My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Here's the place to start. Introduce yourself and your ride.
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My New 1962 Bug

Post by david58 »

This is a short video of drilling the dimples in the front torsion springs. We are in the middle of narrowing the beam. And that is why we need to drill the dimples in the torsion springs. I called my machinist buddy down the street to see what kind of a bit he suggested. To my surprise he recommended a concrete bit, he said you may have to put a knife edge on it to get it to cut that spring steel. We used a 7/8 bit that I had in my tool box that was brand new, and it cut slow without putting the knife edge on it. 3/8 or 7/16 would be a better size to use if you are doing this, and buying a bit. We will have to grind the tip off the grub screws to make them fit properly. Also drill as slow as you can and lube the bit or you will just burn up the bit.



I went to Lowe's Sunday morning and found some paint made by Krylon that is a Dual paint and primer. I have to say that this paint is awesome, and hard to make it run. It was less than 5 bucks a can and I bought 2 cans. The paint is drying on the beam and looks great. I decided to make the beam adjustable both ways UP and DOWN in order to do this the center grub screw will not have a dimple in it. Because it will be on the single torsion spring plate.

Image
Image

Image
Image
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by david58 »

Image
Beam is now narrowed, and adjustable, with drop spindles, gear box, tie rods, and steering stabilizer, and shocks are all on. About ready to put on the pan.
Image
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
Lew
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:42 am

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by Lew »

How low can you go :?:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 22520
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by Piledriver »

David, make sure to seriously brace/weld up those rear TA shock mounts, they were never intended to fully suspend a car.
You can get away with it on a light buggy, usually, but on a full bodied car, it's Bad Things Waiting To Happen.

They CAN be made to work well with some help tho, the material is heavy enough, it's just not attached to the arm with coil overs in mind.

If you are dropping the car, you may need to flip the arms L<>R and reweld the mounts anyway to get the big meats to sit flat.
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by david58 »

Thanks Piledriver the car was already put together at the right ride height for the 20's that came with it. So it should be OK. I hadn't really given the TA brackets much thought so it looks like I need to pull them back off and weld some gussets to beef them up. Another thing I saw that I don't like is that the Torsion bar eliminator kit is the cheap flat one. So I need to make spacers out of some steel the right thickness to eliminate the stress that is purely visable once it is bolted up on the car.
Image
On stock torsion housings, it is necessary for the plate that replaces the spring blade to have an "offset" in order to line up properly with the trailing arm. Without it, the plates are mis-alingned adding UNDUE STRESS on all the welds on the trailing arm mounting plate, causing premature cracking of the trailing arms at these welds.

"BEWARE OF CHEAP IMITATIONS THAT DO NOT HAVE THIS FEATURE!

http://www.eagleperformance.com/CoilOverKits.html

Image
Image





Click here for a BugPack Catalog...................... http://www.kartek.com/Media/Catalogs/2011/BugPack.pdf lots of good info.
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by david58 »

All in a days work.................. with some well appreciated help from my nephew and 2 neighbors. We started by installing the front beam. Then we cleaned the pan to get the dust off, along with the dirt dobber nest that had accumulated. next we install the master cylinder, then the pedal assembly, and ran most of the brake lines and hoses. Then we installed the rotors and the calipers and finished installing the rest of the lines and hoses so the brake system is closed up. Then we put the wheel adapters on, then the 20's. Then we finished installing the rear coil overs, so we could roll it out and put the body on and take some pics.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Image

Piledriver it looks like I do need to flip the rear arms, about how much camber change should I respect to get?
Image


Image

Image
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 22520
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by Piledriver »

camber change ...varies as you don't know where the arms been... :lol:

You can easily just swap them and see before cutting (particularly easy w/coil overs).
...no bars/springs, you just need to check it/hold up the pan/car at ~the final ride height, assuming you know it.
Swap EVERYTHING ... brakes and all, just to test if you like.

It should be close... A LITTLE -camber is not a killer, but with those tires, much less could save $$$ quickly.

I'd be SO tempted to fab an Ariel Atom-ish swoopy tube frame to stick on that clean pan. :twisted:

I'm delighted to see you are keeping the safe late seat hold down setup.

Any Mk1-3 (and maybe Mk4=?) VAG 2 door seat will work with minor rear support leg adjustment. (few whacks with a rubber mallet and some tweaks with a prypar to square up the sliders)... That means leather.. HEAT... etc are options.

Decent factory adjustable seats make for an incredible upgrade to a ACVW, at least from a drivers ass standpoint.

I'm running Corrado front sport seats in my square, the std Golf ones are a couple inches higher and may work better in a Bug.
You'd be surprised at the dimensions that cross over between the models...
the matching rear seat/arms/ side upholstery can be made to fit in a T3 (and IIRC a Ghia) remarkably well, might work on a Bug?
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by david58 »

Thanks for the info Piledriver as far as seats I have 74 high back seats, and also have the covers in white that are brand new. I also have new carpet to fit the 74 pan. I can get a white perpetrated headliner for 50 bucks, so I only need the door panels and the rear 1/4 panels, and the rag kit. I am wondering if the 74 back seat is doable in the 62, as it is already covered in the white covers that match the front seats. I still need to find a 1/4 widow for the right side. It is a hell of a lot easier to build a street car than it is to build a Off Road car, especially when you have a bunch of new parts already. Now I need to drive the 58 rail to the shop and put the body back on it to make room for the 62 here at the shop, that way I can begin prepping the 62's body for some paint.
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by david58 »

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by david58 »

Wheel choices 15's or 20's.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
Lew
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:42 am

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by Lew »

I like the 15" wheels pictured much better. The 20" Wheels just don't look that good on the little one, sorry!...Pimp sytle 20+ wheels on SUV's even look rediculous to me. :roll: ......However I do like a little wider treads. When I look at these big Suv's around town, I think they are saying look at my wheels..........Wheels have their place......your car should be the Jewel.... :)
Last edited by Lew on Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 22520
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by Piledriver »

I similarly usually hate on 20s, but OTOH on THAT car, they work IMHO.
The ideal setup would be if you could find the same wheel in a 17 for the front, maybe 7", so it's practical (AKA fits under a fender)

Are those the +3" glass fenders?
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
Ol'fogasaurus
Posts: 17760
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:17 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by Ol'fogasaurus »

Your doing a great job David. Is there going to be enough travel between the wheels and the fenders so that going down the street you don't wake the dead (been there done that in the very late 50's or very early 60's) with the tirres rubbing the fenders when you turn?

Lee
User avatar
david58
Moderator
Posts: 14096
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:14 pm

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by david58 »

Lew wrote:I like the 15" wheels pictured much better. The 20" Wheels just don't look that good on the little one, sorry!...Pimp sytle 20+ wheels on SUV's even look rediculous to me. :roll: ......However I do like a little wider treads. When I look at these big Suv's around town, I think they are saying look at my wheels..........Wheels have their place......your car should be the Jewel.... :)
Lew the 15" wheels stick out past the lip on the fender, the 20's are just inside the lip.
The 20's fit better with the spacers that came with the car better than the 15's.


Piledriver wrote:I similarly usually hate on 20s, but OTOH on THAT car, they work IMHO.
The ideal setup would be if you could find the same wheel in a 17 for the front, maybe 7", so it's practical (AKA fits under a fender)

Are those the +3" glass fenders?
I really don't like 20's and low profile tires either Pile, but like you I also think they kinda go with the car. I think the rear fenders are 4 inches wider and the front are three inches wider.
Ol'fogasaurus wrote:Your doing a great job David. Is there going to be enough travel between the wheels and the fenders so that going down the street you don't wake the dead (been there done that in the very late 50's or very early 60's) with the tirres rubbing the fenders when you turn?

Lee
Lee I have the adjusters in the front as low as I feel anywhere near comfortable with tire clearance, and I will probably have to raise it up some more in the front. Or limit the turning radius more because the tires are fouling on the headlight buckets. As far as the rear goes it has coil overs and is as high as it will go right now, and can be lowered a bunch. I need to have a spacer made to fit around the shock body so it will be able to go up or down from where it is now.


I have about a degree and a half of negative camber on the right rear, the left rear is dead on 0 degrees, so flipping the arms isn't going to fix that. The arms look great and the bushings are new. I am wondering if the difference could be in the coil over elimination kit. I will switch sides with them and then recheck the camber.
Hot, humid air is less dense than cooler, drier air. This can allow a golf ball to fly through the air with greater ease, as there won't be as much resistance on the ball.
User avatar
Piledriver
Moderator
Posts: 22520
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 12:01 am

Re: My 1962 Bug RAT STEW

Post by Piledriver »

924/944 Porsches (early) have the same TAs but have some adjustable bits to allow tweaking the camber and toe...
You need to run the 924/44 spring plates to use it IIRC.
(whole setup drops into a bug, using the T1 bushings and cover)

Getting 1.5 degrees might involve heat and a big prybar tho.
Addendum to Newtons first law:
zero vehicles on jackstands, square gets a fresh 090 and 1911, cabby gets a blower.
EZ3.6 Vanagon after that.(mounted, needs everything finished) then Creamsicle.
Post Reply