Thread: Need some input

Tweet

Hi Guys,
This is my first post on this forum. I'm working out some details for my next project. This will be a street rod based on a 1951 Chevy Deluxe 2 door coupe. I have the car and a low miles 1976 Cadillac 500/turbo 400 combo. I will be leaving the engine stock. The car already has a later 10 bolt rear and I'll probably let it stay. Does anyone have any experience with this set up? Also trying to decide what to do with the front end. I really want to work with what I've got. I could blow my whole budget on just the front end if I get carried away with a mustang II conversion. Plan on just giving it a rebuild and somehow dropping the front end about 3-4". I haven't seen any dropped spindles for this car and had actually thought about making some plates to offset(raise) them about 2" and get the other inch or two at the springs. Has anyone done this before? Or any other "low buck" way to accomplish getting that front end down without creating another problem? Also plan to use modern firewall mounted master cyl/booster and update the front brakes to disk. Found a company (ECI) that makes adapters that fits the stock spindles and uses 2nd generation camaro disk/cailipers but open to any other suggestions. Hoping to hear from some been there, done that guys on the 49-52 Chevy but feel free to throw any ideas or suggestions at me.

The drive train should make for a fine cruiser as long as the installation is done well, and the mechanical condition is up to parr.

Fat Man Fabrications makes dropped spindles for your car, but their reputation is inconsistent. And unsafe welded spindles are not something to triffle with. By the time you fiddle with the spindles, springs, rebuilding the bushings, maybe the steering box (which might interfere with the engine anyway), and all that it takes to make a good performing, safe front end, you'll be in it close to what the MII setup could cost you. Check out these folks for a handy front end, and other components, for your car. http://www.chassisengineeringinc.com/

Three inches is a pretty good drop (not counting air bagged cars here), four is pushing it unless you're real disciplined about your driving style and the roads in your area are NICE. Far be it from me to try to talk anyone out of a good lowering (just look at some of my stuff in my photo gallery), it's just that you need to be prepared and alert to conditions at ALL times.

I took the front end off of a '76 Firebird for my '51 that way I ended up with disc brakes. Had to box in the frame and make sure to take all the measurements correctly so that the wheel base remains the same but most junk yards have these and you can typically pick them up fairly cheap. Then replace all the brake parts with new and your good to go and makes for a nice ride!

Did the same on my Ford pickup with a Nova clip. I would go this way if using a big motor. Those front end kits using Mustang 11 parts are just niot made for heavier cars.Just my opinion.

Rodding is about modifying for sure. Backyard engineering is part of the process. That being said, there are a lot of practices that people "get away with" that pass for success. Lots of '49 to '54's have been "front clipped", and if I had to guess, based on years of seeing the good, the bad, and the ugly, at least half of them have been done wrong (from a safety and positioning stand point). As pointed out, with careful measuring and lots of trial fitting of the sheet metal, placement can be done well. Then the equally critical part comes, welding the clip on properly. Usually this entails not just welding the "new" front frame section to the "old" existing rail ends, but also fish plating and gusseting.

Now comes the point that will get the hackles up. I will acknowledge that, as pointed out above, there are a lot of Chev's out there that have "gotten away" with clipping. I had a '41 Chev that went for years with an extremely well done installation. The question might be though, how much real world use have they gotten to point up stress issues. Here's why I bring this up. There has been a fair amount of discussion over the years about the difference in chassis twist and stress transfer between the two types of frame rail design involved with the clip adaptation, and the rigidity of the mating zone. (some of you guys have your mind in the gutter here don't you? ) For those reading this not familiar with the Chev chassis, the original frame in your car is a formed "C" section, open to the bottom, with a riveted "boxing plate", to close it to a "square" section. They also didn't use an X center member so the torsional flexing went the entire length of the rails. The typical clips used (GM mid-size fronts from the late '60's-early'70's) are a formed "box" by welding two "C" sections together at their open ends. That gives the front clip section a different torsional action, when going over bumps, through dips, drive entrances, pot holes, etc., than the rest of the chassis. That stress difference will concentrate in the weld area where the two actions intersect. Now if the welding were done VERY WELL it might not show up for years, if at all. If the welds are "marginal" (which could span a very wide spectrum), then stress cracks could show relatively soon. It's kind of a wild card.

You might note that the original front suspension is bolted in rather than welded. This was intentional by the GM engineers because they understood the dynamics that they designed into the chassis. Just some things to think about. Here's a link to a tech article on installing the CE front suspension system I referenced above. http://www.rodandcustommagazine.com/howto/1603/

SPECIAL NOTE: THESE COMMENTS ARE PARTICULAR TO THE CHEVROLET FRAME AS NOTED!!


Oh, BTW, that business about the MII suspension being too light duty we've kicked around before. While it seems logical, at least superficially, because the Pinto was a "small" car, that suspension design was used on cars that had gross weights (Mustangs with V8, AC, PS, PB, etc) upwards of 3200#. Can't remember ever seeing any on the roadside with collapsed front ends. The Cad engine weighs very close to the same as the Stovebolt six. So, lots of things for you to consider.[COLOR=red][COLOR=red]

INPUT

I am not an engineer and don't know a lot of what was said in your post, although I get the general idea.

However, I did do a lot of carefull measuring before cutting anything. I did this truck 10 years ago, have driven it every summer. I towed my 19 ft house trailer with it to the Indy Natioanls in 95, and down east to Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island in 96, so I have no quams about the sturdiness or safety of my installation.

I don't know, maybe I just got lucky.

I guess I would opt for the Mustang 2 syle, I don't use the stock arms from the Mustang, I get the components with the tig welded tubular arms and the big brakes. Used to do the camaro clip deal, but my personal opinion is that the M-2 is a lot cleaner and neater looking when done. The rack and pinion steering frees up a lot of room for headers, etc. , and all the sheetmetal mounting points remain intact. Just my opinion.

Thanks for all the info. It looks like the M II is the prefered way to go. I think I might have overdone it when I said 3-4" drop. If I only need 2" drop, would I be wasting effort with just the 2" drop spindles and update the brakes to disk? If I went this route is it practical to adapt a power rack & pinion? Not trying to get anyone to do my research but you guys have the experience. Thanks again.

Just use a Must ll power unit or a Flaming River unit. You will have to modify thr GM pump regulator spring. If you don't, you get no "road feel", steering is too light. Kinda reminds me of sixties Chrysler products.

Welcome to CHR

Hey guys, I'm new on this site and have been searching for over a year to find help on cutomising a 86 camaro without going broke, I want to use a firebird or trans am hood on my maro but I don't know whether or not it will work. Is it possible or should I just forget about it all together.