The Hurricane Speedster

@Steven Montz

DANG, Steven! That's quite the project you have ahead of you. Looking forward to following your project progress (with pics, of course) and seeing the end result. I'm guessing it will be an awesome ride. As you may already know, this forum is THE source for anything and everything you need to know about these replicas.  Best of luck!

It looks like it might be a CMC.  If you show us the rear grille we can confirm.

As a supporting member, you can download the CMC build manual.

Thank you!

I will need it! Alan Merklin has been a great help so far and I know I'm at the tip of the iceberg but if I can replicate this subframe and get that chassis cut right!... I'll get the rest. I will document my progress! As I said in my post! This will make a good story! I hope to get the local news on board and get some press on this, because 18yrs later! We still talk about that monster hurricane and some good stuff may go over well!

I appreciate the support!

Sincerely;

Steven

Hi Mike!

It is a CMC and Alan has sent me the whole build sheets for it and I've bound it and am reading it all the time.

Thanks!

LA .... Ah ha - a victim of Hurricane Ivan.  So much fun it living in hurricane ally.  Docks are still being rebuilt in NW FL from freak hurricane Sally which wasn't supposed to hit NW FL.  Barges got loose in Pensacola Bay and wiped out 1/2 of the new 3 mile bridge - it just fully opened 2 weeks ago!  Lots of big $$$ lawsuits against bridge builder!

I know it! I've spoken to you before! You are in the Ft. Walton area I believe? I lived in Walton Co. for years! Still have family and property there. It got too crowded! I work for FEMA and have done lots of Hurricane work, That's how I found this car! It was sitting in the bottom of the earth at the mouth of the Mississippi river. The old man gave it to me and now my goal is to bring it back! My sister lives in Gulf breeze! what a mess that was with that bridge B.S. I just got back from working Ian in Naples! My number is 850-217-9337 if you are around when I head that way I'd like to see your car!

You're a far, far, braver man than I...

Brave!!!?? Or crazy!!??😳😂

I did get married!!! ONCE!!😂

@Steven Montz posted:

… if you are around when I head that way I'd like to see your car!

(Insert hilarious comment here)

@Steven Montz posted:

if you are around when I head that way I'd like to see your car!

All of us would like to see his car.

Awesome project. Has anyone on here ever re-fabricated the body steel subframe at home? I think Alan built a car once that had it all done in aluminum. It'd be cool to track down the steel one that guy threw away!

Is there a blueprint drawing for the inner steel structure?

are the CMC ones the same as the IM ?

Thanks

This may seem a little out there, but hear me out- since you're having to replicate the frame anyway, how about doing it in aluminum?  Your Speedster will be unique AND 100? 120? 140? lbs lighter than any other around.  Lighter is not just faster off the line, but faster EVERYWHERE- acceleration, cornering and stopping.  It will be more nimble, a tank of gas will last longer, brakes and tires will last longer- the list is endless!

The early (606?) built IM's would be the same as FF/CMC (since CMC bought IMs tooling in 1978) .  Looks like entire frame is there - with lots of rust holes.  Rusty Tubs used to sell a frame (with fiberglass floor) that looked like CMC one (when they were in ATL).  They still have web site but not sure they exist after their move to Bolder City NV.  $395.

Porsche 356 kit car floor pans JUST LIKE ORIGINALS! (rustytubs.com)

@Steven Montz posted:

I did get married!!! ONCE!!😂

Oh, man, this guy fits right in!

Good for you, quite the project to take on. RESPECT!

When you build the frame, it may be possible to build the longitudinals and front angled pieces out of a not-so-wide steel stock(or aluminum) as the CMC(or whatever brand) sub-frame design makes the car VERY narrow. Think about what seats will fit. I don't know your size but every little bit helps in these little cars.

All I can say is what a challenge you are undertaking.  I have a CMC kit body hanging out above my chassis now... would offer to take measurements for you but my response would be slow as the car is not close at hand.  I can offer this: I made a CAD model of the frame and believe I have it pretty close. I can send you a copy with a free viewer link that you can measure from..    it's only tape measure accurate & taken from one frame, not the spec. but perhaps you could use as 2nd guage against your rusty pattern.

Yes!!! That would be very helpful! Thank you!
you can email me at

flyrite@hotmail.com

sincerely!

steven montz

☮️

@imperial posted:

Is there a blueprint drawing for the inner steel structure?

are the CMC ones the same as the IM ?

Thanks

Waaay in the past (the 1970s) you might be able to say, but there is just no comparison at all during more recent times.  I believe, as Wolfgang says above, that CMC bought some of IM's old tooling, etc. back then.

@ALB posted:

This may seem a little out there, but hear me out- since you're having to replicate the frame anyway, how about doing it in aluminum?  Your Speedster will be unique AND 100? 120? 140? lbs lighter than any other around.  Lighter is not just faster off the line, but faster EVERYWHERE- acceleration, cornering and stopping.  It will be more nimble, a tank of gas will last longer, brakes and tires will last longer- the list is endless!

ALB:

Send him data on where he can drill some holes.

@Panhandle Bob posted:

ALB:

Send him data on where he can drill some holes.

Now, that's funny...and in good fun.

I wonder if Merklin has a “hole drilling template” to make the process go faster?    🤔

SENT--  I'm sure I'm pretty close, but remember your dimensions may vary, check 3x before you rely on any of my dimensions to make any cuts.  I did not fabricate anything from this but as I cut/measured chassis, everything seemed to agree.

@Panhandle Bob posted:

ALB:

Send him data on where he can drill some holes.

Ok, I laughed out loud at that!

And please call me Al, Bob!

I'm actually considering that at this very moment! I'm not sure but I have a feeling the original aluminum body may have been lighter than the replica fiberglass. We build aluminum generator stands down here in LA. for Generac and we have the experience and equipment to do it! I was just thinking about strength and whatnot! It is certainly in the plan! Your thoughts!? Also what may be the cost difference? But I'm not really that worried about that aspect. As far as speed! ... I dont expect to really run this thing that fast! I'm more after the COOL factor! But I hear you for sure!

Originally, the 550 was aluminum. The 356 Speedster was steel.

Pay attention to what Danny P says about thinning down or tapering the longs - the door sills are absurdly wide on pan-based replicas, necessitating running very narrow seats. It wouldn't be that hard to fix, and yet nobody's ever done it.

If you reduce the with of the longitudinals you will reduce the strength.

I think at least one reason for wide sills in a pan-based speedster may be that the sill has to be wide to reach the edge of the pan.

@Michael McKelvey posted:

If you reduce the with of the longitudinals you will reduce the strength.

I think at least one reason for wide sills in a pan-based speedster may be that the sill has to be wide to reach the edge of the pan.

Perhaps...

but I doubt that there was any real engineering in the sub-frame. As you say - I think the longitudinals are made that wide to match the flanges on the pan, and because it gives the uprights in front of the doors an easy/strong weld.

If you look at anybody's purpose-built frame (Beck, IM, etc.), the longitudinals are nowhere near as big or as wide. A Meyers Manx dune buggy doesn't even have a subframe (granted - no doors either, so there's a lot less need, but still) and they're intended to go flying off sand-dunes, etc.

As a complete aside - I wonder how light an outlaw replica could be made without any door openings (pretty light, would be my guess). I'll bet you could do it without anything but the pan and a decently thick body.

Keep in mind that the tunnel of the pan cars is a backbone. In an IM, there isn't even a structure there. The giant longs on CMCs, old IMs, etc. are redundantly strong - at least 2x bigger than they need to be in my mind.

The lack of them is how both Becks and IMs can fit much wider seats than a pan car.

I like your thinking, Stan.

Since most of the strength needed would be in the height of those tubes, the width could be reduced without causing much (if any) trouble, which would also cut a fair amount of weight even if done in steel.

@Michael McKelvey posted:

If you reduce the with of the longitudinals you will reduce the strength.

I think at least one reason for wide sills in a pan-based speedster may be that the sill has to be wide to reach the edge of the pan.

The sills are huge because you're mating Beetle pan halves (which slope inward towards the separate front fenders) to a body (Speedster) which is built more along the lines of a Karmann Ghia with slab sided fenders.   Since Beetle floor pans were much more plentiful and most were in much better shape when Frank Reisner first came up with the Speedster replica concept, they went with what was available.  A Ghia pan would have been a much better choice for more interior room, but they weren't nearly as common in wrecking yards and I don't even know if replacement pan halves were available then.

If 1 was to redesign the replica Speedster (and stay with the VW pan), Ghia pan halves make so much more sense, 914/911 front suspension (would require re-designing the front of the pan but would be oh, so worth it!), aluminum sub frame (come on, you know it needs to be lighter!) and pie cut/widened rear fenders (and wider wheels/tires for better stability- if it's good enough for all those late model Porsches it'll work for us too!) would be a pretty good place to start.  Al

@Stan Galat posted:

As a complete aside - I wonder how light an outlaw replica could be made without any door openings (pretty light, would be my guess). I'll bet you could do it without anything but the pan and a decently thick body.

I think this car went down the strip at about 1000lbs.  Lloyd Moser made a bunch of these back in the 1980’s and 1990’s. He made them in stock 356 length, and stretched versions for drag racing.  Put one on a full tube chassis, all aluminum interior, lights, windshield, probably could keep the weight down to about 1300lbs.

@edsnova, the strength of the tube is mostly in the top and bottom.  The sides hold the top and bottom apart and the strength varies with the distance they are apart.

If you look at an I-beam, the top and bottom flanges are thick and the web that holds them apart is thin.

@Steven Montz posted:

I'm actually considering that at this very moment! I'm not sure but I have a feeling the original aluminum body may have been lighter than the replica fiberglass. We build aluminum generator stands down here in LA. for Generac and we have the experience and equipment to do it! I was just thinking about strength and whatnot! It is certainly in the plan! Your thoughts!? Also what may be the cost difference? But I'm not really that worried about that aspect. As far as speed! ... I dont expect to really run this thing that fast! I'm more after the COOL factor! But I hear you for sure!

Speedster bodies were steel, with the later(?) 4 cam Carrera GT cars being equipped with aluminum doors, decklids and front hoods.  Even with the lighter pieces, I believe the factory 4 cam cars weren't really any lighter than the pushrod engine'd Speedsters (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).   Yeah, building the whole body out of aluminum would be neat, but for something seriously light, the word is                   

                               KEVLAR   

_{(actually, I think the term I'm looking for is carbon fiber but it was first thing in the morning!)}

PS- @LI-Rick- I remember those- there were a few around!

@Michael McKelvey posted:

@edsnova, the strength of the tube is mostly in the top and bottom.  The sides hold the top and bottom apart and the strength varies with the distance they are apart.

If you look at an I-beam, the top and bottom flanges are thick and the web that holds them apart is thin.

Tube and I beam is not the same. Put a 2 x 4 box beam with the long side flat and  support the ends. Now step on the middle. Tell me what happens. Now stand that beam up and do the same.

@LI-Rick posted:

I think this car went down the strip at about 1000lbs.  Lloyd Moser made a bunch of these back in the 1980’s and 1990’s. He made them in stock 356 length, and stretched versions for drag racing.  Put one on a full tube chassis, all aluminum interior, lights, windshield, probably could keep the weight down to about 1300lbs.

Oooooooo.

I'd love to find one.

So you think I should consider fabricating the new subframe for the body structure out of I beam instead of the original box tube? What are your thoughts on aluminum opposed to steel? What about fastening the body to the frame! I assume I would have to weld side plates to the I beam! The original body used rivets! I plan on using riv nuts and bolts like we use on aircraft!

We use these all the time! My preference!

@Steven Montz posted:

So you think I should consider fabricating the new subframe for the body structure out of I beam instead of the original box tube? What are your thoughts on aluminum opposed to steel? What about fastening the body to the frame! I assume I would have to weld side plates to the I beam! The original body used rivets! I plan on using riv nuts and bolts like we use on aircraft!

Absolutely not!

I wasn't suggesting using I-beams for the Speedster. I just thought it would be easier to visualize the strength being in the top and bottom of the I-beam, not the vertical web.

As a complete aside - I wonder how light an outlaw replica could be made without any door openings (pretty light, would be my guess). I'll bet you could do it without anything but the pan and a decently thick body.

there was a guy up in Malibu that made one piece Speedster bodies back in the 80s

my friend had one with a Formula Vee type chassis under it .

@Steven Montz

I used Rivnuts in about half a dozen places on my car, usually places that were just hard to get at.  They're terrific if you have the installation tool (which I borrowed from work).  We used a lot of Rivnuts to hold computer cabinets together.  Cabinets arrived knocked down as a pallet of parts at the final assembly site and were assembled on site.  Rivnuts everywhere and they held like welds.

@Panhandle Bob posted:

ALB:

Send him data on where he can drill some holes.

When Al suggested aluminum I was waiting for the hole joke

More on the build … we could have our new friend spend a lot more Time and energy here by adding pie cuts to allow bigger back tires,  a new dash with real 356 gauges from Beck … wider sills etc etc.  

I would say worthwhile while your at it .

ps.  Center the front wheels in the holes too

@Steven Montz posted:

So you think I should consider fabricating the new subframe for the body structure out of I beam instead of the original box tube? What are your thoughts on aluminum opposed to steel? What about fastening the body to the frame! I assume I would have to weld side plates to the I beam! The original body used rivets! I plan on using riv nuts and bolts like we use on aircraft!

Stay with the original box tube design- don't even consider the I beam idea  As Michael said, he was only using it as a comparison.  My thoughts on aluminum- HELL YEAH!!!  If you have the resources you'll be able to drop so much weight off the car (and have one of the lightest Speedsters around- again, a lighter car is faster EVERYWHERE!).  I'm known here for lightening things by reworking (drilling and profiling by grinding) parts and can tell you that on average I can reduce something's weight by 20- 25% by what I do.  Think of it- to take 40 lbs off of a car this way you'd have to rework 150-200 lbs of stuff!  I've now spent 100? 150? 200? (I have no idea- I didn't keep track) hours drilling, grinding and filing for a little more than 30 lbs (and then you've got to get rid of it- that's a couple of 5 gal buckets full of swarf! I'm lucky I live close to the municipal recycling center).  Being able to eliminate 120-140 pounds simply by a material (aluminum weighs less than 40% of steel/iron) change on 1 component is huge.  I've (very briefly- I'm not THAT CRAZY!) considered it, but it would take sooo much work to pull the sub-frame out of my older IM body.  Still...

A few lightened pieces- the throwout shaft is drilled through and went from 522- 377 g, the t.o. shaft arm on the lower right went from 155- 93 g, the bowden tube bracket went from 91-52 and the  handbrake ratchet, originally at 81g, is now 53 g.  It was harder than normal to rework because it's hardened to a depth of .030 or .040" on both sides, and along with most of the trans parts required carbide drill bits (HSS wouldn't even leave a mark). These examples of weight drop were the exception, not the norm.

And a few more parts I've massaged/drilled https://www.speedsterowners.com/member/alb

Face it Al,  you just like drilling holes, no matter what the justification. 

I know I'm hijacking Steven's thread, and nothing I'm going to say is directed towards him, other than this - your project is ambitious in a way I don't think anybody has adequately addressed on this thread. Having part of a body (no deck-lid, frunk lid, or doors), a rotten subframe, and an unusable pan doesn't  seem like a realistic starting point to me, but what do I know? Good luck. The "found it in the mud" story is great, but it takes a lot to get where you're headed. Like, "a lot" a lot.

... and in that vein... the conversation and @LI-Rick and @imperial bringing up one-piece Speedster drag bodies has me headed into more of a rabbit-hole than I ever thought it could. I keep coming back to those one piece bodies. My worry would be that they would be flimsy, outer-skin only affairs which offer no real "dune buggy"-like attachment to the pan.

What I am imagining is a body kind of as a cross between the pan-based bodies from various places and a Meyers Manx dune-buggy - something that bonded/bolted to a shortened VW pan, which creates its own "tub" - with no door openings to require a sub-frame for strength. For a human to drive this thing, he'd need to climb over the "door" top, which would be really, really difficult. The body would need an engine deck-lid but the frunk would probably have to be sealed, or again - a subframe would be required. It would be possible to retain a frunk without a subframe- but that piece of fiberglass would be shallow and complex, and having a frunk wouldn't really fit the ethos of the thing. If you are climbing over the door to get it, what would you need a trunk for?

The body would be a Monocoque - a fiberglass unibody. This was the genius of the Meyers Manx.

Al's eyes are glazing over with the possibility of an aluminum subframe. But what if there were no subframe at all, and the structure was still stiff enough to jack off of the body and lift the entire car off the ground. I don't think this is dreaming because (again) - Meyers Manx.

This thing would be silly stiff and weigh nothing. You'd put gas in it like a Spyder. It'd be crying for a lexan windshield, no wipers, no top of any kind, and two bomber seats sitting in a truck-bed liner interior. If you did it right, you could hang A-arms off the front part of the Monocoque and forgo any part of the frame in front of the Napoleon's hat. Thinking about it, perhaps you'd want a tiny subframe connecting the Napoleon's hat to the A-arm mounts, but it wouldn't strictly be needed.

Bolt on some big brakes, light wheels, and a killer motor and transaxle, and you'd have a <1200 lb canyon-carving monster.

The mind reels with possibility, though not any kind of actual probability. Such things spring from the mind of the left knee rehab patient.

My Lotus Europa had no steel frame at the outer sides.  It was all fiberglass sides and floor hung over a steel spine down the center.  And, it had doors and a frunk. It weighed about 1200 pounds.  Getting in was like climbing into a golf bag.  But, once in, it was comfortable in the semi-reclining seats.  At 42" it was 10" lower than a Corvette.

@Bob: IM S6 posted:

Face it Al,  you just like drilling holes, no matter what the justification. 

How about I ride to Carlisle with you- I'll bring along my Dewalt drill and a couple of batteries and we could see how much weight that beast could shed before we get to Danny's scales?

I just read this on another forum that applies to the Hurricane   " if you’re gonna design a new one answer as many problems as possible"

@Michael McKelvey posted:

My Lotus Europa had no steel frame at the outer sides.  It was all fiberglass sides and floor hung over a steel spine down the center.  And, it had doors and a frunk. It weighed about 1200 pounds.  Getting in was like climbing into a golf bag.  But, once in, it was comfortable in the semi-reclining seats.  At 42" it was 10" lower than a Corvette.

The Europa had a top as well to provide rigidity.

The one piece bodies were with no opening doors or hoods…..

I guess you could make them thicker in certain areas if you wanted ,

but there is no firewall , rear seat area , inner rockers etc , wheel wells etc

I would think the plan is to take a tube frame VW off-road rail buggy chassis   And drop the body over it…. Which is a little like what Lloyd Mossier did …..

@Stan Galat posted:

I know I'm hijacking Steven's thread, and nothing I'm going to say is directed towards him, other than this - your project is ambitious in a way I don't think anybody has adequately addressed on this thread. Having part of a body (no deck-lid, frunk lid, or doors), a rotten subframe, and an unusable pan doesn't  seem like a realistic starting point to me, but what do I know? Good luck. The "found it in the mud" story is great, but it takes a lot to get where you're headed. Like, "a lot" a lot.

... and in that vein... the conversation and @LI-Rick and @imperial bringing up one-piece Speedster drag bodies has me headed into more of a rabbit-hole than I ever thought it could. I keep coming back to those one piece bodies. My worry would be that they would be flimsy, outer-skin only affairs which offer no real "dune buggy"-like attachment to the pan.

What I am imagining is a body kind of as a cross between the pan-based bodies from various places and a Meyers Manx dune-buggy - something that bonded/bolted to a shortened VW pan, which creates its own "tub" - with no door openings to require a sub-frame for strength. For a human to drive this thing, he'd need to climb over the "door" top, which would be really, really difficult. The body would need an engine deck-lid but the frunk would probably have to be sealed, or again - a subframe would be required. It would be possible to retain a frunk without a subframe- but that piece of fiberglass would be shallow and complex, and having a frunk wouldn't really fit the ethos of the thing. If you are climbing over the door to get it, what would you need a trunk for?

The body would be a Monocoque - a fiberglass unibody. This was the genius of the Meyers Manx.

Al's eyes are glazing over with the possibility of an aluminum subframe. But what if there were no subframe at all, and the structure was still stiff enough to jack off of the body and lift the entire car off the ground. I don't think this is dreaming because (again) - Meyers Manx.

This thing would be silly stiff and weigh nothing. You'd put gas in it like a Spyder. It'd be crying for a lexan windshield, no wipers, no top of any kind, and two bomber seats sitting in a truck-bed liner interior. If you did it right, you could hang A-arms off the front part of the Monocoque and forgo any part of the frame in front of the Napoleon's hat. Thinking about it, perhaps you'd want a tiny subframe connecting the Napoleon's hat to the A-arm mounts, but it wouldn't strictly be needed.

Bolt on some big brakes, light wheels, and a killer motor and transaxle, and you'd have a <1200 lb canyon-carving monster.

The mind reels with possibility, though not any kind of actual probability. Such things spring from the mind of the left knee rehab patient.

Kind of sounds like an Elan, but that had a folded steel spine and a light glass body. The steel spine might weigh 100 pounds. My friend Mike is rebuilding one. I think it will weigh less than 1500 pounds, but it does have an iron block inline 4.

He replaced the crash-damaged spine and is doing some phenomenally clean glass repair. He does nice work no matter what he does.

@Stan Galat, yeah, there is that.  But, I think the Elan of that time had similar construction.

Yeah, Colin liked that method. It was light and agile, but fragile. I missed your post above, Michael.

@DannyP, fragile is right.  My Europa was rear-ended when I was stopped at a light and was totaled.  I replaced it with an Elan +2.  I feel a little pang when I see a picture of one.

@Stan Galat posted:

The Europa had a top as well to provide rigidity.

I remember that car when I was in high school. I couldn’t get in it then even less today but I saw one for sale on some site that needed quite a bit of repairs. I always thought they were cool.

@Michael McKelvey posted:

My Lotus Europa had no steel frame at the outer sides.  It was all fiberglass sides and floor hung over a steel spine down the center.  And, it had doors and a frunk. It weighed about 1200 pounds.  Getting in was like climbing into a golf bag.  But, once in, it was comfortable in the semi-reclining seats.  At 42" it was 10" lower than a Corvette.

AFAIK, TVRs are the same way, with a simple framework to support the door sills.

@Stan Galat posted:

Al's eyes are glazing over with the possibility of an aluminum subframe. But what if there were no subframe at all, and the structure was still stiff enough to jack off of the body and lift the entire car off the ground. I don't think this is dreaming because (again) - Meyers Manx.

This thing would be silly stiff and weigh nothing. You'd put gas in it like a Spyder. It'd be crying for a lexan windshield, no wipers, no top of any kind, and two bomber seats sitting in a truck-bed liner interior. If you did it right, you could hang A-arms off the front part of the Monocoque and forgo any part of the frame in front of the Napoleon's hat. Thinking about it, perhaps you'd want a tiny subframe connecting the Napoleon's hat to the A-arm mounts, but it wouldn't strictly be needed.

Bolt on some big brakes, light wheels, and a killer motor and transaxle, and you'd have a <1200 lb canyon-carving monster.

The mind reels with possibility, though not any kind of actual probability. Such things spring from the mind of the left knee rehab patient.

Don't you know it!  And you'd be tickled as well, Stan, if you could cut 120 pounds out of your car in 1 fell swoop.  As for the super duper lightweight shell, with no doors neither your wife nor mine would ever get in it. Mind you, that might not be a bad thing...

@Stan Galat posted:

...

The body would be a Monocoque - a fiberglass unibody. This was the genius of the Meyers Manx.

... If you did it right, you could hang A-arms off the front part of the Monocoque and forgo any part of the frame in front of the Napoleon's hat. Thinking about it, perhaps you'd want a tiny subframe connecting the Napoleon's hat to the A-arm mounts, but it wouldn't strictly be needed.

...The mind reels with possibility, though not any kind of actual probability. Such things spring from the mind of the left knee rehab patient.

Using a fiberglass body shell to anchor the front suspension and steering of a road-going automobile? I don't think so.

Not unless its intended use is strictly as a garden cart.

Lots of interesting conversation, and speculation.  But I think in the reality of time, effort, and cost (and likelihood of a successful final result) you'd be better off scrapping what you have and starting with something like this: https://kitmanmotors.com/price-list/   

Just sayin

@edsnova posted:

Using a fiberglass body shell to anchor the front suspension and steering of a road-going automobile? I don't think so.

Not unless its intended use is strictly as a garden cart.

Yeah, that part was a bridge too far, for sure.

Chevy actually did something like that once.  They built a concept car (nice looking 2-seater IIRC designated XP-898) that had a plastic foam-filled structure and no metal frame.  there were separate metal (of course) sub-frames for corn and rear suspension as well as the drivetrain mounts.  All those were basically glued to the plastic structure.

Found the article: https://www.caranddriver.com/r...pt-archived-feature/

Key phrase: “separate metal subframes”

there were separate metal (of course) sub-frames for corn and rear..." should of course be "There were separate metal (of course) sub-frames for front and rear...".

If I could type I'd be dangerous.

@Lane Anderson posted:

there were separate metal (of course) sub-frames for corn and rear..." should of course be "There were separate metal (of course) sub-frames for front and rear...".

If I could type I'd be dangerous.

Yes, yes you would be.

.

"If I could type, I'd be dangerous."

It's sobering to consider that a hundred monkeys typing randomly at a hundred keyboards would eventually order an online pizza from Papa Murphy's.

.

There is ample evidence that Lane is pretty dangerous even when he is away from his keyboard. 

Great story; I am an adopted New Orleanian; lived there about 8 years and love the place. I also started working there as a consultant for FEMA back in 2007. I love the photos with the bayou style houses in the background. This poor little car definitely got hit but the great thing about fiberglass is that it can be brought back. Re the steel frame I have seen some outfits that sell them. I've even seen them along with the pan if so desired. Might be Kitman out of Texas if I remember correctly. Good luck on this build; wishing you the best and looking forward to being witness to this adventure.