Starting the Search for an ERA

[dacobb]

Originally Posted by fastd

interested to know since OP said something about outboard brakes being a bit of a non-starter; i have inboard brakes on my ERA and don't feel like it's been a problem...i have 11k miles on mine and probably wouldn't ever have to change them...I however did have them changed (by someone else) to get a more aggressive pad.

If I had the outboard brakes, would my life be somehow better?

Maybe not better, but rear brake maintenance would be much easier.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by dacobb

Maybe not better, but rear brake maintenance would be much easier.

A lot of the rear maintenance would be easier, but chances are you'd never have to do it. Aside from brake pads, replacing an inner stub axle on the outboard braked rear is less than an hour's work. Doing it on a Jag rear is a nightmare. In the one in a million chance you break a u-joint on the half shaft, or the HS itself, with a Jag rear your wheel is going to flop over and the game is immediately over. With the outboard braked rear, the upper trailing arm should hold the wheel upright enough so that you can limp your sorry ass to the side of the road/track. Not to mention you can tweak the toe settings to get things "just right" (what that really means is that you'll shoot a weekend monkeying with the rear toe only to find that it doesn't really make a noticeable difference anyway).

[bcrumpley]

The ERA rear subframe assembly is a beautiful thing, but not an option for me since I will have undercar exhaust.

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by bcrumpley

The ERA rear subframe assembly is a beautiful thing, but not an option for me since I will have undercar exhaust.

I stuck with the Jag rear end in large part for this reason - but after building my car, fabricating the mock up of the 2-1/2' tailpipes and taking them to an exhaust shop to fabricate - I'm not so sure. It's tight no matter which suspension - I run 255/60 tires in the rear for minimal clearance and have about 1/4" to the wheel house and about 3/8" to the tire. This is with a standard track suspension and 9-1/2 SC wheels. The extended track option and a set of 7" Sunbursts would give you a lot more room.



But the pipes can be run up pretty high in the wheel wells to get above the suspension. I could have run my up higher yet but I saw no reason to.



So, I've never fully comprehended Bob's hesitation about undercar tailpipes with the optional suspension - especially with ERA's available 2" tailpipes. It would be interesting to visit with some of the shop guys who actually assemble the car like Doug and see what their experience is.

[66gtk]

ERA is a great choice. I've had a few of them and love them! Some will say you can't go wrong with an ERA (or substitute SPF, BDR, whatever...), but I strongly disagree. Very few cars on the market are as sorted and trouble free as they advertise. Shop and choose carefully.

[1795]

Good advice Troy. By the way, did you ever find your new ERA?

[bcrumpley]

Thanks Dan. I am going with the extended track option with sunbursts, so maybe it will work. Sounds like I better get on the ball about that decision because I'm about to start the differential build.

[66gtk]

Originally Posted by 1795

Good advice Troy. By the way, did you ever find your new ERA?

Heeding my own advice, nope. Still searching for the right match-up. (:

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by bcrumpley

Thanks Dan. I am going with the extended track option with sunbursts, so maybe it will work. Sounds like I better get on the ball about that decision because I'm about to start the differential build.

It would seem that as long as the pipe go around the opening into the wheel wells for the differential/half shaft tunnel - it would almost have to clear the suspension arms. But you might ask Doug - could be something with the outer hub/disc brake caliper mounting that interferes.

[tomshep]

Originally Posted by fastd

interested to know since OP said something about outboard brakes being a bit of a non-starter; i have inboard brakes on my ERA and don't feel like it's been a problem...i have 11k miles on mine and probably wouldn't ever have to change them...I however did have them changed (by someone else) to get a more aggressive pad.

If I had the outboard brakes, would my life be somehow better?

From my original post I enjoy tracking. I run the R Model and have even taken the Shelby on track a couple of times. I want the benefits of the outboard brakes and the ability of better braking along with the upgraded fronts as well.

If I did go earlier than chassis 731, it would have to be chassis 565+ so I could substitute the outboard brake assembly.

Tom

[tomshep]

I appreciate all of the comments and recommendations.

I did find out there are about 175 cars after chassis #731.

I want a 427 chassis. Just love the look and lines.

The improvements are substantial at 731 as stated in the FAQ on ERA's website:

Chassis changes, from the front to the rear
New body mounting tubes, at the nose opening and underneath the cowl.
New-style bottom radiator mounts.
New front frame horns, side tubing and bumper mounting system.
New aluminum front wheel splash panels. The rear panels are removable for battery and exhaust access.
New tubes from cowl to front suspension
Wider footboxes.
New original-style throttle mounting.
Original-style fresh air valves on both footboxes.
Original-style wiper mount on footbox.
New front battery support.
Curved outer cowl support tubes for wider footbox.
New formed outriggers from main rails to side rails
Slanted side rails for smooth transition from floor to door opening
New floor design.
Extra reinforcement for side intrusion protection.
New Aluminum tunnel.
Stronger door latch mounting system.
New rear splash panels.
Aluminum trunk panels

As I stated, I have time. If I did decide to go older it would need to be chassis 565+ so I could put the outboard brake assembly in. This would be a car that checks the other boxes of a 427 and TKO already.

I do appreciate the advice and comments. Keep them coming!

Thank you, Tom

[strictlypersonl]

Originally Posted by DanEC

It would seem that as long as the pipe go around the opening into the wheel wells for the differential/half shaft tunnel - it would almost have to clear the suspension arms. But you might ask Doug - could be something with the outer hub/disc brake caliper mounting that interferes.

It's the (ERA RS) trailing arm that's the problem. It takes up almost 2" to the outboard of the chassis rail. The only wheel and tire that will fit must have much less backspacing (and therefore total width) as the normal 9.5" Pin-drive.

[66gtk]

Originally Posted by strictlypersonl

It's the (ERA RS) trailing arm that's the problem. It takes up almost 2" to the outboard of the chassis rail. The only wheel and tire that will fit must have much less backspacing (and therefore total width) as the normal 9.5" Pin-drive.

Very interesting! So the rear wheels on an ERA rear 427 car are NOT interchangeable with the Jag rear cars?? What about the FIA cars? Please excuse me if I misinterpreted your comment but this is news to me.

Troy

[strictlypersonl]

Originally Posted by 66gtk

Very interesting! So the rear wheels on an ERA rear 427 car are NOT interchangeable with the Jag rear cars?? What about the FIA cars? Please excuse me if I misinterpreted your comment but this is news to me.

Troy

The wheels are the same (Jag vs ERA rear) on the 427 - as long as the car has side pipes. If you are using an under-car exhaust system where the pipes go over the rear axle, there is interference with the ERA (outboard-braked) rear suspension. To get around this problem, some have used the under-floor mufflers with a pipe that exits in front of the rear wheel.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by strictlypersonl

The wheels are the same (Jag vs ERA rear) on the 427 - as long as the car has side pipes. If you are using an under-car exhaust system where the pipes go over the rear axle, there is interference with the ERA (outboard-braked) rear suspension. To get around this problem, some have used the under-floor mufflers with a pipe that exits in front of the rear wheel.

Bob,

As always, it's nice to see a manufacturer who is willing to step up to the place and interact with their potential customer base. Even if it means not selling them anything. Truly, you are one of the great ones.

Bill S.

PS: The above post is my personal, yet biased opinion, and is based on years of interaction with Bob at ERA

[DanEC]

OK - if I understand correctly now, it's the trailing arm that must angle out more towards the hub on the ERA rear suspension than on the Jag suspension - into the space available for the tail pipes.

My Jag rear and tailpipes.



That makes the issue clearer (if I'm following Bob's comments correctly).

[strictlypersonl]

Note the upper trailing link between the chassis and the hub carrier.
Front view of rear suspension.

[DanEC]

Ahh - the upper link. That's clear now. Thanks Bob.

[chawk]

Tom,
I don't know if you're still in the market for an ERA. I own ERA 745 and it appears to check most of your boxes. Not actively looking to sale but let's talk if you have interest.

Dave

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by chawk

Tom,
I don't know if you're still in the market for an ERA. I own ERA 745 and it appears to check most of your boxes. Not actively looking to sale but let's talk if you have interest.

Dave

This? I like the looks of her, but the photo gallery is pretty thin.