Announcement

Collapse

Get more Tips, Specs and Technical Data!

Did you know... this Forum is a service of the Studebaker Drivers Club? For more technical tips, specifications, history and tech data, visit the Tech Tips page at the SDC Homepage: www.studebakerdriversclub.com/tips.asp
See more
See less

Mustang II for a 53-54 Loewy coupe--which ???

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mustang II for a 53-54 Loewy coupe--which ???

    Which company have you used for a Mustang II IFS for your 53-54 ?? Which stage did you buy or help install ??...Thanks....BRAD

  • #2
    Brad...

    Fatman Fab makes a kit for a Stude.. But you will LOSE turning radius, ride quality, and the respect of your peers (ask me, I own one)...
    Rene Harger at Phantom Auto Works in Knoxville, TN makes a Vette suspension conversion (with Rack & Pinion) that is pretty neat....
    But...
    For the life of me... I cannot figure out why someone would succumb to the magazine siren song of swapping a Stude suspension. Just add a Jim Turner disc brake conversion and you will have the most accurate (Ackerman) suspension setup that has been manufactured in the last 50 years (and copied by GM,in the F body Camaro and Firebird, as the 'long arm/short arm' suspension....
    I am a hot rodder at heart, and own a blasphemous belly button powered Stude... And even I won't promote a Stude suspension swap to a brand X......(Except for Phantom's setup)
    Jeff[8D]



    quote:Originally posted by bradnree

    Which company have you used for a Mustang II IFS for your 53-54 ?? Which stage did you buy or help install ??...Thanks....BRAD
    DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
    '37 Coupe Express
    '37 Coupe Express Trailer
    '61 Hawk

    http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock
    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


    • #3
      Well... I can kinda understand the desire to swap. The Stude suspension, I'm told, needs to have the pivots lowered on the upper control arms for ideal geometry, and there's no built-in anti-dive. Certainly when cornering, the inside wheel will have some, um, interesting camber. You could get the same effect as lowering the pivots by cutting the springs which would look cool, but then you would have fender interference problems (and not everyone likes that "in the weeds" look, even though I do.)

      That said, any front end swap or subframe - mustang II or other - will probably be wider than the stock Stude, exacerbating any fender clearance issues or causing you even more work to narrow it.

      The stock setup really isn't *that* bad, and truth be told, if you upgrade the suspension too much and try to take advantage of it too often you will probably start some serious frame/body flexing.

      Now if you really want the best of both worlds (vintage style and modern chassis) Art Morrison is making a complete frame for a Stude C-K body... but it ain't cheap...

      nate

      --
      55 Commander Starlight
      62 Daytona hardtop
      http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
      --
      55 Commander Starlight
      http://members.cox.net/njnagel

      Comment


      • #4
        Stock Stude front end.
        Upper arm attachment point lowered....yea.
        Little Anti-dive....yea.
        No (VERY LITTLE) camber adjustment....yea.
        All one gets by cutting spring coils is a lower front end.
        Stronger thAn ball joint pivots....yea.

        As to the Pinto (Mustang!) stuff, while not my cup-o-tea...do as "you" please, it's "your" car, "you" have to be happy with it....no one else.

        I did my own C4 Corvette front end. The Ackerman is only a coupla inches off, much better than many "conversions". I have light weight components, I have designed in pretty good overall geometry, good camber, caster adjustments, a modified non-power Mustang rack & pinion.

        Again...it's your car...do as you please.

        Comment


        • #5
          thank you for all of the tips on the front end. Also, I just found steeltechsolutions.com on ebay selling disc brake kits for Studes. They have interesting pages on rear axle ID with drawings for many brands. I would like to have power steering too...thanks...BRAD

          Comment


          • #6
            b]Turner Disk Brakes ( http://www.turnerbrake.com/ )..........
            are far superior....in this person's opinion.
            He can deliver quality product in a timely manner.
            Jim Turner is a class act, and his setup is top notch and worth every friggin' penny you will spend.
            Ask me... I own both setups.
            Jeff[8D][/b]
            quote:Originally posted by bradnree

            thank you for all of the tips on the front end. Also, I just found steeltechsolutions.com on ebay selling disc brake kits for Studes. They have interesting pages on rear axle ID with drawings for many brands. I would like to have power steering too...thanks...BRAD
            DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
            '37 Coupe Express
            '37 Coupe Express Trailer
            '61 Hawk

            http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock
            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


            • #7

              You want to spend $15k+ for a frame with a Mustang II suspension???
              That's what Morrison's setup is.
              He has a great business and his mandrel bent rectangular tubing stuff is great, but only one in a thousand here will ever write the check.
              The stock Stude suspension geometry numbers are great, You just can't slide the upper inners around like a ball joint setup.
              Now... The smart cookie will replace the lower studs in the crossmember with a quarter inch+ thick steel plate and longer studs that will accept a spacer plate between the lower a-arm mounts and the crossmember mount (new/lower) plate. This will, in effect use the coil spring as the fulcrum point and lower the front suspension without cutting the spring. (Lower the inner mount will raise the lower trunion...thus lowering the ride height) Think this is a new idea? They used to do this on 1950 Ford's all the time.
              Bump steer? Stude had it figured out....
              Ackerman? Stude had that figured out too....
              The 'Vette setup is a marginal compromise in both those areas..
              Just pulling splinters out from bench racin'...
              Jeff[8D]




              quote:Originally posted by N8N

              Well... I can kinda understand the desire to swap. The Stude suspension, I'm told, needs to have the pivots lowered on the upper control arms for ideal geometry, and there's no built-in anti-dive. Certainly when cornering, the inside wheel will have some, um, interesting camber. You could get the same effect as lowering the pivots by cutting the springs which would look cool, but then you would have fender interference problems (and not everyone likes that "in the weeds" look, even though I do.)

              That said, any front end swap or subframe - mustang II or other - will probably be wider than the stock Stude, exacerbating any fender clearance issues or causing you even more work to narrow it.

              The stock setup really isn't *that* bad, and truth be told, if you upgrade the suspension too much and try to take advantage of it too often you will probably start some serious frame/body flexing.

              Now if you really want the best of both worlds (vintage style and modern chassis) Art Morrison is making a complete frame for a Stude C-K body... but it ain't cheap...

              nate

              --
              55 Commander Starlight
              62 Daytona hardtop
              http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
              DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
              '37 Coupe Express
              '37 Coupe Express Trailer
              '61 Hawk

              http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock
              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


              • #8
                I'm using a Scott's Rod Shop front end. They will custom make them for what you need. Uses Must II spindles and rack. Tube "A" frames and coil-overs. Working fine for me. Have built two with this set-up. Drive well even on MI roads. Drives really well on the roads in other ststes I have been in.
                Bob

                Own '53 Commander Starliner. Red w/beige top. 350 Chev/700R4. Tilt,cruise,A/C.
                Own \'53 Commander Starliner. Red w/beige top. 350 Chev/700R4. Tilt,cruise,A/C.http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j30/Bobphyl/StudeontheBeach.jpg

                Comment


                • #9
                  These guys were mentioned in the other thread. Sound like they would be worth checking out--- http://www.unisteer.com/home.php

                  53commander HDTP
                  53 Champion HDTP
                  61 Cursed Purple Hawk
                  64 Champ long bed V8
                  64 GT
                  64 Champ long bed V8
                  55/53 Studebaker President S/R
                  53 Hudson Super Wasp Coupe

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Jeff,

                    Stude Ackerman, no idea, never layed it out.
                    Stude bumpsteer....Stude missed, at least on my 2 (59 & 60) Lark wagons. I layed it out without a spring on my virgin 60 2dr wagon before I cut it up!! While not as bad as the Chevy II/early Mustang, it's not nearly as good as it could have been.

                    I spent a lot of time designing, laying out the details for my C4 Vette goodies, cutting out sheet steel, positioning and welding the bracketry/steering to achieve a near zero bumpsteer, the correct chamber change in corners, an amount of anti-dive that was a guess per a "roundy round" (computer) chassis program I borrowed, the ride height where I want it and as I mentioned, the Ackerman is about 2" too long.....not enough to hurt anything. Espically concidering the NASCAR guys run it so long it almost doesn't exist!
                    Believe me, no more comprimise here than any other "properly" designed and setup front suspension.

                    And If I may add, in "my" humble opinion....better thAn most.
                    See...the occasional Autocross is in the future for this particular wagon.

                    Take a close look at MOST chassis builders full chassis........they F-up big time..including Morrison (where I bought about half of my parts).
                    They have NO anti-dive, they have NOT done the correct geometry for correct chamber in corners (lean angles), bump steer....what's that.

                    When I asked the guy that helped me why...."most people won't spend the money for the correct setup. Each different wheel base, ride hieght, requires different geometry, that costs money".

                    He was right in all statements...........unfortunatly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Like Deepinhock, I am a hotrodder at heart and have a Fatman's kit in my M-5. It went in as advertized, handles well, tracks straight, and rides well. Turning diameter (outside) is better than the old straight axle at 37 ft., 6 in. and it doesn't try to rip my thumb off when I hit a bump. In short, its a great improvement over the straight axle and I am very pleased with it. With that said, I agree with Deepinhock, improve the existing suspension and upgrade with Turner brakes. Of course, it is your car, and your nickel, so...

                      jj

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Jeff...

                        I think I'm following what you're saying, although at least on the cars I've worked on, those aren't studs but regular Grade 5 bolts... just handwaving in my head, it seems like that might actually work OK - same effect as cutting the springs but without raising the spring rate. Only downside would be reduced ground clearance at the lower inner pivots. And, of course, there's still no anti-dive. If you don't lower the rear you'd actually be increasing caster which would make the car track better, but then again you might be throwing a little more weight to the front... meh. If I thought about this too much I'd end up staying up all night drawing and calculating <G>

                        Only gotcha that I see is that to *really* do it right, you'd have to lower it enough that the upper A-arm would never go "over center" in normal driving, as at least one theory is that that is why sagging front springs rip out the upper control arm mount bolt holes (got some Grade 8 fender washers on mine there...)

                        nate

                        --
                        55 Commander Starlight
                        62 Daytona hardtop
                        http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
                        --
                        55 Commander Starlight
                        http://members.cox.net/njnagel

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A question on Jeff's idea of a plate spacing the lower control arms. Is there any certain thickness that would be best and after such a mod. is ther any change in the alignment specs? I'm not up on suspension mods but I would like to improve the steering and handling on my 53 Starliner [if I ever get it back from the body shop]. Thanks,

                          Darryl C. Lewallen
                          Darryl C. Lewallen Clarkesville, Ga.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It is best to leave things alone if you are not shure of what you are doing and do not have a good grasp on alignment techniques and a good 3D computer program. I bought a circle track program and pluged the Stude specs in it, the program crashed. Called the tech line they laughed at me. You have to remove the complete front end sheet metal run a lazer through the pivot points to the ground it is a 2 or 3 man opperation to get all the points. Then the Stude is so far out of modern specs that the program will not even accept the numbers. Don't even try unless you want to tear your last 3 hairs out.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well said Mike....
                              My diatribe was that there is no easy pill to take to solve a suspension problem, and that the stock Stude suspension is not all that awful bad. Sure, trunions aren't in all the hot rod magazines, but it works pretty well if you take the time to take care of it. Bump steer is about as minimal as you will get, without resorting to a drag link/ idler arm setup. I like some of the Vette adaptations, but like you said, the results are going to depend on the input and workmanship.
                              Jeff[8D]


                              quote:Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten

                              Jeff,

                              Stude Ackerman, no idea, never layed it out.
                              Stude bumpsteer....Stude missed, at least on my 2 (59 & 60) Lark wagons. I layed it out without a spring on my virgin 60 2dr wagon before I cut it up!! While not as bad as the Chevy II/early Mustang, it's not nearly as good as it could have been.

                              I spent a lot of time designing, laying out the details for my C4 Vette goodies, cutting out sheet steel, positioning and welding the bracketry/steering to achieve a near zero bumpsteer, the correct chamber change in corners, an amount of anti-dive that was a guess per a "roundy round" (computer) chassis program I borrowed, the ride height where I want it and as I mentioned, the Ackerman is about 2" too long.....not enough to hurt anything. Espically concidering the NASCAR guys run it so long it almost doesn't exist!
                              Believe me, no more comprimise here than any other "properly" designed and setup front suspension.

                              And If I may add, in "my" humble opinion....better thAn most.
                              See...the occasional Autocross is in the future for this particular wagon.

                              Take a close look at MOST chassis builders full chassis........they F-up big time..including Morrison (where I bought about half of my parts).
                              They have NO anti-dive, they have NOT done the correct geometry for correct chamber in corners (lean angles), bump steer....what's that.

                              When I asked the guy that helped me why...."most people won't spend the money for the correct setup. Each different wheel base, ride hieght, requires different geometry, that costs money".

                              He was right in all statements...........unfortunatly.
                              DEEPNHOCK at Cox.net
                              '37 Coupe Express
                              '37 Coupe Express Trailer
                              '61 Hawk

                              http://community.webshots.com/user/deepnhock
                              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

                              Working...
                              X