Torqueline

Well, I said I would never do another full restore after my '37 Dodge Brother's D5 Biz Coupe soured me.. But here I am again, only about 1.5 years later doing another one

I have had my 62 F-85 Convertible for a while and love driving the car, but the stock (power robbing) auto tranny takes a little fun out of it.. So I had a TH-350 built to put in its place.. In the mean-time I located an 1988 Rover 215 complete engine.. So, knowing that the aluminum is better in the ROVER BLOCK I decided to build it with some higher compression pistons and all the trimmings. I planned on mating that with the TH-350 and stuffing it into my convertible. Having a 250HP 62 F-85 Convertible sounded pretty good.

THEN... I saw a factory 4-speed Cutlass HT about 1.5 hours from me for sale. Loved the car, was going to pick it up and the owner sold it to another person out from under me.

This got me thinking that a convertible is not ideal for a daily driver in my area (4 seasons).. So, I was on a quest for a factory 4 speed HT.. Found one 3 weeks later and bought it. Got it here and the car had been sitting outside for 5 years or better and had not ran for over 2 years. Car smelled horrible mice had been it etc. etc. Decided to restore it with the Rover engine , add A/C and make it my daily driver vs the convertible.

Spent the day getting the engine fired up (many issues there) anyway after getting it fired up, it was making noise(s) that I could not pin point. Both engine mount were almost sheared and it was dancing around in there like it was at a disco... So, needles to say, I did not drive the car.
Now, I decided to completely strip the car.. So, I (and my son)began that process.

After removing the interior found the driver's side floor rusted thru in a few areas (bought it as a rust free car).. found a mice nest UNDER the headliner and a few remnants (not survivors)

Anyway, long story short.. surprise after surprise.. I guess that is to be expected..

Oh ya, ended up picking up a running parts car in the process.. Power window option car... Anybody wanna trade for manual window set up! This hobby is expensive!!

I'll stop here in this post and post up a few pics of the car (1 of my convertible as well)

jensenracing77

Sounds great. I will be following along with this build. My Wife and I love the 62 Cutlass and Jetfire's.

oldcutlass

Looks like a pretty solid car outside of the problem areas described above.

Torqueline

Car is pretty solid.. My son does paint and body, so I am in good hands there.

Just got it back from full sandblasting yesterday afternoon.. Found some bondo areas (now gone) but overall pretty solid body for 53 years old..

My son laid down some heavy epoxy primer last night, so the car is protected.. I have a few hurdles to conquer with the Rover block vs the Olds. So, I will be working that and getting the front end off for rebuild.. I am going to get taller coil springs to get it up in the air a bit and use the OLD AIR A/C system..

Pretty cool after we sandblasted the firewall to see the writing from the assembly line that marked it as a 4 speed car.. They only made 1032 factory 4 speed cutlass HT's (4%) so the car is an original 4 speed car and pretty rare.. So happy about that..

young olds

ill be watching as well

Torqueline

I foresee myself needing some help and advice with this project.. I am glad this forum is here...

Torqueline

I guess I should ask 1 question right off the bat..

How big of radiator can I install?? I am going alternator with electric fan A/C as well.. I would like to get a 3 row if possible??

If it is possible.. where do I find one??

Thx

joe_padavano

Don't bother with a Rover 215, get a Rover 4.6. More displacement, cross-bolted mains.

jensenracing77

The jetfire had a 4 core cross flow radiator so you should have room to add a much better radiator than the original in your car.

Torqueline

I have already built the 215 Rover engine...

But you have peaked my interest.. Will the 4.6 bolt right in the car? Any"alterations" required for the 4.6?

How much added power would be had.. Rover's are very popular around here so I can find engines (parted out Rovers) easily..

So, I am asking .. is it worth it to go to the 4.6 for reasons other than the stronger crank train?


How about the 4.0 engine.. Is that better as well?

Thx

young olds

the only reason to really use a 4.6 is horsepower, and i think the majority of people with 215 cars will never have enough hp to hurt an olds 215. i think your fine with the engine you already built but if you want more than absolutely get a 4.6

joe_padavano

The Rover motors are externally identical to the GM motors, so yes they bolt in. The main differences (aside from bore and stroke) are the distributorless ignition and the crank-driven oil pump. You can swap the 215 front cover onto a later Rover motor to get a conventional pump and distributor if you want. All intakes and exhaust manifolds interchange. The important differences are displacement. Who doesn't want an extra liter of displacement? I've got a 4.6 short block for my 62. The other nice thing about the later Rover blocks is that they have larger main bearings, so the Buick 300 crank drops in. All of a sudden, a 5.0 liter engine is really easy to build, and it still weighs only about 320 lbs.

Torqueline

I would have loved to have had the extra CC's.. I consulted D&D before looking for an engine and they informed me that the 3.5L was the best option.. Live and learn, I guess..

I have a few hurdles to overcome with this engine.. I have to switch to a hydraulic clutch set up (and hopefully bearing as well) due to the lack of ball stud mounting on teh Rover block (I was going to fab up a piece to have it mounted on the block but the hyd set up seems more practical.

Then I have the pilot bushing issue.. have to custom make that as well..

I took my tranny apart today.. all looks very good..

So, I am going to replace the seals and run it..

I found out that it takes a lot of time to install the reverse detent Man, that think kicked my butt for a long time.. Finally managed to get it in,, Hopefully it stays in this time when I change the output shaft seal (awaiting parts)

I also found out that the input shaft cover has no seal

So does anybody know if you can install the Super T-10 cover on the T-10? If so, I would think having a seal would be better....

Let me know if you have any experience with that please.

64Rocket

Joe P. does the Olds heads fit on the Rover block. Or do you have to drill the block?

Gene

Torqueline

OK.. So I want to get this car off the ground more and improve a handling (body roll etc)
I spoke with Coil Spring Specialties (very helpful people) and now I guess I need to get the car on the wheels and tires I want before I can really determine what coil spring adjustments I need to make.

So, I have a few questions that I hoping you guys can answer for me?

1) What is the stock offset of the rims? I know I can measure, but I figured this would be common info?
Note: on my convertible with stock rims, it appears that there is a front and rear rim (different offsets) because if I put the rears on the front, they will contact the A-Arm when turning. does this seem correct?

If so, what is the offsets for front vs. rear?

2) So, I am considering installing 15" wheels. I do know that this was an option in 62 at the factory. I have heard of people installing 14" wheels but have not heard of anybody doing 15".

Any pros vs. cons of 14"vs 15" wheels based on your experiences?

3)Have any of you guys altered the spring rates? If so, what were the results?

Thanks and sorry for all the questions. I just want to get it right the 1st time.. So I figured asking beats guessing..

Thanks

joe_padavano

The front and rear wheels are exactly the same (at least, the stock ones are). They are zero offset - as are just about every single RWD car built in the 1960s and 70s.

In 1962, the standard wheels were 13", but 15" were optional. These rims are hard to find. It took me four years to collect all four. In 1963, 14" wheels were also optional. I have 14x5 aluminum slot mags on my 62 wagon. They came off a mid-60s six cylinder Mustang. The 1970-earlier six cylinder Mustangs, Comets, and Falcons have the same 4 x 4.5" bolt pattern, though the center bore on the stock Ford rims is smaller and won't fit on the Olds hubs. My aftermarket aluminum rims are lug-centric so hub fitment is not a problem.

No, the Fox-body Mustangs used a different bolt pattern (4 x 4.25").

I have 195/70-14s on the front and 205/70-14s on the rear. The rears are close to the fender lip because the aftermarket wheels have a little negative offset for the "deep dish" look. My friend Scott has 215/60-15s on the stock 15" wheels on his 62 convertible and they fit fine. The only problem is that the stock wheels are 4" wide. I plan to have at least two of my 15s widened to about 6". I'll be running stock dog dish caps. Scott's car is the blue convertible in the second photo. He got redlines from Diamondback. Unfortunately you can't see much in that photo.

Torqueline

Hey Joe, thanks for the info.. It really helps..

I think I am going to go with 15" wheels to try and get some ground clearance.. I found a set of 15 x 7.5 wheels that I really like..

Do you think I would have any clearance issues with a 7.5 wheel and a 205-60-15 tire?

joe_padavano

205/60-15s are only about 24.7" in diameter. My 205/70-14s are actually taller at 25.3". I'd go with the 215/60-15s, same as Scott has on his car. Those are about 25.2" tall and slightly wider and fit great. 7.5" is plenty wide. You could get away with something in the 6.0-7.0 range if you wanted to.

Torqueline

OK, so I spent most the day surfing for tires and wheels..

when I got home I did some measuring..

Now, I am more confused than ever on what will fit and what will not?

You can see from the pics that with the 185/80/13 tires (24.7x 7.5) on the front, I have contact in the front of the A-Arm at full lock..

I am pretty sure that I have stock wheels on this car ..

So, this begs the question... if I go to taller and wider (8.5") tires.. It looks like I will have even bigger contact issues? Am I correct in this?

So, what is the solution?? I like to have at least 25+" tire and at least 8.5" wide on the rears..

Will I need to do an offset front wheel with a skinnier tire like a 7.5" and then have the wider zero offset wheel on the rears?

I want the wide (70's) look in the tires and I would not mind having a narrower front tire.. But I do not want to order wheels and tires and then find out that I have clearance issues with the A-Arm?

How wide can I go on the rears before I have interference with the fender well?

What offset do I need with the front to get the clearance I need from the A-Arm?

I really like the stance of the car in the last pic
HELP!!

Torqueline

So my current thoughts are to do 2" front wheel spacers (prob do a 4-5 lug adapter) and 1 " rear wheel spacers (4-5 lug adapter) with a 26 x 8.5 x 15 tire.. That gets me a 1.3" taller tire and 1.2" wider. This should give me an extra 1" spacer between the tire and the control arm when fully turned.

The, I was going to go about 1.5" taller front spring and about 60lbs stiffer (still not sure on this one yet) in order to try and keep the body roll to a min.

I planned on doing the front springs and then, once, fully assembled with all the weight on it, change the rear springs to get the stance I want once I measure.

One concern is that I am not going stiff enough on the front springs. I know my convertible is pretty soft in the front and especially the rear. Any thoughts on how much to increase the spring tension?

Let me know if you guys see any problems with my current plan of attack?

ps.. youngolds... you wouldn't still have your front and rear springs left over from your project would you?

joe_padavano

Gene,

The Rover block uses four of the six Olds head bolts around each cylinder. This actually seals better than the Buick/early Rover blocks that use an asymmetric five bolt pattern. Of course, you have the problem of the rocker shaft oiling on the Olds heads, but I was planning to convert to stud-mount rockers anyway and just plug those oil holes.

joe_padavano

Is that picture taken at full suspension droop? All I can tell you is that neither I (with 195/70-14s on aftermarket wheels on the front) or Scott (215/60-15s on stock 15" wheels all around) have any problems with rubbing anywhere in the suspension or steering travel.

I would NOT use spacers.

Torqueline

Yes, the A-Arms are sitting on the bumpers... The problem is that I want to use an 8.5" tire and unless I find a rim with the 4 lug with a large negative offset (which I have not found) I need to change to a 5 lug adapter so I can get a rim that works..

It seems that the issue is that the rims are limited with the 4 lug.. I found the ones

I really want in 4 lug but they are zero offset which I think will make contact with 8.5 . The other issue is that this wheel is 71mm center hub and the books shows the Olds at 78mm center..

So, in order to get the wide stance and a wheel that works I need to go to 5 lug adapter OR do a disk brake conversion, which I really do not think is necessary for better stopping?

What are you thoughts on a disk conversion?

joe_padavano

Pushing the wheels outward as you want to do will just move the problem from the inboard side to the outboard side.

15" wheels with zero offset will not rub. 215/60-15s will not rub. Unless you are planning to jack the car up for off-roading, you'll never be at full suspension drop and full lock. You are creating a problem where there is none.

I have no experience with any disc brake conversions for this car.

Torqueline

OK, So I did some checking on the rims.. I do have stock rims (stamped GM NT 4.5)

Now, on my parts car I have some goofy AR39 14 x 7 wheels with a negative offset and they clear just fine with the same width tire.

So, I installed my wheel and tire on the parts car (since it has the engine and all the weight of a running car) and the tire clears by about 1/2" at full lock. This is a 185/80/13 (24.7 x 7.3)

So, apparently the lack of weight in my car is the reason I am currently contacting the control arm

Now.. I have about 1/2" to play with and if I go to a 8.5" (1.2" wider /2 =.6" side to side) I will be close with a zero offset. This makes me happy.

The hub diameter (for those wanting to know) is 65.5mm) and almost all aftermarket wheels are at least 71mm hub diameter.. so, I should be good with the wheels.

Ideally, a wheel with a -6 offset would be the one to get to gain a tad more clearance..

Here is another question. How does a taller wheel effect the clearance. I am wanting a 215/65/15 tire (26 x 8.5).. Wondering if the extra .65" will cause any issues?

Thanks again, for all the advice and help. Guess I'll go wheel shopping

Torqueline

Ok, got the wheels and tires figured out.. Also ordered a stiffer and taller front coil set.

Now, I have 2 of these cars.. All 62's 1 convert and 2 HT's.

So, I 'm looking at the front windshields and the convert and the daily driver have the same "skinny" stainless trim around the windshield.

Now, the parts car has a completely different design of stainless... Much wider and it almost looks like it would take a different rubber molding..

The Parts car has a much larger serial number than theother 2.. But it is a true 62 Cutlass..


Does anybody have any knowledge of why they would change the windshield stainless design? Any history on this?

joe_padavano

These cars were built at the time that GM was transitioning from using a rubber gasket to hold the windshield to the pinchweld to using urethane to glue the windshields in place. Some of the Y-body cars used the gasket, some got the bonded windshield. The stainless trim varied as a result. I have not been able to break the code as to which cars got which style of windshield installation.

Torqueline

Joe that makes sense..

If serial number means anything.. the one with the wider stainless has a much higher serial number than the other 2 with the complicated gasket to hold the windshield and stainless.

So, with the older style, you have to have the windshield removed to get he stainless out.. Not fun....

This newer one looks like you could remove the trim without removing the glass?

Any insight on this?

Thanks again for the help

joe_padavano

The trim for the bonded windshield is held with clips like those on the newer cars, so you need a trim clip removal tool:



The trim for the gasket presses into a groove in the gasket and you should be able to pry it out without disturbing the glass.

Torqueline

OK.. so I think I prefer the wider trim anyway and it saves me money from Steele Rubber and the rubber..

So, if I understand correctly, this windshield has no rubber under it? It is just glued to the body?? Correct? OR do I need just "standard" hollow round rubber to lay under the glass?

OR is th windshield area on the bod different on the older car to where it would not accept the clips?

Thanks again

joe_padavano

http://3mcollision.com/3m-auto-glass...ive-08564.html

You'll also need to weld the studs for the trim clips in place around the opening if they are not there.

Torqueline

I'll have to look to see if those studs are there..

If not,, I am thinking that you can't buy those separately can you?

joe_padavano

The cars that use the gasket won't have them. I'm not sure which one you plan to build. If the studs are missing, you can weld new ones on with a stud welder. They are usually called "trim rivets" and require a special tip on the stud welder.

Torqueline

Little update..

Got the driver's floor patch panel installed.. Looks great..

Also got the small area of rust on the rear lower rocker patched in with new sheet metal.

Window trim update:

I wanted to use the later (.75") stainless windshield trim and pulled the trim off of the parts car. Come to find out that they added some interior trim pieces to cover the raw edge from the older (.5") trim style gasket. Well the parts car's trim pieces are not in good shape. So, I guess I will be using the older (.5") window trim and get the gasket either from Steele or Restoration Specialties..

FYI the trim clips needed to weld onto the channel to use the newer style are also found in RS part #8184

Torqueline

Things are moving along nicely.. (along with the money from my bank account)

I have pretty much all the parts needed to complete the restoration (mechanical wise anyway)

Been figuring out the alternator conversion mounting , as well as, the A/C compressor.. I think I have it figured out..

Still waiting on my clutch components to return, they should be here next week.

I went thru the T-10, replaced a few parts.. it should be ready to go.

Got the trunk and inner front fenders bedlined with Kevlar/Epoxy based line.. Looks real good.

The boy is also painting the engine bay as I type.

Got new coils specially made up for the front and a new PST front end kit.. Will set rear height after I get it all together.

Got US Mags to custom make me some wheels.. those should arrive in the next few weeks.

I still need to cut the rear of the crank snout a tad and machine a pilot bushing .. but that should not be too bad..

I am also restoring a Vintage Motorcycle so I have been pretty occupied..

If I could only figure out how to get ALL the blasting media out of the nooks and cranny's, I would be golden!

64Rocket

Getting the media out, lot of air hose and lots of vacuuming .
I'm not sure why you have to cut the crank, the ones I have done only needed a pilot bushing. Yours already a stick, what are going to cut..
Also '63 Buick and Olds use alternater, maybe find brkts from the '63 year.
The factory A/C had it on the drivers side.
Which for the most part look like an add on kit.
Look up"Kid442" he has a ton of parts, you may need or use.

Gene

Torqueline

I have to cut the crank because I am using a Rover engine vs the stock engine and the rear snout is a bit long..

I was not aware that the 63 ran an alternator vs generator.. Any idea where to get these brackets?

Thanks for the info

joe_padavano

I found mine on ebay. Any 1963 F-85 or Skylark is a donor. Bolted right up to my 62. I ran a 12SI initially, but it was well worn and due for a rebuild, so I soon replaced it with a CS130. Been working great for about five years now.

Torqueline

can I ask you if this OEM 63 bracket bolts to the Oil pump? Because I am using a TA performance timing cover and it does NOT have the mounting hole on the oil pump OR doe s it have the extended boss from the time cover above the oil pump..So, If this bracket mounts to either of those, I can not use it..

Any thoughts?

joe_padavano

It does not bolt to the oil pump. I'm not sure about the front cover, but if you are using a later cover, you might be able to use a 225 V6 bracket.