[Sledder_duner]

The Stan antlocer super duty

[500plus]

Sweet...getting ready to do this to one of mine. Wish I had a rotisserie.

[Sledder_duner]

Looks like they mini tubbed it too.Im surprised they did that to a million dollar car.

[tom s]

It was done to itback in 1963 when it was just another car.Tom

[Sledder_duner]

I think Scott tieman did the mini tub during the restoration.

[tom s]

Just talked to Scott,they did not touch the tunnel at all.They had the rear tubs out and they were pretty beat up and they sectioned them about a in to clean up the look.Tom

[Keith Seymore]

Couple more:

[Keith Seymore]

Tom - you may have sent me these -

K

[hobbygto65]

Wish they would post some pics of the rear shackle mounts.

[SR-71]

This isn't too bad. You see how the car was prior to restoration.

[Sledder_duner]

The way Tom S describes the procedure for this pretty much scares people away from attempting it but looking at these pics it really ain't that hard.

[tom s]

I never said it was hard.I said if you have to have it fabbed by someone else it can be expensive.I have done 3 of them.Just labor intensive.Tom

[The Boss]

Was the motor set back in the chassis?

[tom s]

Chris,will ask Scott if was on the factory mounts.Tom

[hobbygto65]

Are the spring perches equal in front of the gas tank versus behind it?

[tom s]

Cant tell from pics,I have never done a leaf car.Tom

[Doug]

This Antlocer car was discussed to some degree in this earlier thread:
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...d.php?t=800020

There is a 16-picture magazine article on it at:
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/hppp-...ontiac-lemans/

There is an interview with Antlocer on Youtube at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztEehFmwPA8

As found “rusty and un-restored”, the Antlocer car was not the “same as” when it was setting racing records. There appear to be no detailed photographs or documentation of the changeover of the original transaxle drive train to a conventional drive train so we are forced, to some degree, to accept the rusty car’s components as being what the changeover car had. It has been indicated that the long “lift bars” had been added and it is likely several other changes had been made.

Unfortunately, there are not readily available extensive photographs of many details of the rusty car’s suspension, frame, fuel tank, etc., so it is difficult to say how the rusty car is different from the original. However, there is ample info that the “restored” car is substantially different than the rusty car (as well as different from the original).

As per Antlocer’s comments, it has been indicated that when “factory new“, the original car had the front of the gas tank cut off to make room for the unique PowerShift transaxle (not to make room for leaf springs as the original car had coil springs).

It may be that the rusty car tank is not the original shortened tank. Pictures of the rusty car appear to show that perhaps as much as 7 or 8 inches of the front of the tank was cut off. Pictures of the rusty car appear to show the front corners of the tank were notched in, presumably to make room for leaf spring shackles when Antlocer installed a 57 Pontiac rear-end. (It is thought by some that the rusty car rearend is not a 57 so it may not be the 57 rearend used by Antlocer.)

Note that the restored car’s tank doesn’t have notched corners, although it has been indicated that the “original” (rusty car) tank was used in the restoration.

Note also that the rusty car tank used the original side-to-side tank retainer strap along with an added side-to-side strap located towards the rear of the tank. The restored car tank has used front-to-back straps.

Note that the rusty car has the right-side spring shackle hanging from the frame rail just in front of the tank strap mounting point. It is unclear how the rusty car left-side spring shackle was mounted. Presumably, it is hung from the left side rail but it would have had to have some sort of offset bracket arrangement since the left side frame rail is some 1 5/16” farther from centerline of car than is the right side rail (see note in paragraph j, page 11-4 in 1963 TEMPEST Body Shop Manual). It is possible that the left side shackle was hung from the frame rail like the right side was by angling the left side leaf slightly outward unparallel with the right leaf.

The restored car has the shackles mounted a few inches inside the frame rails on tabs mounted to a cross member installed between the rails in front of the shortened tank. In reality, it appears the restored car leaf springs do not use shackles with the rear spring attachment being “rigidly” mounted. This allows very little leaf spring “suspension” movement, whereas the rusty car shackles does allow movement.

It appears the rusty and restored spring set sections are nearly equal in length front and back of the housing and are about 44” long overall eye-to-eye. Typically, rear-end leaf springs sections are shorter in the front and somewhat longer in the back ; the short front section being a locater link and the long rear section providing the cushioning of the ride.

I think (unsure), 57 rear-end housing spring perches were on 46” centers. The 63 Tempest frame rails in the vicinity of the fuel tank are each about 2 ¼” wide and centerlines about 42” apart. Accordingly, it appears the rusty car’s rear-end housing had perches located a few inches closer together. With the rear tread width of a 57 big-car being 59” and the rear tread width of a 63 Tempest being 58”, it does not appear that the rusty car rear-end housing was narrowed whereas the restored car rear-end has been narrowed and otherwise modified. It is indicated that clearance modification to the rusty car wheel wells amounted to “sledge hammering’ which would have been the custom for the typically sized tires back in racing days. The restored car wheel wells were substantially modified by “tubbing” to allow use of today’s wider tires.

[tom s]

I was hoping John would have done the car back to how it was built.He had a SD transaxle so it was possible to do.I think the value of the car would have been enhanced.John spent a lot of money for the car plus the retore but years later it sold for much less than the as built cars have brought.JMHO,Tom

[Doug]

When one considers how prisoners-of-war and others have made rings, bracelets and other jewelry out of ordinary bits of scrap metal, coins, spoons, etc. without benefit of proper tools, it is obvious that with access to modern tools, machines and well equipped facilities, a restorer of automobiles could restore one to the “nnth degree”. Ultimately though, it is the automobile’s owner (the customer) who chooses what the restorer does. For me, the customer made wrong choices for this car.

For me, a “collector” (of cars or anything else) carries an obligation to preserve and protect, to be an archivist and custodian. This obligation was not fulfilled in this case.

However, the collector is not the only party that “failed” in this case. All parties that went wild in the Ebay bidding bear some responsibility. The sale price was much greater than a realistic value (even for a very rare car).

To me, the car’s restorer, arguably being the ultimate authority on Pontiac restorations and the value of these ultra rare cars, failed by making substantial alterations of the original-as raced car;. perhaps failing even more so by not insisting that the car be restored to as-new configuration with the SD transaxle drive train setup. When considering the inflated Ebay overbidding of the car, if it had been bought at a realistic value, it could have been restored to as-new condition within the total of what was spent to buy and restore it.

The “overpricing” by the owner of the original front-end sheet metal adds a sour taste to the matter too.

Of course, the workmanship, craftsmanship and expertise that was put into the car’s “restoration and modification” is top notch and to be appreciated. But, for my part, I would rather the rusty car had been parked beside the SD transaxle and the original front-end sheet metal along with graphic displays as an exhibit.

[beemergary]

The "overpricing" by the owner of the original front-end sheet metal. To me was a Monkey See Monkey Do after what was originally paid. Would have been nice to see on car.