Fiat 128 Familiare restomod AKA the "Substitute Teacher"

Thanks again. For some reason I had the impression the Ford mount was taller that the stock one. Good to know.

Just curious, does it look like the top of the coilover could be mounted into that top "cone" (red arrow, below) without the washer spacers? Will it fit in there? I realize the threaded portion will stick up too far on the other side, but wondering if the coilover can fit in the cone anyway.

index.php
 
Oh sure it'll totally fit all the way in the cone. The KYB shocks I'm using required drilling the hole larger which unlocked the pressed lips of the upper and lower cones so the cones will come away from the rubber castings.
 
motoTrooper said:
Oh sure it'll totally fit all the way in the cone. The KYB shocks I'm using required drilling the hole larger which unlocked the pressed lips of the upper and lower cones so the cones will come away from the rubber castings.
Click to expand...
Thanks. My thought is IF someone wanted to get their car as low as possible, without losing any more suspension travel, then mounting the coilover fully up into the cone (no spacer) will essentially bring the upper mounting point higher. That offers the same amount of ride height lowering but still retain the full travel (no collapsing of the main shaft). Naturally the threaded portion of the main shaft (center rod) will protrude up further on the upper side of the cone (top strut mount). But adding the spacer (washers) there will fix that. This makes the Ford mounts capable of some additional vehicle lowering over the stock mounts.
 
Dr.Jeff said:
Thanks. My thought is IF someone wanted to get their car as low as possible, without losing any more suspension travel, then mounting the coilover fully up into the cone (no spacer) will essentially bring the upper mounting point higher. That offers the same amount of ride height lowering but still retain the full travel (no collapsing of the main shaft). Naturally the threaded portion of the main shaft (center rod) will protrude up further on the upper side of the cone (top strut mount). But adding the spacer (washers) there will fix that. This makes the Ford mounts capable of some additional vehicle lowering over the stock mounts.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting thought. In the past, I had considered lowering the front but did not want to compromise suspension travel. Any idea how far the car could be lowered with this technique?
 
dllubin said:
That is an interesting thought. In the past, I had considered lowering the front but did not want to compromise suspension travel. Any idea how far the car could be lowered with this technique?
Click to expand...
You can lower it by the same distance as the spacer on the bottom of the cone and not affect suspensionstroke. The top of the main shaft will move up by that distance, causing the front of the car to drop that much. Measure the thickness of the stack of washers and that's how far you can go down without loosing any travel.
 
Dr.Jeff said:
You can lower it by the same distance as the spacer on the bottom of the cone and not affect suspensionstroke. The top of the main shaft will move up by that distance, causing the front of the car to drop that much. Measure the thickness of the stack of washers and that's how far you can go down without loosing any travel.
Click to expand...
I get why you can lower the car without affecting travel. I guess the question is how far you can raise the shaft before it hits the frunk lid?
 
dllubin said:
I get why you can lower the car without affecting travel. I guess the question is how far you can raise the shaft before it hits the frunk lid?
Click to expand...
In this case it is a 128, so I have no idea.
For the X I did a little measuring years ago and if I recall correctly there's about 3/4", maybe 1".
The good thing about this situation with the Ford mounts is you can make two spacers of appropriate thickness; one for under the cone and the other for above it to adjust the height of the shaft.
 
Dr.Jeff said:
In this case it is a 128, so I have no idea.
For the X I did a little measuring years ago and if I recall correctly there's about 3/4", maybe 1".
The good thing about this situation with the Ford mounts is you can make two spacers of appropriate thickness; one for under the cone and the other for above it to adjust the height of the shaft.
Click to expand...
I might go see if I can measure the distance between the top of the existing strut rod and the bottom of the frunk lid. That would give me some idea of what we have to work with. Ever since I went to the 185/60-13 size, I've never liked the gap between the tire and the edge of the fender well. If I could pick up 3/4" - 1", it could be worth it visually and performance wise.
 
dllubin said:
I might go see if I can measure the distance between the top of the existing strut rod and the bottom of the frunk lid. That would give me some idea of what we have to work with. Ever since I went to the 185/60-13 size, I've never liked the gap between the tire and the edge of the fender well. If I could pick up 3/4" - 1", it could be worth it visually and performance wise.
Click to expand...
Please do check it because I did the same thing for a completely different vehicle at about the same time and I may be getting the two mixed up.
 
A couple of more videos to throw on the heap:

In this one I am working out upgrading the rear drum brakes to disc and showing that I've removed the engine and rear bumper. Any thoughts on whether I should leave it bumperless?


In this one I've made a body mount jig for the Honda engine mounts, cleaned up the Fiat's engine bay, stripped most of the interior, and have solved upgrading the front brakes for low cost, low effort, while keeping the ability to run 13" wheels for those of you with X's...


I've done my best to keep my editorial rants to the end of the video after any useful information. Jeebus I must be getting old.
 
Thanks Chris for the videos. I enjoyed them. Any thoughts on fitting the Fit motor in between the frames?
 
lanciahf said:
Thanks Chris for the videos. I enjoyed them. Any thoughts on fitting the Fit motor in between the frames?
Click to expand...
Yes much neural activity around that. I am offsetting the engine/trans closer to the passenger side rail as much as possible, which the elevated motor mount on that side makes achievable. The mounts will be adjacent the shock towers which mitigates tire contact in the wheel wells. So I *should* have full steering clearance. The placement height-wise will place the bottom of the oil pan flush with the floor of the car. As far as the top clearance with the hood (shrugs), who knows? That's a problem for future Chris!
 
motoTrooper said:
Yes much neural activity around that. I am offsetting the engine/trans closer to the passenger side rail as much as possible, which the elevated motor mount on that side makes achievable. The mounts will be adjacent the shock towers which mitigates tire contact in the wheel wells. So I *should* have full steering clearance. The placement height-wise will place the bottom of the oil pan flush with the floor of the car. As far as the top clearance with the hood (shrugs), who knows? That's a problem for future Chris!
Click to expand...
I would try for the same oil pan height as the OE 128 motor, keeping the same overall configuration of the weight in the car is something you don’t want to mess with too much.

You don’t want future Chris hating present Chris too much.
 
While working on my 128, I have noticed how close the front of the motor is to the front valance. It's really an efficient car in terms of packaging. Unlike my old 500 pop
 
Last edited:
lanciahf said:
While working on my 128, I have noticed how close the front of the motor is to the front valance. It's really an efficient car in terms of packaging. Unlike my old 500 pop
Click to expand...
Meeting 21 century crash testing has its side effects.
 
uh huh, that’s it. I know that’s what I was thinking when I was dealing with all the 500’s blind spots. “Boy I’m safe in here” or “boy look at these useless rear seats” or maybe just really poor engineering?
 
That is the “triumph” of retro design over anything else in combination with the reality of modern requirements based on an existing platform.
lanciahf said:
uh huh, that’s it. I know that’s what I was thinking when I was dealing with all the 500’s blind spots. “Boy I’m safe in here” or “boy look at these useless rear seats” or maybe just really poor engineering?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top