Hello! Log in or Register   |  Help  |  Donate  |  Buy Shirts See all banner ads | Advertise on TheSamba.com  
TheSamba.com
 
New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis
Forum Index -> Beetle - 1958-1967 Share: Facebook Twitter
Reply to topic
Print View
Quick sort: Show newest posts on top | Show oldest posts on top View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RangerGhost169
Samba Member


Joined: January 15, 2024
Posts: 3
Location: Florida
RangerGhost169 is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2024 6:29 am    Post subject: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

Hi All,

So, I recently purchased a 64 Beetle riding on a 77 chassis. I want to get the stance better than it currently is. I've read all of the posts regarding IRS pan swaps, track widths, wheelbases, etc.

Car is set up with 2-1/2" drop spindles and disc brakes all the way around which I know increases the track width by about 3/4" per wheel. Fronts currently sit 1/4" proud of the fender lips. Rears have a slight bit of camber. Running 205/70's in the rear and 185/60's up front on chrome stocks.

My goal is to get the car looking like a SoCal "hot rod" with big rubber in the back and smaller tires up front. Not necessarily slamming it, but a slight bit of tuck on the rears would be awesome.

Couple questions-

1. The rears don't look perfectly centered in the fenders. The tire gap is smaller towards the front of the fenders than the rear. Will this be a problem if I drop the rear with the spring plates?

2. There is nothing I can do with the front other than getting a narrowed/adjustable beam, correct? Why do they cost so much??? Didn't realize this before I purchased the car.

I welcome any and all commentary. TheSamba has been a wealth of knowledge in the early ownership.


Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.




Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Busstom
Samba Member


Joined: November 23, 2014
Posts: 3855
Location: San Jose, CA
Busstom is offline 

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

Have you pulled up the back seat to look at the VIN and verify the year and try to narrow down the origin of the chassis?

Your rear wheel spacing (fore/aft) looks normal, possibly just a bit toe-in, and maybe an aftermarket fender (<-- almost assured).

You said "Rears have a slight bit of camber." What type of camber? Positive, or negative? From here, it looks positive, which is usually indicative of swing axle suspension. But if it's a U.S. delivery '77, it should be IRS. See first sentence above.

So, you need to specify the rear suspension type (swing or IRS) and front suspension type (link pin or ball joint). I see the bottom of the shock tower so I know it's not strut. Again, see first sentence above.

Front beams are not expensive, you're probably just thinking "Bugs are cheap."

If you want to lower the rear, then skip the "spring plates" and put the savings toward a narrowed beam. Then lower the rear by reindexing the splines. Same result. No. Better result. Using spline adjustments, you can infinitely dial the ride height from side to side, leveling the car while optimizing your desired ride height.
_________________
My name's Steve and it's pronounced "Bust 'em" (cuz people think I'm Tom) 😏
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
RangerGhost169
Samba Member


Joined: January 15, 2024
Posts: 3
Location: Florida
RangerGhost169 is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:44 am    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

Thanks Buss-

Yes, the chassis VIN is from 77. It's also titled as a 77. Not sure on country of origin...
Definitely an IRS car with a ball joint beam.

Thanks for the reply!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Root_Werks
Samba Member


Joined: December 31, 2007
Posts: 816
Location: San Juan Islands
Root_Werks is offline 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:06 am    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

Most drop spindles push the track out 1/4" - 3/8". Then there is wheel offset, tire size etc.

Here's a good thread on actual zero offset spindles that recently came out:

https://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=777577&start=0

Myself and a few others have installed with very positive results. That may be an option for you. Measure your track, if it's not stock for 1977, probably could swap out for zero offset spindles and at least get back to stock track width.

-Dan
_________________
When I set my timing, why do I flush, then take a pee?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
heimlich Premium Member
VWNOS.com


Joined: November 20, 2016
Posts: 6627
Location: Houston, Texas
heimlich is online now 

PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2024 3:32 pm    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

That car looks good to me.
_________________
www.vwnos.com [email protected]
Classic Brands. Classic Quality.
Not all parts are made the same. NOS OE/OEM parts made mainly in West Germany, Early Germany, and Early Brazil are where VW produced the best quality parts and best fitting products.
5% Off your order with coupon code: 5%OFF
Restored Distributors Available (<--Click here)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Dusty1
Samba Member


Joined: April 16, 2004
Posts: 1435

Dusty1 is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2024 8:24 am    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

Car looks good to me, too.

Bear in mind you're messing with one of the finest suspension designs ever built. Ever hear of Ferdinand Porsche? He designed your VW and its suspension. You're driving the original "Porsche".

Question for you. Are you an engineer? If not, what qualifies you to mess with the geometry of your VW suspension?

Your current stance should handle and drive well.


The "tucked" look:

It's generally achieved on watercooled VWs and similar cars by using wheels "too wide" for the tires as well as lowering the ride height. That means the tire bead protrudes farther than the tread. The tread "tucks" under the fender for the tucked look.

On aircooled, you want to go for the same curved sidewall. It's easiest with swingaxle which is kinda too late for your IRS converted '64. Rudely lowering the rear of the car cambers what rear wheels and achieves the "tucked" look.

What generally goes unsaid:

You're compromising handling and perhaps even safety for appearance.

You're trying to achieve a particular combination of wheels, tires and stance. If you haven't done this before you may throw a ton of money at it before you get it "right".

The tighter your tuck, the more likely it is your fender lips are going to munch your sidewalls over bumps. That means one good pothole is going to wreck at least one of your rear fenders, your paint and your tires.


To reiterate, extreme lowering typically compromises handling and safety for appearance.


If you're concerned about the cost of lowering your '64 just sell it to me. I wouldn't throw that one outta bed for eatin' crackers.

I drive back roads every chance I get. If anything the squirrels prefer raised cars over lowered.

.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Classifieds Feedback
EVfun
Samba Member


Joined: April 01, 2012
Posts: 5491
Location: Seattle
EVfun is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2024 9:42 am    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

RangerGhost169 wrote:
Hi All,

So, I recently purchased a 64 Beetle riding on a 77 chassis. I want to get the stance better than it currently is. I've read all of the posts regarding IRS pan swaps, track widths, wheelbases, etc.

Car is set up with 2-1/2" drop spindles and disc brakes all the way around which I know increases the track width by about 3/4" per wheel. Fronts currently sit 1/4" proud of the fender lips. Rears have a slight bit of camber. Running 205/70's in the rear and 185/60's up front on chrome stocks.

My goal is to get the car looking like a SoCal "hot rod" with big rubber in the back and smaller tires up front. Not necessarily slamming it, but a slight bit of tuck on the rears would be awesome.

Couple questions-

1. The rears don't look perfectly centered in the fenders. The tire gap is smaller towards the front of the fenders than the rear. Will this be a problem if I drop the rear with the spring plates?

2. There is nothing I can do with the front other than getting a narrowed/adjustable beam, correct? Why do they cost so much??? Didn't realize this before I purchased the car.

I welcome any and all commentary. TheSamba has been a wealth of knowledge in the early ownership.


Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.


The rear tires are not going to tuck inward at the top very much. That extreme cambered look is a result of lowering the older swingaxle suspension. It is also bad for fulclrum plates, rear wheel bearings, and brake drum splines. The rear tire fit in the fender looks normal and you can lower it some without any problems by re-indexing the rear torsion bars. This allows you to adjust the ride height in about 7/32 inch steps. However, you have long axles and the double jointed IRS suspension doesn't tuck in so you may be limited in how low you can go before the tire rubs the fender.

With the brakes, wheels, and tires you have a narrowed beam is the only way to create the room needed to lower the front. Lowering a ball joint front suspension is somewhat limited by the angular range of the ball joints. You can also pull the tires inward with a different wheel choice, something with a much greater positive offset. You could also change the brakes, and/or the spindles, to change the tire position. If you chose to run the later 4 lug wheel pattern you could swap to stock Karmann Ghia front brakes, readily available, which add almost nothing to the track width compared to the stock drum front brakes. If you then run some of the 911 style wheels in a narrow width (they seem to have the most positive offset of common 15 inch wheels) you could tuck each side in, likely about 3/4 inch per side, giving you some room to lower the front a little more. But then how do you plan to lower the front more? A front beam with adjusters is usually the next step to get lower than provided by drop spindles.
_________________
Wildthings wrote:
As a general rule, cheap parts are the most expensive parts you can buy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Busstom
Samba Member


Joined: November 23, 2014
Posts: 3855
Location: San Jose, CA
Busstom is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2024 11:10 am    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

^ ^ ^ ^ This sums it up pretty well.

OP is after the Cal Look. The DKP have historically set the standard for this look so maybe some informational reference can provide guidance. It's all of course open to interpretation and personal preference, but wheel choices can be a big factor in differentiating Cal from the "German" look.

Their site hasn't been maintained so much for a couple years, their IG page is more current with higher-res pics. Of course, you have to have an IG account to blow up the pictrues. I see a lot of old members listed who were very active in the old Cal-Look.com forum back in the early 2000's. https://www.instagram.com/derkleinerpanzers/?hl=en

https://dkpcarclub.com/blog/about-our-club-2/
_________________
My name's Steve and it's pronounced "Bust 'em" (cuz people think I'm Tom) 😏


Last edited by Busstom on Sun Mar 31, 2024 11:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Dusty1
Samba Member


Joined: April 16, 2004
Posts: 1435

Dusty1 is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2024 11:12 am    Post subject: Re: New Owner- 64 Body on 77 Chassis Reply with quote

EVfun wrote:
The rear tires are not going to tuck inward at the top very much. That extreme cambered look is a result of lowering the older swingaxle suspension. It is also bad for fulcrum plates, rear wheel bearings, and brake drum splines.


Went out and got some ice cream to have with tonight's carrot cake. Had an idea. OP doesn't like the way the wheels center in the rear fenders and he wants tuck.

Who says 1" longer trailing arms are for Baja Bugs?

If you wanted to get tricky and it wouldn't bother me, I have more '72 and later trailing arms than I'll ever use... I would cut up my trailing arms and weld them back together 1" longer to center the wheel in the fender. It might be less. 1" would be a good starting point.

While I was cutting and welding I would add five degrees camber to emulate an old swingaxle, lowered. And... if you're followed a late model BMW SUV lately you would be surprised at how much camber they're running.

Heck, while I'm feelin' creative I might fabricate a set of trailing arms with adjustable length and camber. I would use them for prototyping. Anything that can be adjusted can be mis- adjusted or worse. Anything adjustable can get whacked outta whack.


EVfun wrote:
With the brakes, wheels, and tires you have a narrowed beam is the only way to create the room needed to lower the front. Lowering a ball joint front suspension is somewhat limited by the angular range of the ball joints.


2 1/2" lowered spindles should do most of the trick. An adjustable beam should do the rest.

EVfun wrote:
You can also pull the tires inward with a different wheel choice, something with a much greater positive offset. You could also change the brakes, and/or the spindles, to change the tire position.


O.P. is running 185/60s in the front. I sometimes run 185/60s in the back. There is a little ride height that can be easily changed by using a lower tire, like 185/60s maybe. O.P. has them, they're paid for. Mount them on the rear.

For fronts go smaller than 185/60-15s.

195/45-15s are readily available. And... I found some fifty buck 175/50-15s. There are even 165/50-15s.

Or... go with the traditional 145SR15s or 135SR15s.

I have a pair of NOS Michelin 135SR15s in my closet in case I'm feeling low.

.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Classifieds Feedback
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Beetle - 1958-1967 All times are Mountain Standard Time/Pacific Daylight Savings Time
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

About | Help! | Advertise | Donate | Premium Membership | Privacy/Terms of Use | Contact Us | Site Map
Copyright © 1996-2023, Everett Barnes. All Rights Reserved.
Not affiliated with or sponsored by Volkswagen of America | Forum powered by phpBB
Links to eBay or other vendor sites may be affiliate links where the site receives compensation.