twin i beam in hot rod - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Suspension - Brakes - Steering
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2011, 12:03 AM
Member
 
Last wiki edit: Ford axle ratio codes
Last journal entry: Rear Suspension
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Prattsville
Posts: 6,415
Wiki Edits: 31

Thanks: 2
Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts
1983-1988 Ranger beams are forged and look like normal I beams, yet are still offset lengths . only draw back to them is the brakes/ spindles are inferior to the 1989-1997 brakes and are not interchangable.. common 'upgrade' for Rangers is the cast '89-'97 beams or the DJM dream beams, which take use the '89-'97 spindles.. for this reason. '83-'88 beams are practically throw aways to the ranger guys.. every reason they don't like them is every reasion a hotrodder might want them.. the smaller brakes are better suited to a lighter vehicle. they look more traditional, and they can safely be bent for camber if more than 4* was needed. also we can engineer the drop into a frame kickup/ Z where as that is more complex with all the factory crossmembers to work around..

another thing to keep an eye out for is F-150 guys swapping front ends. Panther IFS is a bolt on for those trucks, and I know it is a welcomed swap in the lowering crowd

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2013, 11:34 PM
GFaRT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Summerland, BC, Canada
Posts: 5
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm considering using a Twin I Beam in my '48 Chev project. Mainly because it came with the '94 F150 I bought to get the fuellie 300 six. I have a Camaro clip, but I like the bigger brakes better on the F150 if using 15" wheels.

It looks to me that Ford compromised the steering linkage some when they designed it in the first place and this may be some of the cause for the tire wear complaints. The tie rods should originate from the axle beam pivot axis to avoid bump steer and changes in toe as ride height changes with vehicle load.

Camber changes with suspension height change are not so bad as long as the normal ride height camber is correct. Un-equal A Arm suspension also is designed to increase negative camber as the suspension is compressed. When the body rolls in cornering the camber changes relative to the body but stays fairly constant relative to the road. And actually when turning left you want some decrease in camber on the righjt side and increase on the left.

Another feature of this suspension not mentioned much is the "anti-dive" effect during breaking resulting from brake torque acting on the trailing arm which attempts to lift the chassis. This feature is lost and in fact reversed if you replace the trailing arms with parrallel radius rods.

Lowering the car with the '94 axles might be a challenge. I'm thinking I'll build special frame rail sections with windows so the axles pass through the rails instead of under. Will likely have to mount the engine higher than normal as I haven't figgured out how to window the crankshaft.





Wish me luck
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2013, 09:03 AM
adantessr's Avatar
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
 
Last wiki edit: Troubleshooting ignition Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South Charleston , WV
Age: 62
Posts: 1,559
Wiki Edits: 3

Thanks: 54
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by GFaRT View Post
I'm considering using a Twin I Beam in my '48 Chev project. Mainly because it came with the '94 F150 I bought to get the fuellie 300 six. I have a Camaro clip, but I like the bigger brakes better on the F150 if using 15" wheels.

It looks to me that Ford compromised the steering linkage some when they designed it in the first place and this may be some of the cause for the tire wear complaints. The tie rods should originate from the axle beam pivot axis to avoid bump steer and changes in toe as ride height changes with vehicle load.

Camber changes with suspension height change are not so bad as long as the normal ride height camber is correct. Un-equal A Arm suspension also is designed to increase negative camber as the suspension is compressed. When the body rolls in cornering the camber changes relative to the body but stays fairly constant relative to the road. And actually when turning left you want some decrease in camber on the righjt side and increase on the left.

Another feature of this suspension not mentioned much is the "anti-dive" effect during breaking resulting from brake torque acting on the trailing arm which attempts to lift the chassis. This feature is lost and in fact reversed if you replace the trailing arms with parrallel radius rods.

Lowering the car with the '94 axles might be a challenge. I'm thinking I'll build special frame rail sections with windows so the axles pass through the rails instead of under. Will likely have to mount the engine higher than normal as I haven't figgured out how to window the crankshaft.





Wish me luck
How about a C-section on the front frame rails ? BTW, Love those '48's, I think the '50 Chev was one of the ugliest cars ever built, right up there with the AMC Pacer. Please keep us posted with regular pics as the build progresses..........Allan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2013, 12:18 PM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,443
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,577
Thanked 1,331 Times in 1,153 Posts
I am sorry I can't imagine ANYTHING on that truck that I would want to stuff into that cool little Chevy. It is big and clumbsy and great for a big old truck. But to run it in that Chevy, I just don't see it.

One of the best rules to follow in car building is don't use something just because you have it!

Think about this, would you go LOOKING for one of these front ends for that car? If you didn't have it, would that be your CHOICE and start scouring craigslist and ebay and the local wreckers for one?

Don't use it just because you have it, that is almost always a bad choice.

Brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2013, 02:46 PM
adantessr's Avatar
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
 
Last wiki edit: Troubleshooting ignition Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South Charleston , WV
Age: 62
Posts: 1,559
Wiki Edits: 3

Thanks: 54
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARTINSR View Post
I am sorry I can't imagine ANYTHING on that truck that I would want to stuff into that cool little Chevy. It is big and clumbsy and great for a big old truck. But to run it in that Chevy, I just don't see it.

One of the best rules to follow in car building is don't use something just because you have it!

Think about this, would you go LOOKING for one of these front ends for that car? If you didn't have it, would that be your CHOICE and start scouring craigslist and ebay and the local wreckers for one?

Don't use it just because you have it, that is almost always a bad choice.

Brian
Brian, I am with you 100% on not ruining that beautiful car. It was with tears in my eyes that I commented on that post. But if he is intent on doing that, I want to see the end result. As for me, I wouldn't do anything that made it less than OEM. That is a rare piece. Rarer than any tri-five, because most people don't restore pre-50's. Most were crushed. I know of a few buried under my dad's sawdust pile. A '46 Ford and a '51 Merc for sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2013, 03:52 PM
GFaRT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Summerland, BC, Canada
Posts: 5
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARTINSR View Post
I am sorry I can't imagine ANYTHING on that truck that I would want to stuff into that cool little Chevy. It is big and clumbsy and great for a big old truck. But to run it in that Chevy, I just don't see it.

One of the best rules to follow in car building is don't use something just because you have it!

Think about this, would you go LOOKING for one of these front ends for that car? If you didn't have it, would that be your CHOICE and start scouring craigslist and ebay and the local wreckers for one?

Don't use it just because you have it, that is almost always a bad choice.

Brian
My plan is to do this car with simiar thinking to what was quite common back in the 50's and early 60's. Then it was common to upgrade the engine with a GMC 270 or 302 six. Those engines are not practicle today so with that in mind I was looking for a Ford 300 six that would have fuel injection and some performance potential. It will still sound like they did back in the day. I bought the truck for this purpose so I could test drive the engine and get all the necessary wiring and electronics to run the engine. I'm not fixated on the twin I beam, but I'm not rulling it out either. Appearance of the suspension doesn't matter so it comes down to what will work best and be practicle. As I have this suspension and it has good size brakes I want to know technically why it might be a bad choice, and what would be a better choice. The stock suspension is actually in very good condition, but the brakes and ball bearing wheel bearings are not acceptable.

Here's another car I found with twin I beam.



Cheers.

Last edited by GFaRT; 03-13-2013 at 03:58 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2013, 04:01 PM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,443
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,577
Thanked 1,331 Times in 1,153 Posts
That truck is home made, you can do anything you want when you are building something from scratch, when you have to make it work where you have limitations that is a whole different story.

I haven't measured it, but I would say that the track on that twin I beam is at the very least four inches wider than the one in your Chevy.

What are your expectations with your Chevy? Taking on road trips, driving it on weekends around the town, daily driver? What are your expectations?

Brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-13-2013, 07:06 PM
GFaRT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Summerland, BC, Canada
Posts: 5
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARTINSR View Post
That truck is home made, you can do anything you want when you are building something from scratch, when you have to make it work where you have limitations that is a whole different story.

I haven't measured it, but I would say that the track on that twin I beam is at the very least four inches wider than the one in your Chevy.

What are your expectations with your Chevy? Taking on road trips, driving it on weekends around the town, daily driver? What are your expectations?

Brian
The track width of the truck is roughly 7" wider than the Chev, so will have to be narrowed up. I do not expect to use the crossmember or frame rail stubs from the truck at all. It is easy for me to fab up a custom crossmember etc. as needed. In the Chev the engine is mounted about 6" further back relative to the front axle so with the profile of the oil pan there will be more clearance to allow lowering.

Winter is not kind to cars here, but the car will be used as a sunny day daily driver in the summer and for summer road trips such as to Bonneville.

John
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2013, 12:11 AM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,443
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,577
Thanked 1,331 Times in 1,153 Posts
If you plan on changing it so much sure you can make it work, I don't get it, but you could make it work.

Brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2013, 09:08 AM
adantessr's Avatar
'23 T-Bucket Pickup
 
Last wiki edit: Troubleshooting ignition Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: South Charleston , WV
Age: 62
Posts: 1,559
Wiki Edits: 3

Thanks: 54
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
I don't really understand what you have against the front ball bearings. All modern cars have ball bearings in those sealed units. And as for the brakes, there has to be some alternative to changing the whole front axle. Having said that, it is your ride and you are free to do as you want. I am with Brian though, I just don't understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2013, 09:34 AM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,443
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,577
Thanked 1,331 Times in 1,153 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by adantessr View Post
I don't really understand what you have against the front ball bearings. All modern cars have ball bearings in those sealed units. And as for the brakes, there has to be some alternative to changing the whole front axle. Having said that, it is your ride and you are free to do as you want. I am with Brian though, I just don't understand.
I don't believe any car has "ball bearings" they have "Roller bearings".

I understand the front end is antiquated on that Chevy, without a doubt like my Rambler it is an odd beast with the knee action shocks and all. I just don't think the twin I beam is the way to go. I have been told that it isn't my car so I can't this little Chevy the way I would, it is his after all.

But it is such a nice car I just can't see doing much of anything to it. If it were all rebuilt it would drive just fine, I have put thousands of miles on those bearings and brakes and never thought a thing of it.

But alas, it's not my car! Crap, but honestly GFaRT, I still say that split I beam isn't for that car, there are much better ways to go. And you certainly don't need the GIANT brakes that truck has! I just don't get it, why would you need those GIANT brakes?

Brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2013, 09:40 AM
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: General Motors transmissions Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: near Yellowstone park
Posts: 4,479
Wiki Edits: 27

Thanks: 13
Thanked 285 Times in 265 Posts
my opinion

If you want a Six, I would keep it , the trans and computer to run everything and buy bigger brakes for your camero clip. too much work to use the ford chassis parts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2013, 10:13 AM
Member
 
Last wiki edit: Ford axle ratio codes
Last journal entry: Rear Suspension
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Prattsville
Posts: 6,415
Wiki Edits: 31

Thanks: 2
Thanked 61 Times in 57 Posts
Not to mention the bolt pattern on the wheels being the big ford pattern. That F-150 has offset beams which wouldn't work too easy. Cboy made them work, but on a home built with custom rails and ran no hood or fenders.

The stock suspension will hold the 300 I6 easy with some custom mounts. Could even find a column shift 3spd and hook it up to the stock column. No reason to over complicate things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2013, 12:35 PM
GFaRT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Summerland, BC, Canada
Posts: 5
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
First, this car will not be kept all original. This isn't "vintage restorations.com". It is a very nice specimen to work with as there is no rust. One of my first cars back in 1964 was just like this, which I drove in stock form for 3 years.

The 216 babbit pounder splash lube six will run forever putting around town, but just does not cut it on the freeway at 75 or in mountain driving. The ball bearing front hubs are very susceptable to miss adjustment and don't last at all like Timken rollers. Likewise the original suspension and steering has a short wear life and gets sloppy so is not good for freeway cruising in comfort.

As for brakes, I've had an S10 Blazer and the brakes were a headache. The blazer brakes are 'bout the same size as the Camaro but the car is heavier and the wheels are larger. The result is they would often overheat and burn or warp the disks comin' down the mountain. The '48 Chev is a fair bit heavier than the Camaro and will have larger diameter tires (closer to the originals). So I value bigger brakes.

I realize that Mustang II and Camaro/Nova suspensions are most popular for old car upgrades. Both of these options were designed for lighter cars. So you can get aftermarket upgrades for brakes and dropped spindles etc. but I see more $$$ this way. I like factory junk yard parts that will do the same job. So maybe Ford LTD or Chev P/U or ??.

As for the twin I beam, I'm aware that there is a lot of controversy over this suspension. I've heard that on a van the tire wear was horrendous. I've also heard from a P/U owner that liked it better than his Chev. I figgur that a change in the ride height from loading the van in particular, where more of the load can be on the front axle will result in camber and toe-in change that will cause tire wear. So it may be important to be able to easily sdjust ride height such as with air bags or jacking screws over the springs like the stock car racers use. Also improvement to the steering geometry should help.

I have one other wrinkle to consider. I want to put twin turbos on the 300 six. So clearance between the front turbo and the upper A arm pivot might be an issue.

I'm still open on this. Am looking for the best junkyard solution that has good brakes and readily available replacement parts.

John


Last edited by GFaRT; 03-14-2013 at 12:40 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2013, 02:48 PM
MARTINSR's Avatar
Brian Martin,Freelance adviser
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San francisco bay area
Age: 56
Posts: 13,443
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,577
Thanked 1,331 Times in 1,153 Posts
I understand this isn't restorations.com but we are car lovers in general (some of us) not just hot rod lovers. I personally get a kick out of a nice original stocker as much as a radical blown hot rod, they both are one in the same to me, not one bit of difference in my eyes. When I see such a nice stocker I just can't imagine making such big changes that's all.

You are well on your way and you sound knowledgeable, just build it as you wish and we still would like to see it's progress.

Brian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Suspension - Brakes - Steering posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
66 ford truck twin i beam lowering tech igotachevyor2 Suspension - Brakes - Steering 15 12-16-2011 08:45 AM
Twin I beam spindles on a solid axle Chevrolet4x4s Suspension - Brakes - Steering 5 10-11-2008 09:41 PM
H-Beam vs. I-Beam Connecting Rods juiced66malibu Engine 2 10-26-2007 08:29 AM
king pins twin I beam 79 F250 Rob Keller Suspension - Brakes - Steering 29 06-04-2005 01:02 AM
twin i beam chuck 11 Suspension - Brakes - Steering 2 06-12-2004 08:27 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.