The Willomet Charger

[Charger-Bodie]

Has to have a light engine . The chassis looks like it's not gonna be light

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

...the layout is called a front mid-engine, rear drive, or FMR layout instead of the less-specific term front-engine...

Learning new stuff every day!

Great fab work.      That is a ton of setback.  Need to do rocker arm actuated coil overs to fill up all the space in front of the engine

Where did you get the welding table with the holes in the surface?  Looking for something like that. (or maybe an old t-slot plate)

The welding table came from a friend that builds them on the side - David Demoise.  You can find him on Instagram.  Mine is just a small 30x50, but it's made a big difference in my fab game.  It is a lot of setback, and more than I initially planned.  I might move it back forward 1" - 2" depending on a few adjustments to the wheelbase, but that's not entirely worked out.  Right now, the "go fast reliefs" are designed to act as extractors, and the space ahead of the engine and accessories will have a bit of ducting to accommodate that feature.

Looks like an exciting build! Gonna be a load of fun to drive with that tied unibody! 

It will definitely be a driver's car!

Great build ! your Car  Your  choice on the powerplant!

Thanks man.

To see such amazing fabrication work,on such a heavily modified Charger,and then see the Generic Motors belly button powerplant,takes the wind out of the sails on an otherwise cool Charger.

I had to Google "bellybutton engine".

The LS is ubiquitous, and that cuts a few ways: great performance and size/weight efficient, excellent aftermarket and field support, but can seem a little bit me-too.  For my build, the upside greatly outweighs the downside.

The LS is cheaper....So with that logic I guess you will be using Harbor Freight nuts, bolts and washers....
Why cheap out like this?

I never claimed or hinted that I was going cheap - that's always been the comment, but it's just inaccurate.  There is no cheap way to build something fast and safe.  The LS meets a set of criteria the other currently available Mopar engines do not, and that's okay.  It's just a tool in a drawer.

But, I do have a harbor freight 12" disc sander, and it's a surprisingly versatile piece of gear, especially with a 3M cubitron disc on it.  That sucker just flat works.  Also, their 18" (I think that's the size) air-hydraulic cylinder is a decent piece, and powers my bender.

Really nice build, your putting some time and thought into it along with quality work, there's a few here with blinders and feed bucket attached that can't wrap their heads around your engine choice, those are the one who forgot/forget what hot roddin is all about, I have 2 LS powered vehicles and can appreciate the power that is easily obtained from them, sure you could have dropped a gen3 HEMI in it, but it would be just another "bellybutton" build, a power plant is just that, a power plant... as long as it can lay down the power who cares who the mfg was that created it 

Thank you for the kind words.  Whatever set of components satisfy the design parameters - that's what gets selected.  However, I do appreciate and am very taken with faithful restorations and survivor cars, especially those that get driven.  There's room for a few rule breakers.

The Mopar engine options are 'similar equivalents' - as long as you have different priorities from this build.

Exactly.  Well stated.

I do remember now about the aluminum block issue. Still...Why? What is 90 lbs in the general scheme of a 3500 lb car?

I shared your skepticism early on.  Surprisingly, 90lbs is a significant enough amount of weight to make a difference.  It's 2.5% of the total of a 3590 lb car, and when I'm chasing improvements of 1.4 lbs (Al engine cradle rather than steel) or 5.5 lbs using 14ga for rocker boxes and inner rails rather than .120, they all add up, and quicker than I initially thought.  90 lbs from a single component in a relatively dense location in the chassis is very difficult to pass up, and to do so in the name of brand purity just doesn't make sense to me.

Has to have a light engine . The chassis looks like it's not gonna be light

"Light" is a relative term.  It will be heavier than an A body, but it should be about the same weight as your average pro-touring camaro but look 10x better.  It will be lighter than a similarly equipped mustang, and not have the side effect of being a mustang.  There are no illusions - it will be a heavy car by most definitions, and probably come in about 300ish lbs lighter than a 2018 ZL1 1LE Camaro and 500+ lbs lighter than any of the modern LX platformed cars.  That might just be the proper weight for a charger that handles well.

There are a few chassis updates I'm working on that should shed a few more lbs, but those aren't ready for primetime, yet.

David

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

Eyes on the apex.  We're coming into a big turn.



The car is getting a fat dose of pro-touring growth hormone straight to the jugular, specifically a front and rear suspension from Chassisworks.  I'll rebuild the frame to suit those systems.  Lots of work ahead. First, update my chassis measurements, and get new 4x2 tubing bent.

David

[INTMD8]

so I'm planning to cut out my last 18 months of work to install their Perimeter-X Framd chassis, tin kit, and front and rear suspensions.

Damn! Lots of work ahead for sure.    Though I've done the same (spent months fabbing something only to cut it out and start over)

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

so I'm planning to cut out my last 18 months of work to install their Perimeter-X Framd chassis, tin kit, and front and rear suspensions.

Damn! Lots of work ahead for sure.    Though I've done the same (spent months fabbing something only to cut it out and start over)

Totally right.  Always trying to do the most right thing for the car, even if that means not using the stuff I built.

David

[chargervert]

If you really want to do right by the Charger, than put a Mopar engine in it, and put the LS in a Camaro where it belongs!

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

If you really want to do right by the Charger, than put a Mopar engine in it, and put the LS in a Camaro where it belongs!

The current Mopar lineup doesn't provide an option that suits the needs of the build, and those criteria have been covered in depth in prior posts.  This is about choosing function over brand purity, and I get how that's not for everyone.

David

[chargervert]

With a new chassis that is surely lighter than what you were constructing, the weight of the block shouldn't be as much of a factor as it was. There are several aftermarket aluminum Mopar blocks available as well. Just get a sponsor to step up and fund the engine as you have done with the chassis.

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

With a new chassis that is surely lighter than what you were constructing, the weight of the block shouldn't be as much of a factor as it was. There are several aftermarket aluminum Mopar blocks available as well. Just get a sponsor to step up and fund the engine as you have done with the chassis.

Yeah, I do expect the new chassis will be lighter, but that doesn't give me any ability to let up on the weight goal - 75 lbs is too large a chunk to pass up.  It's nearly the same weight savings as using a carbon fiber hood in place of the steel one.  Interestingly, your thoughts about a Mopar aluminum block solves one of the two original criteria, but adds a third:

• it's relatively interchangeable in terms of weight
• it's still substantially wider than the LS (necessary to consider since 1/3 of the engine is under the cowl, and that strongly impacts packaging headers/steering/brakes)
• at $4K for a Mopar Performance aluminum block, it definitely requires a sponsorship

That's quite a bit of effort to satisfy brand purity, but doesn't deliver a functional impact to the capability of the end product.  I can definitely see that it would make the car more socially acceptable.

Last note, and this is just sharing something I've learned over the last year or so - I can't overstate the seriousness of acquiring and growing sponsors as partners to a business - the kind of relationship that builds over time through this and future builds, and grows my reputation along with their own.  So, the phrase "just get a sponsor" might unintentionally minimize the work and investment involved, which I don't believe was your intent expressing it that way, but just like I've learned a ton about welding and building and shared that here, it's worthwhile to clarify and outline that portion of this project, too.

I really value your critical feedback, because it keeps me thinking in perspectives that are different from my own.  Thanks again.

David

[chargervert]

I would go to the gym, and loose the 75 pounds off my back side before I would give up my Mopar engine in my Charger!

[Mike DC]

            

I would go to the gym, and loose the 75 pounds off my back side before I would give up my Mopar engine in my Charger!

But are you sitting between the front wheels? 

Location, location, location.  The LS motor decision was never about total curb weight. 


I've said it before:  Ask a competitive drag racer if losing 75 lbs off the rear bumper area isn't important.  Ask him if you could just add 75 lbs back into the passenger seat and make up for it. 

[70B5Cuda]

Where did you buy the parts to convert the TR6060 to a T56 Magnum? Was it a kit? I have a couple Mopar TR6060's and would like an affordable way to convert them to T56 magnums

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

Where did you buy the parts to convert the TR6060 to a T56 Magnum? Was it a kit? I have a couple Mopar TR6060's and would like an affordable way to convert them to T56 magnums

Tick Performance - they've got a bunch of takeoff Magnum parts. Smart folk.

David

[RallyeMike]

Is green and yellow the for real paint scheme? It's unusual (for something that is not a tractor) ..... but I'm digging it.

[alfaitalia]

Quote *RallyeMike*-"Is green and yellow the for real paint scheme? It's unusual (for something that is not a tractor) ..... but I'm digging it."


Its a classic Lotus colour scheme.

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

Is green and yellow the for real paint scheme? It's unusual (for something that is not a tractor) ..... but I'm digging it.

Goodwood green and deep golden cadmium yellow. It's inspired by the Lotus livery, but with an offset stripe to indicate driver location. I do understand how it could have different meanings to folks from northern Wisconsin or who grew up around ag implements.

Its a classic Lotus colour scheme.

Bingo.

Growing up, one of the first car toys I had was a hand-me-down Lotus Type 33 from my dad. It sits on my shop shelf today, and this paint is a way to include a historical reference like I have enjoyed on the suburban project. Also, Jim Clark was a badass, and the car is designed to carve corners.

David

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

Let's get to measuring.  In total, I needed to complete two worksheets and markup one assembly drawing:

• Front crossmember and suspension worksheet - determines the width of the crossmember, rack and pinion, standard or wide track A arm, and a handful of small assembly details
  
• Rear suspension and Fab9 worksheet - determines wide of the rear frame rails and axle housing and the location of suspension pickup points
  
• 68-72 Chevelle assembly drawing - they don't have a b-body Mopar drawing (yet), so I'm marking up their largest GM assembly drawing for length, width, etc.  It's interesting how similar the Charger and Chevelle are in a few key dimensions.
  

To complete all these with a high level of accuracy, I mounted and roughly gapped the front fender and used the mockup 305 tire to determine the placement for the tire, which backs me into wheelbase and a ballpark backspacing.  The car is pretty much a factory widebody, so everything measures larger than the Chevelle.  Fortunately, the front fenders are fairly cavernous, so the tires can push to the outside with ease.  How I control for tolerance creep: the front of the car is 0" and the rear is about 185", and the suspension centerlines, torque boxes, rockers, etc. are all measurements within that range.  Using a T square, I just translate those critical points to the frame table.

Front fender on, 305 at ride height 6" below the rocker.  I had to cut the internal fender bracing to fit.  The front suspension is pushed forward by 1.5".



For reference, max bump with the original inner fender.  These are commonly cut to fit anything larger than a 285.



Cut and at ride height, level to the front.  I'll dial in the suspension stance much later in the process, as everything has to be built level to the frame table.





This is my "evaluation pose".  I'm trying to relocate the tire in the center of the wheel arch.  Originally, the axle was pushed fairly far back in the slot, which I think was a styling consideration so the fender swept down and over a larger portion of the rear sidewall.  I prefer the tire to be centered, because it satisfies my OCD.  To achieve that, the rear axle moved forward 1.75".  Wheelbase is planned at 116.75".



I'm headed to pickup a whole mess of 3" square tube so I can brace up the unibody externally and begin the cutting.

David

[Mike DC]

 


That back tire is pretty damn close to the wheel lip for my taste.  Sidewall flex + bushing compliance + suspension articulation.


BTW, the Mopar B-bodies of that era had two different wheelbases.  The Dodges were built with the rear axle located 1 inch farther back than the Plymouth cars.  It was purely a marketing move because of their placement in the Chrysler hierarchy.  It was done with different front spring eye brackets + differently located shackle mounting tube on the subframe.

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

That back tire is pretty damn close to the wheel lip for my taste.  Sidewall flex + bushing compliance + suspension articulation.


BTW, the Mopar B-bodies of that era had two different wheelbases.  The Dodges were built with the rear axle located 1 inch farther back than the Plymouth cars.  It was purely a marketing move because of their placement in the Chrysler hierarchy.  It was done with different front spring eye brackets + differently located shackle mounting tube on the subframe.

It's forward by about an inch.  Fortunately, I still have room to move it around, and time to do it.  The whole rear clip moves inside the rockers, so I can hang the axle and dial it in prior to burning it all in.  I'll take a second and third and fourth look.

David

[Mike DC]

  
It's this angle that trips me out about the tire clearance with the wheel lip.  I might be okay with that as it is but I sure wouldn't want it any closer.  Just my opinion.  

I'm surprised that somebody in the aftermarket hasn't started producing a version of the outer wheelhousing with the indent opened up.  Guys have been fabricating around that issue for decades.  

Sometimes they use an inner wheelhousing as a donor piece to fill the hole being opened up in the outer housings.  That would produce a nice clean-looking result but you would need to rework the outer bottom flange of the roof pillar tube a little to make it sit flat. 

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

That's just a fit up to get the tire in place.  Like you noted, lots of fab work ahead to make the tires fit and not rub.

David

[70B5Cuda]

Looks good! I did something similar on my 68 Roadrunner build...

[WHITE AND RED 69]

I hate that bump in the wheelwell. The tires look like they fit way better with it cut out.

Car is looking great and going to be badass with the new frame. Can't wait to see more   

[Willomet_Motor_and_Fab]

Looks good! I did something similar on my 68 Roadrunner build...

I really like that design - simple and clean.  Did you source the wheel tub patch, or construct it?

I hate that bump in the wheelwell. The tires look like they fit way better with it cut out.

Car is looking great and going to be badass with the new frame. Can't wait to see more  

It's interesting to see just how much tire you can cram without the bump, but no minitubs.

David

[70B5Cuda]

The outer wheel house plug was fabricated.