commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Additive vs. subtractive manufacturing. I'm impressed. You know your ****.
1969 - 1971 C body Stub Frame (subframe)
- Thread starter sevnt300
- Start date
Actually.... Give me a lathe and I'll have some made by the time it takes to program the CNC...
In all seriousness, if I were to go into producing any amount of C-body mounts, I would first try to find a NOS mount or build a wood or aluminum prototype for fit. Then I would look into casting the mounts like the factory did. There's a bunch of cottage industry type suppliers out there reproducing motor mounts, so I would approach one of them.
3D printing is the rage, but in reality, its uses are limited. The cheaper "home versions" can only use certain types of thermoplastics and the finished product is a bit rough appearing and doesn't have much mechanical strength. Move up the ladder to much more expensive machines and the quality comes up dramatically as does the quality along with a bigger variety of plastics. But that all comes with a cost.
I've seen several 3D printers used for prototype work, mostly just to have a 3D version of something to test. There's also a growing market of people making one off or small run parts. I don't know if the strength is there for this application and if it would be cost effective to do this. From what I've seen personally and read, I kind of doubt that it would be.
3D printing is the rage, but in reality, its uses are limited. The cheaper "home versions" can only use certain types of thermoplastics and the finished product is a bit rough appearing and doesn't have much mechanical strength. Move up the ladder to much more expensive machines and the quality comes up dramatically as does the quality along with a bigger variety of plastics. But that all comes with a cost.
I've seen several 3D printers used for prototype work, mostly just to have a 3D version of something to test. There's also a growing market of people making one off or small run parts. I don't know if the strength is there for this application and if it would be cost effective to do this. From what I've seen personally and read, I kind of doubt that it would be.
fury fan
Senior Member
No, not really, I just hang around with people that do.
I agree for the 1st 1-2 bushings, but if you're using a manual lathe I'll pass you by after that -- I'm not old-school of keypunching coordinates in on a machine-dedicated display, I have faster methods.
I have software that goes between geometry and G-code very easily and quickly; I could probably have the geometry sketched in 30 min (?), programming would be done 15 min later if I don't evaluate between different cutting bits too much. (I don't have a toolchanger, so sometimes a longer-time toolpath with a finishing bit is more advantageous if it means I don't have to change bits and re-zero to the surface).
I'd optimize the G-code while I watch the 1st one running (but that's mainly to make successive parts go faster).
However - there are obviously lots of unknowns that I can't anticipate until I actually start making chips.
And again, I'm not going to pursue unless the 1st guy backs out, I don't want to steal anyone's cupcake.
You are correct.... and I always say something smart *** like that to bring out the real guys. I had a guy on another forum once tell me that you could not make a simple pulley without a CNC lathe.... Because that's all he knew.
fury fan
Senior Member
I agree with all of that.
You just reminded me of this -
I have a former co-worker (an INJ molding expert) that is starting his own business and is leasing an inj molding machine. If 'we' got a tool made we could make these bushings in small runs. I would think the tool would be fairly elementary, although the shot size is kinda high vs the outer envelope. That's probably not consequential, though?
This first hurdle is - anybody have a good biscuit or data/measurements?
fury fan
Senior Member
Ha! But you didn't really bring out a 'real' guy, I am very much an amateur. I just know enough to realize I've merely scratched the surface of what I *don't* know.
And yeah, a skilled machinist could make a pulley without a CNC, but would probably require an old guy with a cigarette bobbing on his bottom lip while he talked.
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Can't find a real draftsman anymore either.
I'm talking about a guy than come up with a drawing that tells the old man with the cigarette how to make literally anything using manual lathes and milling machines.
I'm talking about a guy than come up with a drawing that tells the old man with the cigarette how to make literally anything using manual lathes and milling machines.
That's good. When you understand that there is much you don't know, you are heads above a lot of guys that say they "know".Ha! But you didn't really bring out a 'real' guy, I am very much an amateur. I just know enough to realize I've merely scratched the surface of what I *don't* know.
And yeah, a skilled machinist could make a pulley without a CNC, but would probably require an old guy with a cigarette bobbing on his bottom lip while he talked.
I was a Tool & Diemaker for 20 years before I changed careers in the last century... So I guess that qualifies me as the old guy... Never did smoke cigarettes though...
I found this too. It might be the way to go. Make a very simple die and mix up some urethane. It would be a lot cheaper than building an injection mold die.
Making rubber bushings
ITW Devcon | Flexane® 80 Putty
fury fan
Senior Member
I tried that 'pour a bushing' thing years ago with the urethane from McMaster referenced in the article. Tried it for the swaybar bushings, the funny-shaped one that clamps on the strut rod.
Results were terrible, the urethane was runny enough to seep out thru any joints in my mold, so I had to watch it and keep it topped off. After it was done, the bushing actually didn't seem very robust, either, IIRC it had some crumble to it. I personally would not use such a method for any critical bushing, or one that required a lot of R&R if it didn't work properly.
Results were terrible, the urethane was runny enough to seep out thru any joints in my mold, so I had to watch it and keep it topped off. After it was done, the bushing actually didn't seem very robust, either, IIRC it had some crumble to it. I personally would not use such a method for any critical bushing, or one that required a lot of R&R if it didn't work properly.
CanCritter
Senior Member
We've decided to go urathane and cnc....runnin outa time....
That's interesting. I've never used it myself and only reporting what I have found. I had some hopes for it.
fury fan
Senior Member
Sorry to be downer on how well it worked.
dodgechargerfan
New Member
Hi! I'm back for my once a year post!
Sorry.
So, I read the whole thread, and maybe I missed it, but will a 73 Newport stub fit on a 71 NewYorker?
I know the models shouldn't matter, but I state them anyway, just in case. I'm more concerned about the difference in years. I didn't see a definitive statement about anything beyond 71.
I've got a lead on a 73 local to me and if it fits, I'll grab that front stub.
Thanks for any help.
Sorry.
So, I read the whole thread, and maybe I missed it, but will a 73 Newport stub fit on a 71 NewYorker?
I know the models shouldn't matter, but I state them anyway, just in case. I'm more concerned about the difference in years. I didn't see a definitive statement about anything beyond 71.
I've got a lead on a 73 local to me and if it fits, I'll grab that front stub.
Thanks for any help.
I have looked into finding the differences between the later (72-74) stub frames and the 71 stub frame. The part number for the 47" TB frame in 1971 is 3417199, by looking at pictures of the frames I cannot tell too much difference but they all have a different part number, the part number for the 47" TB frame in 1972 is 3611351. The 1973 model had to incorporate the federally mandated 5 mph bumpers so with '73 being a transitional year between the loop style bumpers and the '74 redesign the bumpers mounted differently on the frame which would explain yet another part number for the 47" TB frame in 1973 which is 3684572. The 1974 frame had the redesigned motor mounts so it also has a different part number 3726814.
I can not say for certain as I am not as versed in these years but this information and the part number changes would raise a red flag for me about interchanging with a '71. With all the changes in vehicle design and safety standards they had to abide by, they may have had to relocate mounting points to meet federal requirements. the attached drawing is of a 1974 frame showing the different motor mount redesign. I hope this tidbit of info is helpful.
I can not say for certain as I am not as versed in these years but this information and the part number changes would raise a red flag for me about interchanging with a '71. With all the changes in vehicle design and safety standards they had to abide by, they may have had to relocate mounting points to meet federal requirements. the attached drawing is of a 1974 frame showing the different motor mount redesign. I hope this tidbit of info is helpful.
Last edited:
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
You're showing the 74 stubframe which really has no bearing on this topic. The stubframes from 65-73 (and their interchangeability) are really the focus here.
1974 is so far removed from the earlier years, it's pineapples and porcupines actually.
Thank you for the 74 stubframe pic, btw. I can use that. ☺
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
1973:
Pineapples to Porcupines is exactly my point as to 1973 being the transitional year to the 1974 Chrysler which is why I showed the obvious difference in the '74 frame. The '73 frame is a Torsion Quiet frame and does have the same dimensions, it looks like it will bolt in but I would suspect that they changed more on the transitional frame than just the bumper brackets, especially since that was the first year for the 5mph front bumpers and redesigned front end. The different part number indicates that they changed something, whether it be small and adaptable or something more substantial, maybe it is just thicker gauge metal. I certainly could be wrong but I would definitely verify what might be different before purchasing the '73 and finding out it won't work in the '71.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
