# 1964 Corvair EV conversion (EM-EV)



## DIYguy (Sep 18, 2008)

Great choice. Love the Corvairs. Nice job as well.

👍


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

Nice job! 



aportlandsummer said:


> I completely changed the weight distribution of the car. It is now nearly 50/50. This means it handles much more like a typical car, but i gave up the super light steering. It also means the brakes need some pretty big modifications. The weight distribution during braking is now very front heavy, so care has to be taken to keep the rear wheels from locking up. The springs and dampers also had to be changed. I went with the SBC springs from Clarks in the front and springs from a 63 that I cut for the rear (I removed the leaf spring). I have yet to do any super dramatic driving to see how it understeers now. I will likely do that on a rainy day first.


Did you consider placing a couple of the modules over the motor for a more suitable weight distribution?

The leaf spring was added in 1964 to improve the behaviour of the swing-axle suspension. It would probably handle better with softer coil springs and the leaf (or "camber compensator") replaced.



aportlandsummer said:


> I installed a 120hp Hyper 9 AC motor in the back. Its coupled to a 3:55 diff and a 3spd that I leave in 2nd gear (all the time, I don't shift). It means its not a rocket off the line, but very fun from 10-50mph and has a top speed of 77mph. All totally acceptable for me.


That makes sense. Have you tried starting off in first gear for better low-speed acceleration?



aportlandsummer said:


> I used 7 salvaged battery modules form a 2012 tesla model S that was in an accident. I feel good about this, since I used something already manufactured and didn't demand more resources from the earth. LiPo batteries are very resource intensive to manufacture. But... so is aluminum and folks seem ok with that.
> ...
> 
> I used a Orion2 BMS and a 2,5kW charger. I would not recommend using any LiPo batteries without a battery management system. LiPos are great for energy density (especially the tesla modules) but they are finicky and can be dangerous if not managed well.


Tesla cells are not LiPo (lithium polymer), but yes, a BMS is a good idea, especially with Tesla's cell chemistry.


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

brian_ said:


> Nice job!


Thanks very much! It was a very fun project. I would consider it rather simple, compared to the awesome stuff I see on this forum.


brian_ said:


> Did you consider placing a couple of the modules over the motor for a more suitable weight distribution?


I didn't consider distributing the modules after doing my new weight distribution calculations. I wanted to get rid of the bias towards the rear wheels, frankly. It was my understand that the primary purpose of the transverse leaf spring was to allow for softer coils, reducing the rear roll stiffness and the tendency to oversteer. I wasn't aware of any structural-like impact to the camber, from the leaf spring. It seems the reduced roll stiffness would keep the car form climbing up over that outside swingarm. I suppose that is a way of compensating for that negative camber under load. With the new weight in the front, I suspect the car will understeer nicely, especially with the stiffer front ARB on the 64's. I also wanted to keep the modules together for easier wiring, and now I have room for some groceries in the trunk!

Plus, relocating two modules would have reduced the weight up front enough that the SBC springs from Clarks would have been too stiff, and Clarks mid engine conversion springs would have been too soft. I would have been in custom spring territory then, and I wasn't up for that. 



brian_ said:


> That makes sense. Have you tried starting off in first gear for better low-speed acceleration?


I have not. The car was an automatic originally, so i don't have the linkage and such to shift anyway. I might climb under there one day, shift it by hand, just to see how it feels. I originally planned to use the 2spd powerglide that came in the car, but I couldn't figure out a graceful way to run the engagement pump when the car wasn't moving and I really didnt want to use the torque converter or idle the electric motor. And when I took apart the powerglide to investigate, it was clear there was no way I was getting it back together! But i was able to take advantage of the auto shift lever to command direction. I added a two hall effect sensors to the original lever, so "D" and "R" do what you expect. I also added a third sensor to initiate regen on neutral in the "L" position for some engine braking on hills.



















brian_ said:


> Tesla cells are not LiPo (lithium polymer), but yes, a BMS is a good idea, especially with Tesla's cell chemistry.


Yes, thank you. You are totally right.


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

DIYguy said:


> Great choice. Love the Corvairs. Nice job as well.
> 
> 👍


Thanks much! I have always loved Corvairs. I think they were so innovative, and growing up in Detroit, I'v always had a soft spot for them... especially the early models.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

aportlandsummer said:


> I didn't consider distributing the modules after doing my new weight distribution calculations. I wanted to get rid of the bias towards the rear wheels, frankly.


I get that, but that's a Corvair... it's rear-heavy. If you change that, you have a significant job of re-tuning the suspenion to do.



aportlandsummer said:


> It was my understand that the primary purpose of the transverse leaf spring was to allow for softer coils, reducing the rear roll stiffness and the tendency to oversteer. I wasn't aware of any structural-like impact to the camber, from the leaf spring. It seems the reduced roll stiffness would keep the car form climbing up over that outside swingarm. I suppose that is a way of compensating for that negative camber under load.


Close... the transverse leaf spring is there to add collective spring stiffness, to keep the swing-axle suspension from moving too much vertically, without adding excessive roll stiffness the way stiff coil springs at each wheel would. "Climbing up over that outside swingarm" is jacking, an inherent characteristic of the suspension geometry (which hasn't been changed, and isn't changed by springs or camber compensators) - it is the result of lateral force by the rear tires, regardless of the roll stiffness. It is bad mostly because of the resulting camber, but the raising of the rear end is also bad. You reduce jacking by stiffening the vertical motion (which is what the leaf spring does), not by reducing the roll stiffness.



aportlandsummer said:


> Plus, relocating two modules would have reduced the weight up front enough that the SBC springs from Clarks would have been too stiff, and Clarks mid engine conversion springs would have been too soft. I would have been in custom spring territory then, and I wasn't up for that.


This is what I was saying about the consequences of changing the weight distribution - it means that you need a spring combination which no one offers (although you might be able to assemble it with some combination of front and rear springs intended for other configurations) because Corvairs don't have that distribution.

An alternative for almost any car to custom springs that fit the stock suspension, is coil-over shocks with adjustable spring perches... but they're not cheap.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

aportlandsummer said:


> I have not. The car was an automatic originally, so i don't have the linkage and such to shift anyway.


Since it started as an automatic without a console shifter, not putting in a manual shifter is certainly understandable. It just seems like a missed opportunity to me to carry around the weight and bulk and complexity of a multi-speed transmission to use only one ratio... but that's relatively common in conversions.



aportlandsummer said:


> I originally planned to use the 2spd powerglide that came in the car, but I couldn't figure out a graceful way to run the engagement pump when the car wasn't moving and I really didnt want to use the torque converter or idle the electric motor. And when I took apart the powerglide to investigate, it was clear there was no way I was getting it back together!


I think you dodged a bullet there - a lot of people have adapted Power Glides for EV conversions, but it's expensive and I can't see it as worthwhile in this century. Idling an electric motor to drive through a torque converter is certainly a terrible idea (now).



aportlandsummer said:


> But i was able to take advantage of the auto shift lever to command direction. I added a two hall effect sensors to the original lever, so "D" and "R" do what you expect. I also added a third sensor to initiate regen on neutral in the "L" position for some engine braking on hills.
> 
> View attachment 121895
> 
> View attachment 121896


Cool shifter, and nicely adapted for the conversion. 

I had never seen the auto shifter of a Corvair before another current project (Planning to convert a 1968 Corvair 500). The first and second generation shifters are different, but both seem well-suited to this sort of adaptation.


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

brian_ said:


> I get that, but that's a Corvair... it's rear-heavy. If you change that, you have a significant job of re-tuning the suspenion to do.
> 
> 
> Close... the transverse leaf spring is there to add collective spring stiffness, to keep the swing-axle suspension from moving too much vertically, without adding excessive roll stiffness the way stiff coil springs at each wheel would. "Climbing up over that outside swingarm" is jacking, an inherent characteristic of the suspension geometry (which hasn't been changed, and isn't changed by springs or camber compensators) - it is the result of lateral force by the rear tires, regardless of the roll stiffness. It is bad mostly because of the resulting camber, but the raising of the rear end is also bad. You reduce jacking by stiffening the vertical motion (which is what the leaf spring does), not by reducing the roll stiffness.


Hmmm... by that logic, it seems i am in even better shape then. If a stiffer vertical spring rate helps reduce jacking, and reducing jacking helps with camber, and therefore oversteer, then my conversion is way less prone to oversteer. The cut springs from a 63 provides a vertical spring rate that is higher than stock. 

Speaking of stock, the vertical spring rate for the 64s is nearly the same for the earlier years...its gotta be... same load and geometry and ride height and quality. Its the roll stiffness that was updated with the leaf spring. And they added a bigger ARB in the front. Both work together to reduce the oversteer, from what I understand. Less for Nader to complain about. 



brian_ said:


> This is what I was saying about the consequences of changing the weight distribution - it means that you need a spring combination which no one offers (although you might be able to assemble it with some combination of front and rear springs intended for other configurations) because Corvairs don't have that distribution.
> 
> An alternative for almost any car to custom springs that fit the stock suspension, is coil-over shocks with adjustable spring perches... but they're not cheap.


Yep, you got it. Thats exactly the reason i wanted all the batteries in the front, so I could stay with springs already sized for the front end loads of conversions folks have done in the past. It sounds like you must own a Corvair, based on the posts. Adapting coil-overs in the front suspension in these cars is not worth the effort when Clarks sells springs and dampers sized for the front end load I added.

A equally difficult part of this conversion was updating the brake distribution. I ended up with a dual master cylinder update, a disc conversion in the front and added a brake proportioning valve. All of this helped increase the braking capacity of the car, and keeps the rear tires from locking up under severe braking. I did have to test a bunch since the braking regen contributes only to the rears. It took me a bit to get a regen curve that was agreeable.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

aportlandsummer said:


> Hmmm... by that logic, it seems i am in even better shape then. If a stiffer vertical spring rate helps reduce jacking, and reducing jacking helps with camber, and therefore oversteer, then my conversion is way less prone to oversteer. The cut springs from a 63 provides a vertical spring rate that is higher than stock.


No, it's the opposite. The stiff springs mean a high roll stiffness, and a relatively high rear roll stiffness (versus the front) that the rear does more of the lateral load transfer, reducing rear traction and increasing the tendency to rear roll stiffness. The point of the leaf spring was to get a high spring rate for both sides moving together (to reduce oversteer) _without_ causing a high roll stiffness (which would increase oversteer).



aportlandsummer said:


> Speaking of stock, the vertical spring rate for the 64s is nearly the same for the earlier years...its gotta be... same load and geometry and ride height and quality. Its the roll stiffness that was updated with the leaf spring.


No, that's not how it works. The leaf spring adds to the vertical spring rate, so the coils could be (but were not necessarily) softer. The ride height depends on both stiffness and free length of the coils, and stiffness and initial curvature of the leaf. The leaf is relatively free to pivot in the middle (it's held by a single rubber pad) so it adds very little to roll stiffness. This is a "camber compensator", the opposite of a stabilizer or anti-roll bar.

The aftermarket camber compensator which was offered (by EMPI) before a similar device became stock for model year 1964 apparently didn't come with a change of springs, suggesting that it was set up with no preload (under no stress when sitting static), so it would not affect ride height. It would have little effect in one-wheel bumps so ride would not be noticeably changed, but when both rear wheels hit a bump at the same time it would be stiffer and that should be noticeable... if one were to test carefully enough. Reportedly the 1964 factory coils are softer to go with the addition of the factory leaf spring (which takes some of the load), so it could not only be at the same ride height, but ride the same over both-wheel bumps and better over single-wheel bumps (compared to 1963).



aportlandsummer said:


> And they added a bigger ARB in the front. Both work together to reduce the oversteer, from what I understand. Less for Nader to complain about.


Yes, the stiffer front stabilizer or anti-roll bar increases the front's share of the lateral load transfer, increasing the tendency to understeer (or reducing oversteer).



aportlandsummer said:


> It sounds like you must own a Corvair, based on the posts.


No, just an automotive technology enthusiast. 



aportlandsummer said:


> A equally difficult part of this conversion was updating the brake distribution. I ended up with a dual master cylinder update, a disc conversion in the front and added a brake proportioning valve. All of this helped increase the braking capacity of the car, and keeps the rear tires from locking up under severe braking. I did have to test a bunch since the braking regen contributes only to the rears. It took me a bit to get a regen curve that was agreeable.


That's another reason to keep something close to the original weight distribution - no need to change brake balance them. Of course, this wasn't a finely tuned performance machine to start with , so an overall brake upgrade is desirable.


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

brian_ said:


> No, it's the opposite. The stiff springs mean a high roll stiffness, and a relatively high rear roll stiffness (versus the front) that the rear does more of the lateral load transfer, reducing rear traction and increasing the tendency to rear roll stiffness. The point of the leaf spring was to get a high spring rate for both sides moving together (to reduce oversteer) _without_ causing a high roll stiffness (which would increase oversteer).


That's what I hoped you'd say. Your comment about jacking vs vertical spring rate suggested that you thought adding stiffness in the back would help oversteer. 



brian_ said:


> No, that's not how it works. The leaf spring adds to the vertical spring rate, so the coils could be (but were not necessarily) softer. The ride height depends on both stiffness and free length of the coils, and stiffness and initial curvature of the leaf. The leaf is relatively free to pivot in the middle (it's held by a single rubber pad) so it adds very little to roll stiffness. This is a "camber compensator", the opposite of a stabilizer or anti-roll bar.


We are saying the same thing. The leaf spring addressed roll stiffness. It adds spring rate without adding much roll stiffness. This is the primary purpose of the spring and helped reduce oversteer in 64s. Its secondary purpose to help control the swing arm or the unloaded tire. If you ever watch the suspension move on a corvair, you will see that even with the leaf spring, the camber for the rear wheel is all over the place during compression and rebound. It does not help much, if at all. 



brian_ said:


> The aftermarket camber compensator which was offered (by EMPI) before a similar device became stock for model year 1964 apparently didn't come with a change of springs, suggesting that it was set up with no preload (under no stress when sitting static), so it would not affect ride height. It would have little effect in one-wheel bumps so ride would not be noticeably changed, but when both rear wheels hit a bump at the same time it would be stiffer and that should be noticeable... if one were to test carefully enough. Reportedly the 1964 factory coils are softer to go with the addition of the factory leaf spring (which takes some of the load), so it could not only be at the same ride height, but ride the same over both-wheel bumps and better over single-wheel bumps (compared to 1963).


Yes, I can assure you that the 64 springs are alot softer. I can also assure you the ride height in the 64 is the same as the 63. The leaf spring added alot spring rate to the rear end. The symmetric loading of the rear end of the 64s is not noticeably different than the 63s. The asymmetric loading is noticeably different, as you describe as one-wheel bumps. This maintains the ride quality of the earlier models, makes the system less sensitive to tire pressure mistakes, and still helps address oversteer. Its a clever solution.

The EMP camber compensators for bugs and spitfires are actually more like "reverse leaf springs". They try to control the unloaded tire, and dont add much, if any, vertical spring stiffness by design. They have a different intention than the leaf spring on the Corvair. 

One of the biggest issues with the Corvair is the combination of the swing arm rear suspension design with the traditional front end suspension design US auto designers were using at the time. The roll center for the front end was feet below the surface of the road. This helped produce a great turn in response, and helped make the huge cars feel agile, but it also caused a dramatic weight shift during turn in, which really loaded up the rear end. The combo made for a very tricky car to maneuver dramatically without oversteer. 




brian_ said:


> That's another reason to keep something close to the original weight distribution - no need to change brake balance them. Of course, this wasn't a finely tuned performance machine to start with , so an overall brake upgrade is desirable.


Anyone consider converting a Corvair can overcome the challenges of a different weight distribution, if they so desire. They had tricky handling from the factory, and changing the distribution will help make it handle like a more traditional grocery getter. Since the car is well supported with aftermarket parts, (it has been used for front engine conversions, mid engine conversions and the front end sub-assemblies get used in hot rods), there are lots of options to manage the required changes in springs and dampers. In addition, there are lots of brake upgrade options and kits and the like. Maintaining the same weight distribution would make it simpler to convert, but it wouldn't help address the crappy handling. For folks interested in the free body diagram, and static force calculations, I am happy to share. In the end, my corvair ended up about 43lbs heavier than stock and went from a 38/62% front/rear distribution to 50/50%. The side effects of that are listed above, but since the car is so well supported with aftermarket stuff, and the factory handling could use updating, it was worth it to me.


----------



## brian_ (Feb 7, 2017)

aportlandsummer said:


> We are saying the same thing. The leaf spring addressed roll stiffness. It adds spring rate without adding much roll stiffness. This is the primary purpose of the spring and helped reduce oversteer in 64s. Its secondary purpose to help control the swing arm or the unloaded tire. If you ever watch the suspension move on a corvair, you will see that even with the leaf spring, the camber for the rear wheel is all over the place during compression and rebound. It does not help much, if at all.


The leaf spring doesn't change the geometry, so yes, the camber does exactly the same thing with the same wheel travel with or without the leaf. The point of the leaf is to reduce wheel travel due to the rear end rising, and that's how it helps camber.



aportlandsummer said:


> Yes, I can assure you that the 64 springs are alot softer. I can also assure you the ride height in the 64 is the same as the 63. The leaf spring added alot spring rate to the rear end. The symmetric loading of the rear end of the 64s is not noticeably different than the 63s. The asymmetric loading is noticeably different, as you describe as one-wheel bumps. This maintains the ride quality of the earlier models, makes the system less sensitive to tire pressure mistakes, and still helps address oversteer. Its a clever solution.


Good. This is what I expected. It is clever, and has been used on swing-axle suspensions for a very long time. My wife's Triumph Spitfire has essentially the same solution, implemented years after the 1964 Corvair.



aportlandsummer said:


> The EMP camber compensators for bugs and spitfires are actually more like "reverse leaf springs". They try to control the unloaded tire, and dont add much, if any, vertical spring stiffness by design. They have a different intention than the leaf spring on the Corvair.


But they do add vertical spring stiffness - that's _all_ they do. They don't have preload, so at normal ride height they don't support any of the load. They have part of the functionality of the OEM leaf spring.

While there may have been add-ons for early Spitfires, the car always had a transverse leaf spring (at the rear). Originally the spring was rigidly clamped at the middle, so it acted as two independent cantilever springs, one for each side, effectively the same as coils. Starting with the Mark IV, only the bottom leaf of the pack was clamped so the rest could rock side-to-side - just like the 1964 Corvair's leaf - so it provided a high stiffness in symmetric wheel travel and relatively low roll stiffness... just like the 1964 Corvair's combination of coils and pivoting leaf.



aportlandsummer said:


> One of the biggest issues with the Corvair is the combination of the swing arm rear suspension design with the traditional front end suspension design US auto designers were using at the time. The roll center for the front end was feet below the surface of the road. This helped produce a great turn in response, and helped make the huge cars feel agile, but it also caused a dramatic weight shift during turn in, which really loaded up the rear end. The combo made for a very tricky car to maneuver dramatically without oversteer.


I agree that a poor combination of front and rear roll centre heights is likely a substantial part of the problem. On the other hand, while a roll centre below the road surface is physically possible, it is unlikely; when it does occur in a competently designed suspension, it is millimetres rather than inches, let alone feet. The lower control arms body pivots would need to be far below the lower control arm ball joint - placing the arm pointing downward from hub to car - and the upper arm would need to at least as steep. Upper arms are routinely sloped this way, but not lower arms in a car that hasn't been ruined by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, such as by lowering radically with only a spring change.

I found a post in another forum which promised a list of many examples of actual roll centre heights, and I delayed this response until I could see the list, but that forum seems to be inactive I have not been able to complete registration to get access. I'm sure that if I can ever get to it, it will show that roll centre height is rarely negative and never "feet below the surface of the road".​
But yes, a roll centre axis which is sloped very much downward toward the front makes the rear do more load transfer than the front until the vehicle rolls enough to move the springs and stabilizer bars, so it makes the car more responsive... and more prone to oversteer if the driver thrashes the steering wheel around.

The classic aircooled VW chassis with swing axles has a trailing arm front suspension with the front roll centre at ground level. Most front suspensions have a higher roll centre, so almost any random front suspension would safer with swing axles than the one in a Beetle. And yet most Beetles wore out or rusted out, rather than crashing in oversteer.



aportlandsummer said:


> Anyone consider converting a Corvair can overcome the challenges of a different weight distribution, if they so desire. They had tricky handling from the factory, and changing the distribution will help make it handle like a more traditional grocery getter. Since the car is well supported with aftermarket parts, (it has been used for front engine conversions, mid engine conversions and the front end sub-assemblies get used in hot rods), there are lots of options to manage the required changes in springs and dampers. In addition, there are lots of brake upgrade options and kits and the like. Maintaining the same weight distribution would make it simpler to convert, but it wouldn't help address the crappy handling. For folks interested in the free body diagram, and static force calculations, I am happy to share. In the end, my corvair ended up about 43lbs heavier than stock and went from a 38/62% front/rear distribution to 50/50%. The side effects of that are listed above, but since the car is so well supported with aftermarket stuff, and the factory handling could use updating, it was worth it to me.


I really don't understand the point of a front-engine conversion of a Corvair. Yes, it would provide an independent rear suspension, but pre-1965 it's not a good suspension and even post-1965 it would be easier to start with a beam axle car and swap in IRS (in the 1970's it might be from a Corvette, Jag, whatever) than to start with the only Chevrolet car ever built with the engine not in the front and then put an engine in the front. The easiest way to get a front-engine Corvair is just to buy the one that GM made: the 1961-1963 Pontiac Tempest... although I suppose those are rare.

Of course in this electric conversion engine location and the resulting need for a transmission tunnel isn't an issue, and making the car resemble a front-engine design makes more sense.

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

I'm not trying to promote a specific suspension design, but rather to explain why I think it makes sense to retain the feature that GM added to the Corvair's rear suspension to make it better, rather than reverting to the inferior previous version.


----------



## jasonmare (4 mo ago)

Thanks for all the info! I was wondering about the flywheel and the hub to join the motor .Did you use the stock flywheel? and also where can I find the right coupler /hub ? Is it the same as the VW bug? I have warp 9 motor Thanks


----------



## voiced4you (3 mo ago)

jasonmare said:


> Thanks for all the info! I was wondering about the flywheel and the hub to join the motor .Did you use the stock flywheel? and also where can I find the right coupler /hub ? Is it the same as the VW bug? I have warp 9 motor Thanks


 https://amblerev.com/ev-conversions


----------



## jeffhickstein (2 mo ago)

aportlandsummer said:


> Greetings all.
> 
> I am new to the forum and thought I would share my project. I have been looking around for Corvair conversions, but it seems few are complete. I completed mine in July 2020 and I can tell all of you first hand, it is totally awesome. I never had the nerve to drive the car terribly far, or terribly fast especially with my family riding along. Old cars are just not as safe. So, since I always use it for short, local trips, and I love to tinker and engineer stuff, it seemed a perfect candidate. No longer do I have to start the car, let it run the gasoline intensive warm up routine for a few minutes, just to complete a 10-15 minute drive.
> 
> ...


Nice pics! Where or how did you get something to connect your motor to the transmission?


----------



## 63CorVolt (2 mo ago)

aportlandsummer said:


> View attachment 121728


Thanks for sharing your conversion! Yours and a few others have inspired me to pick my own Corvair EV conversion back up.

Based on the picture you posted of your adapter plate, and how thin it appears to be, can I assume you left out your clutch and flywheel? I know you left out the linkages, so that would make sense.


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

jeffhickstein said:


> Nice pics! Where or how did you get something to connect your motor to the transmission?


Thanks! 

I designed a hub that interfaced with the motor shaft. It has an interference fit (shrink fit) so I got it hot to slide it onto the shaft, then it shrunk and grabbed on good and tight. There is also a woodruff key and set screws. I definitely didn't want any play developing between them. Then I bought a used clutch... for the lovely factory spline to fit the transmission output shaft... I cut off the friction material and fastened (pinched) it to the hub with a centering plate on the opposite side. Please note: the outer diameter of the hub is just small enough to fit through the bell housing for assembly. Here are some pics. 










so, in the end, the clutch and hub assembly are on the motor/bell housing assembly, and when its time to assemble the transaxle, it just slides into place and gets fasted to the bell housing. 

The bell housing for automatic corvairs have those convenient cutouts in it (to help with cooling the torque converter, I reckon) so I can check the fasteners and such without taking it all apart. 

Also, i had to cut the input shaft pilot section off. I figured the motor had a nice bearing close to the output shaft, so it would be ok. Its been a couple of years and thousands of miles, and no issues so far. Here is a pic of that:









One other thing to note... i was pretty shocked at the amount of drivetrain backlash i ended up with. These old cars likely had plenty from the factory (which was fine since they were usually loaded the same way), but then a few decades and 100k miles or so, and the system is just tired. This can make "regen on neutral" a real bugger, and the car can clunk and thud and shudder a bit at lower speeds. Just something to look out for! 

i hope that helps!


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

63CorVolt said:


> Thanks for sharing your conversion! Yours and a few others have inspired me to pick my own Corvair EV conversion back up.
> 
> Based on the picture you posted of your adapter plate, and how thin it appears to be, can I assume you left out your clutch and flywheel? I know you left out the linkages, so that would make sense.


Thanks! and great news on your renewed conversion interest! I hope it goes smoothly and you find it as wonderful as i have found mine. Its still our daily driver all summer and as much as possible in the fall and spring. Ill look for a thread on yours. 

You are correct. No flywheel or clutch (in the traditional sense). Note my post above that i did use a clutch, but just to take advantage of the factory spline to mate to the trans output shaft. It made it much easier. Its a one speed car and i dont shift. 

Since i posted this a while back, i have done another differential rebuild, and replaced the final drive from 3.55:1 to 4.11:1 to be quicker off the line, but it reduced my top speed to about 72mph. Still fine by me. It was pretty easy to drop the motor/trans assembly, disassemble and reassemble thanks to the clutch trick.


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

jasonmare said:


> Thanks for all the info! I was wondering about the flywheel and the hub to join the motor .Did you use the stock flywheel? and also where can I find the right coupler /hub ? Is it the same as the VW bug? I have warp 9 motor Thanks


You bet! 

The amblerev link shared by @voiced4you is a great resource. i have been in contact with that shop and even shared my CAD files with them. I am not sure they used them, but it seems they have some good options!


----------



## aportlandsummer (Feb 8, 2021)

Hey all...

I thought I would type up an update on how my conversion has been going. So far, it continues to be great. Its been 100% reliable (ignoring those pesky range tests) and still makes my whole family smile. I have done two things worth updating since the conversion a couple of years ago. 1. i got the stock gas gauge to reflect the battery SOC and 2. i replaced all my batteries with newer, lower mileage, modules. 

The gas gauge. I was really determined to keep the car looking stock. This meant i did not want any screens. So, how to tell the battery SOC? just hook it up to the stock gas gauge, right? not so fast. It was a real challenge. i am sure there are plenty of examples on how to solve this in this forum, but i thought i would share how i made my gas gauge work. All along we have been driving the car without a working fuel gauge (or state of charge gauge)... so as you may have guessed, there was always a bit of anxiety about how much power was in the pack. I ended up putting a small 0-5V volt meter under the hood so i could atleast pop the hood and check the battery charge status. Well, I finally got around to getting the original gas gauge hooked up to my battery manager. It did not work with the output from the BMS as it was. It needs the resistor change that the sending unit provided, no matter what I tried, it didn't work. I needed to do something more invasive. 
Here is what i did:
1. I ordered an extra gauge from ebay, cuz i knew i was gonna bung it up. 
2. I ordered a starter Arduino kit with all sort of parts: https://amzn.to/3c9SJrO 
3. i watched some basic arduino programming videos online. its easier than i thought!

Then, i decided to brave pulling my gauge out and gutting it. I had decided to put a mini servo motor (like in an rc car) into the back of the gauge and glue the needle to the output shaft. I have access to a 3D printer so i designed a small part to hold the servo motor and mount the face plate. I had to gently trim the face plate to clear the new needle motion. I wrote some code, thanks to the tutorials, and loaded it up on the arduino. After testing it, i made a small box to hold the circuitry and stashed it up under the gas gauge behind the lights and wiper switches. Here are some pics: 

here you can see the old coils and the new servo: 









Here is what the servo mount looks like:









And i stashed the servo controller under the dash: in the box you can see the servo controller and a small DC-DC converter (12V to 5V)









I am happy to share the code that i wrote for it, if anyone needs it. Its easily available on the webernet. 

So, now that i had a working battery gauge, it was time to officially determine the range i can get with my system. Well, i found it... its 80 miles. Funny enough, the gauge indicated i had over a 1/4 "tank" at 77 miles. Then, in 3 miles, it was dead. That happened to be about 5 miles from home. So, my partner hopped in an uber to collect the pickup and the tow strap and rescued me. You know what they say... if you don't have your annual tow home, you aren't trying hard enough, am I right?

I knew that one of my used modules had a "lazy" cell (as i call it) with higher internal resistance, it was dragging the entire pack down. The Orion BMS has some amazing diagnostics tools! I am sure many folks on this forum are familiar with this issue. So, i sourced some newer modules and got to work swapping them in. Putting all the modules in the front, in this handy battery box, made the swap pretty easy. I really appreciate a system that is serviceable! another range test showed the new pack is good for 100 miles with conservative charge and discharge voltage. I will back off the charge voltage to keep the pack as healthy as i can, but its nice to know i can get 100 miles out of it!

as you can see, i can just flop my entire electronics assembly off the the side and slide the modules out, one at a time. If you can keep serviceability in mind when doing your conversion, you will thank yourself later! This swap took me a weekend. I had borrowed a cell tap verification tool to test my wiring beforehand, of course. 

Oh, and i decided to plumb in a Peltier device for some active cooling of the battery coolant. I have yet to need it, so I am not sure how well it works. 










you might be asking.. what are you going to do with those older modules? well... i had 7 modules in the Corvair, but one was bad. So, i have 6 good modules. Turns out i can fit 6 modules nicely in the floor of this little gem! Plus, there is just enough room for an HPEVS AC-35! 









Its an exciting project but there is a fair bit of body/rust work. Its my first major body work project, so wish me luck. My dog Marty will surely be supportive, as indicated by her overly enthusiastic facial expression.


----------

