Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Upgrade front suspension?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Frame / Springs: Upgrade front suspension?

    I have seen Fatman and Heidts front suspensions for Avanti/Hawks. If I have a refurbished and properly aligned original Avanti front end with new Koni shocks, SI springs, quick steering arms, Mustang Cobra front disc brakes and radial tires, would I see any cornering improvement with a "modern" Mustang II setup? Note: I'm hoping to have the Jaguar Independent Rear Suspension I'm working on installed in the spring.

    Thanks

  • #2
    Why not.. if you are 'upgrading' the rear you might as well do it end to end.

    We just put a Fatman IFS kit into a 47 M-5, (4 link out back, Horton Welder Series), it was very well designed and went in quick, the one in the link is even easier than than, just buy the bits you want to attach to it.

    http://www.industrialchassisinc.com/?product=1953-1964-studebaker-front-clip



    Bill Foy
    1000 Islands, Ontario
    1953 Starlight Coupe

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Springstreet View Post
      I have seen Fatman and Heidts front suspensions for Avanti/Hawks. If I have a refurbished and properly aligned original Avanti front end with new Koni shocks, SI springs, quick steering arms, Mustang Cobra front disc brakes and radial tires, would I see any cornering improvement with a "modern" Mustang II setup? Note: I'm hoping to have the Jaguar Independent Rear Suspension I'm working on installed in the spring.

      Thanks
      Are you taking about a Mustang II cross member or a front clip??

      Treblig

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Billy View Post
        Why not.. if you are 'upgrading' the rear you might as well do it end to end.

        We just put a Fatman IFS kit into a 47 M-5, (4 link out back, Horton Welder Series), it was very well designed and went in quick, the one in the link is even easier than than, just buy the bits you want to attach to it.

        http://www.industrialchassisinc.com/?product=1953-1964-studebaker-front-clip



        First I have seen this! Seems to be all welded up and ready to graft on a studebaker frame.
        Charles

        1961 Lark Regal VIII 259/auto -- Lucy

        Comment


        • #5
          Not unless it includes after market tubular control arms both upper and lower. Stock Mustang /Pinto pieces were junk. You may get a lighter unsprung weight, which will help. The only advantage I can see with all of this is a slightly better camber change. Unless you are racing another car in a twisty road course, you won't notice the difference in every day driving, especially for the investment!
          Plus, you are probably going to have a rack and pinion steering, They won't last in Vermont frost heaved pot holed roads. You will be replacing them every 5 years.
          What do they use for springs? Coil over shocks are very expensive, and durability is not their forte.
          I don't know of any system that has been a daily driver for any length of time, with a ride that the owner had been satisfied with. Everyone seems to think that the adjustability of a coil over is a great deal. Adjustability of what? Ride height? That's all you have, ride height changes do not change the spring rates!!!
          It will probably eliminate factory weakness of frame cracking behind the cross member. It will probably give longer lasting upper inner bushing wear.
          Last edited by bezhawk; 12-16-2016, 07:06 AM.
          Bez Auto Alchemy
          573-318-8948
          http://bezautoalchemy.com


          "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

          Comment


          • #6
            So the thousands of car enthusiasts out there that have been running this type of set up for decades are living a lie, Heidts, Fatman, TCI, Morrison, Welder Series and list goes on.


            I do not see piles of R+P 's or control arms laying by the way side discarded do to premature wear. You also do not have to use coil overs, you can actually order set ups that use good old coil springs and shocks.

            I get it, some people are just stuck on traditional engineering, some choose to update, their car/money, their choice.
            Some do it just because they can, why can't we just accept that.

            Rant over...Merry Christmas
            Bill Foy
            1000 Islands, Ontario
            1953 Starlight Coupe

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Captain Billy View Post
              So the thousands of car enthusiasts out there that have been running this type of set up for decades are living a lie, Heidts, Fatman, TCI, Morrison, Welder Series and list goes on.


              I do not see piles of R+P 's or control arms laying by the way side discarded do to premature wear. You also do not have to use coil overs, you can actually order set ups that use good old coil springs and shocks.

              I get it, some people are just stuck on traditional engineering, some choose to update, their car/money, their choice.
              Some do it just because they can, why can't we just accept that.

              Rant over...Merry Christmas
              I see piles of factory R&P in most repair shops....at least one a month. All of these hot rod setups are usually not driven as every day drivers in horrible road condition situations. Face it most hot rodders are old rich and trailer there cars to events.
              Doing it because you can doesn't get you a better setup. The original question was will it be better than the highly modified system he has on his car. I answered THAT. I also stated IF it had better control arms than the PINTO crap that the so-called Mustang II stuff is. Look at a Stock Mustang II lower control arm, and strut with giant bushings, and tell me that that will handle well. It has to have modern triangulated one piece lower control arms.
              Me stuck in old fashioned engineering??? I guess you never payed any attention to any of my posts, or visited my website, or read my blogs.
              Bez Auto Alchemy
              573-318-8948
              http://bezautoalchemy.com


              "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

              Comment


              • #8
                I agree with Bez If you have a new and up graded stock system for the cost you will gain little to nothing. Now if your system is all worn out and bent yes it will drive better with a mustang two. But so will it if you rebuild what you have.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I see we are back to "Mustang II" suspension discussion. Obviously none of the conversions, have anything to do with the original car, or design of, the original suspension on them. I wonder why the name sticks to them. Changing the suspension, using the original frame, makes as much sense as adding an independent rear from an old obsolete vintage car. If you're going to "modernize" a Studebaker's road worthiness and handling, and just want the looks of the original--change, and engineer a whole new chassis and put the body on it. As to worn out rack and pinions, they are piled next to the worn out Saginaw, Delco, Delphi, ad infinitum steering boxes of the past. Use anything long enough and it wears out. Most of our cars will never see 50-100,000 new miles of driving, so probably, wear, is not an issue. As we have all said before, your car, your time, your money, and your results may be different. Just my $0.02.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by swvalcon View Post
                    I agree with Bez If you have a new and upgraded stock system, for the cost you will gain little to nothing. Now if your system is all worn out and bent, yes it will drive better with a mustang two. But so will it if you rebuild what you have.
                    X3 - A completely rebuilt and properly aligned '62-66 Studebaker front suspension and steering drives as well as the aftermarket hotrod systems I've driven. Only problem with the '51-61 kingpins is they do not allow sufficient caster for really high speed driving.

                    And yes, comparing a worn-out Stude suspension with a new hotrod clip is same as those who have a worn out compromised drum brake system and then rave about how much better an all-new disc conversion stops.

                    It will probably give longer lasting upper inner bushing wear.
                    Since wear of the upper inner A-arm pivots rubber bushings is the main weak point of the '52-66 Stude front suspension, who agrees the recommendation should be to install the '51/R3 steel bushings as part of the rebuild? What are the NVH tradeoffs? Who prefers delrin or other synthetic to the steel bushings?

                    Changing the suspension, using the original frame, makes as much sense as adding an independent rear from an old obsolete vintage car. If you're going to "modernize" a Studebaker's road worthiness and handling, and just want the looks of the original--change, and engineer a whole new chassis and put the body on it.
                    Agree in theory, but you're one of the few who might be successful. In practice, attempting this has resulted in the destruction of many an old car. Those trying this seldom have the large amouts of time, talent and cash to accomplish it. The on-line sites, craigslist and Hemmings are strewn with grand dreams/failed projects. Most every custom shop has for sale a half-finished build where the customer ran out of money and/or interest.

                    jack vines
                    Last edited by PackardV8; 12-16-2016, 10:23 AM.
                    PackardV8

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Changing the suspension (frt. or RR) on an old frame is not that bad of an idea. Despite other comments. Been there..!

                      On the other hand... Just cutting and welding on a Fatman, Heidts, Kugel, Alston, etc., etc., will not gain you much of anything, except for some skinned knuckles and a lighter wallet. There's a lot of homework that you'll need to do to gain any real "performance" in driving.

                      Why you ask... Because for a front suspension to work "properly"...it needs its parts to work in more than one single plane, unlike the Stude or the many/most kits on the market. With the control arms parallel with the ground, like the Stude and most kits, the car will go down the street fine.
                      But it will not perform well under adverse conditions, such as taking a corner at faster speeds, braking hard, braking hard/accelerating hard in corners, etc. In other words, driving harder than normal, just driving down the road. With the varying suspension angles you can place the upper and lower control arms at specific angles to gain specific suspension control, all of the above mentioned things can be better/well controlled.

                      Now...if driving hard, a little faster than the norm, etc. is not your cup of tea...as others have suggested, just update, clean and paint the Stude suspension. There's none tougher. You just won't be able to do much hot rodding in your driving style.

                      In short, to gain much of anything positive in car control, is not easy, quick, or cheap. You'll need someone with real suspension knowledge to help you design the proper geometry. The (some) above companies can do this for you, it'll just cost you more than the off the shelf "kit" suspension...

                      Mike

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hey guys, Captain Billy Linked my website for one of my front end clips and have been reading some interesting stuff here.

                        First off, let me say that I am in no way trying to spam your forum. I am just trying to give you guys information that will help you make decisions.

                        I know a little about the stock Studebaker front suspension, and a whole lot about the Mustang II front end. The Mustang II was one of the first "tall spindle geometry" IFS front ends to come from the major car manufacturers. Back when it was new, they were throwing out terms like "radial tuned suspension" to show there was a change in the way the front suspension worked. The "tall spindle" was a departure from the old way of thinking when everything ran on bias-ply tires. Radial tires being a soft carcass needed to keep the tire more square with the pavement as the body would roll. And in some instances, create negative camber to help push the tires contact patch back flat on the pavement.

                        Studebakers had a relatively tall spindle compared to the likes of GM, Ford, MOPAR so the faired better when radial tires came around in the 70's. Still, there is room for improvement. Geometry aside, it's the steering system that confounds my customers the most. Installing anything but a stone stock engine is a pain to work around. And if you want power steering, that's a whole other problem.

                        Mustang II suspensions are cheap. The problem is that everyone with a Harbor Freight MIG and a chop saw can "build" you one. What has happened in the 25+ years that I have been involved with using the Mustang II is that wives tales have grown into truths that everyone takes for granted now, like the control arms being parallel to the ground. This causes some of the funkiest driving characteristics I have ever encountered. Instead of a simple change in Camber to negative under compression and a change to positive under rebound, you get a more erratic change that unseats the contact patch and you lose cornering traction. Not to mention it upsets the weight balance enough to be felt in the seat.

                        While you can have the lower control arm level, it is preferred that it be slightly higher at the mounting point and the uppers be lower at the mounting point than at the spindle connection.

                        The next issue that comes up is ball joints. I would much rather prefer that the stock Mustang II lower ball joint be used than the commonly used K772 UPPER BALL JOINT that is used in almost all aftermarket tubular control arms. You can look it up, this ball joint is not used in OEM applications as a lower ball joint. Instead I use a K719 ball joint, it will thread into the same socket that the K772 will but has a larger stem that requires a bit of machining on the spindle, but more importantly it is designed to be a lower ball joint and loaded in tension. I have actually solved driveability issues just by making this change.

                        Not all tube arms are created equal. I would hesitate to state that you will lose unsprung weight by switching to tube arms. Rarely have I ever seen that, but more importantly is the material used to construct these parts. I have seen some of the cheaper control arms made from .875"X0.090" Wall ERW tubing instead of the 1.25"X0.125 Wall DOM tube I use on my lower control arms. Granted, the Stude is a bit lighter on the front end than a '74 Mustang II V8, but that's no excuse to skimp on safety.

                        Things to also consider are the bushings being used. Some arms are available with HEIM joints which can transfer more road energy into the chassis and are prone to wear, some arms are using oddball polyurethane or even MDS-filled Nylon for bushings. When these wear out (and they will) you most likely be stuck buying a new set of arms if the manufacturer doesn't still carry the type of bushing you need. Or you will be machining your own new bushings. (something I have had to do)

                        Cheers

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          My take as someone who has driven, all three studebaker-engined 200mph Avantis with Stude steering, and one of those at 223, (along with my street Avanti with a front-end nearly identical to the one you describe AND with a Jag XKE rear-end for 20 years), you would not benefit in any meaningful way from a cut and weld redo. I would also suggest you set the end-play of the center bell-crank at zero, or if you want to deal with it differently you can make them accept ball-bearings and eliminate ALL extraneous movement when turned. Also, despite what everyone else may say, even with radials I'd recommend a little toe-in... just my nickel's worth since you asked. All the best!

                          And, a point you may wish to think about... one that most don't usually mention--is frame rigidity, IF the aftermarket set-up one uses replaces stock cross-members. As built by Stude it is reasonably good in this regard IF NOT a rusty pos. I've seen some mods that remove the big front cross-member (and, usually the bell-housing one, as well) with little to show in the way of replacement than small tubing. Just another thought... I'm sure I've exhausted my supply for the day, and then some!
                          Last edited by Xcalibur; 12-16-2016, 02:51 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Interesting post. every time i stop by my local front end shop, and there dumpster full of ragged out control arms, to visit and catch up they tell me how lucky i am to have the old re-buildable system. to many disposable parts on modern car's both foreign and domestic. it costs me a pizza now and then but when i stop by in a stude it attracts business.plus i like to keep up with current trends. each to his own! Doofus

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was going to write something, that I thought might be something profound, just kidding, but what has been posted by Mike, Xcalibur and ELpolacko point out many of the issues of changing a system that was designed well enough for most of what we do. Unless one is prepared to do a lot of homework, or pay for it, it is best to leave well enough alone. Get it back to stock, or better, and maybe add some tweaks to make it better and it will serve you well.

                              Len

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X