Frame and Torque Boxes for 55

[clarkwd]

Using a late model frame in a 55 hardtop would make it easier to use a one piece drive shaft and would add some stiffness, but has a minor problem with the rear body mounts. If you had a 55 that needed torque boxes and you wanted to use a stiffer frame, why wouldn't you just use the torque boxes and body mount hardware intended for a late model car?
Bill

[N8N]

If you go through with this plan, keep in mind that you will also need the rear springs for the GT frame and that there still may be some driveshaft interference with the tunnel as it is smaller on the early bodies.

nate

--
55 Commander Starlight
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[clarkwd]

We have 62 torque boxes welded into a 55 hardtop. There is no middle body bracket but we are either going to weld the middle frame bracket like a 62 onto the 55 frame or use a 62 Frame. The comment above this says there could be a clearance problem between the driveshaft and the tunnel on the 55 body. Is there still a problem if we use a 55 body, a one piece driveshaft and a 62 frame?

Any other problems with the 62 Frame on the 55 that are going to bite us in the butt?
Thanks
Bill

[Dick Steinkamp]

quote:Originally posted by clarkwd
Is there still a problem if we use a 55 body, a one piece driveshaft and a 62 frame?

I think so. Scott Hall used this same combination on his beautiful R2 powered, 4 speed, '55 Speedster (with a '53 nose)...



His car isn't super low, but he did have problems with the drive shaft hitting the tunnel. He solved it with a custom made, small diameter (but stout) drive shaft.

[Lark Parker]

quote:Originally posted by clarkwd


Any other problems with the 62 Frame on the 55 that are going to bite us in the butt?
Thanks
Bill

It's been a while since I put the 55 coupe on the 62 GT frame. I did find out that some(rear?) of the body brackets and the GT frame brackets tried to occupy the same space when I sat the body down on the frame. One or the other had to go -- I think I did away with the body brackets. Not a big problem, just an annoyance at having to lift the body up and do more work after I thought the bottom side was done.

Lark Parker
If at first you don't succeed -- you will get a lot of advice.

[clarkwd]

I think you're referring to the middle brace. On the older rigs the brace is welded to the body, but on the late model cars its welded to the frame.

Where is the interference with the floorboards?
Is it related to the GT Hawk Frame or is it a problem that shows up when you put a one piece driveshaft in a 55 with a 55 frame.

As Mr. Trader points out, it will be easier to correct now then when the body is all screwed down.
Bill

[Jeff_H]

I can only speak to my own experience with a 1pc shaft in my '53 hardtop. I've had floor interference with the shaft and hopefully its finally "fixed" with a 2nd round of floor mods last summer. I was having a problem with the shaft hitting the top of the tunnel just to the rear of the "swollen" area around/behind the center crossmember where the old 2pc shaft had its carrier bearing. I cut the top out of the tunnel and made a taller one to weld in for more clearance. Its still tight with the suspension bottomed out. Part of my problem is weak rear springs. The ride is level normally unless some extra passengers ride or the car goes over a dip. I put some spring helpers in to improve it. Going with a 1 pc shaft ends up with a pretty long one. The shaft shop was nervous about a shaft that long with the small OD I needed to clear the sides of the tunnel. If I was running a high HP motor, I would be looking at a bigger shaft and more radical floor mods.

I do think the comment about the GT rear springs is due to the '58 and later frames have the rear spring front mount in a different spot and the springs are asymetrical and longer(?) than the earlier cars. Seems to me the rear body mounts would then be different.


Jeff in ND

'53 Champion Hardtop