Jump to content

Autostrada

Solex
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Autostrada

Recent Profile Visitors

129 profile views
  1. Here is a pic of an 02 with a wide Vega wheel. If the log spacing on the Vega is 4" or 101.6mm and the 02 spacing is 100mm, that is not that much off the mark. I've attached a pick of an 02 with a wide Vega wheel. I don't know if the wheel was modofied as I don't know anything about this car.
  2. OK ! I must have got my Vega - Chevette - Opel confused somewhere along the way. But, the Opel makes most sense. The Bug-eye looks sturdy with those wide Vega alloys. At least the Vega wheels fit something cool. Thanks for the input and info.
  3. OK ! I got side tracked in the other post as I got fixated on what appear to be Chevy Vega wheels on an 02 in one of the historical photos. Now, there are the so called "100 Tips" for 02 owners that someone put together many many years ago. And, in that list I remember reading "Krylon Dull Aluminum paint for wheels" and I also remember the "Chevy Vega Wheels" in 6" X 13" as a cheap wide wheel alternative to the Borrani wheels, including the Borrani manufactured Alpina wheels. The bolt pattern is 100mm and the offset supposedly works well for the 02, although I don't know the specs concerning the offset. I've never seen them on any 02, but for those of us running 13" wheels and with a little "Rat-Rod" blood in our veins they seem like something worth exploring. Has anybody here had any experience with them ? The wheels came equipped with beauty rings and hub caps on the Vegas. But, I think they would look OK plain when painted in dull aluminum or grey. The wheels are probably inexpensive. They made at least a couple of different styles. I think the ones with the 12 slots would look better on the 02. In 75-76 they also made aluminum alloys called the "Cosworth Vega Wheels", pictured last.
  4. We'll probably never know, but now I'm on a mission to find some Vega or whatever they are wheels.
  5. Dick, Yes, I agree, both you and your car went through a little transformation in those two years. I've taken a closer look at those wheels pictured on your car. And, they are certainly not OE BMW wheels as they have 12 nearly square rectangular slots, just like the Chevy Vega wheel pictured above. The OE wheels don't have slots until you get to the e21, which has less slots and came out much later in 76. By 71 it seems like you had the :"Hot Rod" set-up of the day with A70-13 Goodyears and 6" X 13" Vega wheels. I had forgotten about the Chevy Vega wheel thing until I saw your photo, which reminded me. I've heard the offset is just right. Never tried them, though. In a similar manner the 510 guys borrowed 13" steel wheels from a Chevy Corvair. I just might hunt down a set of those Vega wheels.
  6. In the second pic you have some aftermarket steel wheels with beefy tires. Those look like Chevy Vega 13" x 6" steel wheels which have the same 100mm bolt pattern as the 02. The Vega came out in 71. They fit and were the cheap alternative to steel Borrani wheels. Judging by the first photo your car appears to be Bristol Grey.
  7. Notice the crisp factory crease line from fender to rear quarter panel. When performing body work in the lower area of the fender, door (especially the door) and quarter panel shops will often blur this crease rather than replicate it so to save time. It is one of the reasons I learned to do my own bodywork.
  8. Well, I'm fond of Chamonix as well. It was my first 02, a 68 1600, which I bought for $500 in the early 80s and drove it home. I'm pictured here with my car in 86 on Mulholland Dr in LA after a fresh respray, still hadn't installed the belt-line trim and bumpers. I Purchased my 2nd 02, a 69, 1600 for $900 in 1990 and drove it home as well. I'm pictured in the 2nd photo next to it off Laurel Canyon in the Hollywood Hills. My friends's 74 Alfa GTV can be seen in the background.
  9. How about old pics of your 02s or other classic BMWs from the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s or from a decade ago ? Often they are tucked away somewhere like the back of your drawer or the family album. I'm looking around for mine.
  10. 1800Ti Crabs for sure. No doubt about it. I have an identical set with manifolds. The manifolds are the same as the 1600ti sans the brass rod for the 1800ti linkage. These earlier 1800ti carbs have short emulsion tubes in the top cover vs. the longer ones in the 1600ti and 2002ti. I don't know how the 1800ti emulsion tubes even work considering their short length. The 1600ti chokes or venturis are 30mm vs. 32mm for 1800ti and 34mm for 2000ti and 2002ti. Off the top of my head the 1800ti idle jets are 57.5 vs. the 50 for The 1600ti specific carbs. They are visible at the top of the carbs above each throat. The 1600ti carbs are more difficult to find while the 1800ti are more common considering they imported this car into the states.
  11. OK ! It's not 02. That's why it's "Off Topic". https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/16/us/devo-face-shields-energy-dome-trnd/index.html "Are we not men, We are DEVO, "D" "E" "V" "O". What do some of you guys think ?
  12. I don't know exactly when they changed the designation of the 4 speed from 232 to 242 as there were several changes made to the 4 speed during the production run (1966-76). My answer to your question depends on what you are planning to do with your car and also on your personal preferences. The 232 first appeared in the 1600-2. It remained essentially unchanged until the factory started equipping the 1600-2 with the short neck diff and corresponding sub frame and driveshaft at some time around 1970. These early 1600-2 transmissions have the following features: 1. Smoother case 2. Porsche synchroes: Resulting in silk smooth shifts, but supposedly weaker than the later Borg Worner synchros which are not as smooth. I prefer the Porsche synchros. And, I've never had a problem with them while clocking Hundreds of thousands miles on 1600-02s. But, I don't drive my cars like a Gremlin. And, they may be more prone to wear with the more powerful 2 liter. 3. 3 bolt yoke with 6 bolt flex disc (A slightly smaller 6 bolt flex disc than the one on the 320i): The shift fork mating point to the linkage is immediately above the flex disc. While the 3 bolt yoke is interchangeable with the 4 bolt yoke of the 2002, there is no way you can install the 8 bolt guibo of the 2002 on this transmission due to the location of mating junction for the linkage. There isn't enough room. BMW had two different drive trains for the 02s equipped with long neck diffs. 1. 1600-2 2. 2002 They differed primarily in the driveshaft. The factory redesigned the driveshaft while trying to account for the additional torque of the 2 liter motor. So, they replaced the 3 bolt yoke and 6 bolt flex disc at the transmission with a 4 bolt yoke and 8 bolt flex disc at the transmission. In doing so they had to include a longer shift fork on the transmission (the only, but very important modification to the transmission at this point), moving back the mating junction for the linkage aft of the 8 bolt guibo, otherwise the guibo wouldn't fit in its location. You can tailor most 2002 coarse splined 4 speed transmissions to fit the early 1600-2s, but the early 1600-02 transmissions can't be mated to the 2002 unless you disassembled them to include the longer shift fork). The early 1600-02s had 3 flex discs on the driveshaft and u joints while the 2002 had a larger 8 bolt flex disc at the transmission end and two joints ( one at the center and one at the diff end of the driveshaft. I've also heard that the 2002 driveshaft was better balanced. It is rated for higher torque. But, many people have installed 2 liter engines in their early 1600-2s and had no problems with the early driveshaft. When BMW switched to the short neck design they essentially just extended the length of this drive shaft and did away with the grease nipples at the u-joints which were a cool feature on the 68 2002. The factory also simplified things and included the same driveshaft for the entire 02 range. So, my answer to you is: If you plan on installing a 2 liter motor in your car at some point in the future and in keeping with the factory philosophy necessitating a driveshaft redesign for the 2002 to accommodate the additional torque of the 2 liter motor, you may opt for the later 70-71 set-up. But, as I mentioned, many people have ran 2 liter motors with the early 1600 driveshafts with no problems. And, as I've mentioned in my earlier post, the short neck diff is more readily available in different gear ratios and limited slip variants. But, I personally feel that the long neck is a better design. One additional important matter: The sub frame for the short neck diff has wider spaced mounting ears for the trailing arms. The trailing arms are all the same, though, but the bushings in the trailing arms used for the later sub frames are wider, protruding slightly out of trailing arms to accommodate the wider spacing of the mounting ears. These wider bushings are common. The earlier narrower bushings are difficult to obtain. BMW starting manufacturing them again, but they screwed up and made them slightly too small in diameter. So, they really don't work. Some people have simply modified the later bushings by cutting them to fit the earlier mounting ears. This is another important matter to keep in mind. It is very easy to obtain the later style bushings while you have to get creative in replacing the early ones.
  13. There are two different drive-train set-ups for the long neck diff: 1. The 1600-2 (1966-MId 69) 2. The 2002 (1968 - Mid 69) I'm assuming you have the 68 2002. If you do, that is the best driveshaft and diff used in any 2002. The driveshaft has the serviceable u joints with grease nipples and is telescopic. The long neck diff is superior to the later short neck versions for several reasons: 1. It holds more oil and stays cooler. 2. It is heavier. And, that is exactly where you want more weight in an 02, at the rear axle, resulting in better balance. 3. You can loosen the hex nut at the front and remove the yoke to get to the seal when you need to replace it without worrying about the crush collar. That's because there is another hex nut deep in the neck which torques down the crush collar. This is not the case with the short neck diff where there is just one hex nut at the front which holds the yoke and torque on the crush collar. Once you loosen the nut to replace the seal you need to also replace the crush collar which requires further disassembly of the diff. The later design is cheaper to manufacture. But, it is certainly not the better of the two. Short neck diffs and drive train layouts are popular with the 02 community because they are more plentiful and also available in the limited slip versions (3.64 & 3.90) as used on the 320i "S" package cars. During the early years BMW produced long neck diffs in every imaginable ratio and limited slip action for the race cars. They are easier to locate in Europe, though. Each corresponding diff version requires a specific rear sub frame. You can't simply swap the diff styles without also swapping the rear sub frame. Many people have swapped to the later style sub frame, driveshaft and diff so they can drop in the popular 3.90LSD from the 320i while doing their 5 speed OD conversion. But, I would never choose this route. Your long neck is superior. If you want another ratio in the long neck, you can find it if you look. And you can always have it rebuilt to include the limited slip. There are a few very competent people in the 02 community who are good at building diffs. BMW moved to the later short neck design because it was cheaper to produce, but it wasn't better.
  14. Yes, there is a specific pedal box you need if you want to retain the mechanical clutch, but with the newer style booster. The pedal box you need is from the post 68 1600 (1969-76). This pedal box is set up for the mechanical clutch and the newer style brake booster. This is the only pedal box that will work for you. You are upgrading your early 1600 pedal box to the later style 1600 pedal box. The 320i brake master is a perfect choice. I have one on one of my 1969 1600 with single circuit brakes.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.