Stovebolt.com Forums The Shop Area The HiPo Shop Art Deco Subframe

I have a '46 Chevy that I'm thinking of 'rodding. I have toyed with the idea of keeping the front axle but have concerns about the lightweight steering components. I also want to upgrade the front end with disks and power steering. I don't want to go Mustang II route because of the cost. My current thinking is to install a '78 Cutlass subframe. I've seen several forums on installing these, but they have all been on AD pickups which have slightly larger frames (I think). Does anyone have any experience on installing one on an Art Deco.

pssssst......AD=advance design

I have never measured the '46 frame, but I think it is pretty much the same as the AD, which is VERY narrow for this vintage truck.

When I did my AD, I went down to the wrecking yard with a tape measure and found what I needed. Try this with your deco.

PS, is that a common term "art deco" for the 40 through 46? I like it.

By the way, I would fork out the bucks and go with a Mustang. I feel I did a very clean job with my Camaro clip on my AD, but it still looks clumbsy. It is an ugly frame, the Mustang leaves such a clean looking finished product. If you really think about it it is not that much more money.

Probably not. Especaially when you consider in the end, by saving $1,500 on the front end now, I'll only spend $27,000 instead of $28,500! Another thought would be to keep the solid front axle and put power steering and disk brakes on it for the near term. Any thoughts?

When you compare costs of rebuilding the sub with the price of the M II it's not $1500. If your spending that much on the truck and taking a while to do it why put it together other than the way you really want it? One thing about sub's is they will usually ride better. I know that statement will draw someones rath. I have a sub on my cpe. and it rides and handles great. One concern is that it's the right width for the vehicle and that it's installed right and not half@#%.

Jack, I forgot all about that! The width of a '70 to 81 Camaro sub is too wide in my AD, it would be a joke in a '46. The "A" body clip like from an 80ish Malibu or Regal is about 1.75 inch narrower but still to wide for an AD, so of course it too would be too wide for the '46.

Armchair, come on $28.000, fork over the couple of bucks more and do it right.

Why not the 'stang gear? Just the price or cuz it's **** gear? I don't want it cuz I want my truck to be chevy in every way, and it's pretty expensive for a student. I'm keepin my 'stright' front end stock (50 3/4T) with the exception of the disc brakes all around. Sure helps the ol'girl stop on a dime. Can't go wrong with that stuff, but ride, make sure you know how you want it and how you like it. I don't mind not riding in 2000 luxury car with state-of-the-art susp. I like classics, but some people need the comfort ride, so chose which one, and you can get 'vette susp, albeit very expensive though.

Nate

when considering ride, how far are you going to drive it in one day? If all your doing is short hauls or parades than probably the ride isn't as important. But if you go for long distances (300-500 mi or more) than ride is a more important factor. Another thing that enters in that many of us consider is age. I know 30-40 yrs ago I would put up with a lot less ride qaulity than I'll accept today

50Dogg, I am big on "following a theme" and totally repect you point on keeping it all Chevy. But none of the parts you would put on the truck were ever made or used on a **** . The original **** MustangII/Pinto componants dried up years ago at the wrecking yards (at least around here) and your typical front end "kit" would come with all new componants made by companies other than **** . Infact, the whole thing can be built using parts that don't even look like the original **** ones!

I also feel that the old I beam is a lot of fun. Rock on with your old truck and it's vintage ride. I have had my trcuk for over 25 years and back when it had the I beam it I actually drove it everyday, now it's in the yard in pieces. I wish I could drive it with that hard ride again!

50Dogg dont let the stigma of mustangII get yah as MartinSr says there is nothing stang about it. As far as price a sub does end up costing the same as a TCI stangII.The TCI thats on sale this month will take about 1 day to install(after you have the old stuff off)will not have cut the front of your frame off and with all the spring rates avail will ride better than a clip.We used to use clips when there was no other option and they were pretty new and low milage.But most look pretty bad installed and cost just as much a a stangII
Steering box rebuilt 350 (no one does it but your gettting new with a stangII)
good a frame bushings 100-180 bucks.
center link 80 bucks tie rod ends 25 each(X4)
balljoints 35 bucks each(x4)
wheelbearing about 55 bucks
wheel seals 12 bucks
brake rotors 60 bucks each (x2)
brake calipers 30 bucks each (x2) plus cores
Sand blast clip 75 bucks
New center link 65 bucks
new idler arm38 bucks
Sandblast a-frames 45 bucks
new front shocks 50 bucks
Plus you dont get disc brake clips for free anymore most are 150-300 bucks.Or you can covert a drumbrake setup by grinding the spindles.I have seen the so called frontend rebuild kits they are junk, not quality parts.
Plus all the welding materials and cuting to do the job.As i am sure Jack will tell you it aint the easest job and about 90% of them look like sh#t.(i have nixed many purchases for customer after looking at a clip job gone wrong,the word gets out and your car/truck is worthlesss) I our state they are just starting to get real nasty about reg stuff that looks crude so... You just cant beat the stangII or TCI style coil over set-up. By the way vette stuff is probaly about the same as stangII but fixin it later is big bucks. Front vette clips are 650-750 bucks now. Having said all that i still run a straight axle,If i had time and money would i change it ?Yep.Would it be a camaro clip ?Nope(10 years ago yep)Just some thought from some one that does this sort of thing every day.I know i once did one for 100 bucks but it aint gonna happen now a days.

Boy Phat I'm glad I don't shop where you do. Some of your quoted prices seemed pretty high. Course maybe your including labor cost. I'm lucky that the guy who helped me sub my cpe had done quite a few. However as you said there are some cars and trucks out there that look like real nightmares. Were I to do it over I consider a M II or possibly a Hiedts super ride. The only reason being track width. A 41 F*** is kind of narrow. Shortened the a-arms 1 1/2" each side. Didn't want to get into narrowing the sub itself, which I've seen some do. Space is a big enough problem that way with a SB let alone a BB

Jack, I have to say, your friend that helped you may have "done quite a few" frame clips, that doesn't mean it's done right. To make it "look" good is secondary, to have the steering and suspension geometry correct is most important.

I have seen front clips that "looked" good, only to find they wouldn't even come close to a proper wheel alignment. The understanding of basic steering and suspension theory in needed to make such complex design changes. MOST people who have done all these THOUSANDS of frame clips don't have this knowledge. That scares me to think they are on the highway with me, at the very least, they have a car that has less handling qualities than it could.

This is not to say a Mustang style kit is going to be perfect. I personally got one from Michael Thomas enginering for a Stude I did that had no anti-dive built in. They had redesigned it for some unknown reason to eliminate it. It was also poorly welded AND the welds were ground down to nothing. I sent it back and got a Heids, it was beautiful. The TPI is a copy of the Heids from what I understand.
My point being if the Mustang II is from a respected company, it will be designed and install correctly with ease. The original frame doesn't get cut in half and it even "looks" good.

Just a thought Jack (And i am not knocking your car) but how in the heck did he narrow the a-frames 1 1/2 iches per side with out screwing up the bump steer(shorter tie rods) changing roll centers and change the ratio of the springs and castor camber gain.. Let alone install the sway bar.Now you have really opened a can of worms. Please to the new guys if your new to this dont go narrowing front a-frames and clips as there is a lot more to it.MartinSr did he really put no anti dive in the crossmember or do you think he made the upper towers wrong. I think you mean TCI (total cost involved) they do a lot of there own work.(very good stuff) FATMAN is the one i have had real troubles with,just as you say screwed up anti dive really bad bumpsteer(1 inch of travel .090 in) a couple of crossmembers that split. Hedits guys have been great.Bob at progressive has been one of the best so far and he drives a Glass cabed AD everyday.(smart with the vette stuff and air ride) I suppose its like the guys that put racks on straight axles,i have seen it done but its so unsafe its pitifull.

Phat, Fatman sells shortened A-arms already shortened an 1 1/2". But we did these at home on a jig. No problem with the caster and camber. Front end shop had no problem with alinement. Yes the tie rods are shortened also. Sway bar ends are of course different, as you lose the stock attachment points in the shotening procces.They hook up by the means of 2 heim joints. I've got over 23,000 mi on the car with no problem. Have had it up over 120 mph. I've also driven it over 1150 mi in one 19 hr day. Does that sound like a car that does'nt handle or drive decent. Take the curves great also. Really suprised a Porshe one day.

Phat, I was thinking about narrowing my "A" arms too. Buy what I figured 1.50 inch would only be about an 8% change in overall length and all the points you made would be altered so little it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't be the same geometry that GM spent all that money developing, but in the real world little would change. The bump steer was my biggest concern but being where they pivot and the fact that both arm and tie rod would be shortened it would work.

But, as the old saying goes, when you modify one thing.........it leads to many more.

That Michael Thomas chross member was flat! It had ZERO anti dive designed into it. Plus the upper shock mount looked like a piece of exhaust pipe with a washer welded on top!

Phat, you talked about a rack on the straight axle. Why is this so bad? I asume this is a rack and pinion? I don't want one, just intersting topic. Joe

Let me take this one till PHAT can get with you. First off a rack is used on late model cars because it is cheaper, not better. When you put it on the axle, your steering column connection is a nightmare and to do it right would require a shaft from the rack, back about 2 feet to a universal joint at the end of the leaf spring. Anything short of this is incorrect and componants fight against one and other.

If the rack is mounted to the frame (UG!) the "tie rod" ends are too short and you will have bump steer. It is just plain WRONG, and why people do it is beyond me. With all the proof, and articles in magazines and such, I can't believe it is still done.

so how would you recommend doing power steering on an AD??? I'm assuming a TCI cross member would have it built in correctly?

My father has a '77 Camaro stub in a '46 1/2 ton with power steering. The truck has about 4" of daylight under it. Handles like its on a rail, much better than the Muskrat II in my '53. You will need to be aware of your rim backset, as not just any rims can be used. If I had to do it over again, I would take about 2" out of the center, but I'm being picky. Realistically speaking, the cost will not be as bad as you might think. The typical clip will need loaded calipers $35 ea., new rotors $50 ea, ball joints $15 ea. Bushings rarely need replacing, and its not likely the tierod ends or centerlink would be bad either. The rest depends on how fancy you want to go.

Don't waste your time with upgrading the stock setup if you don't really want it. Save your money and do it right the first time. Running around with 10" of daylight between the top of the tire and the fender is seriously tacky.

Not that I condone this, but...

When mounting a rack to a straight axle, you need to use a slip joint between the rack and column such as a "D" shape GM. The problem is that it creates a wear area that could fail faster than normal in parts that were not really intended for that purpose. I know of a couple of these running around town for several years now without problems. I would go with a Vega cross steering setup instead.

The main advantage to the muskrat is that the kit versions come made to fit for your particular aplication. It's trading time for money. It's also a more compact design which allows it to be used more readily in 30's, 40's vehicles.

Gearhead, the '701/2-81 F body front suspension is one of the best designed assemblies ever. It WILL handle better than a Mustang II. And depending on the Mustang II used, as I said, some are JUNK, you should see a difference. But narrowing it could change all that. I installed mine as it was on the car, set up with the ride height exactly the same as it was on the Camaro, front and rear. But it is UGLY and it takes much more skills to do it. Many people can, but with todays kits, why bother.

As for the slip joint on the rack....that is the hackest, joke of a way to do it, I jsut can't believe it. I have seen that and that is the WRONG way I was talking about. Why do you think NO manufacture has ever done anything like that? You can't have two pieces of raw iron rubbing against one an other! That "slip joint" was designed for a collapsible steering column, not a continuously moving part! That is totally irresponsible to build something like that.

That is the very reason why people should be using the tried and true kits with detailed instructions for instalation. I am not saying that the kits (of any kind, for any application) are always right, we have discussed that point. But when you have guys THINKING that they have the smarts to design a part that keeps the dang vehicle from running into my family, that burns me up. It's like the guys who make shock mounts thinking "they don't hold the car up, so they don't need to be very strong" not understanding the + & - forces imposed tens of thousands of times a minute. Or the guy who makes motor mounts like all they do is hold up the motor, not thinking about the torque the motor will apply to it. Regarding the STEERING and BRAKING of the car/truck he should leave the thing ALONE!!!

Your last paragraph makes sense.......
"The main advantage to the muskrat is that the kit versions come made to fit for your particular aplication. It's trading time for money. It's also a more compact design which allows it to be used more readily in 30's, 40's vehicles"

In other words , The kits are made to fit properly. The problem is many guys not "trading their time for money" havn't the knowhow to make the thing work properly.

I've been following this thread and others on the subject with great interest. Appreciate the input all around. Just one question maybe someone can answer: Will any of the various kits out there allow me to keep the six-lugs so I won't have to pack several spares? It's just a hangup I have, but would like to keep the stock wheel/tire/hubcaps all around. The other extreme would have Dodge Dart hubs with left hand and right hand lugnuts so it seems. :confused:

MartinSr, Splashoil, Phat, et al

Not sure what the present availability of 20 year old camaro/bird clips are in good shape, but the last time I wandered the junk yards, there are still a few around- or you could spring for $500 and get the whole car with a blown motor or tranny. I know of at least 3 decent looking birds within a 10 mile radius of home for sale in peoples yards.

If you are cash strapped and decent with a welder and torch, this is still a viable way to go. It does look ugly if you don't plan it and box it nice a pretty, even then it still doesn't look as clean as a stang design, but looks aside, the GM clips do handle well and don't need to cost a fortune - after futzing with it trading parts and buying new rotors/calipers, etc I think if you did it smart, you could be done for under $500 - $600 and two weekends of cutting and welding. The inner aprons lower edges will need to be trimmed and rolled to clear the A-Frames, you will have a nice cradle to set the V8 on and monstrous disk brakes and gobs of suspension as well as the ability to put a huge anti-sway bar on from a Formula 400 TA. Front radiator support shouldn't take more than 2-3 hours to do and if you do it right you can hang the front bumper brackets at the same time using the same structure. I managed to do this in a single weekend. Lots of naysayers were telling me I was ruining the truck and that it would never work . . . just the motivation I needed to get it done. I was into it for less than $300 and it aligned fine and drove great without any weirdness in tire wear or bump steer. Felt kinda floaty when in triple digits . . . but what 50 year old truck wouldn't at those speeds!

Personally, I am probably going to stick with a straight axel with monoleaf with the burb rod, 292 w/decent 200R auto and 4.11 gears. Put a dual master under the floor and see if I can rig the tranny shift linkage to a stock 3-on-the-tree shifter. With GMC oil guage and a set of decals - should look almost stock from where I'll be sitting.

Splashoil, you are a guy a lot like myself and you will find that NO ONE drums to the same beat as you. If there is room on the particular rotors you choose in one of these front swaps you can simply have it drilled to 6 lug. The next thing to worry about would be if the rim clears the disc brake caliper, if you are running the stock 16" rims that shouldn't be a problem.

solowookie, yes that TCI set up would give you mounting for the power steering. There are other ways, PHAT would have to chime in to give you more info, he is the REAL fab guy here, not me.

Ken, you are very right on all accounts, why do you think I used the Camaro clip!!
But I think you need to bring it to a REAL alignment shop (not saying that you didn't) but you should be comfortable at 100 MPH in a Camaro, just as you should in your truck with a Camaro clip. If you post the print out final numbers maybe we can help. It maybe other factors but we could start there.

As for your straight axle 292 powered truck....I LOVE IT!

MartinSr,

That truck is long gone . . . fastest speed through the trap was right at 124 at 3/8 mile - pretty scary trying to get it slowed down before the turn at the end of the run! Boy was that a fun truck to take to the drags. I built it in 83..85 before smallblocks with T400s were as common as they are now.

It felt floaty on old back roads with dips and stuff - lots of sparks off of the bottom of the header flanges, on the strip it was solid as a rock with 300 pounds up against the tailgate

LOL Ken, you brought back some great memories for me. I never had anything that fast but my truck did turn 14.68 @ 95 MPH at good old Fremont Drag Strip (RIP). It had two turn outs at the end of the track. I could barely take the second one! That old truck handled so bad I had to take the turnout the 250 MPH fuelers took! LOL Boy was it fun though!

Martinsr,
If you read my previous post, I said I wasn't in favor of the slip joint setup, I was merely giving Joe H a real answer as yours didn't make any sence.

Since you don't know me or what my abilities are, I will assume the rest of that tiraide was directed elsewhere.

Lastly, for arguments sake, the concept of using a slip joint for the steering link is completely viable when using the correct components, what do you think a DRIVESHAFT is? AND as I said before the calapsable GM shaft is not appropriate.

You are very right, my "tiraide" was not at you, in fact you never said you did that but have only seen it.

Lastly, for arguments sake, the concept of using a slip joint for the steering link is completely viable when using the correct components, what do you think a DRIVESHAFT is? AND as I said before the calapsable GM shaft is not appropriate.[/QUOTE]

You are wrong there, a drive shaft yoke is lubricated, and is made of hardened steel. It is NOT a GM slip joint for a collapsable steering column. I never said that with a properly made slip joint it would still be hack. Though I still would argue that it would be a very poor choice to mount a rack to an I beam axle. It makes no sense what so ever. NO MANUFACTURE ever did it for a reason. It is just wrong, period.

"Somethings are opinion, somethings just plain wrong"

As I said before, with the proper materials the concept is still sound. If you look at a 2 piece driveshaft like on a long box S10, the joint is not inside the tranny, its only lubrication is by 1 little 'ol grease zerk. If it will work for this application it would certainly work on a steering shaft.

As for "nobody makes it", that's a desperately lame excuse. Everybody here who does there own work could come up with at least a dozen parts/tools that they wish somebody would make. The fact nobody does it is usually a sign that it's felt they can't sell enough of them to make it profitable. I'd bet that at any major rod run, if you polled the people there, you would find 80-90 percent of them have never even heard of this setup. Also, it would be very dificult to make such a setup that would work for a majoity of applications because of the differences in columns, engines, exhaust, etc.. Also there is no overriding need for this setup as there aren't any design situations that I've seen where this was the only method that would work. Vega cross steering and the **** box steering the left side will usually do the trick. The only reason I know for the guys doing this setup was a personnal desire to simplify the engine compartment as it made it easier to route the exhaust and place the motor mounts for their situation.

opinions based on physical evidence are called facts.

gearhead, we will just have to agree to disagree. That's my opinion,

well I gotta tell ya gearhead I think MartinSR's comments make a lot more sense. I was convinced to do a TCI crossmember before, and this post has reaffirmed that, and given me some better explanations as to why.

Find some six-lug rotors that will fit one of these high-dollar units without special drilling, and I might just do it too. Absolutely will not take Dodge Dart wheels, hubs, and lug nuts!

Solo,
What?? Martinsr and I were discussing the merits of using a rack on a straight axle which moves up and down and therefore would require the slip joint. It had nothing to do with a mustang II installation.

I would wonder how the rack would be securely fastened to the solid axle. I would be a little gun-shy about welding some sort of an ear or clip on an axle to mount the rack to. Aren't axles heat treated?

Drilling holes in the axle might also be a no-no. I would think a hole would be a good place for a crack to start.

Trying to visualize this set-up in my head, I seems to me that you would have to have a solid bearing and u-joint at the base of the steering column, a shaft with splines, and a u-joint on the rack. The shaft would run right through the area occupied by the exhaust system on a 6 or V8.

I would be interested in seeing a setup like this, if for nothing else to see how they fabricated everything. If a spring or shock broke, what would keep the slip joint together so you could steer the vehicle?

right... what about that didn't I get??? a matter of weighing my options. I thought the rest was well expressed and explained (better then I had seen elsewhere), and I think you give a a good option of what not to do. (I think the posts about the axle pretty much explained that didn't they? maybe I didn't explain myself well enough?)

being I want power steering I'll be going with the TCI system for sure. just like I stated before I think MartinSR's posts make more sense, and I more contrete in my decision to go with the TCI setup.

Straight axle truck are, I think one of the most fun vehicals to drive since they handle,...they just don't some times, so you think quickly when you're driving too fast and have a few corners to take. If I were keeping my current truck, I'd keep the frontend stock forever. I like that kinda ride, you can't always drive like you would with a camaro and 'stang, but I tried and the truck only jumped off the ground a few times. It was scary but that was the best part. Manual steering is good as long as the truck is moving. Power is just better in tight spaces. I know the 'stang stuff isn't really stang, but I'd just still prefer using GM or "Brand" components. TCI, Fatman, Heidts, certain combos they all have. For steering, I'm just gonna get a box out of a 70 chevy truck, to put into my next truck, considering it doesn't have power. But that's only if I decide to get power.

Real men drive straight axle, manual steering trucks, like back in the good ol'days. And big rigs too

Nate

Nate... keep in mind my 2 vehicles are K5's! I know all about the straight axle, and I agree to a point..

Also, don't forget I was raised on a ranch, and that means I've had plenty of experience in driving vehicles without powersteering!

I may not have done a rodstoration before, but believe me I know the implications of a straight axle, and not powersteering, probably as well as anybody.

Hey guys I didn't mean for this to get so heated. There is plenty of room for different opinions. I enjoy seeing good old home built rods probably more than any of you. I am sickened at the sight of thousands of belly button, billit covered, small block Chevy powered, fiberglass bodied, "rods", at the large rod runs. To see a really homebuilt UNIQUE car is a treat.

My only point is that with the "kit revolution" of the seventies, I feel there is no reason to do hacked, dangerous things while building your truck/car. The "kit revolution" started with the "Pete & Jake" four bar front end for early Fords, an education of the street rodder was born. They even had a few pages of steering and suspension theory in their catalog! This "Pete & Jake" "steering and suspension 101" class was then reproduced in every street rod magazine and is still popping up today. There are many opinions, on how to do these things, there are many "rules" that are NEVER to be broken. When I hear of guys breaking these rules it just fires me up! :mad:

Gearhead, I don't know your abilities, that is VERY true, I never questioned them. It sounds like you agree with me that those chowderheads with the slip joints in their truck are wrong. The argument we have is that whether "a proper" slip joint could be used. I say a big NO! You may know that you would have to build a suspension limiter to limit the travel. This way when the suspension was "hanging" down at the bottom of travel the dang slip joint wouldn't come apart. MOST guys who would use this hair ball setup have a tunnel vision and all they see is a way for the steering shaft to clear the headers they bought at the last swap meet. They don't see the BIG PICTURE. You could build some cool heim end, stainless steel cable, "rope" setup like we did on a derby car when we were 10 years old. But no matter what high tech aircraft pully arrangement you used, it would still be WRONG.

With the "kit revolution" there is no reason to be a hack. Years ago it was common to install a dropped axle (and who knows how well this was done ) and then finding that the tierod hit the springs. So, you got out your torch and heated up the steering arms and bent them down. I have personally seen two of these break, one was a Friends '48 Ferd Coupe. It then went into a guard rail and was seriously damaged. The other was on my brothers '39 Ferd Coupe, it thank God broke in the shop driveway. He was driving in after a quick 30 mile trip on freeway to get some parts!! Because of the "kit revolution" this has now became a rare occurance. You just buy the componants you need and bolt it together. Sure, we can't all afford them, but we sure find a way to afford that blower setup or 50 disc CD changer!

There was a guy with a '48 Chevy Sedan Delivery who lived behind me. He did a Camaor clip, the wrong way. It was such a mess, the car was sent to the wreckers when he moved. That was a darn shame, but with the mess he made on the top chop and hacking the frame all up, that is where it belonged.
Funny thing was, he had a polished, blown motor in the garage for the car!!

When I said "no one makes it" I wasn't refering to the after market (though that is a very good point, they don't make it either) I was refering to Ferd, Doodge, GM and the like. That sort of goofball thing has NEVER been done because it is wrong. There are other ways to do it. I personally have been "into" Buick nailhead motors all my life and most of the cars I have been associated with have these motors. The starter is on the left side, try getting steering gear past that! It can be done, and it HAS TO be done, so you do it. The Buick roadster pictured here has a tube axle with parallel springs just like an AD (ok it's not an I beam) and we put a Vega box in it. The steering shaft is snaked past the left mounted Buick starter. It is totally safe and will last forever.

Racecarl, mounting the rack to the axle isn't the BIG issue. You can weld to the axle and drill the axle (if there is an example of overbuilt MONSTER durablility, it's the I beam axle!) It used to be very common to "drill" the axle. This started on the race tracks and like all things migrated to the street. You would drill twenty or so 1" holes across the axle. It looked COOL, but not so safe for the street. I have never seen one break though. The real problem comes to the routing of the steering shaft. If the shaft were to go straight back off the rack ending at the length of the rear half of the spring, it could work. You see the shaft would have to follow the same ark as the axle. That leaf spring is sort of like a radious rod holding the axle. So if you were to mount the steering shaft horizontally with the spring so the pivot of the shaft (universal joint) and the spring (eye bolt) were matched, they would both follow the same "curve" and there would be no binding. Of course this wouldn't work on my brothers Buick (it's ALL Buick including the body by the way) because the spring shackles are at the rear. The distance between the axle and the steering column changes as the axle raises and lowers, so you would need that slip joint again! So with it a cross link Vega box was used.

Anyway, lets all just keep the gloves on!

[img]http://members.aol.com/goodstuff53/arod.jpg[/img]

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: MARTINSR ]

I was thinking about what I posted on mounting a R&P to the I beam axle as I was out today. I remembered a very important point that blew my idea, AND the slip joint....spring wrap!

The axle "rolls" on braking, just like the rear axle on acceleration (it rolls at braking too). The braking action along with the friction of the tire on the road creates torque that overcomes the springs by twisting them. The more drop the axle has, the more leverage to do this. The stock AD axle has a lot of drop, that is why you get this spring wrap if you remove leaves to lower the truck. As you stop you can feel it in the steering wheel, it wants to turn out of your hands (with the stock box/pitman arm arrangement). When the axle rolls, there would be serious binding with both ideas. If you were to put a universal joint at both ends of the shaft as I desribed it would work. Or you could help eliminate the roll with a locator bar or two, but that is going through a bunch of work to do something stupid anyway.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: MARTINSR ]

MARTINSR good points, can't say I have ever seen a rack on a I-beam axle, but for the amount of movement in all the various directions required, it would be impossible to design a robust steering shaft that did not impart some change in the direction of the wheels when the axle moved through normal travel.

Something that the camaro clip has going for it that no one seems to give it credit for is that the steering geometry is DONE FOR YOU by GM, when you put your own kit on the front, it is completely up to the installer to get both wheels in the right spot, upper and lower A-frame mount locations side to side, front to back. I am smart enough to realize that I am not as smart as the chassis and suspension engineers who designed this stuff in the first place . . . actually, I might be smarter, I just don't want to take the time or make the investment to learn everything they already know , if you are going to do a kit your measurement tasks and alignment skill requirements go way up. Me . . . I am sticking with a beam . . . simple and rugged.

Ken, we are on the same page. Let someone else do the enginering. The problem with the clip is there are no directions on how to install. Just "welding it up" is the easy part. On a kit, (a GOOD kit) there are directions, complete with template or even jigs to weld it in correct.

I do admit the Camaro is one of the best designed fronts ever. If you go to an auto-cross competition you will see a ton of these cars, and they run with the Vettes and such.

But for a home builder, the clip and exactly how you go about mounting it is asking a bunch. For instance, how do you set ride height? I have seen a bunch of them that were welded on and THEN they found that the car/truck was too low or too high. Now is when the quackery starts, cut springs, spring blocks, what a mess.

Yes Martin, we are in general agreement, I saw an issue that could be discussed beyond the usual "look in your repair manual" type questions on this site.

I did not have any particular vehicle in mind when I started this discussion, certainly not a truck. I guess I was thinking in terms of the '33 Plymouth I am working on which has parallel leaf springs and a 5-1/2" dropped tubular axle from Butch's Rod Shop. These axles do not have spring pads pre-mounted, so welding them in place after assembly is required, so obviously welding other brackets on is not a problem. Most Rods only have about 3" of upward travel and about 6" total and assuming a shaft angle of about 30 degrees, this would be around 1" total sliding at the joint (more or less). I was thinking that a splined joint would have a good 6" or more of overlap which should be pently to prevent any binding. Rocking the rack back and forth for whatever reason, all that would really do is slide the joint back and forth as designed, I should expect. As far as suspension breaking, the axle would bottom out on the frame, so I don't really see where thats much different from the normal travel, even if the axle pulls back some on one side, there would be enough overlap in the joint to deal with it.

As far as the factory issue goes, this would seem to me to be irrelevant as the axle era doesn't overlap with the rack era. And as far as trucks go, I don't recall ever seeing one with a rack anyway, regardless of suspension type. (as far as I know).

Gear, if I can call you that :), you may still have a problem. The "spring wrap" doesn't do the same thing as the suspension bottoming out. As you can see by my drawing, it will try to "bend" the steering shaft, not simply compress the slip joint.

Why dont you just use a Vega box? If you use early Ferd style biscuit motor mounts the moter moves very little so you don't need very much room for the steering shaft. They make all different pitman arms and it really is a great way to go.

I have seen racks mounted to I Beams or tube axles. One way used a cable like steering shaft found on early Pintos. You don't see them anymore because, it just doesn't work.

You could put a locator bar so the axle won't roll on the springs (as pictured).

Most of the best fabricators will say, if you don't have a pile of scrap in the corner from failed ideas, you havn't learned anything. Let's talk about that Vega box

By the way, that '33 Plymouth is one of the best looking cars of the era.... beautiful car. [img]http://members.aol.com/icantunderstand/axle.jpg[/img]

Yes Martin, I realize that spring wrap and the normal axle travel are not exactly the same thing, I didn't mean to say they were, and your drawing does exactly what I was thinking. My visualization skills tell me that as the rack pitches about the centerline of the axle, the u-joints will take care of that "bending" motion, and the resulting change in distance between the joints get taken care of by the movement of the shafts. For what its worth, I have driven a '34 Ferd coupe with this setup (dropped axle and stock buggy spring type suspension) on some rough roads in Demoines, Iowa once, and I don't recall felling anything unusual about how it steered or handled. Remember, this was just a design study on my part playing the devils advocate, I have no intensions of using a setup like this on anything.

My '33 already has the Vega cross steering setup, so don't worry.

Yes, I freely admit to screwing up stuff, but I prefer to throw away the evidence.

LOL, yu funny, make me raff all night long. Gear, your alright. You do know that the 34 Ferd with a buggy spring doesn't have the spring wrap problem. Whether using the stock wishbone, split bones, or four bar, they all keep the axle from rotating.

In my drawing I used only one U joint, your right, with two this would be solved.

Your Plymouth sounds cool. There is a guy across the street from me with about 20 Teens through '32 Dodge, Plymouth, Chrysler cars and bodies. They are very temping.....a '22 roadster.....Hiboy.......little DeSoto Baby Hemi....rrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: MARTINSR ]