Hi Bob, I just have a rough deck plane in my 3D model that I measured while visiting Blooz a while back. I didn't consider any structure on the underside of the deck but allowing say 2" for structure and a little air space above the engine and this set up might be pushing it. I am trying to get some measurements from Edelbrock but I haven't heard from them yet.

edit to add: on my drawing, allowing 2" for deck thickness and air space, I am showing 27" clearance to the lowest point of the engine cradle.

[This message has been edited by Yarmouth Fiero (edited 09-03-2014).]

Be careful Graham... The 308 is completely different than the 355 in that area. The top of the 355 deck lid is just about even with the bottom of the rear glass whereas the 308's is several inches above that.

Also keep in mind that the problem Don was having with his old 355 kit was that he couldn't get the car to sit low enough for the wheels to look right in the fenders without bottoming out on the suspension. The way I solved that problem was by raising the cradle (among other several other things), which also raises engine mounting points and reduces the under hood clearance.

For example, with my chopped cradle having 125mm ground clearance, and the oil pan being 10mm above that, and with the engine being 1325 663mm tall, I have 20 mm clearance under the deck lid. That means that if you're aiming for the same geometry as me, then your engine can be no taller than 1355 693mm, and even at that height, the oil pan will be flush with the bottom of the cradle and the topside will be touching the underside of the deck lid. As you know, you need some wiggle room for vibration and torque reaction. Any more than 1355 693mm and you're either hanging below the cradle or sticking up above the deck lid.

If you choose not to raise the cradle to give yourself more under hood clearance, then you'll either have to accept compromised suspension angles or larger wheel gaps at ride height as Don found. We can talk more about it when your here on Sat.

Edited to correct engine height numbers.

[This message has been edited by Bloozberry (edited 09-03-2014).]

Thanks for the info Blooz. With regard to the engine cradle, I will be building a completely new one to suit the wider frame rails and whatever engine I decide on. I can certainly raise it and looking at my suspension geometry using the stock cradle, I would have serious problems if I didn't raise the cradle.

Your measurements of 1355mm have me a little confused. I'll have to check my drawing again because I don't seem to have anywhere near that. I'll post a drawing shortly.

Ooops! Used the wrong scale... recalculating...

So-o-o-o-o-o my measurement is somewhat accurate? Good thing I accidently doubled up on my blood pressure meds this morning.

Guys;

The top of the engine deck lid sits 1" above the top of the Fiero firewall at the front. I had a 1x2" square bar that was used as my bracing for the convertible top. The deck lid is about 1" thick with very little under it so if you use 1.25" thickness you will be about.25" under the Fiero firewall top for the bottom of the engine lid. the back of the engine bay, the engine lid is about .5" above the edge of the front trunk wall.

the engine lid also has a section in the centre that raises about 1"+ where the intake would be.

Using these measurements, you should be able to get a pretty close approximation of where the lid goes in relation to the engine setup.

Good luck
Don

Thanks Don. When we sat the body and deck on our chassis I don't recall if everything was sitting exactly down tight or not. I know on my car, it wasn't completely correct because the roll over hoops were in the way of the rear clip sliding all the way forward. I suspect it was all pretty loose. Also, I think my measurement may have been the highest point on deck which was that little bubble / intake area. I am sure before I get to purchase an engine, I'll have test fitted the body back on my chassis again for a second look at clearance issues.

Thanks for sharing your keen memory with us.



edit: to add a pretty picture

[This message has been edited by Yarmouth Fiero (edited 09-03-2014).]

I am proceeding ahead with the planned modifications to remove the lower frame rails, strut towers and all the other miscellaneous sheet metal. The lower frame rails were in pretty good condition and may even show up in another project at some point. The strut towers are a bugger to remove with all their overlapper layers of sheet metal and still keeping the upper frame rails intact. It took me all morning to remove the passenger side strut tower. As I mentioned earlier, I am going to fabricate new lower frame rails from 4" x 2" x 1/8" HSS and it just so happened that when I did the original 3" chassis stretch, the inserts I fabricated for the lower frame rails were sized to fit inside 4" x 2" x 1/8" HSS so its going to be a nice strong fit to slide the new rails over my original extension stubs.

Here are a few images of the proposed new frame rails.





Considering that the upper rails are in great shape, the lower rails are more robust and straight and only slightly off center from the upper rails and the rocker frames I added to the chassis tie both rails together and end close to where the new strut towers are going to be, I am hopeful that with a strong strut tower design I can possibly eliminate the transverse frame between the strut towers that the stock chassis had ( forward side of the trunk). Also keep in mind that I am moving the struts outward and as close as possible to the upper frame rails so their leverage on the chassis is reduced. That would certainly open up my engine bay for my SBC installation.

Here are a couple pictures with the passenger side stut tower removed and the lower frame rail mocked up in position. This engine bay is going to be cavernous.







As you can see, I'll probably replace the stock engine cradle with a custom cradle more suited to the SBC installation. Too bad because the cradle is in mint condition except for the 3" stretch.

quote Originally posted by Yarmouth Fiero: The lower frame rails were in pretty good condition and may even show up in another project at some point.

You crack me up... your lower frame rails have already shown up in another project! Mine!

quote Originally posted by Yarmouth Fiero: Interesting, the trunk well, once removed from the chassis is just large enough to hold all the parts and scrap metal I cut out of the engine bay.

LOL! I'm using mine for exactly the same thing. Great minds think alike.

Hi Yarmouth,

Those pics are nice for the average fiero owner who always wanted to see
the frame from an angle we never see. Thanks for posting...

BTW, in the photo posted, isn't that silver plate the same kind used for the floor
pan plugs??

Seems farmilar...

Cheers...

------------------

fierogt28

88 GT, Loaded, 5-speed.
88 GT, 5-speed. Beechwood interior, All original.

Blooz, once I dump the scrap out of the trunk well, I'm going to save it for use as a large ice bucket to keep the beer cool in the garage when company comes over.

Fierogt28, yes, those silver covers seem to pop up in a few places on the Fiero. Its pretty inetesting to slowly dissect a Fiero piece by piece. Its certainly gives you an appreciation for the engineering that went into the many little pieces that make up the space frame. It would be cool to completely dismantle a fiero chassis and lay the pieces out on a large floor. I wonder if GM had ever done it for a publicity photo?

I have completed the task of removing the old strut towers, lower frame rails and cleaning up what used to be the engine bay. I have all the material in to fabricate the new lower frame rails and have begun building the new rails as per my new design. I have also refined the design a bit to locate the wide portion of the rail that will intersect with the rear end of the future new engine cradle. I have also added a transverse frame of 3" x 1" x 1/8" HSS which will be located just forward of the stock bumper. The purpose for this extra transverse frame is to tie the two lower rails together at their farthest end rather than rely on just the bolt on bumper, especially during fabrication. I want everything to remain as square to the chassis as possible. Also, as I had mentioned earlier, I am hoping to completely do away with the transverse frame that originally ran between the stock strut towers. This will open the engine bay considerably.





I have also begun working on the design for the new strut towers. It's all just preliminary until my QA1 Coilovers arrive. I also purchased the QA1 Camber/ Caster strut bearing and that will have to be accommodated into the new strut tower design. Unfortunately, QA1 doesn't supply detailed drawings of the parts ahead of time so I'll have to wait until they arrive.

As I mentioned, I am hoping to make the new strut tower design robust enough to elliminate the transverse strut frame. To do this, it is necessary to ensure that there is adequate load distribution from the strut towers to both the upper and lower frame rails. This includes two gussets per tower as well as boxing in the entire length between the upper and lower frame rails from fire wall to rear bumper. With the widened track of the rear wheels, there is plenty of room to enclose this space thus maximizing my engine bay space. Some of this will eventually be opened up to allow air into the engine and engine bay from the 355 side scoops. There may even be room for a couple small radiators similar to what Blooz has planned.

Here are a few pictures showing the design from different angles. I will probably end up lowering the top of the strut towers, especially on the top outside edges to accommodate the 355 body. I have also included a couple pics showing the stock strut towers as ghosted images to emphasize the difference in size and location between stock and revised. Note that with the wider track, there is room to expand the sides of the engine bay outwards. In the images showing the SBC, you can see the new design will get me some much needed space in the engine bay.

Wow... if there isn't enough room lengthwise for a longitudinal V8, then you should consider a transverse V10 given the room between the rails! (Nice drawings BTW)

I have been racking my brain trying solve the longitudinal V8 issue. Do you think its too late for us to do a second 3" stretch? I always felt the 355 was a few inches too short.

Not too late for you, but it is for me! Here's some inspiration for you if you go ahead:

You're going through all that trouble moving things around, why bother keeping the struts?

Bob

Tandem axle Blooz? That is crazy talk. I was thinking something more along these lines.....,



Bob, are you refering to eliminating the struts and doing a set up like Blooz and others? I think that is beyond my skills and I think the 85 set up will give me all the suspension performance I'll ever need. But I certainly have considered the idea a few times.

[This message has been edited by Yarmouth Fiero (edited 09-14-2014).]

quote Originally posted by Yarmouth Fiero: Bob, are you refering to eliminating the struts and doing a set up like Blooz and others? I think that is beyond my skills and I think the 85 set up will give me all the suspension performance I'll ever need. But I certainly have considered the idea a few times.

Yep, either Blooze's setup or maybe stock components like Bubbajoexxx: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F.../HTML/000007-24.html

Bob

How tall are you Yarmouth? If you are 5'-10" or shorter, just bubble out the firewall into the passenger area some.

Have you looked at the Audi A8 longitudinal V8 engine man is doing in a stock wheel base fiero. It would fit just fine with a 3" stretch.
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/123266.html

I'm 5' 6" at 7am and 5' 5" by 5pm

I have been following engineman and his Audi install. Its an impressive build for sure. I'm looking hard at possible gearboxes that will allow me to tuck a V8 in behind the fire wall for a longitudinal installation. Surely it's possible with only a 3" chassis stretch.

edit to add: Thanks for the link Bob. I don't know if I have ever read through that entire build.

[This message has been edited by Yarmouth Fiero (edited 09-14-2014).]

Finally, my QA1 rear coilover struts arrived together with my QA1 camber/caster plates. Now I can get to work finalizing the new strut tower design and building the structure for my chassis.

The struts are QA1 Pro Coil Strut System (PN HS606S-12325) with 325 lb springs
The Caster / Camber Plates are PN CPK106

Oooo... nice. Those camber/caster plates should make adjustments far easier than loosening the strut to knuckle bolts.

I agree. I just need to figure out how they fasten to the strut tower. The instructions only reference how to replace the old plates with the new ones....... not how to design the strut tower to accept them.

Graham;

I would suggest that you decide which engine/trans orientation you are going to go with before making up the strut tower configuration. You might end up with slightly different configuration depending on lateral vs. longitudinal orientation.

Have you had time to take the 016 Audi box measurements and attach them to the SBC (1" adapter plate) and see where interference issues may end up with the Firewall and cradle? Lateral orientation you can set the upper strut tower hollows in place to clear the various SBC items but longitudinal you might need to lay with the lower strut tower area to clear exhaust headers etc.

As always, keep up the great work. I am enjoying watching you and Blooz progress.

Cheers
Don

Hi Don. I am in the process of drawing the transmission in 3d but not quite finished. I think if I do go longitudinal I should have lots of room for headers. I will start drawing the strut parts tonight so I have an accurate drawing of the suspension to go by.

This is my first post from my Blackberry so I apologize if it looks odd.

quote Originally posted by Yarmouth Fiero: Hi Don. I am in the process of drawing the transmission in 3d but not quite finished. I think if I do go longitudinal I should have lots of room for headers. I will start drawing the strut parts tonight so I have an accurate drawing of the suspension to go by. This is my first post from my Blackberry so I apologize if it looks odd.

Post looks fine, just odd someone still has a Blackberry. :P

Bob

It's a Canadian thing to do Bob

With the arrival of the QA1 rear coilover struts, I've proceeded to add them to my 3D model to confirm the geometry will work as expected.

Here are a few pictures of the strut in location on the spindle. In these drawings the strut is at full extension. With the 325 lb springs, I expect the struts to compress about 2 1/2" atleast. That should make them the perfect length for this installation. I've also added a few pictures showing the new strut location in relation to the stock strut tower. As shown, the strut has been moved outward 4" to match the new rear track width of the 355. However, it is quite close to the inner edge of the upper frame rail so I may either notch the frame rail or use an offset spacer on the spindle to locate the strut inward about 1 1/2" to give lots of clearance.

Graham;

You have already probably done this but I would set the ride height you want first in the model and then set up the tower to best position the strut for middle of the shaft in loaded rest.

I ended up with pretty short compression strut travel on mine when I was trying to pull the frame/body down to sit properly over the wheels. My mistake was not looking at ride height first and as a result was going to to need to redo some of the wheel arches and/or frame mounting points to get some ride height back and still have the panels far enough down to not look like a 4x4....... I find all replica 355 panels are like that so start with ride height and work your way up from there.

Cheers
Don

Thanks Don. I have my actual car chassis set at the same ride height as Blooze and my model is drawn the same. I can easily compress the spring in my 3D model to the height I need to suit the final ride height. I"ll add those drawings tonight.

I have been working on my new strut tower design to incorporate the QA1 coilover struts I purchased. As I had mentioned, I considered moving the strut outward a portion of the 4" needed per side and using an offset bracket between the lower end of the strut and the spindle to make up the remaining distance. By doing this, I could lower the end of the strut downward with the bracket in an effort to gain a little more travel in the strut. Well, I suspected the lower end of the new strut would be close to the drive shaft so I added the CV boot to my drawing just to see how close. Ouch. They are going to be within 1/8" of each other.



I was currious why so I dug out the stock strut from under the workbench and compared it to the new QA1 strut. Its quite clear to me now. The adjustment section on the lower end of the QA1 strut makes it quite a bit longer. Because of this, my relocation bracket for my strut/ spindle connection may have to incorporate some lift to the strut......... just the opposite to what I wanted. Here are a couple pictures of the two struts side by side.





Back to the drawing board.

Well that sucks.

quote Originally posted by Bloozberry: Well that sucks.

Thanks for the input Blooz. Is this your professional opinion of my situation?

I've been scouring your thread tonight re-reading all your rear suspension details and there is a nice rear view drawing on page 16 about 2/3 down the page that does show that the shaft angle should move down and away from the strut, atleast in jounce. It may be an issue during rebound though. The more I read, the more I realize that the position and angle of my strut as well as the length and angle of the control arm is going to critical so that this arrangement doesn't bind or exceed the limits of the ball joint and upper strut bearing. I'll have to make sure this design works before I start cutting steel and fabricating.

Looking more closely at the the stock strut, it appears from the lower two mounting bolt holes are on an axis about 5 degrees off the strut body axis where as my QA1 struts have the holes on the same axis as the strut body. I may be able to incorporate this extra 5 degrees in my strut/ spindle adapter bracket as it helps move the bottom of the strut a little further away from the CV boot.





Edit: to add drawings

[This message has been edited by Yarmouth Fiero (edited 09-27-2014).]

You might look into a different style CV boot.

There are some where the largest part (OD) is where it clamps to the CV housing vs. it being 3/4" or larger than the clamp OD due to the V shaped accordion grooves. Past the CV housing, its just the axle shaft, so the boot can be much smaller, which will give you more clearance.

I compressed the spring in my drawing based on the calculation that my 12" long 325lb spring should compress approximately 2 1/2" which leaves me with a static length of 9 1/2" with 3 1/2" of compression travel remaining. I still have room on the threaded strut tube to fine tune my ride height when I am done.