What can you guys tell me about early 70's Dodge Colts

Greg Donovan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> so what your saying is that it would need a new
> steering rack, turret the rear suspension and
> convert it to coilovers and a new setup to locate
> the axel it would be a great car.
> john vanlandingham Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>

Well not really, IMO. The car is naturally very responsive, steering-wise, and turns in very easily. So no need to change the box. And it's not 4.7 turns lock to lock..... Of course the downside is that the car never seems to want to stay in a straight line on a straightaway, so one DOES have to get used to that.

Getting a new rear leaf to stiffen up a stock rear spring would potentially be a 'project'; I dunno what options there would be at a local spring shop. With the ability to vary the ride height with shackle changes and spring arch, you would not be as limited on spring rates as with a stock coil spring setup. The main limit I see on the rear is the short distance from the axle spring mount to the front attach point; the stock geometry makes it a roll-steering car, which is what I considered the main cause of the 'twitchiness'.

I would be more concerned with the front struts. There is nothing out there easy, 'tho Wilson found some substitutes. That is where I would focus on converting anything. Also, with any increase in front static ride height, the front wheels readily gain positve camber. I never did anything about that, but it was not the best by any means.

As for the trannie, I never found the 2-3 gear step to be bad, and I became and expert on really bad 2-3 steps in the Opels I rallied for years and years! One thing I noticed on the 1.6L Mitsu engine with the C2 Safari setup was the the torque range was VERY wide, and was full on from 2500 to 6500+ rpm. That overcame any gear step issues as far as drivability.

Edit to add:
- You can swap 4 and 5 speed gear boxes on these easily. You would need the mathcing driveshafts.
- The stock rear brakes on the 1.6L models were drums, and about the right size for a large lawn-mower. The Fire Arrows had rear discs but were small and had odd calipers. We converted the rears to discs using the Fire Arrow rear discs and front calipers, with a proportioing valve between front and rear. I should have used smaller piston rear calipers, 'cuz I never got the F-R balance very good.
- The 1.6L rear axle is smaller and lighter, but would probably not hold up with a 2.6L motor. Stock gearing is OK (read "acceptable in a light car with good torque band" in the 1.6L axle. Getting other gears would be either a challenge or not possible. Same with a LSD for the 1.6L axle, but most of the Fire Arrows came with an LSD.
- Stock gas tank tends to accumulate dirt and salt on top and rust through on the top.

Hey, I am not trying to talk you into this! Parts are a really big bugger, and you had best be prepared to fab a lot of stuff yourself. The drivetrain is pretty good, with some options; the basic front subframe is tough; the whole car can take some beating and not bend, Just trying to present my actual experiences in building and running one of these cars. One should only take this car on if one likes them for a special reason, not because they are a practical car to be rallying in this day and age.

Regards,
Mark B



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2008 10:26AM by starion887.

thanks mark.

this is all theoretical at this point in the game. just got a bit curious after seeing one cruising around town lately.

people were still talking about the fire arrows when i was getting into rally in the late 90s.

starion887 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
..... Of course the downside
> is that the car never seems to want to stay in a
> straight line on a straightaway, so one DOES have
> to get used to that.
>
> Getting a new rear leaf to stiffen up a stock rear
> spring would potentially be a 'project'; I dunno
> what options there would be at a local spring
> shop. With the ability to vary the ride height
> with shackle changes and spring arch, you would
> not be as limited on spring rates as with a stock
> coil spring setup. The main limit I see on the
> rear is the short distance from the axle spring
> mount to the front attach point; the stock
> geometry makes it a roll-steering car, which is
> what I considered the main cause of the
> 'twitchiness'.
-------------------------------------------------------

Mark,

I solved the high speed stability problem in my 2.6L '74 Colt with a rear anti-sway bar. I realize this is counter to conventional practise for stage rally cars. But it really did work. This is right out of the 1960's Addco manual. It really works good for short wheelbase solid rear axel leaf spring cars. In fact, I was going to get rid of my Colt unless I could solve the problem. After the sway bar, it was solid as a rock on gravel at rally speeds with no noticable harm to handling.

Another way to solve a straightline stability problem might be to use the old Porsche solution: Make the Rear wheel tread width wider than the Front.

If Greg or anyone else needs rear spring info, I have an uncoupled set of Mitsubishi 4-leaf Safari springs that could be measured. Rear shocks need to be at least double the OEM rate to go with Safari rear springs.

In the front, OEM Colt spring rates are about 100lb/in. Starions are about 145lb./in. So OEM Starion front struts and inserts should be fine for a 2400 pound hooligan street car, or rallycross. But, for stage rally you need 190 or 200 pound springs and proper shocks to match.

Nothing wrong with Colts if you have a couple of chassis to build on, and you're content to stay under 100 mph. The big bonus with the old RWD Japanese cars (Colts, Datsuns, Mazdas and Toyotas) is their simplicity and light weight.

Rich Smith




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2008 02:23PM by Rich Smith.

Rich Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I solved the high speed stability problem in my
> 2.6L '74 Colt with a rear anti-sway bar. I realize
> this is counter to conventional practise for stage
> rally cars. But it really did work. This is right
> out of the 1960's Addco manual. It really works
> good for short wheelbase solid rear axel leaf
> spring cars. In fact, I was going to get rid of my
> Colt unless I could solve the problem. After the
> sway bar, it was solid as a rock on gravel at
> rally speeds with no noticable harm to handling.
>
> Another way to solve a straightline stability
> problem might be to use the old Porsche solution:
> Make the Rear wheel tread width wider than the
> Front.
>
> If Greg or anyone else needs rear spring info, I
> have an uncoupled set of Mitsubishi 4-leaf Safari
> springs that could be measured. Rear shocks need
> to be at least double the OEM rate to go with
> Safari rear springs.
>
> In the front, OEM Colt spring rates are about
> 100lb/in. Starions are about 145lb./in. So OEM
> Starion front struts and inserts should be fine
> for a 2400 pound hooligan street car, or
> rallycross. But, for stage rally you need 190 or
> 200 pound springs and proper shocks to match.
>
> Nothing wrong with Colts if you have a couple of
> chassis to build on, and you're content to stay
> under 100 mph. The big bonus with the old RWD
> Japanese cars (Colts, Datsuns, Mazdas and Toyotas)
> is their simplicity and light weight.
>
> Rich Smith
>
>
>
>
> Edited 1 times. Last edit at Oct 19, 2008 by Rich
> Smith.


Well that IS interesting, Rich. A rear anti-sway bar would counter axle rolling, which would reduce any roll-steer tendencies. But it might also be sreving as a rear lateral locator (like a panhard rod), to prevent any lateral twisting of the leaf springs. T'would be interesting to know exactly waht it is fixing. Gald you got this fixed!

Regards,
Mark B.

I built an Arrow in '84 or so. 2.0 with the JDM twin carbs. It was ok handling below 100mph. I wasn't terribly fast in those days though. The original steering was something like 18:1 variable. I believe I got a 16:1 box out of a 1.6 Colt. Jerry Hines was the NW Colt guru back then. He sold me the steering box which made a huge difference. I don't remember the tranny being as bad as a Datsun for gear spacing, but it has been a while.

Chad DiMarco had a MM Colt and was OMG fast in it. Grant Whiting had one for a couple years ( Terry Hackler car originally) and went plenty fast in it also. I would venture the biggest drawback is the parts situation. Driving wise I think they are pretty ok. Most people, most of the time will never excede the capabilities of their car. Cody Crane just kicked ass at Mt.Hood in a CRX, not a car well known for it's rally abilities.

heymagic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most people, most of the time will
> never excede the capabilities of their car.
>

Bingo, Gene!

Ouch!
Yeah but a more powerful motor just makes life easier. When we upgraded to a stock 2lt w/13 more horsies and about that much more torque (had a stock 1.8 prior) everything was effortless and we were faster.
My intention was to build a motor with a whole lot more power which now is on hold. The 2lt upgrade was easy and cost me only 200 bucks.

---

rally gods would turn in their graves if they ever knew Lada's were now part of EU rallying!!!

heymagic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

"I would venture the biggest drawback is the parts situation."

-------------------------------------------------------

Gene & others:

Most 1970's Colt BODY PARTS are available... somewhere. Probably not at your local wrecking yard, but within a "niche" circle of Colt enthusiasts around the country.

- Greg Ward in Des Moines, IA, has been collecting "Mistu-Mopars" in his purpose built barn for a number of years as a hobby. He currently has 19. Whenever he found one too rough to keep, he parted it out and saved everything.

- A woman in Omak, WA, was recently trying to sell 3 Colts, 1974-75. All very cheep.

- A friend in Spokane, WA, also has 3 of them.

- Last I heard Roger Jackman still has his '78 Rallycar... and a street 4dr (Like the video game).

- A Seattle area friend has a '74 Colt with a 2.6L Turbo Starion & 5sp. He used it as a commuter for about 3 years. He's on to other projects now and would sell it very cheap.

- I know a guy who bought '78 Fire Arrow SCCA IT car for his daughter ($650). Probably ready to sell it now. She didn't use it.

- I have a few performace parts I'd be willing to part with, and a boat load of small bits too.

- Australia is rife with vintage Lancers & Gallants still competing. (Aussies mostly use the 1600 engine.)


Like any other old car, you can build a Colt if you want too. They are still very cheap. You just need to plan ahead a little.

Rich Smith





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/20/2008 07:31PM by Rich Smith.

Rich Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> heymagic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> "I would venture the biggest drawback is the parts
> situation."
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> Gene & others:
>
> Most 1970's Colt BODY PARTS are available...
> somewhere. Probably not at your local wrecking
> yard, but within a "niche" circle of Colt
> enthusiasts around the country.
>
> - Greg Ward in Des Moines, IA, has been collecting
> "Mistu-Mopars" in his purpose built barn for a
> number of years as a hobby. He currently has 19.
> Whenever he found one too rough to keep, he parted
> it out and saved everything.
>
> - A woman in Omak, WA, was recently trying to sell
> 3 Colts, 1974-75. All very cheep.
>
> - A friend in Spokane, WA, also has 3 of them.
>
> - Last I heard Roger Jackman still has his '78
> Rallycar... and a street 4dr (Like the video
> game).
>
> - A Seattle area friend has a '74 Colt with a 2.6L
> Turbo Starion & 5sp. He used it as a commuter
> for about 3 years. He's on to other projects now
> and would sell it very cheap.
>
> - I know a guy who bought '78 Fire Arrow SCCA IT
> car for his daughter ($650). Probably ready to
> sell it now. She didn't use it.
>
> - I have a few performace parts I'd be willing to
> part with, and a boat load of small bits too.
>
> - Australia is rife with vintage Lancers &
> Gallants still competing. (Aussies mostly use the
> 1600 engine.)
>
>
> Like any other old car, you can build a Colt if
> you want too. They are still very cheap. You just
> need to plan ahead a little.
>
> Rich Smith
>
>
>
>
>
> Edited 2 times. Last edit at Oct 20, 2008 by Rich
> Smith.


Rich, you are the Colt perv for sure ! And you're right , many obsolete cars have parts available in non-conventional locations. The trick is to plan ahead, make the contacts first, buy a couple of donors if possible and go have fun. I think the windshield situation is the biggest obstacle. Most of us can fab a fender or quarter panel, making windshields not so easy.

I never thought about windshields until I built the Cpe GT and found no new glass available and used glass going for $200. I immediately bought a great shell for $200 and another nice running car for $600...Craigslist rocks...and fortunately didn't need the glass.

Car brand forums are the greatest help to "orphan" car owners and most people are willing to help search out parts.

looks like they jump pretty good:





i know it is actually a galant, but it is still pretty damn funny.