After asking a couple of suspension and gearbox questions to get me started, I thought I'd better post something re the build I'm about to start. I brought this home on the weekend, after a ferry trip and about 8 hrs of driving all up.
The chassis is heading off to get sandblasted and primed, and I'll put together a body trolley while it's out of the garage. I've already picked up a Subaru motor and transaxle, as well as the wiring harness and a few other bits and pieces.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Looking forward to your Tasmania build. Devil is in the details (see what I did there) so good you worked out the details. Sounds like a long trip to get body home!
Suby engine and trans ! WoW !!...........Bruce
Great beginnings, new friend! Keep posting!
Are you just going with a swingaxle rear or are you still thinking about converting to IRS?
Very cool. Colors? Stripes? You could be imaginative and original or you could be lazy like me and just copy a real Spyder.
Thanks all, looking forward to getting stuck in to the build.
The plan is to mock everything up, body, drivetrain etc, and start making it up as I go along 😄
The registration requirements here, meant that I needed an engine that had passed (or would pass) emissions, so the Subaru motor was a no-brainer. I managed to find a low mileage Impreza, with some panel damage for very little money, and when I was driving it to my mate's mechanic shop I realised how good the gearbox was. That meant the VW transaxle idea got canned as well. The Subaru drivetrain is certainly a whole lot cheaper than building a VW motor and box.
The other registration hurdle is a torsional stiffness test, so I'll be adding a bit of extra bracing to this chassis I think. I've been looking at some of the later 550 spaceframe chassis for inspiration. I might end up with some extra frame tubing in the cabin?
As far as the rear suspension goes, I don't know yet. I've got adaptors and mounts that allow the Subaru drivetrain to bolt into the VW compatible chassis. I'm going to sit it all in there and see what suspension options are viable.
It'll be silver, with a plexi screen and wide 5's, rear guard spears of a colour yet to be determined, pretty traditional looking. I've been wanting one of these since about 1989, so it's been a long time coming.
Thanks for your help so far, I'll keep the pics, and the pleas for help, coming in equal measure.
Cheers
That’s funny you say 1989. I got the bug in 1988 after reading this magazine about the Beck Spyder.
@550 Phil posted:
That’s funny you say 1989. I got the bug in 1988 after reading this magazine about the Beck Spyder.
It wasn't that magazine, but something similar in a local library. It was an article on a Beck though. I started buying kitcar magazines and anything I could find with a feature on 550 replicas.
I actually rang and spoke to Chuck, and looked at bringing one in to Australia back then. The local transport department wanted to crash test it, so that was the end of that idea for a while.
I remember that article, Phil. That's where I first got the bug as well.
Just out of interest, do you know who the author of that piece was? David Featherstone seemed to be quite an advocate of the cars
I met Chuck twice. In 1998 he took me for a ride in one of his Spyders. In 2002 I was thinking about buying a Cobra or a Lister. He took me for a ride in one of his Listers. On both rides I thought I was going to die.
A bit of a leadfoot?
I have that C & D magazine, plus a TON of other articles on the 550 replicas.
The one that hooked me was VW & Porsche, which became European Car eventually. Anyway, it was a 1984 magazine that had a Beck 550 centerfold with a 356/912 motor and 356a drum brakes. There was huge silver outdoor cooler behind it and a female JD-lookalike: short hair, white t-shirt, jeans, and attitude! It was BADASS! I think they were about $6000 back then.
@550aus Those chassis pics look like what was known as the "high rail" 550 chassis. Porsche did this on later 550s to fix the flex. The original 550s were known as "flexible flyers" with the original ladder frame.
Then you go to the 550a, which was COMPLETELY different except for basic suspension pieces and general shape. The bodies were much lighter gauge because there were MANY more attachment points due to the truss/space frame chassis. Think Birdcage Maserati.
I'd get in touch with Carey at Beck, he is familiar with the testing procedures where you are. He's definitely been through this. I hope he can help you.
Mine is a sort-of tribute to 2 cars: Carel De Bufort drove a white 550 in the 1956 Lemans race, as did Umberto Maglioli(550a) in the Targa Florio, also in 1956. His car was painted white in the pits because the organizers would only allow Mercedes to wear silver. He won the race outright, never swapping drivers OR tires!
Here's mine:
Good luck with the build, man! Enjoy the journey.
@550aus posted:Just out of interest, do you know who the author of that piece was? David Featherstone seemed to be quite an advocate of the cars
On vacation now. When I get back to Virginia Beach I’ll check. I still have the magazine. I was a surgical intern in 1988 with 2 kids making $17k/year. Finished my medical training and military commitment. In 1998 I pulled that magazine out of storage and called the number in the article. Chuck Beck answered. While I was in California I decided to drop by an upstart called Vintage Spyders. Skinny 21 year old kid building spyders with nice space frames. I ordered my first out of 3 spyders. Unfortunately Greg Leach no longer takes orders for spyders. But he is putting a Type 4 in an intermeccanica for me. And he’s not so skinny. Neither am I.
Currently Greg Leach at VMC is building a Spyder for me with a Suby engine and transaxle. Here are some photos of what that looks like. The trans is out of a Forester.
You are going to have a lot of fun building your Spyder from scratch. Much braver than me for sure. I have more photos and will be able to take more after the first of the new year so if you need to look at something in more detail, let me know.
Bruce
@aircooled posted:Currently Greg Leach at VMC is building a Spyder for me with a Suby engine and transaxle. Here are some photos of what that looks like. The trans is out of a Forester.
You are going to have a lot of fun building your Spyder from scratch. Much braver than me for sure. I have more photos and will be able to take more after the first of the new year so if you need to look at something in more detail, let me know.
Bruce
Thanks mate, most helpful 👍
One thing I'm not sure of yet, as I haven't got everything mocked up in the chassis, is whether the vw type swingaxle this car is setup for, would actually work with the Subaru transaxle? There doesn't seem to be a massive difference in the location of the shaft outputs.
I don't believe the Subaru transaxle is capable of being converted to work as a swing axle.
IMHO, the chassis is not very usable, other than for measurements for pickup points for body mounting.
Also, there isn't much room up front for pedals and master cylinders. I believe it impossible to have a removable beam in a Spyder. Once the body is on, there would be absolutely NO way to remove a beam. So why not just weld one in there?
In order to use the Suby transmission, you're going to need to fabricate a 3 or 4 link independent rear suspension.
If you end up using a VW ball joint beam, I'd recommend a 2" narrowed version. Leaves room for disc brakes AND fitting the wheel/tire under the fenders.
@DannyP posted:I don't believe the Subaru transaxle is capable of being converted to work as a swing axle.
IMHO, the chassis is not very usable, other than for measurements for pickup points for body mounting.
Also, there isn't much room up front for pedals and master cylinders. I believe it impossible to have a removable beam in a Spyder. Once the body is on, there would be absolutely NO way to remove a beam. So why not just weld one in there?
In order to use the Suby transmission, you're going to need to fabricate a 3 or 4 link independent rear suspension.
If you end up using a VW ball joint beam, I'd recommend a 2" narrowed version. Leaves room for disc brakes AND fitting the wheel/tire under the fenders.
Thanks mate, a few questions...and excuse my ignorance on the subject, but apart from the extra CV joint, what's differs as far as the transaxle is concerned as to whether a swingaxle or IRS is hanging off the end of it?
The chassis is designed to take a balljoint front end, I've read that using a narrowed beam can cause handling issues like bumpe steer? If the disc conversions now available don't change the width of the front end, is it necessary to narrow it?
I had intended on fabricating a new rear suspension setup, but was curious what the issue was with a swingaxle off a Subaru gearbox
I think the issue is that you can't. The gearbox is configured to accept a CV joint and there's no way I'm aware of that one could convert it to swing axle easily. I suspect it would take more work than making a suspension. Custom adapters for the transmission would need to be designed and machined, custom length axle tubes and axles fabricated, and custom seals are pretty likely needed as well. Can't do any of that with a MIG welder!
@JMM (Michael) posted:I think the issue is that you can't. The gearbox is configured to accept a CV joint and there's no way I'm aware of that one could convert it to swing axle easily. I suspect it would take more work than making a suspension. Custom adapters for the transmission would need to be designed and machined, custom length axle tubes and axles fabricated, and custom seals are pretty likely needed as well. Can't do any of that with a MIG welder!
There are adaptors available that allow you to use a VW CV joint
To convert to Subaru with swingaxle, you would have to build something similar to what Dave Folts has done for VW 002 and 091 bus transmissions. 
This was designed for drag racing. I ran this in a drag car 25 years ago, great in that application, but I would never consider this in a street car.
I agree with Danny, you are committed to building an IRS suspension of some sort. Look closely at the pictures Bruce posted. Remove the rear torsion housing, add some tubing, and build a 3 link.
Definitely narrow the front beam 2”. You will need the room for disc brakes.
@550aus posted:
You have a tube chassis, so I see no need to hang the cv joint out like that. Why wouldn’t you use these instead?
@LI-Rick posted:You have a tube chassis, so I see no need to hang the cv joint out like that. Why wouldn’t you use these instead?
The one in my screenshot was a longer version used to give frame clearance in certain applications. There's a number of shorter versions available
@LI-Rick posted:That was my point. There is no frame clearance issue in your situation.
Sounds like we're on the same page then 👍
I was just answering someone regarding adapting a VW CV to a Subaru transaxle. The pic was just for illustration
@550aus posted:Thanks mate, a few questions...and excuse my ignorance on the subject, but apart from the extra CV joint, what's differs as far as the transaxle is concerned as to whether a swingaxle or IRS is hanging off the end of it?
The chassis is designed to take a balljoint front end, I've read that using a narrowed beam can cause handling issues like bumpe steer? If the disc conversions now available don't change the width of the front end, is it necessary to narrow it?
So how would you handle the transition from a cv joint inboard to a straight non-sealed bearing outboard, and keep it lubricated? And support the axle? And still use VW wide5 hubs?
You've indicated that you'll be using wide5 wheels. I don't care whose front brake kit you buy or what they say. They ALL add width. Every. Single. One.
A 2" narrowed beam doesn't add crazy bump steer. Honestly, driving my car you'd never notice it.
I don't know. As I've said on multiple posts, this is my first build, and I've got virtually no experience with VW parts. I'm here to learn, that's why I'm asking questions. If you'd like to help I'm all ears.
Ok, figured it out. CV joints, axle tubes, VW IRS vs swing axles, etc, etc. All good. Thanks
Most people running a narrowed beam in a spyder only do 1" per side, aka 2" narrowed beam. I've also had custom beams made that were only 1/2" per side, 1" total. They do add a bit of bump steer, but as Danny said it is pretty much negligible. You don't feel it in a really negative way until you get into the much more narrow beams, which are also usually coupled with much wider tires, exaggerating the feel in the light front end.
When deciding if this is right for you, consider your wheels also. The Spyder runs a 4.5" wide front and the steel wheels are a 45mm offset, while the aluminum wheels are a 32mm offset. Thus, the main reason most run a narrowed front beam is simply to use the alloy fronts and not have rubbing issues on th router wheel well lip, or to use one of the upgraded brake kits that add considerable offset and not have the same aforementioned rubbing issues. There are a lot of combinations you can run in the front, just keep in mind that changes have other effects that you may not consider. Reduced turning radius, ineffective steering stops, increased rubbing on the front of the wheel wells, to name a few. Nothing crazy, and nothing that can't be overcome, just something to keep in the back of your mind as design your build.
I've never seen a Spyder pulled out of a body mold prior to receiving chassis and internal panels, but in your case that may be somewhat of a benefit as you can build and/or reshape your internal panels to match your needs. The front of the front wheel wells is pretty easy to reshape with little adverse effects. Reshaping the rear of the front wheel wells immediately starts to get into the chassis and pedal box area, which is tight already.
Interested to see what you come up with for rear suspension design. Many have tried, most have failed, although I've seen (and tested) a few designs that worked well, but we defer to swingaxle and likely always will at this point.
I don't know your chassis specifics, other than what I can see in the photos, but it appears to be a copy of our early chassis with a change to how the front beam is attached and a change to how the rear torsion bar is braced. Assuming it is a 0.120 wall DOM tube and that the aforementioned changes do not change chassis stiffness, you should have no issue with ADR for the torsional tests. Subsequent to your previous conversation with Chuck with actually did go through ADR approval on our watercooled inline 4 chassis, and in the end wound up with an ADR importation number for that particular product. The main chassis structure was the same as aircooled, but when we discontinued that particular drivetrain, the napproval was lost and not applicable to Subaru or aircooled. Anyway the issues they had, at the time at least, were with lack of headrests, 3 point seat belt mounting, seat shell construction, and the lack off steel reinforcement inside the doors. Chassis rigidity was not an issue.
Side note, that C&D article was a total fluke, last minute, and simply because Chuck was friendly with the magazine and close by when they needed something. After a days worth of shooting pics it had turned from "maybe we'll mention you" to the cover shot. A poster of that cover still hangs in the shop today.
It sounds like you are/were not familiar with the differences between the VW IRS and a VW swing axle design. I believe that you will need to use the "IRS' design with the Suby transaxle. If you look at the frame you got and the frame in my car, you can see that the entire rear frame has been completely de-designed to allow the "exposed" drive axles to be able to "swing" up and down without hitting the frame underneath them. This also allows for the inclusion of the 3-link suspension and elimination of the VW torsion bar tube as well. You will have a lot of work to do to get the rear end of your frame to work with the Suby transaxle. Perhaps it would be better to buy one already set up for a Suby Trans ? I know a little bit about cars n stuff . BUT not enough to tackle that suspension mod with any confidence. ! Nearly every aspect of fabrication, clearances, geometry, and integration of those components and their related purpose will be involved. If you think you have the necessary ability and tooling then I say...."go for it !" and many on this site will support you in whatever you encounter. Right off, I suggest that you listen to Danny and Rick. They have a lot of experience when it comes to this topic.
Since I discovered this forum in 2014, I have learned a lot. Any person who comes on and starts waving their clam digger around is discouraged pretty fast. You have started off very well and a SUBSTANTIAL amount of expertise is available to you . Heck !......You already have the top guy of Beck answering some of your questions.
I am VERY interested in what you do and come up with......Keep it up !.........Bruce
@aircooled posted:It sounds like you are/were not familiar with the differences between the VW IRS and a VW swing axle design.
Yep, I hadn't paid enough attention to that detail, I figured an IRS axle was just a swingaxle with another joint at the end 😄 . I did "know" they were different, I was reading up on the different suspension options rather than the axles...
My knowledge of these things has started at zero, so it's been a vertical learning curve across the board.
The plan is still to sit everything in place, and assess the modifications. Worse case scenario I go back to a VW box and swingaxle.
Thanks for the words of encouragement 👍
P.S. ....I'm not entirely sure what "waving your clamdiggers" means, but it doesn't sound good 😄
Your welcome.....Wgat is your first name ?
@chines1 posted:Most people running a narrowed beam in a spyder only do 1" per side, aka 2" narrowed beam. I've also had custom beams made that were only 1/2" per side, 1" total. They do add a bit of bump steer, but as Danny said it is pretty much negligible. You don't feel it in a really negative way until you get into the much more narrow beams, which are also usually coupled with much wider tires, exaggerating the feel in the light front end.
When deciding if this is right for you, consider your wheels also. The Spyder runs a 4.5" wide front and the steel wheels are a 45mm offset, while the aluminum wheels are a 32mm offset. Thus, the main reason most run a narrowed front beam is simply to use the alloy fronts and not have rubbing issues on th router wheel well lip, or to use one of the upgraded brake kits that add considerable offset and not have the same aforementioned rubbing issues. There are a lot of combinations you can run in the front, just keep in mind that changes have other effects that you may not consider. Reduced turning radius, ineffective steering stops, increased rubbing on the front of the wheel wells, to name a few. Nothing crazy, and nothing that can't be overcome, just something to keep in the back of your mind as design your build.
I've never seen a Spyder pulled out of a body mold prior to receiving chassis and internal panels, but in your case that may be somewhat of a benefit as you can build and/or reshape your internal panels to match your needs. The front of the front wheel wells is pretty easy to reshape with little adverse effects. Reshaping the rear of the front wheel wells immediately starts to get into the chassis and pedal box area, which is tight already.
Interested to see what you come up with for rear suspension design. Many have tried, most have failed, although I've seen (and tested) a few designs that worked well, but we defer to swingaxle and likely always will at this point.
I don't know your chassis specifics, other than what I can see in the photos, but it appears to be a copy of our early chassis with a change to how the front beam is attached and a change to how the rear torsion bar is braced. Assuming it is a 0.120 wall DOM tube and that the aforementioned changes do not change chassis stiffness, you should have no issue with ADR for the torsional tests. Subsequent to your previous conversation with Chuck with actually did go through ADR approval on our watercooled inline 4 chassis, and in the end wound up with an ADR importation number for that particular product. The main chassis structure was the same as aircooled, but when we discontinued that particular drivetrain, the napproval was lost and not applicable to Subaru or aircooled. Anyway the issues they had, at the time at least, were with lack of headrests, 3 point seat belt mounting, seat shell construction, and the lack off steel reinforcement inside the doors. Chassis rigidity was not an issue.
Side note, that C&D article was a total fluke, last minute, and simply because Chuck was friendly with the magazine and close by when they needed something. After a days worth of shooting pics it had turned from "maybe we'll mention you" to the cover shot. A poster of that cover still hangs in the shop today.
Thanks Carey, that's some extremely helpful information. Especially considering it's another manufacturer's build.
I'll be using the 4.5" steel wheels up front, with discs, so I'm not entirely sure that I have to run a narrowed beam. There's a couple of zero width added disc conversion options available here, but it's been pointed out that they do actually add width? 🤷♂️
Most, if not all, of the new builds here are being done on a individual basis, with engineering signed off privately. I've been told I have to have this thing torsion tested. I'll add bracing if I need to, the look of the factory "high rail" frames is pretty cool.
If you guys are still running swingaxles it doesn't instill confidence that I'll be doing anything differently 😄 . I'll mock things up and see if I have an epiphany. If not, I'll try and find someone local to build up a VW transaxle. I did talk to Rancho a while back, but it was going to cost me at over 10k by the time I got the unit here. This was part of the reason the Subaru option was so appealing, especially considering I have to run the Subaru motor to pass emissions regulations.
Thanks again for your reply, I'll find out a bit more about the disc conversions available and try to figure out whether a narrowed beam is really necessary?
Cheers
P.S. There were a few books and magazines I picked up in the late 80s/ early 90s because they had Beck features. A couple of them were by David Featherstone, so he must have been a fan...
