Home Keaton Car Kilmer Car Clooney Car Tumbler 66 Animated Miscellaneous Collection Discussion Links Guestbook
You are viewing old version of our website. Please click on HOME link to be redirected to new site. Thanks.
Batmobile Forum


  89 vs 92
 From: Jack | Posted: 4/16/2006 11:10:38 PM |
I miss TIM

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Oh I'm sorry I thought you wanted to see my junk in the trunk. Sicko...

Like I said I took almost 200 pictures. Here are a few more.







It's almost like I just ran out and took the pix, right?


Last Edited by Jack: 4/16/2006 11:18:53 PM

 From: KeatonCar | Posted: 4/17/2006 5:13:11 AM |
Nerf Hurder.

Posts: 495
RE: 89 vs 92

so much rust on these cars, don't anyone protect the metal anymore.

A little song, a little dance..... Batman's head on a lance.

 From: Jack | Posted: 4/17/2006 8:20:30 PM |
I miss TIM

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Flip? .........


 From: rusty | Posted: 4/18/2006 11:14:18 PM |
89 made in 92

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

did anyone see that this car has a two piece drive shaft..or does all caprice's have two piece


 From: Jack | Posted: 4/19/2006 12:15:09 AM |
I miss TIM

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Yep 2 piece. I guess they had no choice since they didn't move the engine back. I don't think the Caprice comes that way.




How did he get all of these wonderful pictures? I crawled all the way under the car. I probably looked like it ran me over with justb my feet sticking out.



 From: rusty | Posted: 4/19/2006 5:43:56 PM |
89 made in 92

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

jack i know you would have to lengthen the shaft ...but that was done so the car would drive in the lowerd postion....or to get it low ....have you tryed to move your around with it low


 From: Jack | Posted: 4/19/2006 5:52:13 PM |
I miss TIM

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

No much driving at all low or high but with the correct end play at the trans it sould work just fine. Just like all the Low Rider trucks and such. I thought there was a max lenght that the drive shaft could be. I don't know but it looks pretty hair to me. Also one of the strang thigs about that car is that the rear is supported with air shocks that are maxed out. Here's the problem if they ever fail or loose air then the body is going to be on the tires. It was strange to see it done like that. The car that you posted pix of I believe had solid bar in place of the shocks.


 From: rusty | Posted: 4/19/2006 5:58:39 PM |
89 made in 92

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

somtimes it will bind up or ruin a u joint....i want to be able to run mine low so i will have to wait and see...and i think i see a coil spring in the pictures above on the rear


 From: Jack | Posted: 4/19/2006 6:06:09 PM |
I miss TIM

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Yep it had coils but it looked like the air shocks were at full travel.




 From: Jack | Posted: 4/19/2006 6:06:50 PM |
I miss TIM

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

I can't believe I was that far under the car.


 From: Kevin | Posted: 4/19/2006 10:25:40 PM |
"Not"

Posts: 906
RE: 89 vs 92

The Caprice is a one-piece drive shaft, since the engine wasn't moved and the frame extended the drive shaft has to be lengthened. Whenever the extension is over 72" a carrier bearing has to be used to help support the weight and geometry of the drive shaft.

It was cheaper to drop and reposition the motor using a new engine cradle. Than to have the drive shaft lengthened and a carrier bearing installed. It would have cost in an excess of $700.00 to have the drive line built up by the shop.

It cost less than $200.00 to reposition the motor and install a new cradle and engine mounts. The frame was lengthened 24 1/4" so I moved the engine mount back 24 1/4" so everything would realign to its original position.



 From: rusty | Posted: 4/19/2006 10:41:49 PM |
89 made in 92

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

i agree about moving the motor back thats what im doing but if anyone goes the other way just get a drive shaft out of a ex cab chevy truck it already has the bearing and bracket and you can get one for about a 100 bucks

Last Edited by rusty: 4/19/2006 10:42:49 PM

 From: MARK TOWLE | Posted: 4/20/2006 1:13:34 AM |
COORS LITE

Posts: 246
RE: 89 vs 92

MOTOR IN MIDDLE GOOD

COME TO THE MARKSIDE

 From: Jack | Posted: 4/23/2006 9:28:29 AM |
Maybe

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

BUMP

Kevin, I'm still waiting on the one piece tilt proof. Don't be a Mark and not provide the proof in a timely manner. Either prove it or admit you mad a mistake and apoligize to me.



 From: Jack | Posted: 4/24/2006 5:31:40 PM |
Maybe

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Bump....... Mark how about those pix and well Kevin?....


 From: Tim | Posted: 4/24/2006 6:58:54 PM |
Not Manson

Posts: 2411
RE: 89 vs 92

Grind...


 From: Jack | Posted: 4/24/2006 7:19:12 PM |
So it's a 92

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Yeah I know I guess I'm hoping that some new pix will come out if I keep picking on them. I mean look at all the wonderful pix Kevin has posted in the last few days. Now if I could only get Nitro to succumb to the pressure.


 From: n8mobiles | Posted: 4/28/2006 4:23:58 PM |
Where's mine?

Posts: 432
RE: 89 vs 92

Man, how did I miss so much of this thread?!?!?
OK, the original is wider than the six flags/Jay O/bob cars. The photos prove it, but
How can I PROVE it? I got an Impala frame, like the 89,
put on the same tires and rims, and guess what???

So yes, Don, you can come down and work in eddies shop, be part of his
"How to make a movie car" video and widen those rear fenders!
Another batmobile that rubs the wheel wells! Just what i wanted!
Jack you will be happier with your smaller tires, the 31's are probably a better idea for drivability, because even after I widen the fenders it will still hit on any bump unless it's pumped up. Due to my "now I know so I can't be happy" problem, I am planning on cutting the fenders and extending them, but my big question is what happens to the vents in the front? Collect and post comparison photos everyone!



Chip Foose, I am your doppleganger

 From: Jack | Posted: 4/28/2006 5:02:44 PM |
So it's a 92

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

You will need to add some mud flaps. but I like the new picture.



Pages:    12345678910








Copyright © 2004-2005 chickslovethecar.com "Chicks Love The Car"
Batman is a registered trademark of DC Comics and Warner Bros.
This is a purely fan based site. No copyright infringement is intended. Click here for privacy policy