The poor man's dynacorn body...

[65-408]

So I was referred here by Dave after asking him what happened to "the other site", cause it seems like it lost its following... 

Anyways, I have posted pics of my shell build over there, so some of you may have seen these, but in case you haven't, here is the story (with pics to prove it):

I work with Tony P. of musclecarmetal (Seabrook NH.). We recently built a new 65 fastback body from Dynacorn 90% reproduction parts. Tony is a Mechanical Engineer who, like most ME’s, loves cars and can’t leave well enough alone. A few years back, after restoring a Camaro with his son, Tony decided that with a solid engineering background and a thorough understanding of unibody design and construction he could build new Camaro bodies and infact, it would be easier and take less time than to trying and cut out, save, patch, etc, old rust buckets… Since then he has built a slew of 1st gen camaro bodies on his frame jig (of his design) from scratch.

Anyways, Tony and I work together at a semi-conductor equipment manufacturing company designing precision wafer handling robots (building cars is his side passion). I had been looking for a mustang for some time and getting thoroughly discouraged by $10-$15K “driver” fastbacks with rotten floors that basically need total restoration. Turns out, Tony was half interested in trying to build a mustang and my plight seemed to push him over the edge to the "dark side" as he calls it… So my car was his prototype to modify his jig and prove the process.

It was a great experience, I learned a ton... Here are pics of the build, enjoy:

[Johnny M]

Welcome aboard,
I'm so glad you are now posting this thread over here....Looking forward to seeing more progress...

Johnny

[Fast68back]

I'm curious about your timeline, how long between the first picture posted and the last one, how long did it take from point A to point B?

[AzPete]

I figured a weekend but then realized it was not nick's timeline...... :lol

[daveSanborn]

I was following this thread on the other site and I'm guessing that it's only been a month or so since they started piecing this car together.

An incredible amount of work, but the end result will definitely be worth it!

[Fast68back]

Stupid question #2, what is the cost comparison between this method and a dynacorn shell?

[daveSanborn]

What exactly is the price of a 65-66 2+2 shell from Dynacorn?

[65-408]

those pics were lagging a bit, it took about 7 weeks (nights and weekends only), but 2 weeks of that was setting up and modifying the jig and another week passed towards the end waiting for media blast...  I'm guessing Tony could spit one out in a month or less now that he has gone thru it...  

[Fast68back]

If the 67/68 is $15.5 and the '69 is $16.5, I would guess WHEN the 65/66 is available it would be in line with those prices.

[daveSanborn]

I didn't realize that Dynacorn was releasing a 65-66 body.

[midpack]

That's pretty impressive!!

What kind of panel alignment issues did you guys run across?

Having used repro stuff occasionally.....

[JeffTepper]

All I can say is WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :amaz

[70_Fastback]

Wow.  Awesome job.  I would love to try my hand at that.

[65-408]

Stupid question #2, what is the cost comparison between this method and a dynacorn shell?

I got a break cause I was the guinea pig,  plus it will totally depend on what you want done, that is an additional advantage to this method, use more or less of the donor, depending on what is good.  it is not my intention to turn this into an ad for Tony, if anyone is really interested, you should talk to him directly...

[silverblueBP]

That is some impressive work

[daveSanborn]

it is not my intention to turn this into an ad for Tony

No-one around here will get caught up in such trivial BS.  Post, post, post away!

Are all of the 2+2 interior unique bracketry remanufactured?  Or will you have to fab some minor items?

[65-408]

No-one around here will get caught up in such trivial BS.  Post, post, post away!

Are all of the 2+2 interior unique bracketry remanufactured?  Or will you have to fab some minor items?

I took the welded on stuff off the donor, the seat brackets look OK (just have no idea where they go as I didn't take the time to measure, as usual), the side panel brackets will need to be replicated, but they are pretty simple and I will reuse all the little screw on hat brackets...  I assumed they were all the same, but after removing them all, realized that they are all a little bit different, almost looks like they were "bend to fit" during installation... The plan is to "bend to fit" for reinstallation, we'll see how that goes, my guess is that it will suck...

[lethal289]

Wow thats awesome.  Absolutely  impressive.  To bad it still needs a donor car to start from.  Is that always the case, or will he eventually build complete units?

[65-408]

That's pretty impressive!!

What kind of panel alignment issues did you guys run across?

Having used repro stuff occasionally.....

I havn't had the fenders and hood on yet, but everthing else fit amazingly well, quarters to the old drip rails was perfect, the doors line up well to the quarters, and the roof dropped right on, required no tweeking...  Like I said on the other site, the parts are amazing for what they cost...

[fordrule]

awesome build...but what is this other site i see you guys talk about

[daveSanborn]

There are "other" classic mustang sites on the web.  Disregard them.

This is where "it's" at!

[65-408]

Anyone know if the front frame rails, where they go under the floor, are supposed to be parallel to the rockers?  I noticed last night that mine slope up a bit as they go back...  we verified the tooling hole heights, but weren't specifically checking to make sure they were parallel...

any help would be appreciated, or if anyone is near thier car, a direct side picture, centered at the bottom of the rocker would be helpful for comparison...

thanks,

jeff

[daveSanborn]

Anyone know if the front frame rails, where they go under the floor, are supposed to be parallel to the rockers?  I noticed last night that mine slope up a bit as they go back...  we verified the tooling hole heights, but weren't specifically checking to make sure they were parallel...

any help would be appreciated, or if anyone is near thier car, a direct side picture, centered at the bottom of the rocker would be helpful for comparison...

thanks,

jeff

Hmmm.... I've often wondered this myself.  Looking under just about every Mustang I've ever owned it appeared that the rear of the front frame rails angled slightly "up" in relation to the rockers.  I attributed this to 40 years of wear/tear and the likelihood that someone had jacked the car up from the rear of the frame rail causing it to bend upwards slightly.

But now that you're seeing the same angle on a "fresh" build, I have to wonder if it's not supposed to be that way.  How does the rear of the frame rail fit in relation to the floor pan would be my first question.

[65-408]

How does the rear of the frame rail fit in relation to the floor pan would be my first question.

the entire rail makes good contact with the floor, but based on the way we built it, we might have just made it conform, the one piece floor pan is a flimsy part... and there is really no reference on the rockers to define the shape (front to back), it can basically sit anywhere within the 4" height...

[Dennis Harrelson]

On my (relatively undisturbed) '65, holding a straight edge across the bottom of the rails, and measuring up to the bottom of the pinch weld (the rails are lower than the rocker):
Lt side at the rear end of the rail = 1 5/8"
Lt side at the stiffener across the trans hump = 1 5/8"
Lt side at the front of the rail = 1 7/8"

Rt side @ rear = 1 3/8"
Rt @ stiffener = 1 5/8"
Rt @ front = 1 7/8"

The pinch welds are a bit shorter at the front of the rocker, so that probably explains the larger number at the front. The 1/4" difference at the rear is an anomaly I couldn't see a reason for.
My rails are dinged up a little from service lifts, etc, so even though I picked spots which weren't obviously deformed, probably +/- 1/8" isn't unreasonable.

Horizontally, both sides measure 11" to the pinch at the front, and 11 1/8" at the rear of the rail.
It sure looks to me like the intent is for everything to be parallel in both planes.
HTH