Rear engine brace/bar, yes or no

[Ol'fogasaurus]

DSC04948.JPG

DSC04949.JPG

002.jpg

These are two of the pivot pix I have.

Lee

[Piledriver]

Welcome back!
This if for H20SB
I know this isnt a brake thread, but here are the brake pics I wanted so send to you in the PMs...

LS430 Sumitomo monoblocks on Mercedes E350 calipers, on an 86 vanagon, with the original (parted from hub) rotor in one pic for comparison.
The rotors were turned down 5mm and the whole shebang fits under 16" wheels, just like on the LS430.
(LS430 16" wheels are one of the most common upgrades on Vanagon. GoWesty still sells good quality knockoff LS430 wheels)
No pics of the rears, they are ~2013 Mustang GT on Jag X type (Ford Mondeo) front rotors.
Rotor adapters are welded steel.(edited)

compare-oldrotor-small.jpg

ls430-caliper-e350-rotor-small.jpg

[H2OSB]

I knew the moment I saw them those CB hubs would come in handy. If I hadn't run out of the gumption to experiment, I might have tried them on my 914/944 hybrid set up that was ultimately a failure due to interference betwixt the bottom of the 914 caliper and the 944 hub. I like how you think outside the box, Pile

H2OSB

[Piledriver]

The other thing---Those hugemungous calipers are aluminum, the big rotor/caliper combo doesn't weigh much more than the cut off rotor and original iron caliper. I later opened up the spacer ID for the dust cap.
Van has 944 forged Fuch 16" manhole covers for wheels, 6" up front and 7s or 8s out back. (have a pair of each)
(16" is still a good size for light truck tire choice, and they are likely among the strongest wheels ever made)
An LS430 is about the same weight as a tintop Vanagon with the 3.6L /6 lump in the van.

[oprn]

This is an older thread but brings up some good points.

I too am concerned about insufficient support on my glass Buggy's frame forks for the additional weight and torque of a type 4 engine. Part of that concern comes from notching the forks for an IRS conversion. I am presently running a solid rear mount and a stock rubber front mount so I realize that all the stress is on that solid mount.

I have been looking at building bars to go from the solid mount to the shock towers. As has been said that puts a side load on the shock towers that was not intended by the engineers but I see the advantage in my mind's eye of having a tie bar across the two shock towers. This will, as said triangulate the structure and make the side load shared between the shock towers.

And as already stated... we don't have any other real options.

H20SB what conclusions did you come to?

[Ol'fogasaurus]

It sounds like what you are talking about is something that I have been playing with also.

IMG_2790.JPG

IMG_2791.JPG

I can take other pix if you want.

It is more complicated than the commercial stuff but, when done properly (this is only the mockup stage) it should be stronger.

I am playing with a 6-rib bus trans that has a V-6 tied to it, e.g., more weight.

It also has tie rods to be built but there is a mockup up there too.

Lee

[Ol'fogasaurus]

IMG_2792.JPG

I edited it a bit.

Lee

Again, this is just a mockup to see if it could/would work for you but, who knows, it might give you something to think about.

Lee

[H2OSB]

This is an older thread but brings up some good points.

I too am concerned about insufficient support on my glass Buggy's frame forks for the additional weight and torque of a type 4 engine. Part of that concern comes from notching the forks for an IRS conversion. I am presently running a solid rear mount and a stock rubber front mount so I realize that all the stress is on that solid mount.

I have been looking at building bars to go from the solid mount to the shock towers. As has been said that puts a side load on the shock towers that was not intended by the engineers but I see the advantage in my mind's eye of having a tie bar across the two shock towers. This will, as said triangulate the structure and make the side load shared between the shock towers.

And as already stated... we don't have any other real options.

H20SB what conclusions did you come to?

Basically, I decided it's wise to listen to Bruce. I used SOME of the parts from the Mendeola set up (really just the clevis ends...same thread size and pitch) on a FastFab truss bar. I actually think the Mendeola bar adds lateral forces to the shock towers that wouldn't otherwise be there, and cannot be beneficial. The ONLY reason the shock towers are used is for convenience. The arms that go from crossbar to fork ends really just negate vertical movements of the forks. I'm sure the fact they're adjusted to be ridgid would also help resist lateral movement as well. With the Mendeola bar, we're you to elect to not use the additional two bars, the other two become useless due to the shock towers bracket design, which would rotate as a result of any vertical movement of the folks. Long story short, I absolutely do NOT recommend the Mendeola bar.

H2OSB

[oprn]

Ok, I was just going to fab up two bars from the rear engine mount to the upper shock bolts and a spreader bar between the two shock mounts. I think that is the most effective and all I should need for a highway cruiser.

[Ol'fogasaurus]

Ok, I was just going to fab up two bars from the rear engine mount to the upper shock bolts and a spreader bar between the two shock mounts. I think that is the most effective and all I should need for a highway cruiser.

That sounds like the commercial ones which are available, and they may be good for street only use. There are a couple of different styles, and some may be better than others.

If you are going to use them for other types of recreational use such is most types of even light racing or offroad use, then potential dam(n)age can happen to the shock towers especially when the shocks are bolder than stock. Remember, the bug was not designed for anything other than lighter weight work.

Lee

[Piledriver]

If entering the baja1000 in class11, it would be best to tie into the roll cage (assuming thats legal in class11)

If rolling on pavement with no offroading or 6 second quarter mile passes the shock bolts should be fine.

I drilled my setups out for 1/2" grade 10 SAE bolts as that fit the Bilsteins, and used 3 adjustable drawbars from tractor supply. As i can weld these days it would be far simpler, likely with a bent ~1/4 plate bit between the shock and mount, with the diagonals and crossbar welded to the plates.
A T3 has stamped steel torsion and shock mount area where the t1 end castings are cast steel... of course the t3 has rubber mounted suspensions front and rear, and 68+ models completely lack frame horns... and don't have wheel hop issues. Has a rear crossbar. thinking rear lower body on a t1 not sturdy enough to be reliable used that way without reinforcement

[oprn]

No off road, no racing, no abuse, no roll cage. I may scoot off the lights enthusiastically from time to time but that is about it. 1911 with a web cam and IDFs so no power monster but it is substantially healthier than the stock 1600DP was and the fiberglass tub body is not as ridged as the Beetle body was.

[Ol'fogasaurus]

Nice looking rig.

For what is sounds like you plan on doing with your buggy I would get the (probably the commercial) shock tower supports. I would not re-drill the shock tower eyes as they are engineered with the correct dia. for both the bolts and the loading. Even though you don't have the body for additional strength it is where the "shock eye" joins the ribbed tower where the problems usually arises, even on the street.

Without the body, especially the top of the body to strengthen any flex loading, the glass body does not do much work. A proper cage (not just a hoop) is going to be a safety item and should give the pan some support. On my buggies I have added body lifts, not for looks but to add strength to the pan.

The commercial body lifts I have seen look only for appearance not for strength. Your pan (and body) looks to be stock length pan and body which is OK for the street.

0010.JPG

There is one thing I did to my black buggy's pan that was wrong but in the size of stock I used. I should have used 1" X 2" instead of 1" X 1" to back up the 3 body lift.

This is just for info based on what I have seen over the years.

Lee

[Ol'fogasaurus]

When I first got into "bugs" back in the early 90's I did a lot of looking around and asking a lot of questions. I passed on a couple buggies and "rails" that were in good shape and some that were not in good shape, but I just wasn't always sure of what was there or wasn't there and did I want or need it.

One of the guys I did talk to about things was the owner of a VW scrap yard and one of the things he told me was that when a "buggy pan" came in, the tunnel between the shifter and the Nepoleon's hat quite often had bend in it.

If you look at the pan (the one I posted was the underside but you can see the taper where the doors are) that the tunnel where the "warp" in the tunnel started: at the front of the taper where the front of the doors where to the Napoleon's hat is and that was my reasoning for the stiffening of the pan sides as the body didn't do as much as I thought it should.

I almost Endō'd the blue buggy, it was the balancing on the front wheels (no front brakes) staring at the sand through the windshield and it wasn't moving. Another reason I made more changes with one of them moving back on something I had over-done. It sometimes is funny what drives changes but sometimes the "funny" isn't funny.

On my black buggy (posted the build here also) I did a lot of other things to add strength to the buggy but now I am getting very old and slowing down but I still do ride the dunes in the blue one and am still playing with building the black one.

From what I got from others who had street buggies a lot of similar things happened to them also so be prepared but enjoy your good-looking "toy" at the same time.

Lee