Author Topic: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread  (Read 818129 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2012, 10:16:50 PM »
I got to spend a few hours over the weekend cutting out the "under floor" portion of the rotten subframe rails, and getting a replacement rail roughly fitted in place.  Here are some photos of that progress....



First, to cut away what remained of the original subframe rail.



Then, to cut away even more.   The area between the rail and the rocker was solid enough to retain, but the metal from the rail to the exhaust tunnel wasn't intact, so I cut some more away.



This gives a rough idea of how and where the new section of steel will join the other new section of steel.



Here's a view from inside the passenger compartment.  The new rail will be joined to the inner rocker/door sill area by some 1/8" sheet.



One of my helpers, my neighbor's son, helping out with the mock-up.



That's all for now.

A black and white view towards the rear of the truck.  I will weld the 2 sections of tubing together, and will reinforce the joint with another section of 1/8" sheet, which will tie into the formed sheet metal "box" that serves to stiffen the jack-point area.

1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

gkabbt

  • Guest
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2012, 07:33:19 AM »
As before.....Looking good with the progress.  :cheers:  :cheers:

Gregg

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #77 on: January 23, 2012, 10:12:29 AM »
Thanks for the support.  I had some time to work on the Rampage over the weekend.  I got the 2 sections of square tubing fitted more closely to the area of the subframe rails which I previously cut away due to rust.  I also managed to get a lot of the welding done on the outside of the passenger's side subframe rail repair.  The rotisserie is making this job much easier.

I'm pretty happy with how most of the welds turned out, although I'm sure I can do better as I go along.  Welding thick-to-thin is made more difficult by the fact that the original subframe rails are thinner in some spots than others.   I'll show some photos, and will definitely appreciate any critique.  In some areas, what I decided to do was to lay a bead onto the original sheet metal first, just to build up some thickness, before turning up the welder and "burning in" a weld to join the square tubing to the original sheet metal, which I had laid an additional bead onto.



This photo shows most of the inside of the passenger's side fenderwell, including the subframe repair/reinforcement, along with seam welding of the actual inner fender to the factory subframe rail.  The inner fender was only spot welded in a few areas from the factory.  Many of the places along the junction between the inner fender and the factory subframe rail had gaps around 1/8"!!!.   There was plenty of light visible through that seam.  It's much more solid now, although the welds aren't as clean as I would like. 



Another view of the same area.  I started out by stitch welding the inner fender to subframe seam, but eventually stitched them pretty much all together.  Looking for feedback on this practice - is it better to stitch weld, leaving 1" or more gaps between welds, or completely seam weld the entire joint?



Here's a shot of the underside of the floor, where the 2-1/2" square tube x 3/16" wall is joined to the remaining flange of the original subframe rail, which was pretty rusty.  You can see where I have tried more than 1 approach to joining these 2 surfaces.  The approach of setting the welder power low to establish a bead on the thin section only, then going back with a cover pass, with the welder on higher power, seems to show promise.  On the other side of the floor will be 1/8" sheet, tying together the new subframe repair to the inner rocker channel.



I seam welded some more of the area near the front bumper bracket, in an attempt to improve over the 1984 era spot welds on this vehicle.



One last shot of the subframe repair, in the passenger's side footwell area.



I maintained the factory location for the K-frame mount, and basically "boxed around" it with the 2-1/2 x 2-1/2 square tubing.  The next step will be to flip the car almost 180 degrees on the rotisserie, to weld the surfaces not shown in this photo sequence.

That's all for now.  I'm looking forward to the chance to weld new steel onto new steel, as opposed to welding new steel onto crusty steel that's 28 years old.

Steve.
1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline Peter Jack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3776
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #78 on: January 23, 2012, 12:24:06 PM »
Steve, where you can, the easiest way to weld the thin to the thick is to concentrate the heat on the heavier section and then wash the weld onto the thinner section. You should be able to see the fusion happening on the thinner material. The important thing, especially with mig is to ensure your welds aren't too cold. From what I'm seeing you're doing well. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Pete

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #79 on: February 13, 2012, 01:28:21 PM »
All righty then....  I got some more work done recently, and just had a chance to upload some photos.  I got the driver's side subframe reinforcement/replacement pretty much fitted in place.  I also bent the main hoop and halo bar for the roll cage.  Anyway, here are some photos of the recent progress. 



I bolted the K-frame back in place, so that the correct spacing between the K-frame mounting points would not be affected.

At that point, I went to work welding the inside of the passenger's side subframe rail / repair section to what was left of the existing factory rail.  The repair was done with 2-1/2" square tubing with 1/8" wall.



The repaired area follows the original contour lines and dimensions of the factory rail, but the material is much stronger than the original stamped rail, which had mostly turned to rust.



Then I went to work fitting the driver's side repair section to the existing frame rail and K-frame mounting points.



Here's a progress photo showing the driver's side subframe rail repair, which extends back to the seat brace location.



The open area of the square tubing, on the passenger's side, where the 2 subframe rails meet, will be covered with a gusset plate made from 1/8" sheet, that will also tie into the rocker channel.  That gusset will have to be added after the roll cage is installed.

1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #80 on: February 13, 2012, 01:40:31 PM »
Here are a few pics of the main hoop and halo bar for the roll cage.  The legs have not yet been cut to length, that's why the cage sections may appear to be uneven.

Even though I want to make an A-pillar bar that extends from the floor all the way to the main hoop, I decided to bend a halo bar while I was in the mood for some bending.

These bends were all done with a substantially modifed Harbor Freight bender, using mechanical tubing that shares the same dimensions as Schedule 40 1-1/4" pipe (1.66" OD, 1.38" ID, 0.140" wall).   By filling the tubes with sand, using some custom made "saddles" to support the tubing, and having a custom bracket to hold the tubing tight to the bending shoe, I'm pretty happy with the bends.









1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

LittleLiner

  • Guest
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #81 on: February 25, 2012, 01:16:49 AM »
I am enjoying following the project.   Concerning your tube bender, you said . . .
. . . . . . bends were all done with a substantially modifed Harbor Freight bender . . . .

Could you detail the modifications to the Harbor Freight bender?   Photos of the bender????

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #82 on: February 28, 2012, 11:08:45 AM »
I have some photos, and I'll try to give a description of what I did to the bender.  One of the keys is that I am using oversized 1-5/8" tubing.  The OD measures 1.66", and has a .140 wall section.  This is the same specification (A500 I believe, off the top of my head) as the more common 1.625" OD, but is made in the same size as 1-1/4 schedule 40 pipe.  If you look around, this size tubing is not too hard to find.  Ryerson has it, and they are a national distributor.

This is important because the HF bender has a "saddle" for 1-1/4" schedule 40 pipe.  The main issues that people have when trying to use the HF bender are that the tube will kink at the bend, actually pulling away from the saddle, and that the support rollers don't fit the tubing right.  I tried to address both of these issues.

Here is how I made a support clamp to prevent kinking of the tube at the saddle.



I used a piece of 3" x 7" rectangular tubing, cut a section of it, drilling holes through the 3" section to hold it to the saddle.  Then I drilled another hole on the centerline and welded a 1/2" NC nut on top of the rectangular tubing.  In theory, running the 1/2" bolt down against the tube when it's mounted in the saddle would help to prevent kinking.  However, I wanted a better fit and more even support, so I made this...



I took a piece of heavy walled tubing (3/8" wall with 1-5/8" ID), and bored the tube to 1.66", so it would be a perfect fit around my tubing.  Then I split it lengthwise, milled a flat on it, and welded a short piece of pipe to it.  The short piece of pipe serves as a pocket for the 1/2" bolt to seat into.  When it's together, it looks like this...



I also drilled a 1" hole through the 3x7 tube to allow me to see the centerline of the saddle, where the tube sits (not shown in a photo, but 90 degrees to the photo above).  That way, I can mark where I want the center of the bend, then view it through the 1" hole "window".

The other issue with the HF benders is that the outer supports are just cast rollers.  Here's a photo of what I did to address that issue.



This photo shows the 2 "shoes" flipped upside down relative to the way they would be when bending a tube.  I used the same technique as described above for boring a heavy walled tube to match the OD of the tubing being bent, splitting the tube, then milling a groove to accept a short piece of 1/2" schedule 40 pipe, which also had to be bored to fit the pivot pins on the HF bender.

Here's another photo, showing one of the shoes in the rightside-up position.



This shoe gives much better support to the tube being bent than the rollers provided by HF, which basically only give point contact.  I polished the sliding surface of the shoes, and used a generous application of grease when bending.

This is the bender, shown with the modified saddle in the center, and the custom made shoes in the pivot locations.



Here's a birds-eye view through the long axis of the bender.



And here is the bender in action, making a 90 degree bend for the halo bar.  The 2 angle finders serve as a pretty good way to keep an eye on the total included angle.  I used a much nicer digital level to verify the readings.  I also took the precaution of filling the tube with sand before making the bends, in order to minimize any flattening of the outside of the bends.



Just a couple more pics for now.  I made a basic clamp setup to go on the lathe compound, which will allow me to notch tubing pretty accurately.




I also picked up a few engines (3 to be exact) and a transmission for the project.  Not all of the parts will be used, but I got a deal that I couldn't pass up for all 3.








1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #83 on: February 28, 2012, 12:13:53 PM »
Just to clear up the 1.660 dia "tubing" is really called 1-1/4 schedule 40 pipe and the material spec is A500. This is not tubing  and because it is pipe it "should" work in the HF "pipe" bender. Obviously Steve has decided that he wants better bends and has modified the bender to provide the quality that he wants. There is certainly not a problem from a strength stand point to use a good grade of steel pipe in place of tubing as the material is of equal or better quality to almost any ERW tubing. The very general rule of thumb is that pipe is measured on the ID, although in this case the 1.66 OD less the .140 wall thickness (times 2) gives an ID of 1.38, which is much closer to 1-3/8 inch in my book, but if you go to schedule 80 1-1/4 pipe with .191 wall thickness the ID becomes 1.27 inch, pretty close to 1-1/4 inch.

Tubing is measured by the OD and wall thickness which makes the a 1-1/4 tube actually 1.25 inches in diameter.

Really just a technicality but there is a difference between pipe and tubing and it is a lot easier to get poor quality pipe than it is poor quality tubing. Water pipe comes to mind.

Steve you are doing a great job with a project that has the potential for a lot of pit falls, nice job on getting the reinforcements into the car.
Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #84 on: February 28, 2012, 01:06:22 PM »
Thank you, Rex, although I'll have to disagree slightly about the pipe vs tubing.  You are right, it is mostly a matter of semantics (pipe sizes as ID and tube sizes as OD).  The material I'm using is not the same as schedule 40 pipe, although it it made in the same size as Sch40 pipe.  This material is actually sold as "pipe size" ERW tubing, and is in conformance with ASTM A500 Grade C, which is a specification for structural tubing.  This is not the schedule 40 "black pipe" that you can buy from a plumbing supply store.  

I agree that tubing is generally spec'ed based on the OD, and pipe on the ID, but at least in my own mind, structural tubing is intended to support loads, and pipe is intended to have water running through it.  

http://www.ryerson.com/stocklist/t-1562-Tubing-Pipe-Pipe-A53F-A53E-ERW-Pipe-Size-ERW-Schedule-40-Standard.html

Someone shared a story here a while back about why "pipe size" tubing exists.  It was said that pipe sized tubing is popular for applications like handrails, machine guards, etc.  This is where bends need to be made, and the pipefitters may already have pipe bending dies, but wouldn't necessarily have "tubing" bending dies.  For that reason, structural tubing is made in sizes that match the OD dimensions of some common pipe sizes.  I just want to make sure that people understand that the material I'm using is in conformance with ASTM A500 Grade C, which is a specification for structural tubing.

http://www.eaglesteel.com/download/techdocs/ASTM_A500_Grade_C.pdf

Steve.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 02:18:41 PM by SteveM »
1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline Tman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3672
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #85 on: February 28, 2012, 02:29:03 PM »
Right on Steve, that tubing is real common around here. I think the namePIPE SIZE confuses some folk. (not Rex)

Offline Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #86 on: February 28, 2012, 03:47:57 PM »
Steve,
Most of my experience with "pipe" is with the product used for high pressure hydraulic systems, some as high as 7000 psi, so the material quality is extremely high and which, I am sure, would make a great cage but probably costly.


Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline SteveM

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1483
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #87 on: February 28, 2012, 03:56:48 PM »
Probably tough to bend, too.  What kind of work do you do, Rex?

Steve.
1/2 of the Rampage Brothers

Offline Rex Schimmer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2625
  • Only time and money prevent completion!
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #88 on: February 28, 2012, 06:16:39 PM »
Steve,
The question should be "what kind of work DID I do?" I was a field application engineer for the hydraulic pump division of the Parker Hannifin Co. They bought Denison Hydraulics when I was there and I just stayed on. The Denison pumps would pump 260 gpm at 6000 psi, thats 900+ hp. Great company, great people but not as good as retirement.



Rex
Rex

Not much matters and the rest doesn't matter at all.

Offline maguromic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
    • http://www.barringtontea.com
Re: '84 Dodge Rampage Build Thread
« Reply #89 on: February 28, 2012, 06:39:45 PM »
Rex, You forgot to mention what you did in your previous life.   Tony
“If you haven’t seen the future, you are not going fast enough”