Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C5/C6 Corvette IRS and IFS Kits - Dobbertin

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

  • Frame / Springs: C5/C6 Corvette IRS and IFS Kits - Dobbertin

    Has anyone seen these kits that allow a relatively universal installation of C5/C6 suspension components?

    http://rick486.wixsite.com/dobbertinperformance

    He has an established kit for mounting a C5/C6 IRS which consists of two large cast aluminum mounting blocks that then bolt to 2"x4" flat rectangular frame tube. He also has a service for narrowing the original C5 cradles to fit different track width spacings.

    They have also developed a similar setup for the front independent suspension as well and anticipate its release early 2018.

    It certainly caught my eye and was curious if anyone else has looked into it.

    Thanks!
    Wayne
    NEW Studebaker owner
    1953 Champion 2-door Sedan(project)


    1954 Studebaker Commander Coupe

  • #2
    Nice stuff.

    Couldn't tell if he did it "right" though, not just pretty.
    GM went to a LOT of work (money spent) to set the control arms at the correct angles for optimum handling. Just bolting everything in parallel to each other isn't going to provide Vette handling on the receiving chassis.
    Hopefully, with all that nice work, they did the geometry right too.

    Mike

    Comment


    • #3
      He claims his geometry exactly matches, and accuracy is superior to GM's, so hopefully...................

      Comment


      • #4
        Rick Dobbertin is a legendary hot rodder and fabricator... True talent.

        http://www.dobbertinhydrocar.com/Ric...rtin%20Bio.htm

        http://www.hotrod.com/articles/rick-dobbertins-j2000/

        http://www.dobbertinhydrocar.com/Dob...20Orbiter.html
        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


        • #5
          Right, while his bracket bolts flat onto a frame rail, all of the suspension pick-up points are not flat and claim to be identical to OE. The accuracy claim to me sounds like marketing and may be an inherited claim of the part casting accuracy but I'm not hung up on it.

          The very enticing aspect to me is it simplifies a would-be custom frame fabrication. All the running gear mounting is solved (and even potentially engine mounts if you go LS) and one just needs to solve additional crossmembers and body mounts.

          Can we talk likely bottom sheetmetal fab required for such a thing in a C/K car? Likely big changes in trunk pan, wheel wells, and packaging for fuel tank and mufflers. C5 cars actually have two separate fuel tanks/jugs connected together by a large hose and mount at opposite sides of the car.
          I'm thinking the front might actually work out fairly smoothly?
          Wayne
          NEW Studebaker owner
          1953 Champion 2-door Sedan(project)


          1954 Studebaker Commander Coupe

          Comment


          • #6
            Width is a BIG deal to be under a Studebaker vs. most other bodies.

            When I put the C4 Vette front end stuff under my 60 Lark wagon, I could NOT use the stock frame width or even the OEM Vette cross member. I had to have a big "U" shape bent into the tube (frame stubs) to get the tires properly under the fenders.
            The rear will also need to be suitably narrowed..! THAT's a bit of "new" and additional engineering from the off the shelf kit.
            Nice thing...I can run 4" wide wheels for drag racing, I can also run the 9" Vette style wheel..."under" the stock fender..!

            Mike

            Comment


            • #7
              Width is a BIG deal to be under a Studebaker
              X2, MVV. When building my custom Hawk, I rolled a C4 front suspension under it to check the possibilities. It would have required substantial narrowing. That, plus the wheels necessary with that suspension use extreme negative offset, much like a FWD. It's just cosmetics, but I never liked the look of the flat faced Vette wheels. Yes, there are more traditional style custom wheels available.



              Modifying a Stude to handle better, go faster, be more comfortable, is a very steep, very slippery, very expensive slope. I've done many radical Studes and finally accepted it's impossible to make an old car as good as today's new ones. But that's OK, as there's no longer the open spaces to drive them fast and hard any more. (OT, but urban traffic congestion is the #1 reason young people today don't even bother to get a driver's license.)

              If there ever is a next Stude build, mine will stay mostly Stude; completely rebuilt suspension, late kingpins, late front, early rear sway bar, Koni shocks, front disc brakes will probably be the extent of the changes to the running gear. Engine, well, that's another story.

              jack vines
              Last edited by PackardV8; 11-29-2017, 09:01 AM.
              PackardV8

              Comment


              • #8
                Not sure if you saw it but they also narrow the C5 cradles. Anywhere from 1-13" taken out.
                http://rick486.wixsite.com/dobbertin...r-width-corvet
                I would estimate needing 6-7" off to fit a Studebaker? Though one could play some games with wheel offset and maybe still not have the flat wheel look. Frame members would certainly be considerably more narrow than stock frame.

                Mike, do you have any pictures of the front of your Lark?
                Wayne
                NEW Studebaker owner
                1953 Champion 2-door Sedan(project)


                1954 Studebaker Commander Coupe

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Studebaker-Buick View Post
                  Not sure if you saw it but they also narrow the C5 cradles. Anywhere from 1-13" taken out.
                  http://rick486.wixsite.com/dobbertin...r-width-corvet
                  I would estimate needing 6-7" off to fit a Studebaker? Though one could play some games with wheel offset and maybe still not have the flat wheel look. Frame members would certainly be considerably more narrow than stock frame.
                  FWIW, what I found narrowing the C4 front cradle was the upper A-arm inner mount running into the exhaust manifold. That's a tight point on Stude V8s and a very tight point on the '56J Packard V8.

                  As to changing wheel offset, that's bad science on those front ends. The suspension geometry is optimized for that one offset. Changing the offset very much does bad things to the steering/handling that was the reason to go it in the first place.

                  jack vines
                  PackardV8

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Are there any levers that can be pulled that aren't geometey based to improve the affect of different offset wheels? I think my question is does spring rate have an affect and if you went with coilovers in place of the transverse leaf you would have that adjustment available.

                    That's a good point on engine width and clerence. It will certainly have to be considered. Do you have any pictures of your setup?

                    I have located a local front and rear(no transaxle) loaded C5 cradle/suspension setup that I plan on picking up this weekend. I already have the same in C4 variety (with differential) but the C5 geometry is more attractive to me. I think my base plan is to do some exploration measurements and see what makes more sense and also utilize CAD.
                    I also have a parts collecting addiction.

                    I'm resisting jumping on the $300 plus shipping savings that Dobbertin is running which ends tomorrow. The mistake could end up costing more than $300...
                    Last edited by Studebaker-Buick; 11-29-2017, 12:28 PM.
                    Wayne
                    NEW Studebaker owner
                    1953 Champion 2-door Sedan(project)


                    1954 Studebaker Commander Coupe

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I had a pic or two of a 63 Avanti with the front and rear trucks from a C4 mounted. The owner never said it wasn't manageable or didn't handle right...


                      http://www.studebaker-info.org/AVDB1...1384x1110.html
                      Last edited by 64V-K7; 11-29-2017, 04:02 PM.
                      64 GT Hawk (K7)
                      1970 Avanti (R3)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X