Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Grady <jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 3, 2022 at 10:32:53 AM EDT
To: Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx>
Cc: 'Bob Meritt <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jamie Hyde <jamie.hyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, john begian <r2gthawk@xxxxxxxxx>, Marshall Goodknight <mgoodknight@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: {Chrysler 300} FW: Chrysler 300 1964
I will take a picture of it , —remember 60-61 booster is over master and generally high enough to not be the problem ? So manual or power , the master is in the same place ? Other than vertical height of it( see later on) . Stop light switch May have to go ? That buys an inch . I use V3 micro under dash as silicone fluid destroys stock switch contacts in fluid anyway .
On another F , my ME friend , I actually moved the whole master and pedal box to left of column , preparing for hemi in F ( they did similar in ?66-67 hemi cuda ? ) thinking was use wide offset pedal , put it on 180 worked out fine , but car has 4 discs . Before I knew disc Cc problem … pedal Ratio issue critical , from memory almost 6:1 manual , vs ? 3.5 power — the pivots move in the box . But pedal travel per cc almost twice as much on manual . = disc problem . master cylinder mount height on firewall also moves with ratio / pivot changes. . They may not have had manual option in63-64, if they did I wonder what ratio pedal is on the hydro vac setup ? Firewall between the two brake options is different in 60-61 body ( unbelievably bad production engineering ) made the manual body different than power body right from the get go .Same with AC cutouts. Crazy
Why moving it as I did is about the same work almost as correctly done changeover to manual . May have to do corvette thing , car is not finished . I start too many things . (I like F —and a real 300 has a hemi) .
I am not sure where they shortened it , 62, as the space from radiator face to firewall bell “dent in “ HAS to be the same , and if 60 is longer somehow in other places that should only help . Hazarding a guess , TTI knew it was “ different “ and no one gave them a 60 to try ( unlike 62 up ) so they don’t know and say no ? I bet most of reduction if there is in frame mounts of suspension to rail ( if folklore is true) and shortening front overhang in front of radiator ? But I don’t know . And maybe this folklore about shortening is in nose is all bs . Not how you or I would do it . I would keep subframe hard points the same , shorten sheetmetal if possible ; frame Involves torsion bars etc . That story may be part fiction .
I am going to buy the 62 heavy wall headers and see myself , I hate that log manifold . I know headers have issues too ( been there ) But log is bad , ram log expensive now , if you can even find it , and JK are supposedly 100 lb each .
Take away —after all these years, on modified car , keep 12 “ drums ( they did ok in nascar 55-56!) learn how to set up right ( that knowledge is almost non existent) ) if you want more , put on Buick 12x3 aluminum finned fronts( like that road race B ) all with manual brakes . Or keep stock , just can’t do 3 100 mph stops in a row ! Just like Big Red. Or nascar B Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2022, at 2:36 PM, Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi, my EE friend: So, Your saying you have a 1962 300 Gussied up with a set of short rams and a firewall-mounted boosted MC. You ask the question on engine bays. The ’62-’64 bays are decidedly shorter than the ‘’60-‘61’s due to the shorter wheelbase. That’s the question before the house. Pretty sure the ’63-’64 ram cars had the master-slave setup with a manual brake MC on the firewall and a remote boosted slave cylinder in the front fender well—under the battery area. Apparently due to the ram system being too close to the standard boosted MC, The question(s) is/are 1. Is there evidence of any ram-engined ‘62’s floating around? I understand the ram installation was a dealer-installed option so, no factory ram cars. 2. What kind of brake system was on the ram-engined ‘62’s after the dealer install? All Manual brakes? The standard firewall mounted boosted MC? A remote slave cylinder as on the J’s & K’s? Not doubting your description of your ram-engined ’62 with a boosted MC on the firewall—but a picture showing the proximity of the MC to the LH ram system would be educational—and, perhaps, lead to more ram-engined ‘62’s, Thanks for your review of boosted vs. manual brakes-with and without disc conversion and split MC vs single tube, Those of us in our ram-engined J’s & K’s and forced to live on the single tubes running from master to slave and slave to the four wheels might welcome a boosted and firewall-mounted split-system MC. Even if it came from a Corvette or a Jaguar. Your ME friend, Rich Barber Brentwood CA From: John Grady <jkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 4:57 AM
To: Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx>; chrysler 300 club <chrysler-300-club-international@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: {Chrysler 300} FW: Chrysler 300 1964 Hi Rich . I have a 62 with 405 clone , the mc is the same setup as an F . It also has air , guy before me was ambitious .He did a better job than factory . I also looked carefully at “ Big Red” at the Pa meet ; 62 405 with manual brakes and also water heated carbs . More of a race car setup but I liked it . Frees up exhaust options and no struggles with exhaust heat problems . FYI manual brakes with correct manual pedal ratio setup from a dodge ( fits) and stock 12 “ drums is not too bad . Good even . However even correctly done manual brakes and any disc conversion are a horror show imho . Very hard pedal , and it travels a few inches first due to very high brake fluid requirement ( cc) of the large disc puck cylinders compared to drum cylinder piston surface area . No amount of bleeding etc fixes that . Been there . Lesson learned . That car ended up with larger bore corvette master ( big but fits with redrilling , with no boost , non ram ) to reduce travel , but that makes pedal even harder . Back to first question , I think 60-62 exactly the same engine bay ? Right ? I ask , as often headers ( like TTI ) are listed 62 up , why not 60 ? Something else hits? What was on 400 hp F for carb heat and brake mc ?
On Aug 2, 2022, at 1:35 AM, Rich Barber <c300@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--
For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylang
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chrysler 300 Club International" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chrysler-300-club-international+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/chrysler-300-club-international/BD716019-DA73-490B-96FB-FC00FFA6F9B7%40gradyresearch.com.
|
