Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Studebaker Steering System Design........

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

  • Studebaker Steering System Design........

    One thing I've always wondered about is the reason behind the layout of the steering system on Studes. I'm thinking that the chassis got an update around '51, and though Studebaker typically borrowed some "better ideas" and components from the Big Three--that doesn't seem to be the case. Because, in spite of that factor, it still had the quirky fore -and-aft steering gear pitman arm, the long link driving the bulky T-shaped knuckle, which in turn controls the super-long tie rods. Now, the long tie rods I can kinda appreciate-It would have lower angles upon suspension deflection(bumps)than say, Chevies with shorter tie rods, thus keeping toe-in variation(and tire tread wear) to a lesser amount during suspension travel. But, other than that.......Why? [?]Guess it is just a philosophical question, that might be readily answered with "Love It Or Leave It", but I still feel it merits some discussion, here. Thanks.

  • #2
    Pretty simple Wally; Studebaker engineers prided themselves with designing their own stuff, their own way and did not copy other makes. Sure it's different... Different by Design! [^]
    Take for instance the "Planner Suspension" of the '40's it was a transverse leave spring. The 1951 to 1966 Suspension and Center point steering was their best effort, and was so good it was was never changed through all those years. Other makes have to have those bothersome idler arms to stabilize the steering and always wear out, not needed with center pivot steering! I appreciate the fact that they never cheapened their cars by going to the short lived cheap "Ball Joints" I laughed when the newer makes advertised their McPherson Struts like it was an improvement, just a cheap way out!

    Only when they could not afford to make it because it was readily available cheaper from someone like Ross or Saginaw Division of GM did they buy a common item like a gearbox, the Saginaw power steering gear box was not only used on GM cars, Studebaker, but also Lincoln and many others.

    I am sure there is no "reason" for the design, just the best, most durable and safe system they could come up with! [^]

    It is expensive to make and expensive to re-build yes, but in the normal 7 year life of a car, does not need anything except 2000 mile lube jobs.

    StudeRich
    Studebakers Northwest
    Ferndale, WA
    StudeRich
    Second Generation Stude Driver,
    Proud '54 Starliner Owner
    SDC Member Since 1967

    Comment


    • #3
      Pretty simple Wally; Studebaker engineers prided themselves with designing their own stuff, their own way and did not copy other makes. Sure it's different... Different by Design! [^]
      Take for instance the "Planner Suspension" of the '40's it was a transverse leave spring. The 1951 to 1966 Suspension and Center point steering was their best effort, and was so good it was was never changed through all those years. Other makes have to have those bothersome idler arms to stabilize the steering and always wear out, not needed with center pivot steering! I appreciate the fact that they never cheapened their cars by going to the short lived cheap "Ball Joints" I laughed when the newer makes advertised their McPherson Struts like it was an improvement, just a cheap way out!

      Only when they could not afford to make it because it was readily available cheaper from someone like Ross or Saginaw Division of GM did they buy a common item like a gearbox, the Saginaw power steering gear box was not only used on GM cars, Studebaker, but also Lincoln and many others.

      I am sure there is no "reason" for the design, just the best, most durable and safe system they could come up with! [^]

      It is expensive to make and expensive to re-build yes, but in the normal 7 year life of a car, does not need anything except 2000 mile lube jobs.

      StudeRich
      Studebakers Northwest
      Ferndale, WA
      StudeRich
      Second Generation Stude Driver,
      Proud '54 Starliner Owner
      SDC Member Since 1967

      Comment


      • #4
        IIRC, the very early Corvettes also used a center point steering quite similar to Studebaker's.

        A Studebaker with the front end and steering components in good shape has very little friction in the steering action. With the car on a hoist, you can move the wheels from lock to lock with scarcely more than fingertip pressure on the tires. Try that with a balljoint suspension. Or Macpherson struts.

        Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands
        Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

        Comment


        • #5
          IIRC, the very early Corvettes also used a center point steering quite similar to Studebaker's.

          A Studebaker with the front end and steering components in good shape has very little friction in the steering action. With the car on a hoist, you can move the wheels from lock to lock with scarcely more than fingertip pressure on the tires. Try that with a balljoint suspension. Or Macpherson struts.

          Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands
          Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

          Comment


          • #6
            1948-1954 step-down Hudsons were arguably the best-handling domestic passenger cars of that era. They used a center-point steering design virtually identical to that of 1951-1966 Studebakers.

            If Studebaker engineers were so inclined, they had plenty of time to [ahem] "review" the new Hudson design already in production and available down the street at the Hudson dealer while planning the all-new chassis for 1951 that would carry them through to the end of production in 1966. [^] BP
            We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

            G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

            Comment


            • #7
              1948-1954 step-down Hudsons were arguably the best-handling domestic passenger cars of that era. They used a center-point steering design virtually identical to that of 1951-1966 Studebakers.

              If Studebaker engineers were so inclined, they had plenty of time to [ahem] "review" the new Hudson design already in production and available down the street at the Hudson dealer while planning the all-new chassis for 1951 that would carry them through to the end of production in 1966. [^] BP
              We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

              G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

              Comment


              • #8
                The Studebaker design of their steering was excellent.
                To build a robust steering system with excellent Ackerman qualities (for street use, mind you) and to have a long arm/short arm suspension to limit bump steer was quite advanced for it's day.
                To do it with trunions made it even more robust.
                Ball joints were/are a concession to manufacturing costs, and assembly speed issues. Look at how fast a ball joint wears out as compared to a trunion.
                Sure, technology has surpassed the setup. But it still holds it's own quite well... 60 years later.
                That's something to be proud of.
                Jeff[8D]
                HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                Jeff


                Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Studebaker design of their steering was excellent.
                  To build a robust steering system with excellent Ackerman qualities (for street use, mind you) and to have a long arm/short arm suspension to limit bump steer was quite advanced for it's day.
                  To do it with trunions made it even more robust.
                  Ball joints were/are a concession to manufacturing costs, and assembly speed issues. Look at how fast a ball joint wears out as compared to a trunion.
                  Sure, technology has surpassed the setup. But it still holds it's own quite well... 60 years later.
                  That's something to be proud of.
                  Jeff[8D]
                  HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                  Jeff


                  Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                  Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

                    The Studebaker design of their steering was excellent.
                    To build a robust steering system with excellent Ackerman qualities (for street use, mind you) and to have a long arm/short arm suspension to limit bump steer was quite advanced for it's day.
                    To do it with trunions made it even more robust.
                    Ball joints were/are a concession to manufacturing costs, and assembly speed issues. Look at how fast a ball joint wears out as compared to a trunion.
                    Sure, technology has surpassed the setup. But it still holds it's own quite well... 60 years later.
                    That's something to be proud of.
                    Jeff[8D]
                    To underscore Jeff's point: Ted Harbit's 1951 Commander Starlight Chicken Hawk is now pushing 140 (yes, one-hundred-forty) MPH in the quarter-mile. [:0][:0]

                    The front suspension and steering are the car's stock, unaltered 1951 design...and most of that car's actual, production-line parts! Ted reports being continually amazed at how well the car handles at that speed as he must control it while shutting down before he runs off the end of The Muncie Dragway and other assorted venues. [^] BP
                    We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

                    G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

                      The Studebaker design of their steering was excellent.
                      To build a robust steering system with excellent Ackerman qualities (for street use, mind you) and to have a long arm/short arm suspension to limit bump steer was quite advanced for it's day.
                      To do it with trunions made it even more robust.
                      Ball joints were/are a concession to manufacturing costs, and assembly speed issues. Look at how fast a ball joint wears out as compared to a trunion.
                      Sure, technology has surpassed the setup. But it still holds it's own quite well... 60 years later.
                      That's something to be proud of.
                      Jeff[8D]
                      To underscore Jeff's point: Ted Harbit's 1951 Commander Starlight Chicken Hawk is now pushing 140 (yes, one-hundred-forty) MPH in the quarter-mile. [:0][:0]

                      The front suspension and steering are the car's stock, unaltered 1951 design...and most of that car's actual, production-line parts! Ted reports being continually amazed at how well the car handles at that speed as he must control it while shutting down before he runs off the end of The Muncie Dragway and other assorted venues. [^] BP
                      We've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.

                      G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Gord,

                        On my Avanti one can not turn the wheels while on the lift....it takes two men to do it or lower the car a bit and use the steering wheel....car has power steering

                        quote:Originally posted by gordr

                        IIRC, the very early Corvettes also used a center point steering quite similar to Studebaker's.

                        A Studebaker with the front end and steering components in good shape has very little friction in the steering action. With the car on a hoist, you can move the wheels from lock to lock with scarcely more than fingertip pressure on the tires. Try that with a balljoint suspension. Or Macpherson struts.

                        Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Gord,

                          On my Avanti one can not turn the wheels while on the lift....it takes two men to do it or lower the car a bit and use the steering wheel....car has power steering

                          quote:Originally posted by gordr

                          IIRC, the very early Corvettes also used a center point steering quite similar to Studebaker's.

                          A Studebaker with the front end and steering components in good shape has very little friction in the steering action. With the car on a hoist, you can move the wheels from lock to lock with scarcely more than fingertip pressure on the tires. Try that with a balljoint suspension. Or Macpherson struts.

                          Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            BobPalma wrote -
                            quote:To underscore Jeff's point: Ted Harbit's 1951 Commander Starlight Chicken Hawk is now pushing 140 (yes, one-hundred-forty) MPH in the quarter-mile.
                            Hmmm....somehow I'd think going mostly in a straight line doesn't count for much at all!!
                            I've seen some pretty cr**py home grown front ends do reasnoably well on the drag strip! Front suspensions that I'd never concider using on the street.

                            Mike

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              BobPalma wrote -
                              quote:To underscore Jeff's point: Ted Harbit's 1951 Commander Starlight Chicken Hawk is now pushing 140 (yes, one-hundred-forty) MPH in the quarter-mile.
                              Hmmm....somehow I'd think going mostly in a straight line doesn't count for much at all!!
                              I've seen some pretty cr**py home grown front ends do reasnoably well on the drag strip! Front suspensions that I'd never concider using on the street.

                              Mike

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X