i know it used to be popular to run a spring in front of the front axle on model a's.is anyone runnin this set up?got pics ?advice?thinking about it on my 28 roadster.
Since you asked, I've always thought the spring in front looked way to bulky and out of proportion. Easy to switch to spring on top or behind. Good luck either way. If you already own this setup, the wishbone is a good length to use for split and if its early (exceplt like a lincoln zepher or something else huge) you can buy spring on top perches and run a model a spring. Spring behind requires you mount the spring off the wishbone. Too far behind looks rat roddy but spring just behind the axle can extend the wheel bas just enough to make it look fast.
Popular?...wouldn't say popular. Would say those who did and do are using what they can find, i.e. 35-48 Car and pickup front ends, rather than 28-34 front ends. The wheelbase is reduced if the spring is mounted in the A crossmember so a spring mount in front of the radiator is recommended.
For me its the side profile that tells the story. The relationship between the center of the front wheel and the grill shell is what kills it on cars back in the day and now. But if you can pull it off without the front wheel looking too far back like an Autocar truck then why not.
easy there, feet are harder to remove from the mouth than they are to get in there! here's one of my absolute favorites. and i'm sure a few HAMBers would agree this is no r**r**. the khougaz roadster restored by steve moal.
Yeah really... Other fine examples of early cars using later spring in front suspension lifted from various hambv threads would be... the isky T roadster, John Athans A roadster, Lil Deuce coupe, Frank Mack's T roadster, and on and on...
I love that roadster, the bellypan is sick. Honestly though, I still think the spring in front is the least attractive of the options out there.
I wonder if the Khougaz roadster comes close to hitting the steering arm on tight left turns? It's the first time I ever noticed... however, I love that car.
i love the isky T! and until you mentioned it i never noticed the lil' deuce coupe was spring forward. note to self!
i may be wrong. i was always under the impression moal did it. maybe he did some of the aluminum work? i'm not sure.
never saw many A's around here in new england, but many 32-34s were done spring ahead. Like was said, work with what they had/afford. You could go to a wrecker and grab the motor/trans, front and rear out of a 39 and get a quick rebuild that lowered it, and upgraded it to a better motor/trans and hyd brakes....and for cheap money. If you see it on old builds, it looks right at home, if taken in context with the period.
And judging by his username, he probably thinks the milner '32 is a good looking car! I better just shut up now before the legions of milner-clone fans cyber-pummel me into submission...
Spring in front is for 35 to 48 fords. It makes the grill stick out like a pig nose. Z that roadster would look 10 times better with the axle 4 forward.
Old build from the Milltown show. Yes, lots will hate it but it IS an example of hot rod building in the 50s. Look at all the junk on the firewall.. I love that stuff....and who could hate THAT sbc?
didn't mean to cause a fight,i like the look and have a complete running 39 chassis.keep the pics commin'.thanks
im thinking of this same setup on my '28 leather back coupe, and i would like to see it from the side.
I've seen some construction photos of the Mack roadster being built and I believe the front crossmember was moved forward to compensate for the front spring. A side view of the car reveals that the front tire/wheel combination site perfectly with the custom formed grille and nose piece. Frank
ok so a couple examples where some big sheetmetal changes or chassis mods made the car look somewhat in proportion, but lets face it the isky car? looks good? lol the only reason that car got any attn. was cause of who owned it. it appears as though someone slammed on the brakes and the body slid forward. and that milltown meet pic.. whoa, i think i just threw up in my mouth. makes milners coupe look like a ridler winner.
Form follows function. Aesthetics based on bubblegum and Koolaid drinker thinking leads to Disney-like cars. All motor vehicles are driven from inside out. Early rods were based on mechanical needs rather than looks. The idea was to eliminate excess. Chopping the top made speed being one example. Chrome is another. Engine chrome holds in heat. Black engines dissipate it. Lowering the mass of a vehicle lowers the center of gravity. In bare knuckles racing there are no esthetics, and sticky friction tape around a steering wheel gives a more positive grip. Any takers on that? Old bootlegger cars, from which my roots derive, were turds outside and ran like stink. Looks being deceptive, we think too much with our eyes and forget that it is our heart that beats faster when the speedo hand is buried. At that point it's all a matter of 'good parts' that work. This whole thread about the looks of one school's solution to a basic problem facing car builders begs the question of availability, as has been noted. Even the builder of our current out of favor style, the rat rod, whose builders are scraping the bottom of the barrel for parts, must conform in some respects to the need to start, stop and turn. All of us build stuff to travel in, I would hope. At that level, when the final bolt is turned and we put our trust in what we know, if it falls apart because we make it look cool instead of addressing basic questions of geometry and metallurgy who's the fool? Those with the axles behind the spring, on top, or what?
The Jalopy Journal
