what other ifs,s is there out there besides the mustang 11 - 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 03-01-2008, 10:56 AM
Deuce's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Choosing a trailer
Last journal entry: Jan 13 2013
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deuceland USA
Age: 66
Posts: 5,657
Wiki Edits: 6

Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
The generally accepted distance for the kin pins to be under most early Fords and most other early cars also is 46 to 48 inches. F-100's that come with Twin I beams under them from the factory have 9 inch Ford rear end that are TOO WIDE to go under early Fords and others without narrowing. So what is the stock king pin distance of a F-100 with the stock Twin I Beam ??

The frame rails on these early vehicles are even more narrow than the F-100 donors ( thus moving the king pin even further out ) ... which would require shortening the I Beam to get the tires and rims under early Ford fenders. Shorter I Beams would mean a choppier ride



My 32 Roadster, with the front tires tucked up under the original steel front fenders uses a 48 inch wide straight axle.



With a 4 inch dropped axle and a reversed eye spring ... it sits so low that the front tires only clear the fender brace by 1 and 1/2 inches.

__________________________________________________ _____





MOST IFS front ends under early cars end up like this ... with the upper A arm way off parallel from the lower A arm ... which results in radical changes in front end geometry ... while driving

__________________________________________________ _____



This is the correct way ... for A arms to be installed. PARALLEL to each other
Unfortunately ... most early frames and fenders before 1933 do not allow this parallel installation.

    Advertisement
__________________


"I won't be wronged . I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. "






Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 11:06 AM
NEW INTERIORS's Avatar
Believe in yourself !!!!!!
 

Last journal entry: 41 WILLYS FRAME
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In My Shop..
Age: 49
Posts: 10,144
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 1,331
Thanked 601 Times in 441 Posts
The Camaro's are not PARALLEL to each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 11:28 AM
OneMoreTime's Avatar
Hotrodders.com moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Health and safety in the shop or garage
Last journal entry: Yard Dog pic
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Age: 70
Posts: 7,431
Wiki Edits: 3

Thanks: 60
Thanked 163 Times in 152 Posts
With regard to the stock width of the Ford F100 ..mine is 59 1/2 inches king pin to kingpin..That could be made up by overlapping the pivot points of the I beams more than stock..of course the steering linkage would have to be modified accordingly...

Might be an interesting project to do..but not right now ...

Sam
__________________
I have tried most all of it and now do what is known to work..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 11:59 AM
Deuce's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Choosing a trailer
Last journal entry: Jan 13 2013
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deuceland USA
Age: 66
Posts: 5,657
Wiki Edits: 6

Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEW INTERIORS
The Camaro's are not PARALLEL to each other.
TRUE ...
But they are unequal in length
__________________


"I won't be wronged . I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. "






Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 12:02 PM
Deuce's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Choosing a trailer
Last journal entry: Jan 13 2013
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deuceland USA
Age: 66
Posts: 5,657
Wiki Edits: 6

Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneMoreTime
With regard to the stock width of the Ford F100 ..mine is 59 1/2 inches king pin to kingpin..
So ... the king pins are almost 6 inches wider ... per side ... than my 48 inch straight axle ... Never get that under a original 32 fender. If the pivot points are on a 32 frame rail ... it would be even further out.

.
__________________


"I won't be wronged . I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. "






Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 12:24 PM
cboy's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: Finished
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Atwater, CA
Age: 69
Posts: 3,918
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneMoreTime
That could be made up by overlapping the pivot points of the I beams more than stock..of course the steering linkage would have to be modified accordingly...
Alerting the width of an T-I-B front end creates another challenge as well. To decrease the width kingpin to kingpin requires either that the mounting (pivot) points be moved OUTSIDE the frame rails creating a potential eyesore OR the use of a wider frame - which then creates problems staying within the stock cowl/body width of a 20'a-30'a era vehicle.

My personal solution has been to retain the stock width/geometry and build the frame and body to accommodate the front end. Obviously this is not an option for most builders of fendered cars. Which has me thinking about my NEXT project. Maybe it's a good time to build one with a narrowed front end to match the stock width axle of a '32 and see exactly what difficulties arise and whether or not they can be overcome. (So Deuce, how about donating a a nice, steel, 32 5-window to the cause!!!!!!!)
__________________
Always learning...and sharing what I've learned. The Scratch-Built Hot Rod.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 12:51 PM
cboy's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: Finished
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Atwater, CA
Age: 69
Posts: 3,918
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Duplicate post ...
__________________
Always learning...and sharing what I've learned. The Scratch-Built Hot Rod.

Last edited by Deuce; 03-01-2008 at 10:20 PM. Reason: Other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 12:52 PM
cboy's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: Finished
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Atwater, CA
Age: 69
Posts: 3,918
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Shoot, now you guys have me thinking about his and I can't seem to get back out to the shop.

Anyhow, thought I'd post up this pic to demonstrate that there is also a natural limitation on how narrow you could make a front end using the stock F-150 axles. Note that to make the front narrower the pivot points have to be moved further OUTSIDE the frame rails. And since the axles must line up with the spindles, the wheels and rotors eventually will prevent any further narrowing. Also, you can see that one would have probably narrow the frame itself as well as the radius rods in order to allow wheel clearance for turning when you start narrowing things up. This then puts the pivot points even FURTHER out from the frame...and more potential ugliness.

No doubt, Deuce raises some definite complication when attempting to use the stock Ford beams under a stock framed '30s car. And I probably won't slept now until I come up with a decent looking solution.

Dang you guys!!!!!!!

__________________
Always learning...and sharing what I've learned. The Scratch-Built Hot Rod.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 02:42 PM
Deuce's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Choosing a trailer
Last journal entry: Jan 13 2013
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deuceland USA
Age: 66
Posts: 5,657
Wiki Edits: 6

Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cboy
(So Deuce, how about donating a a nice, steel, 32 5-window to the cause!!!!!!!)
Sure ... How about this one ??



Or maybe this one ?? It is a LITTLE better than the first one ...



_________________________________________________

A 32 frame is only about 25 inches at the point where the I beams would have to attach ... so it would be extremely difficult to use a I Beam set up under a 32 without some real serious fabricating, cutting ang welding. By the time the end of the axle got where it would be at the 48 inch mark between king pins ... I believe the I Beam would be so close to the frame rail ... there would NOT be room enough for a air bag ...

__________________


"I won't be wronged . I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. "






Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 04:56 PM
F&J F&J is offline
Registered User
 

Last journal entry: 32 Ford cabriolet conversion/windshield
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Connecticut
Age: 62
Posts: 1,571
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I'd like the gold one just fine
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 07:37 PM
cboy's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: Finished
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Atwater, CA
Age: 69
Posts: 3,918
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuce
A 32 frame is only about 25 inches at the point where the I beams would have to attach ... so it would be extremely difficult to use a I Beam set up under a 32 without some real serious fabricating, cutting ang welding.
And the real trick would be to make all that cutting and fabricating look half way decent.

I'm earmarking this thread to pull back up for a look-see when I finish up the sedan delivery. It's certainly a huge challenge...but then that's what life's about I guess.
__________________
Always learning...and sharing what I've learned. The Scratch-Built Hot Rod.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2008, 08:16 PM
powerrodsmike's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Make a fiberglass fan shroud
Last journal entry: Next.. ..Bagging the king B (barge)
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: gilroy, california
Age: 53
Posts: 4,108
Wiki Edits: 161

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Dewey....how about this.. The I beams could be heated and bent into an slight s shape, keeping the pivot end and kingpin end in their same relative attitudes,(positions), but the overall length would be shortened.

Another way... a fixture could be made to hold the axle while compressing the axle in its length, by heating a section in the middle, and pushing the ends toward each other...I know this would work, there is a company called Powroll that shortens forged connecting rods for stroked cranks in motorcycle motors in this fashion. You would wind up with a bulge somewhere in the middle, but under the car, who'd see it?



http://www.powroll.com/tech_specs_st...m#Shrunk%20Rod

(click where it says shrunk rod)


And I know this goes against the grain buy it cheap, and spend the extra money on beer,...I mean your wife... ..but you could buy a couple of tube axles and cut the ends off, welding bungs and putting rod ends on...Like the fatman independent tube axle. but longer like a ford twin I beam.




There , now get back in the shop......


BTW, will you go back and delete your double post? Or do you want one of the other moderators on this thread to do it....

Sam- the Jim Meyer front ends are nice. The one I used had Camaro spindles .
GaryD, aren't the Jag's a little wide for a 30's car? I know I took one off of a 40 ford because it was way too wide. They are nice front ends though.
Later, Mikey
__________________
my signature lines...not really directed at anyone in particular..

BE different....ACT normal.

No one is completely useless..They can always be used as a bad example

Last edited by powerrodsmike; 03-01-2008 at 08:24 PM. Reason: add link to technology intended for something else here for dewey to use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2008, 06:55 AM
grouch's Avatar
Registered User
 
Last wiki edit: How to document your project
Last journal entry: 1949 Olds -- Rotisserie, pt. 9
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 1,143
Wiki Edits: 2

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerrodsmike
how about this.. The I beams could be heated and bent into an slight s shape, keeping the pivot end and kingpin end in their same relative attitudes,(positions), but the overall length would be shortened.
[Disclaimer up front: I don't have a clue about putting a Ford I-beam front suspension under a '32 Ford.]

Shortening those I-beams will result in the tires swinging through a smaller circle which will exaggerate the camber change during suspension travel. This will also increase the cupping of tires that the I-beam suspension is already famous for. Might work; might be too bad to be practical.

I searched for chassis data for an F100 and F150 but couldn't find any good diagram. Best I found was a simple line drawing of the front with the frame rails marked 34" outside. It didn't indicate whether that was at the firewall, crossmember or where.

Did find some interesting info about putting disc brakes on '67-'72 F-series, not that it's directly related to the discussion:
Installing Disc Brakes on Your 2WD Pickup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2008, 08:23 AM
The Maintenance Geek
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Edge of the earth Washington
Age: 54
Posts: 266
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Weren't the early 80's Rangers Twin I Beam?? they're a lot
narrower than the F series...

K
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-02-2008, 08:28 AM
powerrodsmike's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 
Last wiki edit: Make a fiberglass fan shroud
Last journal entry: Next.. ..Bagging the king B (barge)
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: gilroy, california
Age: 53
Posts: 4,108
Wiki Edits: 161

Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Good point, Grouch But a point already taken into account though before I wrote my post.



I never said it was perfect, ...(although there are alot of people who think the F150 is a good front end for a light car, I think it is too much of a good thing. Too much unsprung weight, too much wheel diameter, too wide, way more brake than necessary.) But that's only my opinion.


Dewey said he wanted a solution to a problem. I offered several.
I qualified the validity of my solution by referencing a company that had taken the twin I beam suspension and shortened it to the point that the beams no longer overlap, but now meet in the center.


http://www.fatmanfab.com/catalogpage.php?page=2

How much travel do you think it offers? Not much. Is it a good front end? Not in my book. It looks like one more gimmick. Does it work? It probably works ok to a point, but like anything else, it has it's problems.

Does it work good enough for a reputable company to produce and market it?
Yes, and that should be a statement in itself.
(you can start another thread about "marketing" somewhere else..there are already enough of those.)

The Dominator front end is another example of the twin I beam, shortened up enough to fit under a street rod...



http://www.flamingriver.com/index.cf...349/prd349.htm

The twin I beam tire wear problem is not so bad if you get the ride height correct, and keep your caster down, and your shocks in good shape...

I have a 72 F100 with 325000 miles on it and the tires wear like donuts, but they don't cup.

And as another test of time, here's another car that uses really short arms with a camber angle fixed to the beam... An early VW rear.


Tell me that one is a bad suspension. It has it's problems, yes, but it worked well enough to be used on millions of cars for almost 30 years.

I think Corvair, (often called "a car before it's time")and Triumph used a similar setup as well.

So there.


EDIT IN: just saw the post with another time tested narrow one by Bates k,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bates k
Weren't the early 80's Rangers Twin I Beam?? they're a lot
narrower than the F series...
So there again...

If you want an instant center that is at a point parallel with the road and at the same height as the center of the wheel, use a solid axle...Deuce swears by those....I wouldn't argue with him 'bout that one bit.


Later, Mikey
__________________
my signature lines...not really directed at anyone in particular..

BE different....ACT normal.

No one is completely useless..They can always be used as a bad example

Last edited by powerrodsmike; 03-02-2008 at 09:13 AM.
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
How to properly mate a GM pump to a Mustang II rack Centerline Suspension - Brakes - Steering 73 10-31-2009 11:59 AM
Mustang 11 modification? Larry Day Suspension - Brakes - Steering 1 09-22-2005 08:14 AM
Mustang 11 with air bags wheel-7 Suspension - Brakes - Steering 1 02-16-2005 11:12 AM
mustang 11 cross member 38harry Suspension - Brakes - Steering 0 01-28-2004 12:47 PM
Are Mustang II Crossmembers Safe? Jon Suspension - Brakes - Steering 14 10-17-2003 12:43 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:40 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.