Mustang 2 front suspension
Duane Smith
to a mustang 2 type. Has anyone ever done this, and if so what
difficulties are to be encountered?
Jeff Rice
You will lose turning radius...
You will spend a lot of money to gain little, if any benefit 'suspension
wise'...
Only thing you will gain is a little oil pan clearance, and a lighter
wallet.
Same goes for 'clipping' a whole section on there.
A lot of work and expense for little gain.
Just spend your money on a pair of new springs, a re-bush of the arms you
have,
and buy a Turner disk brake conversion kit, with the dual master cylinder.
Your car will be on the road six months sooner, and you will not be
disappointed.
Jeff ( see SBob, I can......) Rice
"Duane Smith" <rk...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:gvck0v4lom3j3ucqe...@4ax.com...
Lee
There are many who chose to 'upgrade' to a newer style and, of course,
that is totally the choice of the owner of the car. I prefer to use
the stock set-up as it is very strong and, if in good condition, will
serve you just as well, in my opinion.
Make sure the king pins are in good shape, replace the springs and
bushings (you would do that anyway in a swap) and you are good to go!
The only thing I would probably do to the car would be to put a set of
Jim Turner's brakes on the front if you do not like the drums. Heck,
they bolt right!!!
On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:42:50 -0800, Duane Smith <rk...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>I have a 65 Stude and I was planning on upgrading the front suspension
>to a mustang 2 type. Has anyone ever done this, and if so what
>difficulties are to be encountered?
Lee DeLaBarre
Daytona62
1962 Lark Daytona Convertible 62V10399
1962 Lark Regal Convertible 62V????? (Dad's Last New Studebaker)
1962 Lark Regal Convertible 62V41115 (When Done, Dad's Next New Studebaker)
1964 Avanti R2 4-Speed R5410
1964 Cruiser 64V10452 (Dubbed the Survivor II)
1964 Lark 4-Door Sedan 64V17327 R1 Powered Y3 Police Car
1964 Lark Convertible
1965 Cruiser C519028 (Parts Car)
(2) Studebaker Factory Parts Train Cars
Transtar60
My great Uncle George at age 79 or so bought a bright orange with white
vinyl top ,78 Mustang II. After he passed on my parents ended up with the
smogged 302 2v and automatic car. It ate tires, batteries, brakes, and
shocks etc. It just got too expensive to keep it on the road so it sat in
the side yard.
My little brother finally had a wrecker drag it to the local Chevy dealer in
'87 to trade in on a Z34(24?) Cavalier.
"Jeff Rice" <DEEPNHOCK...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LXqO9.78839$hK4.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John Poulos
money is better spent rebuilding the stock set-up, perhaps adding a
bigger sway bar and some other tweaks.
--
JP
Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com
My Ebay items: http://stude.com/EBAY
64 8E T cab Pickup (Ca.Div 2)
64 Daytona 4 door (ND.Div.)
64 R1 Hawk Powershift/AC(Md)
63 R1 Hawk Powershift/AC(WV.Div)
63 R1 Hawk 4 speed(Ok. Div)
63 R1 Hawk 4 speed AC(Ca.Div.)
63 R2 Hawk 4 speed(Md. keeper)
63 R2 4 speed Daytona HT(Md.keeper)
63 Avanti R3 clone(Md.keeper)
62 GT Hawk(Ca.Div)
ISCHREIBER
drives great and is NOT wallet intensive. The front end is good and well
designed as is.
Bearhawke
posters as well................redo the OEM suspension: if it was good
enough for 1984 back Avanti II's; it is certainly good enough for a
driver/mild custom :)
Another point to consider: most of the parts including control arms, etc.
are available new as well.
Again: think Avanti :)
Bearhawke in Az
Oldcarfart
>From: Duane Smith rk...@bigfoot.com
>
>I have a 65 Stude and I was planning on upgrading the front suspension
>to a mustang 2 type. Has anyone ever done this, and if so what
>difficulties are to be encountered?
it's not an "upgrade", rebuild the Stude suspension, go to disc brakes and you
will be a happy boy.
TedHarbit
StudeBob
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in Calif.
"Jeff Rice" <DEEPNHOCK...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:LXqO9.78839$hK4.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
StudeBob
subject header titled "King pins vs Ball Joints"
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in Calif.
"Duane Smith" <rk...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:gvck0v4lom3j3ucqe...@4ax.com...
Dave's Place
> money is better spent rebuilding the stock set-up, perhaps adding a
> bigger sway bar and some other tweaks.
Once again, I can't be counted in the general consensus. <G> I am tickled
pink with my set-up, and would do it again. And, again. The car rides
well, handles well, doesn't eat tires, shocks, brakes, or such. It has
eaten one battery over 5 years, but I don't think that had anything to do
with the front end change.
Now, perhaps, if I had rebuilt the original front end, added Jim's brakes,
and figured out how to put power steering on the car, I would have been
equally thrilled with that, too. Don't know, can't compare.
Would I recommend someone else do it? No. Would I recommend they not do
it? No. Show me an original front end with power disc brakes and power
rack and pinion steering that drives like mine, and I'll jump on the
bandwagon. That was some of the best money I spent on the car, and the
conversion took less than two weeks.
Dave Lester and the Ain't This The Pits Crew
Home of 'Sheba, the Internationally Renowned Studebaker Under Construction
http://members.provalue.net/studes/
Dave's Place Auto Sales and Automotive Collectibles
http://www.davesplaceinc.com
John Poulos
his car, not so easy on the early cars, so are the disk brakes.
--
Dean Heck
> You'll find the general feeling by those that have done it, is that the
> money is better spent rebuilding the stock set-up, perhaps adding a
> bigger sway bar and some other tweaks.
>
> Duane Smith wrote:
> >
> > I have a 65 Stude and I was planning on upgrading the front suspension
> > to a mustang 2 type. Has anyone ever done this, and if so what
> > difficulties are to be encountered?
I do not post here often, one of those lurkers ya know. Having some
experience with stock and non stock, I thought maybe I could add
something, in this one case at least. I would in general agree with
the consensus here to leave it pretty much stock. I have done a 54
Starlite Cpe in the past that I did leave the front suspension stock.
It was fine, except for stopping power, and I didn't really trust the
stock steering condition on it. If leaving the front suspension stock,
I would highly recommend adding disc brakes. I've unwisely put myself
in the possition of having to use both feet on the brake pedal and
anything I could through out the window on a chain to bring it to a
stop.
Hence, the 53 Starliner I am presently building. I did go with the
Fatman Fabrications Mustang II front clip on this one. I have moved
the engine back 8" and down into the chassis another 3" deeper. I also
went with a 78 Lincoln 9" rear axle with disc brakes and a ladder bar
suspension and panhard bar. At least, this one is gona stop. The cost
in just the Fatman Mustang II front end will add at least $2,000.00 to
$2,500.00 to the cost over and above rebuilding the stock front end.
It isn't really a tough modification, but it really depends on what
you wish to do with your car and if you think the extra cost are worth
it for you. All in all, I have over 10k in chassis and drive train
modications. Hopefully, this will help give you some idea of the cost
of starting on the road to modifications. It can go on forever it
sometimes seems.
Dean
Don & Kathy Watson
my Hawk, including tie rod ends. I added the Turner conversion with a
twist. I discovered that the early Mustang rotors cost 200 bucks, so I used
Camero rotors for 20 bucks. I ended up with a ten hole spare but what the
heck. Works great! Drives like a new car. The Turner conversion is a must
for panic stopping, at least in a straight line. Since I am running 7 1/2"
rims anyway I plan on converting the rear hubs to Chevy pattern. The best
part is that it didn't cost me an arm and a leg to make it handle well.
Don
1961 Hawk
Gordon Richmond
Mustang II front clip under it. <G>
Actually, that looks pretty nifty. Seems to me to be a highly-evolved
derivative of the Mustang II layout, with actual A-arms on the bottom
instead of that wimpy strut. By the time you evolve a Mustang-based
design to that point, it's not too different from race-car practice.
Seems to me the only reason the "rod industry" went so heavily for the
Muskrat system is that it was the only American car of it's era with
power rack and pinion steering. No matter that the early Mustang II
was an evil-handling slug that was actually heavier than its
predecessor.
The '37 Dicatator I bought has what is supposed to be a Fatman
Fabrications Muskrat front clip in it, and it doesn't even have a
front sway bar. Amazingly high-tech, eh? I will probably leave it in
there, as it will be easier to make it mo' better than to replace it
outright. Funny thing is, the original Planar suspension has pretty
close to the same suspension geometry as its "upgraded" replacement.
It wouldn't be rocket science to add rack & pinion steering to a Stude
with Planar suspension.
I have seen a Hawk built by Pat Graves in Saskatoon in which he used a
Cavalier rack and pinion unit with the basically stock suspension. Car
has 4-wheel disc brakes, too. Pat does beautiful work. This approach
would give the most bang for the buck, IMHO, and would be the best
course for the original poster.
Gord Richmond
Lark Parker
says...
>
>Upgrade???
I think he means the means the Mustang suspension will be upgraded by being
associated with a Studebaker.
Lark Parker
Oldcarfart
some cars need a suspension upgrade, like the 1966 Fairlane that I'm assisting
with, we put a Must II aftermarket in to eliminate the factory "flexible flyer"
front end.
TomB
The front suspension was designed/built by Jim Meyer Racing so it's
pretty much as you describe. After it's all broken in I'll take it up
to Sears Point and see if it handles as well as I think it should.
TomB
Dave's Place
> Cavalier rack and pinion unit with the basically stock suspension.
Sure would like to know how he got it to work! Tried that first, just
couldn't get it right.
--
Ross Rither
would advise against this conversion. Although the after market
supports this setup well, it is not (IMHO) an "upgrade". The Mustang
II is in fact Pinto based, and too light weight for a full sized car.
I have a 49 Ch#vy Fleetline, in which I installed a Mustang II, good
ride, good handling, but over rough roads it is not confidence
inspiring. On the other hand I have a 51 Che*y delivery, with a
rebuild stock front suspension, with a disk convirsion, very solid,
very smooth. I would not in hind sight do this conversion on a full
sized again.
I have a 66 Stude Wagoniare that my wife drives daliy. The rebuild
stock suspension, with disks, gas shocks, oversized sway bar rides and
handles very well. Having had, over the years 7 or 8 Studes with this
suspension, I can say that it is superior to all the Brand X
suspensions of the same vintage, and the Mustang II. Keep in mind that
the Mustang II is popular because it is (was) plentful in junk yards.
John Poulos <ava...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:<3E0A83D9...@erols.com>...
Dave's Place
> his car, not so easy on the early cars, so are the disk brakes.
Good and valid point. I wouldn't recommend he make the change. For those
reasons, not for others expressed. Tell him why he should keep it stock
with that rationale, not by inaccurate information about the alternative he
is considering.
Given his set-up, I would not have done the conversion. I agree, the money
could be spent better elsewhere. I had a different situation, partly
because of the modifications that had been made to my car before I bought
it.
--
Freddy Badgett
Freddy Badgett
Sonny
all know, NOTHING beats experience. As you pointed out, the Pinto was the
design model for the "new" aftermarket front ends, and were, at one time,
used to be, plentiful. Some how it seems that instead of simply adapting the
rack and pinion steering, (which I do like better), the preferred method has
become "sub it", with no real benefits, and possibly dangerous
consequences. I hope everybody that decides to sub the "top hat" type frame
remembers that it is not recommended.
Sonny
"Ross Rither" <r_ri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ec6a998.02122...@posting.google.com...
Nate Nagel
> New to NG, no stranger to Studes or the "Mustang II front ends. I
> would advise against this conversion. Although the after market
> supports this setup well, it is not (IMHO) an "upgrade". The Mustang
> II is in fact Pinto based, and too light weight for a full sized car.
> I have a 49 Ch#vy Fleetline, in which I installed a Mustang II, good
> ride, good handling, but over rough roads it is not confidence
> inspiring. On the other hand I have a 51 Che*y delivery, with a
> rebuild stock front suspension, with a disk convirsion, very solid,
> very smooth. I would not in hind sight do this conversion on a full
> sized again.
> I have a 66 Stude Wagoniare that my wife drives daliy. The rebuild
> stock suspension, with disks, gas shocks, oversized sway bar rides and
> handles very well. Having had, over the years 7 or 8 Studes with this
> suspension, I can say that it is superior to all the Brand X
> suspensions of the same vintage, and the Mustang II. Keep in mind that
> the Mustang II is popular because it is (was) plentful in junk yards.
Right on Ross. BTW, my first car was a 49 Chev Fleetline as well that
I turned into a mild rod. Sold it to some guy in eastern OH for next
to nothing when I ran out of $$ to finish it.
nate
Bob
practical,one is not.Reason one is that I felt that I wanted to
upgrade the 62 year old suspension.The old system may well have been
good enough but I had my doubts about it.I do a fair amount of 75-80
mph driving and to be honest I trust my welding and assembly work more
than I trust old suspension.The old suspension very well may have been
ok but it would have been on my mind.The second reason is pure
astetics.Soon as I saw what appeared to be old driveshafts cut in
pieces on the top and that humongus transverse leaf set up,I started
thinking more seriously about the front end mods.The Fatman set up is
so clean looking! I did buy the tubular upper and lower a-frames that
also are wider than the stockers.I like the look and hope it works
well..time will tell.For the record...aint no SBC going in the '40
Bob40
Gordon Richmond <rich...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message news:<osel0v4e5ujlea6cv...@4ax.com>...
Studegary
What is? - inquiring minds want to know.
Bob
posted here on the NG,I have gotten hold of a rebuildable 289.<G>
Bob40
stud...@aol.com (Studegary) wrote in message news:<20021226180500...@mb-fg.aol.com>...
Sonny
Sonny
"Bob" <rup...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:f50fed9a.0212...@posting.google.com...
Ross Rither
Studebakers.
"Sonny", good point on the "top hat" type of frame, I now know sub
framing is a no no, as is any cutting into the torsion box of these.
Nothing like hind sight.
"Sonny" <X50st...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<EOQO9.37534$VA5.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
StudeBob
Sonny's in upstate NY ( I think. Right Sonny?) We're all spread around the
map - even to down under and other far points (from California anyway).
There was another fella in attendance, awhile back, who was bent on
sticking a hot Stude V8 in a '39 or '40 Stude coupe. Don't know what became
of him tho.
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in Calif.
"Ross Rither" <r_ri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ec6a998.02122...@posting.google.com...
Sonny
surrounding), Buffoonalo! Actually it's a cute little yupster bedroom
community with no "heavy" businesses, (read they don't like cars, trucks or
making a living with your hands), but plenty of "upscale" grocery stores,
pubs, hair and nail salons, poodle clip joints, and oh such simply fabulous
boutiques, (excuse me for a second while I regurgitate, 'cause we don't puke
here!). Yeah, they ran off anything and anyone they didn't like and they now
have a perfect example of a cute little pseudo-social, upscale place to
screw each other's wives, (wink, wink), to sleep for the few hours they have
because they have to get up so early to drive the hour or so to work at
their city, county, or state job, where nobody likes, but wouldn't even
DREAM of living elsewhere kinda town....... (Can ya tell that they don't
like to see me at town counsel meetings? <LOL>)
They can't even keep the chartered Studebaker driver's club going around
here because of in-breeding, oops, I mean in-fighting about where to hold
the fxxking meetings!! Soooo, a few of us really serious fellas are gonna
get all of the orphan car guys together and let the yupsters grovel around
in the mess that they have for a club. (<LOL> What the hell were we talking
about?)
Whew........., uhm sorry Bob, yes I'm in upstate NY. <G>
Sonny
"StudeBob" <stud...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aui6fv$7vs$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
Jeff Rice
"Sonny" wrote:
<snip>
Sonny
Sonny
"Jeff Rice" <DEEPNHOCK...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:922P9.15427$p_6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
StudeBob
there! <LOL>
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in Calif.
"Sonny" <X50st...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:R72P9.38009$VA5.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Sonny
for me! Like I was sayin, they run like rats when I show up at the town
meetings. I guess you could say that it's always a lively session, and I've
been thrown out of better places anyway! <G>
Sonny
"StudeBob" <stud...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:aujg4k$1ng$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Fredd...@webtv.net
i thought about that for my lark.i then remembered a HOT ROD magazine
article about a guy who had a 59 lark with a 400 something cubic inch
caddy motor,running 10s with the stock front suspention. if it was good
enuff for him doing that,it is good enuff for me.
i rebushed the upper/lower a-arms,used a 65 V8 front suspention/springs
and all,and am VERY happy with the results. try it-youll like it!
UPDATED WEB PAGE:
http://community.webtv.net/FreddMertz/MERTZRACING
Paul V
Being a Mechanical Engineer, I have yet to figure out why someone would
trade a well designed and well tested front suspension for something that
has no aftermarket engineering design and testing behind it. Check the
disclaimers by the suppliers of the front suspension conversions.
Tom, your suspension probably has the best materials and construction
methods, but do you know for sure that the suspension is designed well
enough to withstand the impacts it will see of the course of twenty years
worth of driving? If you used chromemoly tubing are you aware that upon
impact that it will break rather than bend. That is why 1010 or 1020 steel
is typically used for front suspension components because it is ductile and
will bend rather than break with excessive impact loading.
Studebaker used forged steel king pins and forged steel spindles that were
stress relieved as part of the manufacturing process.
The only advantage in the aftermarket front suspensions is that they are
easier to lower the car with. If you built a new lower suspension arm with a
deeper spring pocket you could accomplish the same thing on a Studebaker
suspension without giving up any of the inherent strength and design
properties.
In the previous thread, balls joints advantage over the king pin is that it
is cheaper to produce and reduces the number of pivot points. Those two
items do not make it better than the Studebaker king pin design, which you
all might note, is unique to Studebaker. There is actually an aftermarket
spindle and king pin design that incorporates a spring as part of the
assembly (actually pioneered by Morgan in about 1910). I have a picture of
it some where if you all would like to see it.
Paul Villforth
"TomB" <tom99...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ea3l0vk0at10ojrkl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 14:42:50 -0800, Duane Smith <rk...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have a 65 Stude and I was planning on upgrading the front suspension
> >to a mustang 2 type. Has anyone ever done this, and if so what
> >difficulties are to be encountered?
>
> Not sure why you would want to do that. If you have an unlimited
> budget there are better systems, and if you don't have an unlimited
> budget the stock suspension is quite good. If I were you I'd rebuild
> the stock suspension, add Turner brakers, and drive it. Which isn't
> what I did. Mine is just a tad off of stock.....
>
> TomB
>
>
>
Bob
was the best engineered and best tested in those glorious days of the
early 40's.Not too many freeways..speed limit a sedate
40-50..Perfect.Kinda brings up the question of why it was replaced by
another design?..one that I am sure was harkened as far superior by
the engineers that designed it.Not being the type that pays close
attention to when front suspensions changed on the Studes,I cant say
how many new front suspensions there were but I'm sure each was touted
as superior to the last version.If my car was stock,I would leave
it,but since it is being modified I like the idea of new being
better.There are hundreds of thousands of street rods out running
around that have been "clipped' or "Pacered" or "Mustanged"and while I
am sure there are some cases of failure(usually due to the installer
not having a clue what they are doing)I wonder how the amount of
failure would stack up against a failure rate after most stock Studes
got to be 10 years old or older and not maintained.
Bob(in hot water again)40
"Paul V" <vill4t...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<_OkP9.1563$np1.112...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>...
Jeff DeWitt
Considering that the Stude front ends are made of tougher stuff than
what is in those clip front ends the failure rate of an old,
unmaintained Stude front end is probably going to be quite a bit lower
than and old, unmaintained clip front end. The Stude will almost
certainly be easier and cheaper to fix when it does fail.
In any case your car (nor mine) is not going to be a beater that doesn't
get maintained.
As I'm sure you know there are a lot of reasons why car manufactures
redesign suspensions, and it's not necessarily because the new one is
better than the old. The new one might be cheaper, easier to service,
or it might be easier to fit with a new body design. I don't know much
about that planar suspension your car has, but I bet it works pretty
well if in good condition ... and would be a LOT easier and cheaper to
fix it if it's not than to put in a clip. As I'm sure you are well
aware, just because something is new doesn't mean its better!
Your car, your choice ... what do you have anyway?! Have you shown us
any pictures?
Jeff DeWitt
Oldcarfart
>There are hundreds of thousands of street rods out running
>around that have been "clipped' or "Pacered" or "Mustanged"
and don't forget the "reversed Corvair" clip, whatta disaster.
Oldcarfart
Try getting parts for a 1. Pacer front end, 2. Volare front end, 3. 2001
Durango front end and 4. a '51 Stude front end, you may be surprised.
Sonny
the intercourse. <G> Anyway, if ya think that you're in trouble, I have a
hint for ya, (from experience <G>), just put a book in your pants! <LOL>
Yep, ya might get spanked, but you didn't get hurt and you can still laugh!
But I honestly think you've brought up a very good point, and that is, some
people are dead assed serious when they say modified! they modify, change,
or make unusual, EVERYTHING! You have every right to do 'er your own way. I
don't want to keep looking at cookie cutter cars, but like all good friends
do, we worry about each other's safety, and since we are Studebaker people,
MONEY, and it's cheap to talk! <LOL>
Studebaker changed the front suspensions and steering as necessity dictated
for the '49 and down cars, but one big change occurred at '50, then again at
'51. I think the quick change between '50 and '51 was because there was just
too many steering parts, (not suspension parts), and they wore out too
quickly. After '51, the front end was basically the same until the end. If
you look at the '50 steering, it looks like lots of brand-x car makers were
very happy with the setup, because they used it for many, many years!
Studebaker didn't like it and changed it. In fact, now that I think about
it, the same '51 front end configuration was continued on the Avanti even
after somebody else was making them, correct? I know that Studebaker was
real happy with the "new" suspension design starting with the '50, (not '50
steering), because I can tell you with complete confidence that a '63 V8
Lark spindle will slide right on and work just fine on a '50 Champion king
bolt! Yep, I did it and I have pictures. <G>
What's my point to all of this blabbering? Nope, I don't want to change your
mind, (I know how hard it is to change mine), but I truly believe that
15,000 or so heads are better than one! <G> I really enjoy seeing, thinking
about and discussing anything that has to do with our favorite car. Hell,
this old dog might even learn some new tricks, (yeah sure, like I can
remember the old ones! <LOL>). I say thanks a million for being brave enough
to post your opinion and explaining why you think like ya do Bob, even
though you thought that it wouldn't be well received, (but don't forget the
book, and don't take it personal even if ya do need one!) <GG>
Sonny
"Bob" <rup...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:f50fed9a.02122...@posting.google.com...
Sonny
Paul. Hey, it looks like another vote for the original recipe! <G> Thanks a
million Paul.
Sonny
"Paul V" <vill4t...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_OkP9.1563$np1.112...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Gordon Richmond
Studebaker ( and others) went through from the 1930s to the 1950s had
a lot to do with metallurgical advances. Coil springs were pretty rare
before the late 30s, partly, I think, because it was hard to make the
right kind of steel for long-lived coil springs. Also, you MUST have
good shocks with coil springs, because they have very little
self-damping, unlike leaf springs.
Gord Richmond
Sonny
thinking about the usual reasons why they might make changes, but I'll bet
that was one of the most important. Thanks Gordon!
Sonny
"Gordon Richmond" <rich...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:h61t0vs4njorh9tvr...@4ax.com...
Bearhawke
You brought up an interesting point there re: parts availability:
Pacer: parts are becoming quite rare being that virtually ALL of the
suspension/steering components were AMC Pacer specific.......and, how many
are left?
MoPar J-F-M body (Volare): parts are still readily available in all
fairness..........
Dakota/Durango: being current production; parts are available through the
dealer.......but, that odd 6 lug bolt pattern is LAME in my
estimation.........why (rhetorically speaking)?
Stude: think 1963-84 or so Avanti; prestige car let alone that the prosaic
Studebaker cars utilized that essentially identical setup clear back to
1951. Plus: one HUGE advantage; can someone say 'bolt on'; probably no
fabricating required at all :)
No comment on the Mustang II: it leaves me 'cold' for use under a daily
driver........just a feeling here, nothing more.
Bearhawke in Az
Oldcarfart wrote in message <20021228215417...@mb-fg.aol.com>...
StudeBob
I've been told by folks that were old enough to recall, that the postwar
Studes thru '49 had a tendancy to develop a lean to one side or the other in
quick fashion.
Also, as Gordon pointed out, it was probably a dictate of metallurgy that
kept coil springs out of the picture until later on.
--
StudeBob Kabchef
Studefarming in Calif.
"Bob" <rup...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:f50fed9a.02122...@posting.google.com...
TomB
<vill4t...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Group,
snip
>Tom, your suspension probably has the best materials and construction
>methods, but do you know for sure that the suspension is designed well
>enough to withstand the impacts it will see of the course of twenty years
>worth of driving? If you used chromemoly tubing are you aware that upon
>impact that it will break rather than bend. That is why 1010 or 1020 steel
>is typically used for front suspension components because it is ductile and
>will bend rather than break with excessive impact loading.
snip
Paul - No way to answer your question except to drive it for twenty
years to find out. I strongly suspect that the answer is an emphatic
YES but the proof is in the pudding.
I can guarantee you that the car handles much better than a '53 with
stock suspension. It's rock solid at 110mph and freeway cloverleaves
are just plain fun. The power rack and pinion steering is more to my
taste as well. It allows the use of a significantly smaller diameter
steering wheel and parking is a dream.
As for the breaking or bending issues, I'll just have to take your
word for it and since I don't know the materials used I'll just be
fatalistic. If I wreck the car to the point where the suspension is
bending or breaking it's pretty much a sure thing that I'll be doing
more crying about the sheet metal than the mechanicals.
The last question that's being raised in this and another thread about
"...is new better just because it's new?" is an emphatic NO. Of
course there are diverse opinions on what constitutes "better" but
such things as unibody construction are, in my opinion, significantly
inferior to more traditional frames. And the over-use of plastic just
about insures interior squeaks, not to mention pieces and parts
falling off because manufacturers have tried to save a few pennies
through the use of less expensive, more easily formed plastic parts.
So, given a choice of a stock '53 or mine, I'll take mine. <G>
TomB
Oldcarfart
> Also, as Gordon pointed out, it was probably a dictate of metallurgy that
>kept coil springs out of the picture until later on.
I had a 1934 Dodge DRXX long wheelbase touring sedan with factory coil springs
up front, what a mess and yes I did clip it with a Mustang II unit, however a
buddy had a 1934 Plymouth with a straight axle and that worked nice with new
springs and disc brakes. The early "A" frames also seemed to have a geometry
issue too.
TedHarbit
>failure would stack up against a failure rate after most stock Studes
>got to be 10 years old or older and not maintained.>>
Dunno but my stock 52 year old still seems to be fine and all I've done is lube
it with each oil change. Rides and handles fine at well over 100 mph. (It
does have disc brakes since a couple years ago though).
Ted
TedHarbit
>Durango front end and 4. a '51 Stude front end, you may be surprised.>
Clutches are getting a little high in my opinion for the Stude so I've been
trying to find a substitute that will work. Tried to get an '81 brand x to
check out and first I was told it only came in a diaphram type now and second,
they had to order that and would take a couple days IF it was in stock;
otherwise, might take two weeks.
Ted
John Poulos
X1690 PRESSURE PLATE
CP1699 DISK
10 1/2 INCH clutch
Use a 63 Chevy 409 pressure plate for high performance interchange and
it's cheaper too.
--
JP
Studebaker On the Net http://stude.com
My Ebay items: http://stude.com/EBAY
64 8E T cab Pickup (Ca.Div 2)
64 Daytona 4 door (ND.Div.)
64 R1 Hawk Powershift/AC(Md)
63 R1 Hawk Powershift/AC(WV.Div)
63 R1 Hawk 4 speed(Ok. Div)
63 R1 Hawk 4 speed AC(Ca.Div.)
63 R2 Hawk 4 speed(Md. keeper)
63 R2 4 speed Daytona HT(Md.keeper)
63 Avanti R3 clone(Md.keeper)
62 GT Hawk(Ca.Div)
Ross Rither
Bernardino. We are planing on attending the upcoming International
Meet in Sacramento, may be doing some touring in central Cal in route.
Now what to drive? the Transtar, or Wagonaire, hmmmm, the suspension
and brakes are better on the wagon.
"StudeBob" <stud...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<aui6fv$7vs$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>...
Paul V
suspension (that was designed with the automobile) for another independent
front suspension that was originally designed for a totally different
automobile (in some cases, designed for a vehicle with a lower front end
weight). In your car, except for the beauty of the design, the ability to
easily change the ride height, the disc brakes, and the reduction of the
number of pivot points, and the rack and pinion steering, you still have the
same type of suspension the Studebaker came with from the factory.
Is your frame stiffer than an original 53? If it is then how did you
accomplish that? I think that stiffening the frame under a 53 and later
Studebaker would help the handling of any Studebaker with a stock front
suspension. Personally, I think that when they went to the rubber and steel
bushings, Studebaker lost some of the free movement in the front suspension
and instead transferred some of the twisting to the frame. If I am correct,
the cars with the cracked upper suspension arm mount are cars with rubber
and steel bushings, rather than the cars with steel bushings.
If you want a rack and pinion steering and a non-coil spring front
suspension, then maybe Bill Eckenrode's example should be followed. If there
was one I were going to copy, it would be his.
Bill, if you are reading this please repost your web address. Thanks.
Paul Villforth
"TomB" <tom99...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:5qgu0vgrishaqbue8...@4ax.com...
TomB
suspension is the same "type" as came from the factory. Adjustable
shocks would almost be enough in and of themselves to justify a
difference in "type". But sure, it's still coil springs and shocks.
But it was designed specifically for the car. Some years ago Jim
Meyer Racing brought a '53 into their shop and engineered the front
end. It's not a modified Mustant II or Fatman but, rather, a "from
scratch" effort specifically for the '53. It's NOT a price performer
when compared to those other options but it IS a performer.
And yea, I stiffened the frame quite a bit because I agree with you
about a stiffer frame improving handling. There are some pictures at:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/21293288/35548235GmxIFn
Also, I'd like to make it absolutely clear that I'm not disagreeing
with you on any of your points. The point is that there are almost an
infinite number of modifications that can be made to just about any
car and everybody can, and should, "do their own thing". It's not
likely that anybody is going to make mods that please everybody, so
the idea is to please yourself!!!
I really won't know how happy I am with the totality of what I've done
until I have a couple of thousand miles on the car and have taken it
around both Laguna Seca and Sears Point. I'm hoping to at least keep
up with my brothers Cobra Daytona.
TomB
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 22:15:11 GMT, "Paul V"
Sonny
thoughtfully and carefully put together a great combination!
Sonny
"TomB" <tom99...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:t3v11vob9fnvkgvt0...@4ax.com...
Paul V
you didn't add two legs to rear cross member to make another "K" toward the
center of the chassis. Those "K" members will add stiffness. If you haven't
bolted down the body yet, add two body attachment points to the rear cross
member through the trunk with appropriate spacers between the sheet metal
and the frame. This will give some added stiffness between the rear cross
member and the side rails.
Given the relative simplicity of the Studebaker frame did you give any
thought to remaking the frame from rectangular box tubing? I have always
wanted to do that but don't have a shop to do it in.
I restate one of my other points. Like the pre 53 front suspension (51 and
52 as well as later heavy duty suspensions) yours will pivot freely at the
pivot points rather than trying to twist the frame as the suspension moves.
Paul Villforth
"TomB" <tom99...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:t3v11vob9fnvkgvt0...@4ax.com...
TomB
I did think about building a new frame but I don't think it's
necessary for a street rod. If I really were going to focus on racing
I would have done some different things, quick-change rear end, frame,
etc. I agree that additional bracing in the rear wouldn't have hurt
but at the time was figuring that most of the stresses in the rear
would be longitudinal so just put in the little corner pieces and
added a few beads here and there. All the problems that I had heard
had been from stress cracks in the front so focused most of the effort
there.
TomB
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:53:43 GMT, "Paul V"
Alex Magdaleno
Nice work. I remember seeing those here before. I don't see the crossmember
brace like they added in 54. it extends out and directly under where the
doors hinge. That added a great deal of support in that area.
Alex M
"TomB" <tom99...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:t3v11vob9fnvkgvt0...@4ax.com...