnessed by their being forced apart and actually torn away from the horizontal part of the perch on one side. The modified perches, as well as the Calvert perches provide additional support to the horizontal portion of the perch, certainly a much more robust design.

As witnessed by many racers, even stock 40 year old perches can withstand the forces generated by drag race launches, although it certainly isn't a good idea. I suspect that if the springs were in direct contact with these perches they would never have failed. That wedge, in that position, was the ultimate culprit. Putting the wedge between the spring and the slightly wider solid spacers might have provided enough support to prevent the failure too, but since the spacers look to be narrower than the perch it would be marginal.

Also, Calvert can supply their springs with different amounts of arc so that the ride height can be set without having to have a bunch of spacers between the perch and spring. He also has wedges which are wider than the usual 2" parts.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Rich, I can't emphasize enough how important it is to fabricate locating pins that fully engage the holes in the perches. -Al

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

u looking for a 7/8-20 one inch long or a 5/8-20 one inch long??? can u use a 2-3 inch long fitting for a -8 hose???

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Bill that is a nice failure analysis.....I saw the spacers and wedge plate but could not see it close enough to see what you are pointing to. Makes total sense to me.....

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Bill - Looking at it again I believe you are correct on the narrow wedge...I will replace that with some full width Calvert shims. Good to have extra eyes on stuff like this. The perch may or may not have failed otherwise even without being boxed in.

There is one other thing that has been on my mind during this ordeal. I had no inclination to undertake this repair on my own Sunday...my only goal that morning was to gut/remove the housing from the car so we could get it sent off for repair. When my partner showed up he was hell bent on fixing it himself. I questioned him how he was going to do it and he assured me he had it in hand. I'm no blacksmith or welder so I deferred to his judgement. I have always heard about being careful when welding/heating axle tubes, but my concerns were played down. I must say that a ton of heat went into those perches and a bunch more into the tubes during extended welding. Perry confided to me earlier to make sure my partner welded a little at a time and swap sides to allow some cooling. I mentioned it to my partner, but it went unheeded. Should I be concerned about this?

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Pins are good Alan...thanks! :)

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

It's a 1901 Edelbrock and I'm pretty sure it's a 1-20 thread fitting...larger than my Rochester quadrajets. I just need one that is extended length like the one I posted earlier so my line from the regulator will reach as it does for my other carbs.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

This is the link to the extension fitting:
http://quadrajetparts.com/rochester-...ing-p-436.html

Then you need this adapter - (available from other sources.)
http://quadrajetparts.com/rochester-...ing-p-370.html

I assumed that you were working with a Quadrajet carb. The search continues. :o

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

I doubt you did warp the tubes from welding as it takes a lot of welding around the tube to do that....You may have tweaked them a bit but if the axle bearings went right in with no issues I think you will be fine....

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

sorry thought I had found the fitting but it was not long enough

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Rich, you can always take the stock fitting, drill and tap for 3/8 pipe thread, and screw an AN fitting into it, like i did...
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...16685495_n.jpg

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

I agree with Rich that you are probably OK with the heat on the tubes from the welding as long as the axles/bearings don't show signs of misalignment. It is possible to distort the tubes since the heat is being applied to one side and not the other but since it is fairly localized around the perch it isn't as bad as, say, welding a full-width brace across the housing like is often done on 9" FoMoCo rears. If you have to force the axle in one direction to get the bearing into its seat in the tube that indicates a distortion problem.

I'll mention one other thing that I noticed in the picture in post #60. I've taken a lot of s**t for mentioning rules, but here goes. The rule book, under the Traction Bars section says that "mounting brackets (to the rear axle housing) may not be lower than the lowest edge of the wheel rim." In the picture, it looks like the added spacers have pushed the Cal-track arm bracket and rod-end so that they are below the wheel rim. It may be a parallax issue in the picture, and probably no one in tech would notice or care, but my anal-retentiveness insists that I point it out. I know on my car that the Cal-track spring plate has the bar brackets just long enough so that it passes that rule on a 15" rim with no additional spacers, and I suspect that Calvert designed them that way to maximize the lever arm length and stay within the rules. Not trying to stir the pot, just sayin'....

Good luck with the car, and have some fun!

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Thanks again Bill - Funny how probably hundreds of people not to mention myself looked right at the problem and it never occurred what the actual culprit was. I'm so dumb sometimes I amaze myself.

This is the first time I have ever put pinion angle shims in a car. When first measured it showed 2-1/2 degrees negative...we thought it might like another 2 degrees. I'm going to pull the shims out Wednesday and just run it without them Saturday for effect. I can add some at a later date to test. Meanwhile I will email Moser with some pic's and explain it was "operator error" lol. Btw, when I re-installed the axles they slid in with no effort so the tubes are probably ok. Thanks to all who tried to help and I hope to have some decent reports of progress by Saturday evening.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Thanks Brent...I may end up going that route.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Dave - I think that combination would actually work on the Edelbrock quadrajet. It would be a little longer than my current fittings, but longer is much easier to deal with than shorter...thanks buddy!

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

I raced a G/SA Nova back in the mid '90s for a season or two.
P/G 350/255 It went high 11's with a very old school engine.

It did sixty foot very well for the et......low 1.50's so If I had that Camaro with a 3 speed and hi compression engine I would be looking for 60 foot times in the low 1.40's....

The hi compression engines were always tougher to make run fast relative to the low compression engines. HP difference was not realistic.

I still would like to have that car.....I like my dragster but still love Camaro stockers....Have fun...enjoy it...

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

This is what I use in mine with my Edelbrock Q-Jet
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n...ps9c6607a4.jpg
http://www.jegs.com/i/Russell/799/640350/10002/-1
You can use a 45 degree AN fitting on your hose or use one of these if you already have a straight fitting.
http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n...psc8273d98.jpg
http://summitracing.com/dom/parts/ea...8erl/overview/

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Yeah Rich, I'm expecting drastic improvement this go. Pretty sure the very first pass last Saturday bent the perches at the initial hit and it was fighting a bad pinion angle all the way down the track...amazing it was able to muster a 7.21 in the 1/8 mile. My gut tells me this car should 60' at least a 1.48. I'll be tickled to death if it runs a 11.20 in the 1/4 mile.

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/q...ps94231608.jpg

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

E/SA and a good car is probably running 10.80 in decent air.

11.20 is a good start and MPH tells the tale on power. 115-116 is probably also a realistic number to expect. They tend to MPH pretty weak.....

Whatever it runs......do a little tricky math I do to gauge how it is running.

Multiply your ET by your MPH and see what number comes up.

1300 is weak on MPH and most stockers would run numbers in the 1300's or 1310's

Fast cars that run good MPH will be 1340 or higher

A very good balanced bracket car is in the 1330's....

It's just a factor number that can help gauge how well a car ET's vs MPH...and since Stockers ET very well vs MPH they will be at the low end of the scale...

Steep first gear.....low gear in the rear.....good for ET's ....
Restrictive cam,heads and intake manifold.....not good for MPH...


Fast bracket cars like my dragster will pick up 30+ mph on the back half......I run an average of 146 at the 1/8th and run 177-178+ with injection......

Stockers are fun but slow by comparison.....

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Yep - If we can muster a 5-under car that is consistent I will have reached my goal for this season. I know it will take more $$$ in the motor to run heads up. Plans are to run all the combo races this year at Beech Bend so I can gain some experience at racing the finish line...my weak point. :p

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Once again, no good news to report. Arrived at the track this afternoon with high hopes, but I was foiled again. I'm fishing for answers so let me set this up in chronological order.

Half way to the track my partner calls and tells us to make sure we check the transmission fluid level when we arrive. We had none in the truck so stopped at a auto parts store and picked up a quart. My buddy comes out and said they had no Dextron 3, so he bought what was available which was Dextron 6. I thought to myself no big deal.

Unloaded the car and ran it up and down the return road to warm everything up. Shifted fine and I stalled the car a couple of times noting nothing irregular. Pulled up to the trailer where my buddy is waiting to check the trans dipstick level...finds it low and puts about 3/4 of a quart in the transmission. Good to go.

After gearing up I pull the car into the staging lanes prepared to make a pass. My buddy is standing beside the car while I do my normal 1-2 shift burnout then ease forward. When stopped I put it into first gear and ease into the beam...stalled about 2700rpm I bump in and the lights come down. Nailed the throttle and it sounds like it blew the tires off the car...not sure what just happened I shut it down. A track hand looks under the car and says no fluid spilled. I restart and back the car into the oval track for a closer inspection. We talk for a moment and he says the tires never turned at the hit....hmmm. I back the car further into the oval track and try first gear again...it barely wants to pull the car. Second, third and reverse gear seem normal.

I ease the car back to the pits in second gear. Got under the car and check the cable adjustment which is dead on correct. We load the car and come back home still not sure what the problem is. While unloading the truck I grab the nearly empty bottle of transmission fluid and it catches my eye...that quart of fluid is a full synthetic. We use Dextron 3 in this transmission.

Question : Is it possible this was a self inflicted wound? Could a quart of synthetic fluid cause this metric 200 to slip that badly in first and have no apparent effect in the other gears? I'm going to pull the pan in the morning and check for any debris, but I can hear no odd noises coming from the transmission when running. I'm sure Thomas Arnett could say what it is off the top of his head, but it will likely be Monday morning before we talk.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Rich,
Could be possible internal damage from when the rear end rotated under full throttle?

Glenn

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Anything is possible I guess, but when the chunk rotated it pulled the driveshaft out and away from the tailshaft...not jamming it into the tailshaft. Just an oddity maybe after the addition of that fluid? You thinking maybe some odd occilation of the shaft inside the tailhousing from before? It's just strange how it all played out.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Definitely not the Dexron VI fluid as it is reverse compatible. It is really a superior fluid to the old standard DEXRON III.

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Sounds like it will be coming out of the car in the morning then. :(

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

It may have taken out the sprag..... possibly...

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

A bad converter would not act like the tires spun....it would act more like you left in second gear...They tend to lose stall speed and get tight and make a car leave very lazy.....

That Dexron VI fluid should not be an issue

When I had a Metric trans I did burnouts starting in 2nd and quickly shifted to 3rd...but that should not really be a cause for a problem.

Sounds like the trans may have lost first gear....or fluid level is low...

Does the ATF fluid look clean and the same color as it was....?

Any slippage in a trans quickly turns the fluid dark and may smell burnt...

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

What alternator, crank pulley and bracket are you using?
Thanks
Clark

Re: '67 Camaro E/SA redo
 

Pulled it this morning Rich. Fluid looks as new with no burnt smell at all. Pulled the pan and there is a small amount of metal shavings. I'll take it to Arnett in the morning and let him diagnose/repair. Think I will replace the back u-joint while it's out...took a pretty good beating last week. I'm also carrying the convertor with me in case Thomas thinks a flush is in order.

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/q...psea273c4a.jpg

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/q...psf8dcf471.jpg