1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

[Stephen L.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Richard, you're doing a great job of documenting your progress. After looking at the recent photos of the frame, it appears you have some fairly severe corrosion around the rear areas. Have you "weighed" purchasing a new frame? What is the condition of the inside of the frame, corrosion etc.?

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Richard, you're doing a great job of documenting your progress. After looking at the recent photos of the frame, it appears you have some fairly severe corrosion around the rear areas. Have you "weighed" purchasing a new frame? What is the condition of the inside of the frame, corrosion etc.?

Stephen, Yes there are some areas of concern. We're going to keep this frame as it's the original frame with Vin # intact, and because it's a special model with special equipment and paint, we maintain the utmost importance to not replace it.

Safety is the main reason that Robert decided to do this, and we've uncovered many age related defects and marginal prior repairs and "procedures" already. I've inspected all areas and feel with the right repairs and additional work being done, this will result in a much better skeleton than when it arrived.

I feel restoration is THE thing to do in this case.

Rich

[Leif A.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

47 years of exposure to northern climates have reared their ugly head. I agree with your assessment, Richard, that restoration is the way to go. With your skill set and attention to detail, this frame will be far better than new when you're finished with it and it will retain it's rightful place with the original body and drive train.

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

I was hoping to have all of the replacement frame parts here(rear gussets, #4 body brackets, etc)but some are now back-ordered, hopefully due in this week.

I have the trailing arms aside and ready to go, and shipping boxes due today from my vendor for rebuild. I measured the existing rotors on both arms. They were replaced before, and turned. But on disassembly I was surprised that the inspection holes for the park brakes did not line up. They were not riveted or marked for orientation. I did not check runout as they were getting done over anyway, maybe these did not meet spec. Because they were not riveted, and because there were no identifying peen marks to match the rotors to the hub, I feel that this rear brake system was not properly thought out. For those that may be a bit confused about what I'm trying to explain.......

I don't know the precise order when these were built, but........when trailing arms were originally assembled, the park brake system was installed. The rotor and hub assembly was riveted together and the rotor was machined when attached to the hub to provide minimum runout. The hub and rotor are now aligned and straight. This is the "wobble" of the rotor with respect to the caliper. Too much wobble and the caliper pistons will oscillate and eventually draw air and soften your brake pedal when you need it most.

The only way to check runout on a assembled system, is to remove the half shafts from the rear hub, reverse lug nut(all 5) the rotor to the hub and tighten securely, then attach a dial caliper base and set the tip on the outer machined surface of the rotor. Rotate the assembly 360* and note the variation in readings. I don't recall the max spec, but the idea is to reduce runout to a minimum.

It's important to note orientation of the rotor is set after checking runout. You have 5 possible locate points. I rotate the rotor around each and check runout each time. When the lowest, within spec is found, I then use a metal stamp letter kit and a pointed drift to mark the rotor and the hub. This will be a telltale for any future work on the brake system, by me or anyone.

Now if your runout exceeds spec on any of the 5 orientations, you can shim the rotor to the hub. Thin Aluminum sheets can be used and held on over the stud with a hole in the shim. I've heard a few folks tell me Bud Light cans work the best.

However, I have not had to do this shimming in my experiences but it is an alternative.

I found some pics of another car I did. These were new rotors. Here you can see after my runout checks, I mark the rotor's location, and where I got the lowest runout.....within spec, I peened the rotor and the hub to match for future reference.

PC170026.jpgpc170027.jpg

Note the 2 dimples on the side of the hub to mate with the rotor above.
PC170012.jpg


I do the same checks and marking procedures for the fronts, but there's an advantage. You can bring the rotor to be machined to spec. This on a brand NEW rotor. Seems odd, but it must be done, even on new rotors. I mount the hub to the spindle with my new bearings etc. I mount the rotor and check runout and do the same orientation procedure to get the lowest spec. Usually can't meet spec on new rotors. I then mark/peen the hub & rotor. Now I take it to my local machine shop to turn the rotor(brand new) as an assembly with the hub.

Now when the assembly goes back I check runout again.....Perfect!....
PC120001.jpg

PC170011.jpg

PC170009.jpg


More to come when frame parts arrive.....

Rich

[Gene M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Richard,
Seeing a bunch of broken welds and cracked sheet metal makes me think this car saw some heavy track time. Most being in the hind end. See some brazing work done. Those pitted areas with deep rust will show up later if not removed. I think acid will be necessary since grinding will loose more metal. How do you plan to smooth out the steel? Sanding, grinder, filler, paint? Sounds like you are replacing the gussets and smaller welded on pieces.

Again thank you for sharing your project.

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Could have been track time, or some fun street time in it's day. But those rear gussets allegedly were marginal in the BB cars anyways. I can see why when I look at the welds of the Pass side. Not really a ideal method to hold that differential crossmember. Stronger bracketry may have been a better solution there.

At Sebring one year while walking the paddock area, I saw a C3 race car being worked on. Both front wheels and control arms removed. The front suspension had several broken welds on the spring towers both sides. They were welding extra steel and bracing on both sides. He said it was a common fault with these frames. Maybe they similar issues out back like on this car but I didn't ask. I bet those gussets had extra bracing though.

IIRC, this was the car they repaired.....

As far as the pitting in the frame, most came off from media blasting but a few hidden areas need some more attention to get to clean metal. I have a new product I'm going to try to level the craters. It's a filler with a metal particle base. It'll go on like a body filler but with better adhesion according to those I've talked to. I'll post some photos of the product when I get back out in the shop in the morning.

Rich

[Gene M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Rich,
There is a tested product called Devcon that is metal mixed in filler that tool rooms and tool and dye shops use to cover up bo- bo's. It is strong enough to be machined but not structural. But it is much more durable than any fillers and dries very hard. Metal choices are aluminum, stainless and I think they had a plain steel too. My experience I used the stainless.

[Patrick H.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Rich,
There is a tested product called Devcon that is metal mixed in filler that tool rooms and tool and dye shops use to cover up bo- bo's. It is strong enough to be machined but not structural. But it is much more durable than any fillers and dries very hard. Metal choices are aluminum, stainless and I think they had a plain steel too. My experience I used the stainless.

I use 10110 Devcon Steel for bedding rifles and am quite familiar with it. They also make aluminum, bronze, stainless steel and titanium, but steel is by far the most popular. I'll be using it soon on another project, perhaps in the next few days.

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

This is the product from USC I'm using for frame pit filling and leveling. I haven't used it before so I'll experiment and report back.

body_filler_all_metal_large.jpg

http://www.uschem.com/index.cfm?page=productDetail&id=54

The Tech Sheet is here....

http://www.uschem.com/products/docs/TDS_ALL_METAL_Sep2012.pdf

Rich

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

I have the trailing arms ready for rebuilding. I have some concerns about the arms themselves as when looking more closely I see some marginal rusted areas where the channel halves join. Also the bushing end on one seems thin.


P2110001.jpgP2110002.jpgP2110003.jpgP2110004.jpg


P2110005.jpgP2110006.jpgP2110007.jpgP2110008.jpg

The arm bushing end on one also has a bend in the flange and may be a problem.
P2110009.jpgP2110010.jpgP2110011.jpgP2110012.jpgP2110013.jpg


P2110014.jpgP2110015.jpgP2110016.jpgP2110017.jpg

These are the areas of concern at the welds.
p2110026.jpgP2110027.jpgP2110028.jpgP2110029.jpg

P2110030.jpgP2110031.jpgP2110032.jpgP2110033.jpg

When my rebuilder gets them I'll get the report. They are going out today.

Rich

[Gene M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Rich,
The info from the ALL METAL web site says: SUBSTRATE: Steel. Aluminum. Fiberglass. Body filler. Wood. 2K Primers. OEM topcoats. Galvanized and zinc-coated steel. SMC (cosmetic repairs only).

I do not know how they get the aluminum and steel to get along. As a general rule the corrosion between the two different metals is problematic. It must be mostly rosin.

I agree the sheet metal trail arm look bad. After blasting the amount left will be less than you want to see. I've repaired some looking as your do. They had more new metal and ended up completely seam welded. Not good for NCRS but they were strong....!

Today's market has complete new sheet metal arms w/bushings available. Dollars and work involved makes more logical choice.

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Rich,
The info from the ALL METAL web site says: SUBSTRATE: Steel. Aluminum. Fiberglass. Body filler. Wood. 2K Primers. OEM topcoats. Galvanized and zinc-coated steel. SMC (cosmetic repairs only).

I do not know how they get the aluminum and steel to get along. As a general rule the corrosion between the two different metals is problematic. It must be mostly rosin.

I agree the sheet metal trail arm look bad. After blasting the amount left will be less than you want to see. I've repaired some looking as your do. They had more new metal and ended up completely seam welded. Not good for NCRS but they were strong....!

Today's market has complete new sheet metal arms w/bushings available. Dollars and work involved makes more logical choice.

Gene, I too was confused when I read that on the USC site. I think it's a typo, as the information states it's aluminum fibers in the product. I think that list is what it could be applied to.

Yes, I think these arms are going to be a problem and we may opt for new. I just keep feeling better that we're doing this work now. Gosh forbid that this powerful automobile gets "tested" some day and a rusted out trailing arm gets wrapped around and inside a wheel well!

Rich

[David K.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Rich, finally successful in logging in and really enjoyed the thread watching "Midnite" dismantled...sure hope u remember how to put her back together, just kidding! The pictures substantiate the endeavor to bring her back to a SAFE ride, as we need to keep this big block around for a while... Great Job, Rbert

Robert, welcome to NCRS and the TDB. Nice car you have there and you got the right guy working on it. I'm kinda partial to 67's myself so I will be following this thread with great interest. Rich is a real asset to this board.

Dave

[Robert B.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Thx Dave appreciate the kind words. My wife and I enjoy driving these Oldies over the NH back roads, that I drove a brand new small block over back in the day. Truly believe Rich is the right guy to bring her back to where Detroit (St Louis) left off. Rbrt

[Richard M.]

Re: 1967 Body Lift for Chassis & Frame Restoration

Trailing Arm Update

My rebuilder got them yesterday. He called me to discuss.

Problems.... As suspected, both arms are badly rusted and compromised. Will not be re-used. One axle spindle/hub has damaged threads from prior repairs and must be replaced. I requested the defective one to be returned to me, as it's the "dimpled" type.

Both will be rebuilt using new USA made parts to get them corrected and safe again. New USA spindle, 2 new USA arms, also 2 new USA made rotors and 2 USA made backing plates. Both rear rotors on the car were at 1.220" width. Min spec is 1.215" so no use trying to save them I kept them here for the metal pile.

Rich