Thread: Need help with Track width

Tweet

Well, ebay is only one source. There's also Craigslist, Auto Trader, Fordbarn, the free classified papers that seem to be in every town, Deals on Wheels, and so on. Swap meets are still golden, and of course the best source.........networking with other car guys.

The next 10-20 years are going to be golden for younger guys who like these kind of cars. As we pre and early boomers near 80 we're going to be getting out of the hobby out of necessity.........dead or alive. Since you're new to this portion of the hobby I'll just say, there's more "stuff" out there than you can imagine. My generation and somewhat earlier have been packin crap away for decades. Some of us will begin thinning out our stashes thinking ahead to make it easier on our survivors, or because we need the money for medical stuff, or just because we get old, cranky, and disinterested. Others will die and their widows will have to deal with it. If you watch ebay for instance, you're already beginning to see a regular trickle of years long collections pop up. I posted a thread on a flathead cylinder head collection last week I think.

The point is, if you get yourself connected with like minded people, look seriously for what you want, you'll find it cause it's out there and, I believe, will be out there even more in the not too distant future. If it trickles out gradually over time, the pricing won't change a heck of a lot (ignoring the genuinely rare, unique, high value stuff), but if it starts to come in larger spurts then the prices will actually drop ..........................good ol' supply and demand...........works both ways.

I’m currently building a ’48 Ford sedan and spent a lot of time looking into the different frame options during the planning stages of the project so perhaps my observations will help you.

The stock front track on the ’48, when measured from face to face of the brake drums, is about 58 3/4 inches. Note that this IS NOT actual track width because it does not take into account the wheel offset.

I have a copy of the Early Ford V-8 Club of America’s 1941-48 Book that states “Beginning in 1942, Fords had a wider front and rear tread, longer springs with different shackle configuration and redesigned radius rods.” So although the wheelbase of your car and mine is the same (114”) your track is narrower. This would seem to substantiate Richard’s number of 56 ½ inches.

With that said, the first thing that caught my eye was the picture of your car. The front wheels seem to be sticking out quite a bit farther than what I would expect from an ‘80’s Monte clip which I believe is a G body metric chassis with an approximately 58” front track. Do you think you may have an earlier ‘70’s Monte front clip? They are considerably wider, although I don’t know by how much. What is the center to center measurement of your front tires and what is the wheel backspace? I’m building my own chassis using the front and rear frame clips from the ‘80’s GM metric series frame, and standard offset wheels fit fine underneath the ’48 fenders. The distance between the inside lips of the front fenders on my ’48 is 68-3/16 inches.

I agree with the other posters that you really need to look at the quality of the fabrication of your frame as you decide which way to go but I must also say that I’m not a big fan of shortened A –arms. A lot of engineering goes into the geometry of the front suspension and this kind of fix can adversely affect camber gain, roll steer, and roll center location and therefore should be approached with extreme caution. Also, one other question: What is your rear suspension? Do you still have the transverse leaf or has the car been changed over to parallel leafs or something else? I ask this only because if you need to change the back end as well as the front it might affect your overall decision.

The Mustang II style front end doesn’t look like a good alternative for you because you no longer have a front frame to attach it to. Now I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me, but personally I wouldn’t use the MII stuff (or its derivatives) for a larger daily driver even if I did have a complete frame. I don’t think it’s up to the task in the long run and there have been some failures documented both on this forum and the HAMB forum. I just think that the Detroit engineered stuff is the best bet for this type of application.

So on to the S-10. I looked very closely at this option for my project but didn’t go for it primarily because I wanted rear coil springs. ( I may end up with parallel leafs after all is said and done due to potential back seat to upper rear trailing link issues but that’s the stuff for another post.) In your case, I think the S-10 might be an attractive option IF you have the time, patience, work-space, and fabrication skills to tackle this job because the frame will have to be modified or it will end up looking like Bob’s picture. There are a number of different wheel-base options for the S-10 and I would recommend using one that is longer than 114” because it’s a whole lot easier to shorten a frame than it is to lengthen it. I think the standard cab with the 8 foot bed is 118” WB so it would be easy to cut 4” out of it. BTW, the front hub to hub width that I measured on a mid ‘80’s S-10 was 54 ½ ‘’ and the rear was 54”. If you go this route you may have to adjust your wheel backspacing some. One last thought on the S-10 is that it is very similar to the G series but it is narrower so engine and header clearance becomes more of a concern AND the front mounted steering box is an issue. I know that on my ’48 it’s REAL tight on the front because the grill is right up against the front of the steering box. A big plus is that many of the suspension components interchange with the metric cars including the spindles so inexpensive dropped spindles are available.

The following is a cut and paste from the HAMB forum:

fordnutz
01-25-2004, 01:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have any information on putting a 1940 ford pickup on an S-10 frame?

[/ QUOTE ]

A 40 pickup will work on S-10. Always use the long wheelbase versions, 118 or 123 as they are easy to shorten. Factory seam on the frame. My buddy has a 39 deluxe 2-door on an S-10. The steering box just clears the front fenders, the frame has to be cut even with the box. The rad will be a little offset, but it works. Won't work on a 41 ford car front end, but 42 and up will work. 39 standard and older won't work. The fenders don't clear the steering box.I am putting together a 48 coupe on one. Works good. Someone did an article in a mag once about adapting a rack to the S-10, but the jist of the article was don't bother. Too many problems.[/I]

And finally, as I’ve been writing this I’ve found myself thinking about a first gen rear steer Camaro front clip. It might be a little wide but the steering is behind the axle. If it were me, I might even think about cutting the cross-member and narrowing it if need be and, of coarse, motor mounts and oil pan issues would have to be addressed but all that stuff is available off the shelf. Perhaps you could replace the Monte with this clip.

Hope this helps

Mike

Did not get to the car this weekend. I will get some pics as soon as possible. Once again, thanks for all the info. and help so far. Bob, thanks for the other areas to find things. As for the parts stash, my brother and I will be at Moultrie, Ga swap meet 11/17, 18, 19 to decrease the size of our fathers'. He had to move to CA and said that now that the '37 is abut finished he can get rid of a lot of stuff that has been hanging around. We have Model T and A parts, a '27 T tudor running and driving as well as a second '27 T tudor body.

[QUOTE=m.mcc
The Mustang II style front end doesn’t look like a good alternative for you because you no longer have a front frame to attach it to. Now I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me, but personally I wouldn’t use the MII stuff (or its derivatives) for a larger daily driver even if I did have a complete frame. I don’t think it’s up to the task in the long run and there have been some failures documented both on this forum and the HAMB forum. I just think that the Detroit engineered stuff is the best bet for this type of application.

I would have to disagree with your thoughts on the MII suspension. The quality MII kits are as strong or stronger then the suspension they replaced. There are many, many more on the road with thousands of trouble free miles then there are with some sort of freak failure..... Any failures I've seen are from poor design and welding or just plain abuse. I've been installing MII suspensions for better then 20 years and have never had one of them fail....
Nothing is bullet proof, and some idiots could make a Sherman Tank Suspension fail......

In this case it would appear someone has either used the wrong clip or cobbled up the installation of it... I've seen a whole lot more front stub swaps wind up like this then I've ever seen MII QUALITY packages fail......

[QUOTE=Dave SeversonNothing is bullet proof, and some idiots could make a Sherman Tank Suspension fail......
.....[/QUOTE]



Just to expand to Dave's comments, there's an old saying, "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear". Now that's cynical overstatement for effect, but based in reality.

I've read some of the commentary you're referencing, and there may be a modicum of truth in there somewhere, but as Dave said, my impression of these remarks is they overstate the case. No doubt there have been failures, but we're taking about an area where there's no control of the workmanship. A lot of those comments I've read take the Fat Guy to task, again, maybe there's some truth in it, but probably not as bad as it looks.

Though you didn't mention it directly, several of those comments run out another old saw about MII suspensions that is erroneous. I suspect a lot of people who write those things have never owned/installed/had anything to do first hand with a MII system. It's often said that MII is too light duty for these older, "heavier" cars. Well, that's bogus, probably based on visual assumptions rather than knowledge. The heaviest of the actual Mustang II's tipped the scale around 3400 pounds which is not out of the ballpark for a '40's Ford, Chev, so on. With QUALITY fabbed control arms, the capacity of the stock parts is at least equalled if not exceded. But the buyer needs to be aware there are gypos out there making junk too.

Well Guys, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree or perhaps just sorta disagree. But, hey, that’s what’s great about Hot Rodding……you build ‘em your way, I’ll build ‘em my way.

The way I see it, It’s a matter of application. I don’t agree with the manufacturers and vendors who seem to be promoting that one size fits all. It’s one thing to put Pinto suspension under a Model A roadster, it’s all together another to put it under a pick-up truck with a cast iron big block and a bed full of building materials. I wouldn’t be surprised if when Ford dropped the 302 into the Mustang II that they were already approaching the upper design limits for those parts. So my personal choice would be to seriously consider other options for applications over 3000# to 3200#. And that’s exactly where Peter’s car will be.

It’s a moot point if the aftermarket parts are as strong as the parts they replace if neither is appropriate for the application. I must mention here that the MII “systems” that have eliminated the lower struts and use a relatively narrow base tubular lower A arm with the mounting bolt (s) running parallel to the centerline of the car (and in shear) really scare me. It would take strong engineering documentation to convince me that this stuff is “as strong or stronger” than a triangulated strut system.

The auto makers build a certain amount of safety margin into their designs and specifications so I have no doubt that there are a lot of Hot Rods out there with the Pinto parts that are over the original weight specifications and have not experienced any failures. But they are operating in a zone that I am not personally comfortable with. So this brings me to design philosophy. Personally, I’d rather overbuild than underbuild when it comes to a daily driver. I like the security of knowing that there’s some margin of both safety and maintenance requirements in my design.

I agree with you that there may be some small amount of truth to the reported MII failures and I brought it up because knowledge of this becomes part of the basis for making intelligent and well-informed decisions. Perhaps us talking about it will prompt Peter and others to search the boards for this subject so they can decide for themselves.

Mike

Well, I'm no scientist, but I will tell you that mine don't break

"I must mention here that the MII “systems” that have eliminated the lower struts and use a relatively narrow base tubular lower A arm with the mounting bolt (s) running parallel to the centerline of the car (and in shear) really scare me."

I'll have to agree with you here, they are scary to me and I won't use that design although I see nothing wrong with the MII strut design except that there is too little negative camber gain on bump to suit me.

Pat Ganahl wrote once that he sees several crumpled up front suspensions each year. It wouldn't surprise that they are something like the narrow arm design.

Oh yeah, the narrow lowers are real scary!!!! Wouldn't put one on a coaster wagon...... Lousy engineering... The wide lowers are pretty much regarded as the quality, heavy duty units... And as far the wide ones I posted the picture of, they are .090 DOM tubing, way stronger and way less flex then the stamped steel factory ones. I guess we should compare apples to apples, huh?