Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11

    What do you think about this Car/Build?

    Im in the Market for a 69 Charger Restomod/Pro Touring car right now. (Got a seperate Thread for that)
    I found this one:
    https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/x/x/x/2138491.html


    While this is not 100% what im looking for its still close enough to be interesting.
    But since i am no Car Builder i am having a hard time to judge over the build and price.


    I want to use the car as a daily driver in the Summer. (well mainly on the Weekends but should be possible to daily drive)
    I want to do Stop and go City Driving as well as long distance driving on the german Autobahn @ at least 110 or better 120mph.
    (I live in germany)


    What do you think about this car?
    Is this a good build?
    Is this a fair price? isnt it pretty low given its sold by a dealer? is there a catch?


    Rear differential is a posi-trac with what we believe are 3.91 gears. While the sis not the best highway gearing the current owner has certainly cruised down the highway at 70 mph when needed but this set up is really geared up for some amazing stop light to stop light fun and cruising.

    Is this a serious issue (because i want to drive 110mph or faster) or can this be addressed
    by changing the gear ratio and installing a GV Overdrive?
    But even if will the cooling and other components hold up at those speeds?


    Also i dont like THIS (particular) blower.
    Is this even a supercharger? i dont see a belt or anything.
    Can you remove that? how much power would you loose if you do?
    Or would it (if not) be at least possible to install something that looks good like this?



    Also the seller promises you can remove that roll cage if you want.
    I would want to remove it. That would be pretty important for me.


    I have some basic knowledge and what i read like
    - Disk Brakes front and Back
    - 605 Hemi with 750hp
    - Upgraded Suspension/Handling
    Sounds pretty good of course but as i am not an expert/car builder i decided to ask here first.


    Im not seriously interested in the car at this point.
    But if it should be good, i would look into this further and may purchase it.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mountain Springs, Texas
    Posts
    3,237
    Country Flag: United States
    That is not a blower.
    1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
    1957 Buick Caballero - huge project
    1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
    1969 Mustang Sportsroof
    1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,357
    Country Flag: United States
    I see overheating issues at high speeds for extended duration. I don't think you'd run it very long at 110-120 MPH before overheating even with a rear gear change. I'd say, keep looking.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Thanks for your answers but could maybe someone go a little more in depth?

    That is not a blower.
    What is it? Can you remove it? How much power would you loose if you do?

    I see overheating issues at high speeds for extended duration. I don't think you'd run it very long at 110-120 MPH before overheating even with a rear gear change. I'd say, keep looking.
    You read that i considered a Gear Vendors Overdrive? Wouldn't that help either?
    Why do you see overheating issues, because of unsufficient cooling? Or is the engine itself the problem?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sulphur, La
    Posts
    411
    I mean no disrespect with the following:

    Do you have a lot of money? If so then no worries.
    If not then, with your limited knowledge I have to say that you are better suited with a much milder build, something you can enjoy while you build your knowledge up.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    307
    As stated before thats not a supercharger. Also if you are looking for a daily driver I would stay away from carbureted cars. Get something with fuel injection. I’m assuming this would be your first classic car? Classic cars require constant fixes,upgrades, changes etc, no matter who built it and how well they built it. This is a hobby for a reason. It’s not a mass produced car so the reliability factor is gone. If you want something that you plan on using daily at least look for something with a modern hemi swap preferably using all original equipment fuel management.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by CSG View Post
    I have to say that you are better suited with a much milder build
    What do you mean with "milder" build?

    Quote Originally Posted by joeko23 View Post
    As stated before thats not a supercharger. Also if you are looking for a daily driver I would stay away from carbureted cars. Get something with fuel injection. I’m assuming this would be your first classic car? Classic cars require constant fixes,upgrades, changes etc, no matter who built it and how well they built it. This is a hobby for a reason. It’s not a mass produced car so the reliability factor is gone. If you want something that you plan on using daily at least look for something with a modern hemi swap preferably using all original equipment fuel management.

    No its not my first classic car but its my first custom car.
    Its not that i have absolutely no clue but of course i am no car builder.

    Well im not a big fan of modern engines, fuel injection, computers and stuff like that.
    I prefer oldschool drivetrains (with carburetors) but i like modern brakes & handling updates and stuff like that. Somewhat best of both worlds i guess.
    Also i want at least around 500rwhp. (i've also driven faster and slower cars, i think 500 is the right number for me.)

    So if someone could explain why this car will have overheating issues that would be great.
    not that i dont believe you guys but i would feel better when knowing not only if its good or bad but also WHY.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Bump

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sulphur, La
    Posts
    411
    By milder my main point would be finding one without a naturally aspirated 700hp old school engine. I would also stay away from anything with a roots style blower like the one you showed a pic of. I don't know much about those particular cars but why does it have both leafsprings and coilovers?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Jonesboro, Arkansas
    Posts
    2,384
    Country Flag: United States
    The picture in your post and the picture in the "hemmings" ad are two completely different cars. The one in your post has a "root" style blower, the one in the Hemmings ad is nothing more than a carb on a hi-rise manifold.

    Carl Wilson
    1968 Camaro - T-56 6 speed - 383 Stroker, 2014 Mustang GT seats

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by CSG View Post
    By milder my main point would be finding one without a naturally aspirated 700hp old school engine. I would also stay away from anything with a roots style blower like the one you showed a pic of.
    Well i dont need a blower but an oldschool naturally aspirated engine with around 650hp is exactly what i have in mind.
    Why not?
    Will these engines dont hold up or why do you recommend against it?

    You and @NOT A TA recommended against the car i posted.
    @NOT A TA thinks it will overheat.
    But why? Because of the Engine Design or insufficient cooling/gears?
    I mean if you just need better cooling and an Overdrive you can maybe think about that but if the engine itself is the problem thats another story.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Sulphur, La
    Posts
    411
    As far as overheating, I'll state the more obvious things that I see that are not ideal:
    Pusher fans
    no fan shroud
    nothing to direct airflow from the grill into the radiator instead of everywhere else
    Add these items to a radical NA engine & you could very likely have over heating issues

    As far as "holding up" that is a pretty broad statement. That engine will need much more maintenance and attention then a more common street car engine. Do you like adjusting valves and tuning carbs?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    357
    1969 Chargers aren't ideal for cruising at 120 mph for several reasons.



    The body itself has terrible aerodynamics. The front end/steering starts feeling lighter from air getting forced down underneath the car. Air rushing past the roof window gutters & front end bodywork is loud. In 1969 Chrysler actually 'fixed' this bodystyle by selling the Charger 500 & Daytona versions for racing. (Those body modifications were combined with having the whole body 'raked' down about 2 degrees in the front.) Going 120 in a stock '69 Charger body is not out of the question but you should be aware that the bodywork is a handicap. You will probably want the body to be raked slightly (as most of these cars are set up by owners now). Some kind of small front air dam below the radiator area might be good too (like the sort of thing that is common on modern vehicles).

    The factory 1969 suspension is strong and the handling is predictable. But it's not optimized for modern tires. The steering lacks the centering action of modern vehicles because the front end was built with 0 degrees of caster angle. It could also use an extra 1-2 degrees of negative camber if you are running radial tires. Both issues can be helped with aftermarket upper A-arms and/or offset bushings. The steering gearbox feels a bit more "floaty" compared to a modern vehicle too. That can be addressed with either a rebuilt & tightened steering box or an aftermarket Borgeson replacement.

    The factory 1960s brake system is not adequate for 120+ mph in traffic. These cars mostly got drum brakes on all 4 wheels, and that setup is borderline unsafe for 60-70 mph in modern congested traffic. Even the factory optional front discs aren't a great setup (the factory needed them small enough to fit inside 14" wheel rims). If I was going to cruise that fast, I would want some kind of aftermarket 4-wheel disc brake conversion. It's a lot cheaper & safer than getting in a wreck. There are many choices on the market to deal with the brakes, depending on how much stopping power you want to buy and how big your wheel rims are.


    Another general comment - it never hurts to stiffen up the body shell on unibody cars like this. US Car Tool Inc makes a whole kit to stiffen up some easy 'problem areas' of these cars. (As in, welding extra bracing onto the undercarriage). Subframe connectors, 'torque box' plating, etc.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by mikedc View Post
    1969 Chargers aren't ideal for cruising at 120 mph for several reasons.

    The body itself has terrible aerodynamics. The front end/steering starts feeling lighter from air getting forced down underneath the car. Air rushing past the roof window gutters & front end bodywork is loud. In 1969 Chrysler actually 'fixed' this bodystyle by selling the Charger 500 & Daytona versions for racing. (Those body modifications were combined with having the whole body 'raked' down about 2 degrees in the front.) Going 120 in a stock '69 Charger body is not out of the question but you should be aware that the bodywork is a handicap. You will probably want the body to be raked slightly (as most of these cars are set up by owners now). Some kind of small front air dam below the radiator area might be good too (like the sort of thing that is common on modern vehicles).

    The factory 1969 suspension is strong and the handling is predictable. But it's not optimized for modern tires. The steering lacks the centering action of modern vehicles because the front end was built with 0 degrees of caster angle. It could also use an extra 1-2 degrees of negative camber if you are running radial tires. Both issues can be helped with aftermarket upper A-arms and/or offset bushings. The steering gearbox feels a bit more "floaty" compared to a modern vehicle too. That can be addressed with either a rebuilt & tightened steering box or an aftermarket Borgeson replacement.

    The factory 1960s brake system is not adequate for 120+ mph in traffic. These cars mostly got drum brakes on all 4 wheels, and that setup is borderline unsafe for 60-70 mph in modern congested traffic. Even the factory optional front discs aren't a great setup (the factory needed them small enough to fit inside 14" wheel rims). If I was going to cruise that fast, I would want some kind of aftermarket 4-wheel disc brake conversion. It's a lot cheaper & safer than getting in a wreck. There are many choices on the market to deal with the brakes, depending on how much stopping power you want to buy and how big your wheel rims are.


    Another general comment - it never hurts to stiffen up the body shell on unibody cars like this. US Car Tool Inc makes a whole kit to stiffen up some easy 'problem areas' of these cars. (As in, welding extra bracing onto the undercarriage). Subframe connectors, 'torque box' plating, etc.
    Well i already knew that and of course you are right.
    But i have no intention of going 120 in a Factory Equipped Car.
    Thats why i'm also looking for a Restomod, otherwise i would have to do the upgrades myself or pay someone to do them.
    Which would likely cost a lot more as i also want 500rwhp.


    Basically i opened the Thread because i wanted to know if all these points you stated have been
    adressed at the car for sale that i linked in the first post.


    Cooling as i now know has NOT been adressed.
    Brakes have been adressed as they have been upgraded to disks front and back.
    But what about the suspension or even frame reinforcement?


    Anyway i think i will not buy this car.
    Yeah i get preinstalled Diskbrakes and a 605 Hemi with 750 Horsepower.
    But i would still have a lot of work to do (and money to spend) on top of that to make it perfect.
    I think i can find something better suited for my needs or if not will be better off to upgrade a Factory Equipped RT myself from Scratch.

    Edit:

    The Areodynamics from the 69 Charger are not bad at all as the car has been designed with NASCAR in mind.
    As far as i know even in the wind tunnel.
    Its just the front end from the street cars as you pointed out. the 69 Daytona is basically a upgraded charger that just has better areodynamics (due to different front end & rear wing) and some other improvements.
    But im sure you know / meant that.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    357
    The Areodynamics from the 69 Charger are not bad at all as the car has been designed with NASCAR in mind.
    As far as i know even in the wind tunnel.
    Its just the front end from the street cars as you pointed out. the 69 Daytona is basically a upgraded charger that just has better areodynamics (due to different front end & rear wing) and some other improvements.
    But im sure you know / meant that.
    Wind tunnel research didn't start on those Chargers until after the stock '68 models were built and being raced.

    The '69 aero models were good, particularly the Daytona. But they were created in response to problems. The stock non-aero 1968/69 Chargers were surprisingly bad.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by mikedc View Post
    Wind tunnel research didn't start on those Chargers until after the stock '68 models were built and being raced.

    The '69 aero models were good, particularly the Daytona. But they were created in response to problems. The stock non-aero 1968/69 Chargers were surprisingly bad.
    Well i didnt knew that.
    I thought the whole car was shaped in a wind tunnel.
    But anyway it shouldn't be a huge problem with all the cool aftermarket stuff available these days.

    A little bit offtopic but what do you guys think about this Chevelle Restomod?
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/153748382054

    I think it looks pretty good and if it would be a charger i would be very interested in the car.

    Aluminum head, forged GM ZZ572 620hp with Dyno sheets available
    Hughes Racing TH400 w/3500 stall converter / 1350 U-joints
    Moser 9” w/3.70 gears / posi
    Custom Lemon’s Headers ($2,000)
    Global West tubular control arms and suspension
    Dewitt’s 4 core radiator
    March serpentine pulleys
    Weld Draglites / Moroso fronts / Drag slicks on rear
    According to the recipts pictures it also has been converted to Disk brakes.
    To me it looks like a very nice car and im a bit surprised nobody bid on it yet?

    Well i dont know how good this thing will handle with the Global West Suspension
    but if it does well i guess i would just have to upgrade cooling and may install an Overdrive to drive 120mph?

    or i am missing something?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,357
    Country Flag: United States
    The Chevelle looks like a nice car if you're looking for a cruise night and occasional drag strip car. It's not a car you'll be driving 120 MPH for more than a couple seconds. A 3500 stall converter on the street isn't great for a daily driver and neither are the 3.7 rear gears without an overdrive transmission. Like the Charger you'd need to alter the drive line, wheels/tires, and other things to be able to use it as a daily driver and use it for extended high speed driving.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    357
    Well i didnt knew that.
    I thought the whole car was shaped in a wind tunnel.
    But anyway it shouldn't be a huge problem with all the cool aftermarket stuff available these days.
    Unfortunately the stock 1968/69 (and 1970) Chargers looked a lot more aerodynamic than they really were.

    The 'Charger 500' modifications were bringing the '69 body up to average/decent, at least for pre-1990s cars. They cleaned up the worst-offending spots for air resistance on the body: the grille and the A-pillar covers. The fastback rear window was partly about cornering along with top speed. Tunnel-back rear window designs compromise the downforce at the rear tires.

    The 1969 'Daytona' modifications were more applicable to real race cars. They were focusing on balancing the front & rear downforce. Gaining lateral stability with the wing uprights. Using the front fender scoops (above the tires) to let pressurized air out of the engine bay (since the racecars had no inner fender sheetmetal). Etc. This kind of stuff is less important if you just wanna go 100+ mph in a street-car version and you are't trying to corner very hard at those speeds. (Although a Daytona does feel marvelously stable for a 1960s car even at only 100 mph.)


    One more little factoid:

    There was technically a 1970 "Charger 500." Dodge took the name and applied it to a dress-up trim package for regular 1970 Chargers. It had the standard body (no aero changes). Today it has the value of a normal 1970 Charger, unlike the highly collectible '69 500s and Daytonas.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    11
    Well i know that this is not a Turn Key Solution and that you have to make some changes.
    But i think i will have a hard time finding a turn key solution as there sure are not to many guys out there wanting to drive 120mph for longer periods of time. (And i want an old fashioned drivetrain, no ls swaps and the like)

    I think the most important point is how much this chevelle will gonna cost.
    Because a lot of work has already been done and a lot of money has already been spend.
    And the car seems to look really good.
    If you can get it for a decent price than it's maybe cheaper (and less work) to modify this car than building one yourself from scratch.
    otherwise its way less attractive of course.
    So it depends.

    But i think i will pass anyway because i would might regret it as i prefer the looks from a 69 charger.
    Despite that both cars look cool of course.

    @mikedc:
    Thanks for the info.
    I wish i could afford a daytona but unfortunately that's not the case.
    A lot of people seem to find it "ugly" but i think it actually looks pretty cool.
    And how cool would it be to drive around town or passing people on the autobahn driving 120mph in a late 60s Race Car. :D

    Edit:
    So you think the Stock 1969 Daytonas can handle 120mph (for longer peroids of time) without changes/upgrades?
    Or only the ones that have been raced?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    357
    @mikedc:
    Thanks for the info.
    I wish i could afford a daytona but unfortunately that's not the case.
    A lot of people seem to find it "ugly" but i think it actually looks pretty cool.
    And how cool would it be to drive around town or passing people on the autobahn driving 120mph in a late 60s Race Car. :D

    Edit:
    So you think the Stock 1969 Daytonas can handle 120mph (for longer peroids of time) without changes/upgrades?
    Or only the ones that have been raced?
    The stock Charger 500s & Daytonas were basically standard Charger R/Ts (440 or 426 Hemi) with altered bodywork. They were not mechanically altered under the skin.

    Chrysler built the street production 500s & Daytonas (and '70 Plymouth Superbirds) just to make those bodies legal in NASCAR. They lost money on the street legal versions of all the aero cars because of the customizing work. In fact the mass-produced Superbirds came with mandatory vinyl tops in order to avoid the cost of hand-finishing the seams around the rear windows.


    The race cars were different animals from the street cars. NASCARs were famously "stock" but by 1969 they were mostly hand-built machines. But unlike today, in 1969 they still used the regular production cars as raw material. They ran stock body shells with rollcages added inside. Stock engine blocks & cranks, with custom pistons & valve sizes & camshafts. Etc. The race cars used the same layout of front torsion bars & rear leaf springs like the street versions, but the spring rates (and ride heights) were all different. Etc.

    At 200 mph the heating & cooling & aero demands were getting pretty far removed from regular production cars. The race cars needed fluid pumps & coolers for the rear differential's oil. They adapted bigger wheel bearings onto the suspension. They ran huge non-stock brakes (but still 4-wheel drums!). Etc.



    A stock production Daytona, at 120 mph? The aero bodywork would make it more stable/balanced and have lower wind resistance than a regular Charger. The top speed would certainly be much faster. But the street Daytonas did run into engine cooling problems in slower traffic because the nosecone's grille opening was too small (it was just large enough for NASCAR speeds and nothing more). Also, the little reverse-facing fender scoops above the front wheels are mostly useless on a street car. The street car has a higher ride height than the race cars and has full inner fender sheetmetal.

    In most ways it's still a stock 1969 Charger. Suspension is tuned for old bias-ply tires on 14" wheel rims, the brakes are not adequate for high speeds, etc.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast