Update on Joel Roth's Beck Super Coupe

Danny:

Thanks for the reminder. That's what I am trying to do with this car. The engine will have around 300 HP. The maximum width for the rear wheels/tires is currently 7". I think this is really insufficient for that amount of power. The only way to get wider wheels/tires in the rear is to widen the rear.

So, I am not trying to change the look of the car just for looks, but to be able to get wider rear wheels/tires to handle the HP from the engine. I was thinking 9" wheels/tires would be a lot better than 7", but I think even 8" would help. Flaring the rear is just the way to widen the rear to fit the wider wheels/tires. If we are going to do this, I want it to look good, which is why I was thinking of the RS or RSR look.

Joel

@Lane Anderson posted:

Yes, they are already doing the 1" pie cut on each side as standard on the Coupes.  Going wider would most likely require total reconfiguration of the rear of the car.

... as it does with every car on which the "pie cuts" are used. There's a reason almost nobody does it.

Flares are the easy way to get more rubber under something. Other methods are a lot more difficult.

Sometimes the difficult road is the better road. Sometimes it's just more difficult. I'd absolutely pie cut it, or figure out a wheel/tire package that would work under this car, or choose a more subdued power-plant. One choice always leads to more choices to deal with the first.

At the end of the day though, this is not my car and not my call. Once a guy starts coloring outside the lines, he pays his money and takes his chances and none of us has to deal with the cost or the fallout. Things work or they don't and a man becomes the hero or the cautionary tale.

I've been both, and I'm not wild about being either (a hero or a cautionary tale). My only advice is to build a car that will get driven. Sometimes "too far" is just enough, but going way past "enough" into "undrivable" is absolutely a thing.

The world doesn't need more garage-queens.

I started this project with the intent of building a car that looked great, but with the intent for it to be driven. I still want that, that is why I am trying to widen the body to get wider wheels/tires to be able to do that safely. I am not looking, nor do I want to race or track the car. I want a car that looks beautiful, is unique and drives great.

"I want a car that looks beautiful, is unique and drives great."

I have no doubt that you will achieve that, Joel.  You may reach the point of "enough" in the stock configuration.  If a 7" tire doesn't seem adequate, I would look into a subtle flair like Bob Carley's where tho whole panel is a bit convex in addition top the pie cut, but you have to loo closely to see it.  That could probably get you another inch or two without significantly changing the look.  Here's the car I got much of my inspiration from.  If you look closely at the rear fenders you can see a subtle flare.

https://www.thecoolector.com/1...e-356c-outlaw-coupe/

Well, being mentioned above, I should probably chime in here.  Yes, my IM6 has the widened rear fenders to accommodate 8" real wheels (6" in front) (eight inch rear wheels should suffice for you car).  As Lane says, you really have to look very carefully to notice any difference in body shape from a four cylinder speedster.  Of course, with 911 suspension, you also have to look carefully to see other changes that have to be made in the standard body mould.  It's all done in such a subtle manner that from a cursory glance, nothing different appears.

As for rear flares, they can be done quite tastefully also.  Here is a great 911 powered IM6.

Joel, that's why I pointed out the RS look versus the RSR flares.

The RS look is subtle and looks great without being too much.

The RSR look works for the track. It may be just me that thinks it's TOO much boy-racer for a street-driven car.

I'm a fan of understated. Or subtle. The whole design has to flow.

Wide rear flares just look tacked on. If Carey can't widen the car, I'd suggest dropping the power to 250 or so. That would still be a heckuva fast car, but it would be more enjoyable in the long run because it would be drivable.

.

Joel, you’re getting a lot of good advice here, some of it not spelled out in so many words.

The folks who are responding have been close to these cars for many years and have invested a good part of their lives and fortunes chasing the same rabbit. They’ve each tried numerous approaches, been frustrated by false starts, and have arrived at their own solutions - all very different from one another.

But each has also had to face the same realities that Porsche itself faced around 1960. For both engineering and aesthetic reasons, the 356 had reached its limits - the way forward required a fresh start. The 911 was Porsche’s answer and it may be yours as well. This wasn’t a popular decision in the Porsche community in 1960 but it was one some of the best engineers in the world had to face.

I think the hybrid designs pictured here are the best work of our best builders and have taken the old shape about as far as it can be taken while still 'working' aesthetically. But we have all seen attempts at wrapping 911 performance in 356 clothing that did not end well, even by some fabled professional coach builders.

The voices here may be trying to save you from that.

.

Thanks everyone for the impute and suggestions

I spoke to Carey and he said he will look into whether the pie cut can be widened to get a little more room without doing an add on fender flare. If not, he told me he did a Speedster some years ago that he added fender flares to. He said he still has the molds from that car, but it was a different body and the flares would have to be adjusted to my car.

However, he told me we are not at this stage yet with my car so it will have to wait until we get to that point. So for now he is finishing up the exhaust fabrication and engine surrounds. Then he will re-installing the engine cradle and the suspension. Once that's done he will be able to put some wheels on the car to see what will fit and how much room he has and/or can get from widening the pie cut. Once that's done, we will be able to make some decisions on which direction to go.

So, like everything else, we wait.

Joel

I know these are mild flares but these were hand laid onto an Intermeccanica I owned ...twice ~

Danny:

Carey agrees with you and so do I on the look of the body. The RSR look was just a thought if we were going to flare the body, to complete "The Look". But I do not think we will go that far.

Its funny because he also suggested the same thing with the engine. Dropping down from a 3.4 911 with 300 HP to a 3.2 Boxster with 250 HP.

250 HP is still more power than the car's wheels/tires could ever fully handle.

However, we are going to wait to make that decision, but I am inclined to stay with the 911 motor.

Joel

@Joel Roth posted:

So, like everything else, we wait.

Joel

Joel, I am thinking about starting a class on this topic.  I am 1,419 days into my restoration.  I am the poster child for patience. 

@Marty Grzynkowicz I think you're approaching this from the wrong perspective.  

1419 days (and counting) sounds like a lot, but actually in line with just about every restoration I have ever heard about.  

On the other hand, it's only 3.88 years.  That sounds a lot better, don't you think?

"I am the poster child for patience."

Pshaw, youngster!!  From first discussion to delivery at home (Carlisle 2021 doesn't count) was ~2,206 days for me.  And then we have @WOLFGANG, who is still waiting after what must be 20 years.  Of course he's waiting on himself.

@Bob: IM S6 posted:

Well, being mentioned above, I should probably chime in here.  Yes, my IM6 has the widened rear fenders to accommodate 8" real wheels (6" in front) (eight inch rear wheels should suffice for you car).  As Lane says, you really have to look very carefully to notice any difference in body shape from a four cylinder speedster.  Of course, with 911 suspension, you also have to look carefully to see other changes that have to be made in the standard body mould.  It's all done in such a subtle manner that from a cursory glance, nothing different appears.

And here's the work-in-progress shot, showing this size of the pie-cut segments.  Looks closer to 3" to me:

I should clarify, My wheels were 7" inch the rubber was 8.07" (205mm) and it was good for my setup. 

@Gordon Nichols posted:

And here's the work-in-progress shot, showing this size of the pie-cut segments.  Looks closer to 3" to me:

The tab to put it back together looks to be 3" but you need roughly 1" overlap on each side to regain strength, so I'm betting the cut out section is only about 1", maybe slightly more.  I wish we could see the gap in the bumper mock up as that would tell for sure.

.

@Marty Grzynkowicz posted:

.

I should clarify, My wheels were 7" inch the rubber was 8.07" (205mm) and it was good for my setup.

In the same way that the A. Lange & Söhne Datograph Perpetual is a good 'setup' for telling the time:

.

@Joel Roth posted:

Danny:

Carey agrees with you and so do I on the look of the body.

It's funny because he also suggested the same thing with the engine. Dropping down from a 3.4 911 with 300 HP to a 3.2 Boxster with 250 HP.

250 HP is still more power than the car's wheels/tires could ever fully handle.

However, we are going to wait to make that decision, but I am inclined to stay with the 911 motor.

Joel

If you stay with the 911 3.4 and treat it with respect, you'll be fine with 8" of rubber. You learn where the limits are and don't just floor it all the time.

This is especially true on a car you don't plan to track. It will still be an enormous amount of fun.

I have the 3.6 with 8" rear wheels, and in six summers of driving, I've only had one spin out, and that was on an early morning, wet road.   That was easily controlled.  If the suspension is set up right - correct shocks, sway bars, etc. - and the tires are good, there is really no issue.

You just learn to be judicious with the gas pedal, and pick your spots where and when you don't want to be.

It's the driver that gets into trouble, not the car.

Boy, ain't THAT the truth!  ( Yes, that's me.....  

@Gordon Nichols posted:

Boy, ain't THAT the truth!  ( Yes, that's me.....  

Never lift in a corner!

It is always the nut holding the steering wheel that lets go and it isn’t made of metal.

@Marty Grzynkowicz posted:

I should clarify, My wheels were 7" inch the rubber was 8.07" (205mm) and it was good for my setup.

If Marty was female:

Late to this party I know but for what it's worth, Joel, if I were you I'd think very hard about my life goals.

Here's a lesson I'll never forget, from college. The UConn engineering school had a mechanical engineering class, ME 262, in which the professor presented a problem to solve each semester. The year I observed it, the problem was to design and build a machine that could propel itself through an infinite medium of packing peanuts carrying a payload. It had to be able to tunnel sideways, down or straight up through them. Judging was based on speed, reliability and payload.

My buddies decided to work with a battery-powered electric drill motor. They designed an auger, adjusted the pitch, and did very well. The think worked first try and repeated several runs at about the same pace. Second prize.

The winners used a rubber-band powered mechanism with like little parachutes. The thing balked a few times and then shot up and out of the peanut barrel like a rocket. Incredible job, though probably not robust enough to really work in practice.

The team I remember best decided to prioritize power. They built their machine around a chainsaw motor.

They made a square frame for the motor, hung a little fuel tank on it, and fabbed up some thresher wheels inside it to paddle the thing. It looked like a miniature kid's sandbox with concertina wire looped in it, with the engine bolted on. And the tank. And like a box for the payload.

They tested and realized they had to do something about the exhaust heat. More bolt-ons. Dry ice was used, I think.

On and on it went. At each technical impasse, they redoubled their efforts, having forgotten their aim.*

On test day the professor took one look at this hideous contraption and deemed it unsuitable. A two-stroke motor and fuel buzzing in a barrel of polystyrene foam chips was bound to make bad smoke.

Eventually, after all the other entrants went, he relented and let them try the machine. It failed, but I am sorry to report there was no explosion.

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yeah! Joel's car...

Joel: are you sure you want 300 horsepower in a 356-shaped object? Do you really need to shape the entire project around this particular power plant? And, if so, to what end?

==

*Apologies to George Santayana?

Years ago I bought a speedster out of Texas with a high output Type one engine that cost $14k alone and well in excess of 225 hp ( Nikasil's etc)  Stan was drooling for that engine..... When I finished the speedster is was insanely over powered, fun for the first day but for continual use  it would be work to drive ....Sure well like to get crazy fast now and then but at the end of the day we all want to come home.  BTW  a 2,000 speedster with 300 HP is a whopping 6.67 power to weight ratio ! Just my .02.

@Alan Merklin posted:

Stan was drooling for that engine

I really was.

It was an interesting combo - huge heads, low compression and a super-mild cam (82A, if I'm not mistaken).

It was the exact opposite of something equally interesting that Pat Downs has been doing (smaller heads, big cam).

Jim Dubois was coloring way outside the lines on that entire car (aluminum subframe, etc.), and I still kick myself in the butt for passing it up.

Regarding Joel's car, it seems to me that we're all arm-chair quarterbacking here.

The first car I ever owned was a 1968 Firebird with a 400 and all the go-fast stuff I could afford as a 16 y/o nitwit buying my own parts. I tore out all the factory carpet and sound insulation, as well as every heat shield on the car. It had headers and blown out glasspacks with no tailpipes. No power steering or brakes, 3000 RPM stall converter and big-'n-littles. A/C was power-robbing frippery for women and men who dressed like them. I (of course) did without.

After 20 minutes in that car in the summer, sweat was filling my navel and rolling into my tightie-whities, my back was soaked down to my butt-crack, my feet were on fire, and my ears were bleeding. I was lightheaded from the fumes. I got something like 15 loud muffler warnings one summer, a point of pride at the time.

Later on (when I was supposedly more grown up) I slipped a barely streetable 2332 up my car's trunk, lit the fuse and drove it to the west coast. Results were predictable to everybody but me. There was mirth and mayhem when I wasn't blowing a geyser of oil like Jed Clampett's back 40. I was a one-man mobile Superfund site, and I almost made it home, too.

I've driven a car that is famous on this site - a car that has a steering rack that is approximately 1 turn lock to lock, and has a birdcage frame. This car unfolds like a jack-knife and shakes like Uncle Elmer after his stroke.

All of these cars drove like you might expect.

We're all here, acting like Carey-freaking-Hines is going to allow a car like that to leave his shop... unless we stand in the gap and bring sanity to the situation. The hubris is breathtaking. Carey isn't going to allow anything even remotely unsafe, unreliable, or horrible looking to leave the motorweks in Rivendell, Indiana with his badges all over it.

Carey's got this. We're just jawboning.

... and if I might offer some (more) unsolicited advice - I'd counsel Joel to listen to Carey. You may think you know what you want, but then again you may not. Carey's been listening since the first day you brought it all up. The man knows what you want.

I'd listen to the guy with a BUNCH of cars under his belt, not a bunch of imaginary interweb friends like us.

Stan:

You are 100% correct. Carey knows what he is doing.

I spoke to him early yesterday morning on the phone after all these comments came up about the power and he told me not to worry about the power. He said yes, the car will have a lot of power. Way more than the car needs. But it will not be unsafe. He said I just have to drive the car knowing what power is available on tap and not mash the throttle every time I accelerate.  It all comes down to how you drive your car. And just so you know, even if we dial back the power to 250 HP by switching to a slightly smaller displacement Boxster engine this issue would be about the same and the cost will be about the same.

As far as widening of the body goes, we are going to wait and see if he can widen the rear any further with the pie cut without having to use actual flares. If we do end up going with actual flares, they will be mild and subtle so as not to change the overall look of the car and keep it looking like a 356 Coupe.

That's it guys.

Joel, The Boxster motors are lovely. It'll also be more flexible in this application. Bob's IM-6 car weighs probably 500 lb more than your finished car will.  You would definitely get more out of it because you can rev it higher before pulling your foot off the throttle. A 2.7 or 2.9 would be awesome. That is the engine I would have had Henry at IM do for my next iteration if he didn't get all wired up with the Solo experiment. You're on the right track.

On a different subject, I think you're really going to like the rear-engine configuration.  The extra interior space will make long trips more comfortable and the ease of service access is a boon as well.  It may have a little less balance than a mid-engine car, but the tradeoffs are probably worth it.

@Marty Grzynkowicz posted:

Joel, The Boxster motors are lovely. It'll also be more flexible in this application. Bob's IM-6 car weighs probably 500 lb more than your finished car will.  You would definitely get more out of it because you can rev it higher before pulling your foot off the throttle. A 2.7 or 2.9 would be awesome. That is the engine I would have had Henry at IM do for my next iteration if he didn't get all wired up with the Solo experiment. You're on the right track.

Yes, my speedster does weigh more, but it's not just because of that 3.6 lump of metal in the back.  Anyone who has ridden in my car comments on how solid it is, and how planted it is to the road.  Henry's six cylinder creations all have the strongest frame of any speedster made these days, and add to that the solid 911 suspension, brakes, steering, etc. and yes, you do get a heavier car.

But I will take that extra weight any day, when it comes to braking and handling and overall safety compared to other speedsters.  My car is not a 0-60 racer; it's a solid high speed cruiser, comfortable on any distance of road trip.

I would not trade it for any other make of speedster replica.

And I don't know why everyone here is getting their knickers in a knot over having that much power in a speedster.  There are a few out there with 325-350 ratings, and so far, they haven't exploded.  A properly configured speedster can handle that much horsepower easily.  You don't just plop a large engine in a poorly designed car - you build the whole thing from the ground up, as in my  car.

Just drive the damn thing responsibly.  Nobody here is 17 years old anymore.

^ Bob, my comment about your car weight was a positive one. Thank you for going into more detail about it being able to handle the beastly power.   I am not a big typist.

@Marty Grzynkowicz posted:

^ Bob, my comment about your car weight was a positive one. Thank you for going into more detail about it being able to handle the beastly power.   I am not a big typist.

Typing is an overrated skill, Marty.  We all know your skill is in having great cars , great food, and the best driving gloves...

@Lane Anderson posted:

On a different subject, I think you're really going to like the rear-engine configuration.  The extra interior space will make long trips more comfortable and the ease of service access is a boon as well.  It may have a little less balance than a mid-engine car, but the tradeoffs are probably worth it.

Toe-may-toe/ toe-mah-toe - it's all in who you are, and what you're after. I've grown to really like the rear engine configuration... but it's definitely back there, wagging around like a pendulum.

The packaging of the engine in back, however, cannot be beat. Just don't fill up the real-estate in the front with an enormous fuel tank and radiator setup and you'll have all the space you need for a fast GT, which is an excellent target to be aiming for.

Like most people, I had no idea what I wanted until I'd owned several of these cars and 15 or more years had passed.

The vast majority of guys buy these cars because they're beautiful, and have no idea how they can or will use them. We get into this like we're overgrown 15 year-olds falling for the pretty girl in class who is way, way out of our league, but who somehow is taking an interest in us. We don't really have a clue what she's like or what she's all about, but we know that we want her - badly. Like that girl (who I married, BTW), there are layers upon layers of beauty that go way past the surface.

These cars, like people, can be a lot of things - but not everything all at once. Some of them are set up for the widest possible bandwidth, some are focused to a tight point on their single intended task. The beauty of the flat 6 Porsche and to a lesser extent the EJ Subaru is their flexibility. They have bandwidth most air-cooled T1 engines cannot match.

I'd play the entire car to the strengths of what you've got. A water-cooled 6-cyl will never be a lightweight canyon-carving scalpel. Switching to a rear-engine setup was 100% the right call, IMHO. The ability to carry luggage and to recline the seats, etc. will make it a perfect GT. I'd play to that.

@Bob: IM S6 posted:

Nobody here is 17 years old anymore.

Perhaps - but not so fast, Dr. Carley.

My body tells me it's been a long, long time since I was 17, but I still like pretty much all the same things I liked back then. Including wanton vehicular hooliganism.

Nobody has to tell you this, Mr. 250 hp.

More is more.

Even I, with my superb self control, have succumbed to the desire for some "wanton hooliganism" with my measly 180hp.  It's kinda addictive.  I also learned how easy it is to hit the rev limiter in 1st (and 2nd).

With all the talk about stuffing larger tires into the fender wells, my engineering brain always wrestles with the fact that friction is not dependent on surface area but dragsters always have wide tires.

@Joel Roth

Before your arrival on here, my son used to show up from time to time.  Back then, his daily driver was a 2.4 liter 4WD Mitsubishi Eclipse, thoroughly built to give him 680hp at the wheels on a roller wheel dino (no, that figure is not a typo).

I drove it from time to time (Lane rode in it, too) and it was a beast, turning 10:89 second quarter mile times and besting Corvettes and Vipers by 3 or more lengths.  It was set up as a DD and weekend drag car, meaning that it was not a "Road Race" car - It had adequate cooling and brakes for what he intended to do with it and WAAY more power than needed for a DD.

That said, it was completely drive-able on the street, even to the point of him giving his mother a ride now and then and her leaving the car and saying "I don't know what all the fuss is about."  It would have been a completely different car if he intended it for a road course somewhere: More power, lighter, bigger brakes, better suspension, etc., but all that was going to cost him over $20 grand in mods, then his kids came along and he decided to sell it and buy a Nissan 350Z.  

Bob has mentioned, and I'm sure that @chines1 is in tune with, what it takes to make a complete package - Hell, Carey's been doing that with the 904s for quite a while and much of that learning is spilling over into the 356/550 cars, too.

300hp is only too much for these cars if the driver hasn't learned to use it properly or the rest of the package; suspension, brakes, etc., doesn't match the engine power.  With Carey in charge, I seriously doubt that that is going to happen and you'll end up with quite the road car, indeed, and I'm sure there are some great driver education track days in Southern Florida.  I'm looking forward to hearing your road test report!

Oh, and here's a photo of my son:

@Joel Roth, good. I'm glad you and Carey have got it settled. It's going to be an amazing car!