Frame / Springs: Top A-arms & king-pin

[Noxnabaker]

I wonder if Studebaker used the same "stupid" set-up until the bitter end with the top A-arm pointing downwards when the lower is parallel to the ground?
Couldn't they just made a taller king-pin/spindle?
& what about other brands (exept Chrysler Corporation) of the same years?

[Skybolt]

Even the Avanti II used it until their first major change in about 1987. I could be wrong on the date but it was used for all late Studebaker production.

[Mike Van Veghten]

Funny...we went over this just a month or so ago....LOONG thread.
You can either just cut into the crossmember and lower the upper arms attach point, or do what some have done, put a modern front suspension under the car.
I designed my own setup to hold the C4 Corvette suspension goodies.

Be very carefull about doing your own though. Many design steps must be followed so you don't end up with a lot of money, time...down the proverbial drain, and a car that handles worse than a stock Stude....OR...making yourself "believe" it works better thAn stock because of all the time and money you spent making the change.

Many aftermarket suspensions are no better also....buyer beware..!

Mike

[PackardV8]

I wonder if Studebaker used the same "stupid" set-up until the bitter end with the top A-arm pointing downwards when the lower is parallel to the ground? Couldn't they just made a taller king-pin/spindle?

Sort of like saying, "Why did Studebaker use that "stupid" cast iron flathead/long stroke six cylinder until the bitter end? Couldn't they just have made an all-aluminum DOHC direct-injected computer-controlled twin-turbocharged engine?"

No, because the Studebaker suspension design made perfect sense on 1950 roads with 1950 tires. That sixty years of increases in highway speeds, tire design and suspension engineering has improved cars shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

FWIW, even with all the might and money of General Motors, Chevrolet Engineering used a front and rear suspension very similar to that of the Studebaker under the Corvette from 1953-62.

jack vines

[Mike Van Veghten]

Jack -

Very good comment..!

Mike

[sweetolbob]

To what Jack and Mike said, My 83 Avanti has a completely rebuilt suspension and roll bars, alignment setup by a very good shop, 15" X 8" wheels with low profile radial tires and a couple of hundred pounds less in the engine bay. It may not be a Bahn-Stormer like a Bimmer or Benz but it tracks great on the road and it is stable as fast as I want to drive it.

Bob

[Noxnabaker]

All I wanted to know was IF they used it until the end & Skybolt answered, thanx!

Yes Mike, I do remember very well!
(& I still have a few ideas but I keep them to myself since it seems I only irritate otherwise.)

& yes jack, I do know that Studebaker was short of cash most of the time & had to skip a lot of stuff because of that & it goes a long time back.
So: double over-head cam engines like for example Jaguar & Alfa Romeo in those days?
Turbo? Scania Vabis only made trucks as far as I know...
& computer?

I think that if Studebaker had the money in those days then maby Chrysler never had got to the torsion-bar suspension since they at first didn't wanna be accused of copying Packard.
While Packard & Studebaker was...
But that's only my thoughts...

Hope I don't upset anyone now, I only wanted to make myself clear.

[Mike Van Veghten]

Nox -

Interesting comment - ""(& I still have a few ideas but I keep them to myself since it seems I only irritate otherwise.)""
Since you seem willing to "ask" questions, you should "also" feel free to donate your knowledge and or thoughts to the rest of us...good or bad.

I seem to irritate occasionally also, for various reasons. BUT, a one way street isn't fair (looking for free information but not paying back). I know some of my irritation to others, stems from pointing out the obvious when others can't/won't. Some comes from just being a pain sometimes. Again...BUT I feel I donate enough good information, that helps also.

So...that said....what "are your" thoughts ?

Mike

[RadioRoy]

As for me personally, I don't work at being a pain in the a$$, it just comes naturally.

[Noxnabaker]

Well then Mike, it was 'in the old days' of the "modifying front suspension"-thread when I came to think about put'n the inner pivot of the lower A-arm through the balk like I've seen on Volvo Amazon (122 in the states), & thinking that it would do the same as lowering the A-arms inner top pivot.

The thing is now that if anyone is interested in that conversation then it's fairly easy to search it & read, I'm to lazy to write it all here...

At the time I had other ideas too but now my mind has put them on a shelf to be searched later on when there's more time for that kinda stuff.
Anyway; I felt some really irritated answers there. So I lay low.

& I don't mind at all to share the few stuff I've learned; I've been a US car-owner since x-mas day -78 (& 6 Europeans before that) & since then I've had roughly 45-50 American cars & I've driven them long & hard & done some work sometimes on them since I don't trust folx who only work on cars because you pay them & for no other reason at all.
Mostly it's been Mopars but also a huge bunch of Chevys, then Buick, a -64 & a -81 Cadillax, 2 mustangs, 2 Falcons, & a Fairlane, maby I forgot some car but so what?... oh yeah, 3 Ramblers also... & a couple of Internationals, the -62 was a mighty nice one...

& it's been ranging from -46 (a Chevy truck & a Plymouth) until -89 (a Dodge van)
The best cars (giving me the least trouble) I've used for longer periods was a -62 New Port & a -50 Windsor.
(The -62 New Port had a road-holding that would out-run many newer cars (even BaderMeinhofWagen) but the -61 Belvedere wasn't as good even thou it's almost the same car & lighter & had a s.b. while the New Port had a b.b....)

So far so... off topic!

[bezhawk]

This is interesting, call something "stupid" about Studebakers on a speciffically Studebaker site.....and then take offense when it's defended.

[showbizkid]

The OP is not a native English speaker. Let's cut him some slack.

[Skybolt]

Nox, to answer your original post question about the taller spindle. If you go back over the front suspension post you mentioned there are details of Studebaker making modifications to their own kingpin setup to modify the geometry. Original Studebaker manufactured parts but not put into full production. They included a modified lower trunnion assembly that raised the kingpin and dropping the inner pivot pickup point in the chassis and I have heard of a slightly different kingpin but have not seen one. There are some other modifications but those were the major differences. This would have been easy enough for Studebaker to put into production, or a new owner to ask for, but time ran out.

So, for us to get hold of this new, Studebaker, setup as a whole unit is almost impossible. Some of the original parts are around but one can not find them on a production car to strip off and use. The aforementioned front suspension thread dealing with all this is dormant for the moment but the work still goes on behind the scenes. The latest is the research into the 1993-02 Camaro spindle. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=380519998604 the main problem is it could be to tall. I have not gotten the specs yet but all the issues of brake location and steering arm attaching points are easily modified and are already being done by others.

I have many smaller projects that need completing before I can get into finishing the front suspension job. I have been off work due to a work place injury for the past four months, so even my Lark, which all this work will be done on is in a state of limbo, and hopefully I will be back before the end of the year so serious work can resume.

Don't hold back on the ideas as we can always use new prospective, even if at first we don't accept them. Sometimes we need different stimulation to move us along. Your idea from the Volvo is not out of the question, and could be done, but as I mentioned in the other thread, it was not inline with what I was working on and has merit for someone wanting to modify in a different way. You also have to realize that if I, or anyone else, doesn't agree with you, or want to go down the same path as you, it doesn't mean they are irritated. It's just a matter of preferences. You are talking about modifying the chassis. I was avoiding that at all costs. Just a matter of personal preference and to call it an irritation because I didn't want to do it your way reflects your irritation not mine.

I know away from this forum you have corresponded with my brother and he say you have some good ideas and you should share them but realize as we all do at times, that some ideas sound good in our minds but when they come out they aren't that good. But this is why this site is a sounding board for such things. One should not get offended but use the critiques as help and sometimes guidance. It has worked that way for me and has shown me some areas of my inadequacies. I sulked, pouted for a while but took up the challenge and modified my ideas and moved on.

Len.

[rusty nut garage]

You nailed it Bez!!

This is interesting, call something "stupid" about Studebakers on a speciffically Studebaker site.....and then take offense when it's defended.

[Noxnabaker]

I've been reading the comments over again & I can't see anything as me being offended, I actually didn't take offense at all, I just tried to explain.

But if possible to remain the original topic: I remember the "knuckle" piece from the old thread but this time I just wondered if it was the same until the end or if maby Avanti II had something else, but no.
& I also remember that my idea about the lower/inner pin through the balk (such as for example on Volvo 122) fell on the fact that it wasn't a bolt-on trick.
(One little side-info about Volvo's: The 122/Amazon (1956-1970) had quite good road-holding & is a well-balanced car, but the follower 142 (1967-1974) is far worse!)

But anyway, this kinda takes care of it all now, doesn't it?