would you need to change or modify anything to install these bad boys on a '65 or do they just bolt right up?
i just noticed today while flipping through the M&F magazine.. apparently Ron Morris has a coil over kit that can be used with the stock style arms. Might compliment that CPP front end nicely... or open tracker's stuf. i think it comes with the two coil overs and it replaces the spring perch.
http://www.ronmorrisperformance.com...mp&Product_Code=5160&Category_Code=Susp_Parts
would you need to change or modify anything to install these bad boys on a '65 or do they just bolt right up?
it should bolt right up, it replaces the spring perches and comes with a new upper mount which will bolt to the top of your shock tower.
Yes I did. Will this bolt right up to my stock parts?
Ed Cole was the chief design engineer on the 265 SBC. He worked for Chevrolet. Not some independant firm. He later became president of GM He died in a plane crash in May, 1977.
In 1952 his engineering team was given the task of building a v-8 engine for Chevy. The rest is history. That you apparently don't know much about.
Pardon me for interrupting, but if the RM and CPA 'coilovers' (shock kits) listed here bolt up to the stock locations... there is no geometry or motion ratio gain, right? So the only gain by these systems is the adjustable shocks and ride height? Oh, and the benefits of roller...
Is it me or does >=$800 sound a bit steep for these abilities?
RM sells their full on coilover for $2250...with geometry,motion ratio, roller, and non binding strut rod benefits included. It might be only my opinion, but it seems that the $800 would be better spent towards more beneficial products (AJE or otherwise).
$2250-800 = $1450 left to improve your front end.
$1450 > $800 (CPP extreme kit) = $650 savings.
The RM and CPA kits aren't complete packages on their own, but allow you to add the benefits of a coil over shock to a setup which would otherwise be using stock style springs.
Too much Wikipedia....
I read it somewhere, it has to be true......
No, just growing-up in the 50's and 60's as a car nut. Something you young boys can only read about in history books I read about as it happened. So it's a part of my life where as it's NOT a part of yours.
$2250-800 = $1450 left to improve your front end.
$1450 > $800 (CPP extreme kit) = $650 savings.
The RM and CPA kits aren't complete packages on their own, but allow you to add the benefits of a coil over shock to a setup which would otherwise be using stock style springs.
exactly. the big benefit of the TCP, RM, and GW, full coilover kits is that they move the spring/shock combo to the lower control arm thereby reducing wheel rate, the CPA and RM coilover kits for the stock arms will get no reduction in wheel rate but it does free up the some of the binding in the front end and allows you to adjust ride height, and probably corner weight as well, using a stock style suspension. combine these with the CPP mini subframe kit, the regular GW Negative Wedge upper control arms, and of Opentrackers roller arms, etc. etc. and you get a better stock style system i'd imagine since the CPA and RM coilover kits are so similar (fundamentally) to the stock setup that they'd probably be legal in a bunch of different racing classes as well, that's just a guess though.
what freaking difference does it make when you read it? i've been reading hot rod, car craft and PHR since i was like 5 or 6 years old, i got my first Hot Rod susbscription when i was like 7 and it was addressed to me. so what?
Well..let me see...someone said the SBC was offered to Ford 1st when it was a totally in house project and they then attributed that information to a Mr. Smokey Yunick. Now I don't believe Smokey ever said that unless he was testing some reporter to see if the guy knew anything. Which he would do from time to time. And if the person who posted that on this forum knew anything at all about the SBC he would have know that Ed Cole was THE man on the project and was never employed as an engineer anywhere but GM. Around 45 years worth.
And the 302 Z/28 engine was the best small block carburated engine of the 1960's.
Well..let me see...someone said the SBC was offered to Ford 1st when it was a totally in house project and they then attributed that information to a Mr. Smokey Yunick. Now I don't believe Smokey ever said that unless he was testing some reporter to see if the guy knew anything. Which he would do from time to time. And if the person who posted that on this forum knew anything at all about the SBC he would have know that Ed Cole was THE man on the project and was never employed as an engineer anywhere but GM. Around 45 years worth.
So it does matter WHERE you read it. It also matters that what is going on during your sife in a given subject is probably more interesting to you than what happened before your time. Kind of like Auburn Speedsters....before my time...cool cars...but I don't care much about the details of who enginneered and built them. Whereas I grew-up in the 50's/60's and THE performance car on the street during that time was the SBC. That is a fact you cannot deny. You can ignore it, but it is still THE street performance king since its introduction in 1955 until the last year of production in 1997.
Facts are facts...nothing could beat the 426 HEMI at 10 lbs per cube so NHRA gave everyone else a weight break and then piled on another 100 lbs every time a Hemi won an event until it could no longer keep-up. And the 302 Z/28 engine was the best small block carburated engine of the 1960's.
Did Ford build good engines? Sure, but you couldn't get parts for them unless you were on the factory good-ole-boy list. So what good were they? They were good for those of us who had Chevy's to take their money on Saturday night. I only know of one person (BIll Newton in Charleston, SC) who ever consistently won on the street with a Ford.
That's just the facts of street racing back then. You may not want to believe it. Doesn't change it.
That was an unfortunate post; there was no "small block" formula that anyone owned and that he could shop it around from one manufacturer to another.
Anyway, as far as the primacy of the SBC, my understanding of the hot rod family tree is to begin with the '32 Ford V8 flattie. For nearly 20 years there was no other hot rod engine -- unless it was a Ford Model A four.
Next in the timeline I would put the Ardun heads for the flattie. Zora Arkus-Duntov did not invent overhead valves or hemi heads, but this product made them available (more or less) to the masses.
Next is the '49 ohv Cadillac and Oldsmobile (aka Rocket 88) ohv V8's. These were the first regular production ohv V8's. They provided the template for all the pushrod ohv V8's which followed.
Next is the '51 Chrysler hemi, which became the first mass-produced hi-po V8.
Next is the '55 small block Chevy, the first thin wall V8.
There should be another landmark for the big block V8. I would count the 1958 intro of the Ford FE as the first, although the big cube concept did not really kick in until the subsequent release of the 390's, 406's and 427's. There was also the Chrysler wedge-head "B" engine family, which replaced the hemi in '59, and which remained in production more than 20 years.
It took Chevy until '65 to catch up, with the 396 (although I believe there was also a very tiny run of '64 396 ci Malibus.) (I am counting only landmarks, and the Chevy 348/409 did not have the staying power to qualify as a landmark.)
And then there is the '65-'71 426 street hemi.
In other words, in the grand scheme of things the SBC is a landmark, but it is a crowded field. (I have left out many others.)
If the 302 was good, why wasn't the 365 hp 327 SBC better? It's the exact same recipe with 25 more cubes. And I don't believe anyone could argue the splayed valve heads on the Boss 302 didn't have more potential than the SBC's wedge head. In the '69 Trans Am the Boss 302 consistently enjoyed a 25-50 hp advantage over the SBC. In what sense was the Z/28 302 "better" than the 327/365 SBC or the Boss 302?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?