1965 Imperial for Rallycross

Nick_440 said:

yeah the snowmobile engines I'm thinking about using are really trick, lets hope I can afford it. plus the 2 speed only weighs 45 bs, I think i can build this thing under 1200 lbs.

as to where I've been: hooning cars, washing dishes, and working on robots in Rockford Il. I moved up to Williston ND when I got out of high school in October and now I'm making enough to race.

I'm all for the Imperial in rallycross, just as long as you're totally clear that it will absolutely not be competitive in rallycross, no matter what you do to it. But awesomeness factor alone will make up for its slowness,as long as you're ok with that.. The real key is to make sure you build it to not break, since rallycross is hard on cars (in some cases, harder than stage rally, especially suspension lateral loads), and breaking sucks.,whether going slow or fast. I know nothing about Imperials and how stout their body, suspension, etc is, so I'll assume you know better than I do on that account!

So as to the stage rally thing.... I want to preface that I totally dig your creative thinking, and I LOVE to see old cars rally (usually my '85 BMW is one of the oldest cars at any given rally). And man, I'd love to see that. But, for your sake I'll also dump in as the voice of reason here, since I've been rallying for several years now. A few things to think about: 

1) I haven't looked at NASA Rally rules too recently, but I sure don't remember any way you could put snowmobile engines into a 1930s car and make it street legal (a requirement for stage rally). Same goes for CRS in Canada. I could be wrong, but if bike/snowmobile engines were legal, I would assume people would already be using them. 

2) NASA rally is slowly dying (in my opinion), at least in the easter US where only Sandblast is left. If you build a car for NRS rules, it may not be able to be used in ARA, which sanctions most of the rallies in the US these days. And I'm quite sure that the snowmobile engine thing is not legal for ARA, nor a 1200-lb weight, etc.

3) Nothing sucks more in rally than DNF'ing due to a mechanical failuer.  So my advice for rally would be to build a platform that can be built to be reliable and strong within the rules. There's some freedom to do oddball cars (hell, we had an early-90s Thunderbird at STPR this year), and they're crowd favorites but rarely competitive or reliable. 

So while that sounds like a cool idea, read the rulebooks before you actually start anything. Not trying to be a killjoy, but rally rules are extremely particular about what you can and can't do, especially when it comes to drivetrains and safety. . and don't want you to spend a lot of time and money on things and then find out you can't compete in it. Because we definitely need some more old, oddball cars on stage - even if they're not radical with snowmobile motors. A 30s ford with a big block would be just as awesome :)

As to making enough to rally: No idea what you make,or how much you've looked into it, but budget a bare minimum of $2000 for a single rally. And that's if you're sleeping in a tent and crewing for yourself and it's not a super-long tow.  We do it pretty low-budget and I think most ralllies cost us $2500-3000 staying in cheap motels or crashing with friends. The entry, license, crew licenses, etc all add up quick. Not to mention the price of cage, seats, harnesses, HANS, helmets, trailer/tow rig, and all the other gear that it's good not to cheap out on! 

Also, you should run gravel tires, if you can. The stiffer sidewalls should be way less likely to debead than snows, with a heavy/understeering car in rallycross. They come in 14" and 15" sizes so should fit the smaller wheels yo'd probably run on the Imperial.

So.,sorry to be the boring one citing rules and stuff lol......I'm still excited to see what you're going to build. Make sure to document it in the build section here on GRM! 

When they were new (yes, I'm old), I remember reading a road test of a 65-ish Imperial in which the brakes were described as scary bad.  I can't imagine a 61 would be better.  I'm assuming that even Imperial Rallycrossers have to stop at some point, so that's something I'd be looking at.  As a dd, two tons plus drums plus 21st-century traffic seems like a bad plan even for this forum.

https://www.allpar.com/history/mopar/brakes/disc-main.html might be a place to start.

irish44j said:

1) I haven't looked at NASA Rally rules too recently, but I sure don't remember any way you could put snowmobile engines into a 1930s car and make it street legal (a requirement for stage rally). Same goes for CRS in Canada. I could be wrong, but if bike/snowmobile engines were legal, I would assume people would already be using them. 

you're totally right, and building it for ARA rules does make more sense. the reason I want to build it for NASA rally is that in their 2wd open class the only required factory/unaltered parts are the a and b pillars and factory engine location/ driven wheels; the rules state that any other modifications are allowed. 

Edit: NASA 2wd open doesn't have a minimum weight eithier

even if NASA goes under I'll still have a sick drag car if I change the transmission and rear suspension. 

Edit 2: If I based it on a skyhawk or some other lightweight fr layout car and kept mostly factory body panels I could cut down to 2 850cc units and up the weight 1950 lbs I could still race it in ARA, much heavier and 2/3 the power but there's nothing in the rules about snowmobile engines.

In reply to Stealthtercel :

you're right the brakes are terrible, I could probably swap it to front discs  

irish44j said:

I'm all for the Imperial in rallycross, just as long as you're totally clear that it will absolutely not be competitive in rallycross, no matter what you do to it. But awesomeness factor alone will make up for its slowness,as long as you're ok with that.. The real key is to make sure you build it to not break, since rallycross is hard on cars (in some cases, harder than stage rally, especially suspension lateral loads), and breaking sucks.,whether going slow or fast. I know nothing about Imperials and how stout their body, suspension, etc is, so I'll assume you know better than I do on that account!

I'm completely fine with going slow, as long as I have fun, especially if I'm building a fast car at home. as for durability, these behemoths are banned in demolition derbies because they don't break: everything is overbuilt, even for a nearly 6000 lb car.

You will never come in first.

You will have more pictures taken than everyone else.

Combined.

stuart in mn said:

A 1965 Imperial would have had a 413, not a 440.

I hear those 413's really dig in.  

There's a snowmobile engined Miata that races in Lemons and has done really well. Running the snowmobile CVT and pull start and all. 
 

On the Imperial, allow me to be the voice of reason: if you don't do this, we have a problem. 

Haven’t read the whole thread but I think some are overestimating the weight.  It’s not light.  Make no mistake.  But it won’t be nearly as heavy as its size suggests.  I doubt it’s nearly as heavy as a modern half-ton 4x4 pickup.  

I hear it all the time “...oh those things are heavy!  That’s when they made them out of steel...”  well, yeah they’re steel but still don’t scale as heavy as many much smaller modern cars.

volvoclearinghouse said:

stuart in mn said:

A 1965 Imperial would have had a 413, not a 440.

I hear those 413's really dig in.  

You have to be careful when somebody sells you a “413” and remember that that’s just the cubic inches.  Like 429 Fords and 427 Chevrolet’s they were all over the map with respect to performance.  From wild to mild to bread and butter truck engine.  

To me, this has Gambler 500 written all over it.

Appleseed said:

You will never come in first.

You will have more pictures taken than everyone else.

Combined.

And every corner worker will hate your guts for making them pick up 14 cones every run, like that shiny happy person in the Mustang at Nationals in 2015 who decided to just take out slaloms rather than try to navigate them.  That is a safety hazard when there are two corner workers who have to run to pick up and re-set a half dozen cones inside of 10-15 seconds.

The only thing taller than the tail fins will be the rooster tails.

In reply to Nick_440 :

Sure enough. Can't say I'd ever read the rules that closely since my car is not particularly radical. All that said, I'd still touch base with a tech/logbook inspector (Marcel Ciasai is a good one) and run over what your plans are so nothing jumps out at you (like, can you make 3 snowmobile engines meet the 105dB sound limit, and stuff like that). NASA isn't going to go under, but a lot of events are moving around, so it'll be about how far you want to tow (which is the main limitation for most of us in rally) and which rallies are where, when. Consistency is the biggest problem with rally in the US!

Careful with ARA class rules. Good chance they are about to change, especially regarding 2WD classes, based on things I've heard from insiders.. So what they are now, they may not be next year (or, they may stay the same, you never know). I dont' see anything about the snowmobile engines, but it's somewhat curious that things like 3-rotor rotaries are banned even in Open 2WD - which if engines were "anything goes" that shouldn't be the case. Again, inconsistency. 

Side note: if you're on FB, I started a quick thread asking about your plan and tagged the tech guys. Mostly out of my own curiosity.. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1058132674330170/1929336403876455/?comment_id=1929342600542502&notif_id=1576595951200308&notif_t=group_comment&ref=notif  . Most of the commentary is focused on the lack of torque in snowmobile engines being the reason why nobody uses them, rather than any rules (as you note). Rallying with no torque sucks (see: my old 1.8L engine, which only had 130tq.....)..... 

Anyhow, looks like you already read up on the requirements, so just ignore me and carry on :D

A 401 CJ said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

stuart in mn said:

A 1965 Imperial would have had a 413, not a 440.

I hear those 413's really dig in.  

You have to be careful when somebody sells you a “413” and remember that that’s just the cubic inches.  Like 429 Fords and 427 Chevrolet’s they were all over the map with respect to performance.  From wild to mild to bread and butter truck engine.  

An Imperial should be the highest hp model (except for maybe a cross ram equipped letter series 300.) 

According to the Hagerty website the 413 in a 1961 Imperial was rated at 350hp.  Their website also says that even in #4 fair condition they're worth $27k, so I don't know if I'd be doing anything that's going to mess up the value of the car.

stuart in mn said:

According to the Hagerty website the 413 in a 1961 Imperial was rated at 350hp.  Their website also says that even in #4 fair condition they're worth $27k, so I don't know if I'd be doing anything that's going to mess up the value of the car.

This project reminded me of my high school French teacher. It was the early 70s and the girls were burning their bras. The 'up tight' male French teacher wasn't a fan and scolded one of the very well equipped girls that her "undulating breasts" (can I say that here?) were a distraction to the rest of the class - which was true. Seeing the Imperial on an auto/rally cross track would be a similar visual. 

I quoted Stuart because I agree with his pov. This may be too valuable/rare of a car to mess up.

In reply to stuart in mn :

I agree, I don't like bashing on expensive cars, but a lot of people don't know what they're worth; you can find a "good' one, by good I mean running and driving, but barely, for under $3000.

In reply to irish44j :

The lack of low end grunt and the decibel levels are things I haven't thought about. A brinn 2 speed would probably suck without much low end. Maybe a Vette transaxle? I could keep the revs high, but that trans is a lot more than the 45 lb 2 speed. I could also drive it on the street more economicaly with overdrive, and a transaxle would move weight to the back. Street driving would be more fun too because I could row through the gears. 

Nick_440 said:

In reply to irish44j :

The lack of low end grunt and the decibel levels are things I haven't thought about. A brinn 2 speed would probably suck without much low end. Maybe a Vette transaxle? I could keep the revs high, but that trans is a lot more than the 45 lb 2 speed. I could also drive it on the street more economical with overdrive, and a transaxle would move weight to the back. Street driving would be more fun too because I could row through the gears. 

yeah in rallycross it's really not an issue since everybody pretty much just runs in one or two gears anyway, up near red line. 

but in stage rally there are plenty of slow transitions and places where you really need torque coming out of a hairpin turn on going straight up a hill. We got annihilated with our old 4-cylinder at certain rallies, and our new engine is almost twice the torque and we were way faster last year. I know absolutely nothing about snowboard or motorcycle engines, so it sounds like you know way more than I do as far as gearing and the ability to get whatever torque is available with the small displacement screamers.

Also keep in mind that a lot of rallies have extremely long transits on public roads. Some longer than an hour. so make sure whatever you do is tolerable on the street as well LOL or your co-driver May kill you :) 

Saron81 said:

A 401 CJ said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

stuart in mn said:

A 1965 Imperial would have had a 413, not a 440.

I hear those 413's really dig in.  

You have to be careful when somebody sells you a “413” and remember that that’s just the cubic inches.  Like 429 Fords and 427 Chevrolet’s they were all over the map with respect to performance.  From wild to mild to bread and butter truck engine.  

An Imperial should be the highest hp model (except for maybe a cross ram equipped letter series 300.) 

Should be.  I agree.  Problem is, a lot of people knew this and the first time these cars stopped being daily driven (probably around 1973 for a good number of early ‘60’s performance cars) these factory engines found themselves new homes in hot rods and boats.  Somebody comes along much later, sees a salvageable Imperial, knows where there’s a running “413” in a gen-set (or whatever) and puts it back on the road in a much lesser state of tune.  Not saying that’s what happened here.  Just watch out.  

It’s like in 1992 when my friend and I were going to college deep in moonshine country.  No, we weren’t studying moonshine LOL.  He was a confirmed Mopar nut and found an add for “‘70 Roadrunner. Hemi. $1500.”  We were right there.  It was a real RR.  Nobody faked them then.  Rusty.  And beneath the hood sat a real big ole Hemi with chrome valve covers.  First thing we noticed though was that the distributor was in the back.  Not a 426.  He bought the car anyway and as it happened, the engine turned out to be a genuine 392 and not one of the smaller industrial or truck versions.  He got lucky.  

I need a 1965 crown imperial sedan, where is it?

Minneapolis 

If the '65 is this one, it's actually in Grand Marais which is about 30 feet from Canada.    https://minneapolis.craigslist.org/hnp/cto/d/minneapolis-1965-chrysler-imperial-crown/7037988402.html  This car should be saved before someone tries to make a Green Hornet car out of it.

Way back when I was in high school, my girlfriend's parents both had Imperials - her mother had a 1967, her dad a 1970.  They were awesome cars to drive.

they are amazing, my brother lives in Michigan, I could have him pick it up for me: that would be cool.