October 4, 200916 yr I registered for this forum based on this thread. Go Man Go! This is an amazing saga.
October 5, 200916 yr Author Just finished the transmission. I'm about 90% sure I got the backlash right, but i've never done this before so I can't be 100% sure I had to bore out the throwout bearing holder to fit around the wider spline from the '83 main shaft, but other than that, it went rather smooth after getting a couple of the oil seals installed at work properly (after I destroyed a couple...)
October 5, 200916 yr Cool. One big step closer now. Love the bench stand. Is that an old factory "tool"? Mark
October 5, 200916 yr Author Indeed it is an original OEM "tool". In fact, I used quite a few of the factory tools for this job! Worked great!
October 11, 200916 yr Author Started removing paint and applying the filler, didn't do any sanding yet so don't mind the roughness of it. But I still doubt my ability to make this look decent...
October 12, 200916 yr just build it up slowly and use a long board, you will need to do many layers to blend it all in ( its ok though it wont be that thick.....you always seem to remove most of it ) I find it helps to put a clean rag between the palm of my hand and the surface you are working on when feeling it out, it seems to improve the feel. Don't rush it and don't try to do big an area.....it will overwhelm you. Also it will start to piss you off after a while........just walk away and come back later. You really feel good when you get it right.
October 12, 200916 yr That looks like my BRAT a few days ago. I've now got primer and coating on it. I'm dropping it off at the paint shop today. Then I can start the rebuild of the motor. Then by the time the paint is finished I should be able to drop the motor in and start working on the trim. (full restoration in 2 months). I feel your pain on the body filler though.
October 18, 200916 yr Author Body-fillered up the rest of the chassis, but a storm is moving in so I had to stop (moister is bad for bodywork!)
October 19, 200916 yr Just skimmed my way through this thread... and it's awesome. Amazing work, it's nice to see this car in the hands of someone who will bring it back to its former glory. Can't wait to see it finished!
October 20, 200916 yr Author Just found a great article about the FF-1 and its design features and references: Subaru 1000 Subaru 1000 1966 - 1969 Country: Japan Engine: Air-cooled horizontally opposed 4-cylinder Capacity: 977 cc Power: 55/67 bhp @ 6000 rpm Transmission: 4 spd. man FUJI Heavy Industries was not one of the larger Japanese motor manufacturers of the 1960's. In 1966 they held the number six position in terms of volume, with a market share around 5 per cent, although in late 1968 they would fall behind the up-and-coming Honda powerhouse. In real terms, Fuji was really a post-war company, reformed around the engineering experience of the Nakajima Aircraft Company who manuufactured the famous Zero fighter plane. It was following the war that production centererd around five divisions making Subaru cars, Rabbit scooters, railway rolling stock, bus bodies, mechanized agricultural aids and light aircraft. Aimed at the domestic Japanese family car market (the car was not exported), the Subaru 1000 was available in two-door, four-door or station wagon body styles. Subaru were becoming well known for their flat-four water-cooled engine in the front driving the front wheels, in this case the engine developing 55 bhp net from 977cc. The front brakes were inboard, with bimetallic drums. Suspension was independent all round by torsion bars. There was an optional Sports version with 67 bhp, disc front brakes and stiffer suspension. Isn't That A Lloyd Arabella? European motorists who looked hard could see a superficial resemblance to the Lloyd Arabella of 1959, introduced shortly before the demise of the German manufacturer along with Borgward who controlled them. The Arabella was a very similar front-drive saloon, using a water-cooled flat-four of 897cc. Of course this was the era when the Japanese were very adept at imitating others. Like the Arabella, the Subaru engine was made mainly of aluminium castings, with wet cylinder liners and pushrod valve gear. A flat-four configuration was chosen for smoothness and a low bonnet line. It was mounted ahead of the front-wheel centre-line. Both engines had a stroke of 60mm and they both used in-line valves operated by tubular aluminium pushrods with pressed-in steel ends. The difference was that on the Arabella unit (based, incidentally on the earlier 1100 Hansa) the camshaft was vertically above the crankshaft, whereas on the Subaru engine it was below, driven by a steel pinion meshing with an aluminium one. Both employed bath-tub combustion chambers. Fuji Engineers Admit Similarities At the time the Subaru engineers at Fuji admitted that they had investigated the Lloyd as research for their own car, but apart from the engine claimed only the front suspension was like that of the Arabella. Both employed double wishbones to leave the hub clear to take the drive through to the wheel, but the Subaru used leading torsion bars instead of coil springs, worked by the upper wishbone. On the Subaru there was a self-supporting front sub-frame which included angled forward facing struts to support the front ends of the torsion bars and a kinked outrigger to support the top end of the telescopic damper which bolted at its lower end to the trailing side of the upper wishbone. The torsion bar formed the pivot pin for the upper wishbone with a quick adjustment for ride height. The lower wishbone was a steel pressing with a forged arm carrying the lower ball-joint bolted to it with slots allowing for camber adjustment. The rack and pinion steering was ahead of the hubs (on the Arabella it was behind). At the rear there was a very novel device linking the two transverse torsion bars which meet in the centre of the car. In effect one reacted against the other through a compression coil spring. It was only a short spring with a stiff rate so that for large wheel movements it soon became coil bound after introducing roll stiffness to the initial movement. When both wheels moved together it did not function, the torsion bars both reacting against the fixed structure of their supporting tube which was clamped to the hull structure of the car. Like at the front. the rear suspension was carried on a sub-frame which supported the upper ends of the telescopic dampers. The trailing arms gave virtually no camber change to the rear wheels between full bump and rebound. Centre-point steering was used, giving 3 turns from lock to lock on a 31ft 6in. turning circle. On the Sports version the ratio was raised to give only 2.9 turns. Despite the light engine and the short front overhang of it, about 65 per cent of the unladen weight was carried on the front wheels. Some of this is because the spare wheel is mounted under the bonnet (Renault fashion) to leave the boot clear. The 8-gal fuel tank was located under the rear seat and there was claimed to be room for six sets of golf clubs in the boot - and while we have never had the opportunity to try we would put a wager on it that it was simply not possible - unless a Japanese golf set of the 1960's consisted of one wood, one iron and a putter contained in a 3 inch wide postage tube. Clever Engineering And Quality Production No pressure-limiting device was fitted to the rear brakes, but much smaller wheel cylinders were fitted to prevent premature rear wheel locking under heavy braking with a light load. For the drum set-up of the standard car (made by the Japanese Bendix company), 8 x 1. 75in. front drums use 15/16in. dia. wheel cylinders, while the 7 x 1 .4in. rear drums use 11 /16in. dia. wheel cylinders. This gave a hydraulic ratio of 65:35 in favour of the front - the same as the static weight distribution. The Sports model used 9in. dia. disc brakes at the front, with 1 in. dia. pistons. Neither version had a brake servo, but the drum brakes were of the duo-servo type with self-wrapping shoes. The body structure was based on one-piece side pressings, welded up with a flat floor and roof pressing by multi-headed spot welders. The front grille and its surround were detachable to ease installation of the front sub-frame, which carried the engine as well. Each body was fully immersed for a priming coat of paint by electrolytic process, then sprayed with surfacer and two coats of top colour. Every car was taken for a road test round one lap of the factory track and one out of every 200 was checked more thoroughly for quality control. Like the original Ford Taunus 12M (Cardinal), the Subaru used two cooling radiators, one permanently in circuit with the engine. The small auxiliary radiator formed the heater matrix. When the coolant temperature reached 82 deg C. the thermostat opened and brought the main radiator also into circuit. There was no engine driven fan (hence at least one reason for the high net power output for the engine size), an electric one cutting in to cool the auxiliary radiator only. This fan also formed the heater boost, unwanted hot air being bled into the low-pressure area of the right-hand wheel arch. It had a manual switch as part of the heater controls. Drive from the engine passed back over the differential to the all-indirect gearbox via a quill shaft and then forward to the two-pinion differential. Ball-type constant velocity joints were used at both ends of each drive shaft with sliding splines near the outboard end. Bimetallic front drums (or discs in the case of the Sports model) were mounted round the outside of the inboard pot joint and the outboard joints and splines were contained in rubber bellows to protect them from road dirt. Inside The Subaru 1000 Usually a steering column gearshift was fitted, but you could option the floor mounted gear change that came as standard on the sports version. The two-door cars had reclining front seats with four fixed angles of rake and a variable adjustment between each of them by a screw mechanism. The standard instrument panel comprised a speedometer and auxiliary gauges grouped under a single reflection shield, with switches positioned ergonomically each side of the wheel. On the Sports model there were three circular dials (including a rev counter) and a neat three-spoke, wood-rim steering wheel. Underneath the facia was a full-width parcel shelf and a deep trough behind the back seat formed useful additional stowage. On The Test Track For the Subaru Sports there was revised valve timing and lift, plus a pair of downdraught carburettors and a dual exhaust system, putting the net power output up from 55 bhp to 67 bhp. This made the sports version was very lively, and the deep throb to its exhaust added to the package. The engine was particularly sweet and mechanically very quiet, zipping up to 7,000 rpm easily, yet pulling well from low speed too. The ride was excellent yet the car felt taut and extremely stable. During testing at the Subaru proving grounds the car displayed excellent stability during banking at 80 mph, and a high-speed stop showed the disc brake set-up to be well balanced and powerful, this being complimented by the excellent radial-ply tyres. On the steering pad virtually no front-drive effects at all, the steering remaining light and positive with power on or off. Lifting in mid-turn caused very little dive-in of the nose, and understeer with full throttle and a turn of lock in second gear was not at all excessive. The standard model was, in comparison, more refined however also a little vague in its handling. The slower steering ratio and reduced grip of the cross-ply tyres showed immediately on the steering pad, and there was considerably more roll. The steering column gear shift worked well and seats on both cars were comfortable. Surprisingly the handling of the standard car was just as good as the Sports in terms of front-drive effects (or lack of them in this case) and the Subaru was a class leader in this respect. This feat was achieved by the Subaru design team carefully balancing front and rear roll stiffnesses. The centre-point steering (whereby the swivel axis passed through the centre of the tyre contact patch with no offset) was responnsible for the light steering effort and also reduced suspension reaction to road shocks. Maximum speed was claimed to be 84 mph with a standing quarter-mile in 19.7 sec. The Sports has a top speed of 93 mph and covered the standing quarter in 18.4 sec. Although the Subaru 1000 was not exported, it remained a piece of 1960's engineering worthy of close examination, not only because its specification was advanced and interesting, but because it behaved exceedingly well on the road and represented intelligent use of basic concepts and thorough development. For reference, here are a couple pictures of the Borgward Arabella engine: VERY similar to the early EA motors like the EA52 and EA61, but as mentioned there are some key differences in the design. The idea is still the same though.
December 16, 200916 yr Author Anyone from the Colorado Springs area want to take a look at a motor for me, possibly pay for it and ship it? http://www.ultimatesubaru.org/forum/showthread.php?t=106497
December 16, 200916 yr Whoever goes,can you PM me too. Bring a pad and paper and maybe cell phone to call while you're there?
January 6, 201016 yr Author On winter hiatus. The good news is I should be able to afford a quality paint job by spring!
March 21, 201016 yr Author I'm getting tired of this body filller... a) I suck at sanding it and even more at applying it. I put too much on and its taking forever. c) I can't get any of it straight or flat. d) The less i'm able to do myself, the more its going to cost to get the paint job done.
March 27, 201016 yr Author My BRAND NEW EA63 dry-sleeve shortblock just arrived courtesy ShawnW! Thanks again man, this thing is money!!! I mocked up the motor/transmission, I wanted to be sure if the main shaft would be compatible with the EA63 crankshaft and it indeed is, which means I ONLY have to swap the camshaft. The other good news is the head studs are correct and completely new, so that saves me from needing new studs! So right now, the next step for the motor is one of two things: 1) Take the camshaft and heads to a machine shop to clean up the cam and heads along with a valve job, and just reinstall everything with the EA63 stock manifold with a weber 32/36. 2) Take the split block, heads and camshaft to a shop and try to have the heads and block shaved to fit the weber manifold/dual-carb setup, and have the cam re-ground for more performance along with some head porting if possible. Which route I take will probably depend on if a machine shop can work with the motor, and how much I spend on paint/bodywork.
March 28, 201016 yr Author Sanding went much better today, figured out my main problem... Sandpaper grit. Got some 36 grit and things started moving along much quicker (but not as quick as I hoped )
April 4, 201015 yr Sanding went much better today, figured out my main problem... Sandpaper grit. Got some 36 grit and things started moving along much quicker (but not as quick as I hoped ) 36 grit is REALLY course. You may be making more work for yourself down the road using a grit like that. Ive done my fair share of body work and have a buddy in the business and he never goes to a courser grit than 80 on cars as far as i know. The reason being you are putting some seriously deep scratches that are going to be hard to fix later. High build primers may hide them for awhile but when it shrinks your bodywork will show through and you wont be happy with it anymore.
April 4, 201015 yr I couldn't get myself to look through this whole thread so - Does a 1.6 ea71 intake fit on an ea63? How about the oil pump? Thanks.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now