History Looking for history-Vintage commercially built 40 Ford Front coil spring conversion.

Can anybody recall somebody posting on this Forum a version of this using air bags.
It was a quite a few years back now...

 

I never posted, but I have that set up.

 

The car I removed mine from definitely had many miles on it ,and it appeared that it was under there along time. The previous driver may not have known it. Hard to imagine that it made much difference. The springs are very stiff and maybe a little to close to the center of the car. How ever the cool factor is there ,and it is definitely something different, not your bellybutton fronted. I would like to see you use it.

 

Conceptually, this set-up absolutely has no engineering drawbacks compared to a "buggy" spring. As has been noted repeatedly above, it's merely a replacement of a leaf spring with a coil, and a lever arm to allow location of the spring within the chassis. Yes, the spring will need a much higher spring rate to provide the correct effective spring rate at the axle due to what looks to be a lever ratio of maybe 2.5 to 1; no problem, assuming the lever and spring pockets are designed accordingly. I doubt there is any weight penalty vs. a leaf spring.

There would be a potential advantage on "ride" due to the lack of spring inter-leaf friction. This may be imperceptible compared to a Posie's spring.

The principal disadvantage is aesthetics, particularly on a non-fender car. This could be lessened by moving it behind the axle, but then the stock perch/shackle arrangement and chassis crossmember could not be used.

Assuming tube shocks will be used, and located near the wheels, it makes sense to just use coilovers. These were available "in period", although not in common use by rodders.

Another option would be torsion bars, which would allow for ride height adjustment. These could be adapted from old Jaguars, Morris Minors, Mopars, VWs, etc., and could be located behind the axle.

By the way, coil springs fail by cracks starting at the most highly stressed areas, which is the surface. Early failure is therefore promoted by rust.

 

Not sure if this is it, but saw this posted by Hilo Hotrodder.......

 

That's exactly what I have.

 

I welcome all the interest, please get back to the main subject of the thread, the history of these parts.
I would like to know the time frame of when they were built, where ect...

 

Roadster could you take a better resolution shot of that page...I'd like to be able to read the text especially the part and patent numbers...

That is the key...

@Robert J. Palmer there are fabbed coils on the way I understand but the coils your bud has are not as depicted but I would expect there were variations depending on application...

 

Robert here is @Roadster1929's thread on what seems to be exactly what you have...and it seemed quite complete...that was a rare bird...

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum...ver-conversion-for-your-ford-mercury.1045408/

Shame to see stuff like this disappear but yeah pretty cool...just part of the evolution...is your friend building a highboy or fendered.

 

Furthur visual on your Friends coils leads me to believe my eyes are bad...

They do seem to taper off towards the top as well so I stand corrected by my own observation...

 

I believe it is in patent, it's just difficult to nail it without a number and how and what is input in keywords...

I've snooped a bit but it can be as difficult as finding that second pic of some of these old hotrods we dig up...

 

That is how they designed it and it was placed that way for aesthetics, load leveling and performance...they in designing it may have had it in many locations and road tested it obviously...

I guess by 1947 the frames were boxed or were they? I'm thinking if this was designed in the 30s with unboxed frames it may have been an issue with flex and stress...I'm sure Robert's Buddy has boxed his frame with that mill in there however...

 

Was that a build thread by Hilo Hotrodder?
I tried searching but found nothing, it must be old then...

 

Conceptually,,,
I see it adding clutter
Adding unsprung weight
making a very simple design more complex in its nature without any major benefit.

Empirically,,,
if indeed Ford did have an inherent problem with transverse spring suspension there would have been earlier design changes. There also would be more popularity on a conversion kit that offers no engineering drawbacks and actually solved a problem. Certainly Chevrolet would not have used a ford design for it’s flagship nor other GM vehicles.

Obviously,,,,
If the transverse spring design was problematic it’s use would have been discontinued long ago. Yet today it’s use has been consistent and constant thru the last century plus/ is still in current production models across the globe.



Sorry Robert no history but every bump brings you closer to the poster who might have it.

 

I didn't imply the coil spring & lever arrangement solved any problems, or had any advantages, other than possibly minimizing friction. It's just an alternate way of doing the same thing. I doubt that there is a noticeable difference in unsprung weight.

I don't think GM was envious of the early Ford suspension design. Ford gave up on a basically inferior suspension in 1949, by doing what Mopar and GM were doing for years. That Ford clung to this design till '48 is consistent with their attachment to mechanical brakes till 1940.

Please enlighten me on current production cars that still utilize the pre-48 Ford arrangement. There have been much newer cars, including some sports cars (Cobra, Corvette, Triumph) that used transverse leaf springs but they are not solid axles, and are unrelated to Ford's antiquated design.

Don't take me wrong; I wouldn't dream of utilizing a non-pre '49 Ford front suspension on a Rod.

 

When I did a Google search, a link come up to a 1950 issue of Popular Science. I went the through the entire magazine, but didn't see anything, but I could have easily have missed it. You can search the entire series of POPSCI on line if you wish as I'm sure there is a reference to this somewhere, but it seems it was from the late forties (48-50?).

Ps. For those complaining about the number of ads in today's magazines, I suggest you go through the first 100 plus pages of ads in the link below.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=KS0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=automotive+household+company+spring+conversion+kit+for+ford+and+me+r&source=bl&ots=5yK4RDJdqS&sig=ACfU3U0dDt6mdJa6GDE45Eem_vXHwWxtzA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEi9LQgeXmAhVEhOAKHWmXCMUQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=automotive household company spring conversion kit for ford and me r&f=false

 

This conversion kit only changes the spring and nothing else. Yet There’s not a problem with transverse springs. So my comments reflect that change in spring only.
Transverse springs can be found in corvettes all the way up to the current model year. Some GM W body cars with RPO high performance suspension. Volvo and Mercedes currently use a transverse spring to name a few. There’s nothing wrong with a transverse spring.

On the unsprung weight,,, I’d love to be able to have the car infront of me with a set of scales. It should be At least 1/2 the weight of the added lever arms that appear to be constructed much like the heavy axle itself.

Yeah it’s kinda cool like a lot of this old shit is.

 

Took some reading to understand. Key being use of stock shackles & axle. Camber & steering all same as original axle- split wishbone or not. Unstrung weight is half stock spring versus half new arm & coil - one end of each attached to frame so not unstrung. Would expect slight increase looking at parts. Like the idea of coil overs for ease of adjust height to weight carried. Or use airbags. Either of those seems better then coil over. All sort of cool & sure different.

 

As I thought I made clear, I in no way favor the subject coil spring & lever design, nor do I feel opposed to transverse leaf springs. I doubt that any of the modern leaf cross-spring arrangements you reference have solid axles, therefore have no relevance here. I suspect some or several have monoleaf springs, which eliminate the friction disadvantage, and minimize leaf spring weight penalty (further reduced if non-ferrous material).

I disagree that the subject spring/beam arrangement has a noticeable inherent disadvantage regarding unsprung weight. If engineered, rather than configured by the local blacksmith, the calculated contrbution to unsprung weight would be 8.1 lbs per wheel. This is based on the attached tapered rectangular tube design, using half the beam weight (12.2 lbs) and one quarter of the total estimated coil spring weight (8 lbs), as appropriate. This pretty much compares with the stock Ford suspension, having an estimated contribution to unsprung weight of 6 lbs, which is 1/6 the weight of a 36 lb spring, as appropriate.

If the spring "beam" were made of a section of a Ford beam axle, the contrbution to unsprung weight would be about 3 lbs greater than with a fabricated beam. This would reduce the stress level, but would be unecessarily conservative, since a standard beam axle must accept static vehicle load moments, as well as the cornering moment resulting from the lateral force at ground level.

The attached calculations show a maximum stress of about 18,000 psi in the engineered beam; the yield stress for garden-variety mild carbon steel is 35,000 psi, and about 50,000 psi for a moderate low alloy.

The design indicated is based on some reasonable assumptions, e.g., load at wheel, maximum bump, length of beam (maybe a little long), and spring constant.

 

Steve's: "The hand built chassis with tubular cross-members appears to consist of a simple dropped solid axle front suspension, but is actually much more complicated. The dropped axle is not a solid tube, but rather a split unit that allows the front wheels to articulate independently of each other. Each half of the axle is mated to a cantilevered push/pull rod that runs inside the frame rails to horizontally mounted coil-over shocks located beneath the “A” pillar under the passenger compartment."
http://www.stevesautorestorations.c...llery/double-dozen-roadster/completed#gallery

 

@Robert J. Palmer, difficult to pinpoint that setup...but I did find mention of the Company run by a C. W. Burbridge in 1950 by that Automotive-Household Products CO. out of Oklahoma canvasing for Inventions/Ideas for $

Patent wise found some along similar lines but Not this but again they are difficult to nail down due to search criteria...Chances are Burbridge Assisted with an invention and Put his Companies Name on the Product without mention of who invented it...

I find that photo of the suspension overview vague on details...typical of instructions in a box eh!



https://books.google.ca/books?id=K9kDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=automotive-household+products+co.+C.W.+Burbridge&source=bl&ots=QHSL0OT7GR&sig=ACfU3U0qHa5Wyq6-Qpj0R50GYNlqjqvu-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiwzb3pnvbmAhUxU98KHQ0TBJEQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=automotive-household products co. C.W. Burbridge&f=false

His Obit...He did invent himself and perhaps all his achievements were not realized in print...

He was also big into decals as well in the 40s so maybe some of them old racing stickers hailed from Oklahoma as well...

https://oklahoman.com/article/2462907/robert-o-burbridge


​

 

Thanks for posting that info on the Steve's roadster.
I actually saw the last unit being assembled at their shop in Portland OR.
However was not allowed into the assembly room but saw enough from the viewing area to get my attention.
It would be nice to better understand how Steve worked out his system.
It got me thinking a long the Ford F100 twin I beam style I guess.

 

This would have been a whole lot easier to explain if the first picture had included the axle.

 

We didn't have the axle at hand, but I never asked how it work, Tim and I already knew how it worked!

I asked for the parts history, who made it. It was everyone else who asked and debated about it.

At no point did I say anything about it being an independent suspension. I didn't mind explaining how it worked once, but that should have been enough. If people wanted to debate it they should have started their own thread! The fact the King Pin Boss and coil spring mount boss are 90 degrees to each other should have been a clue that it wasn't an independent suspension.

We are used a right spindle on the left it is what we had for the photo

 

Thank-You @Stogy

 

Is this going to be a period build right down to the Bias Plys Robert...full fendered or Highboy...I always am amazed at the huge mass of innovation put forth by those with mechanical minds throughout the entire Hamb period of Focus...

I get it when I search those patents many failed dreams. That said failure may have been not always due to an inferior product...

I'm excited to see this come together...

Even more, I want to know how it performs once you fellas iron things out...

 

It was fun reading over this post, And learning that they made at least two of these unique conversions. Fun to learn a little bit more history and just how smart the HAMB Audience is. I still have one coil spring left if you would like a spare ,Just pay shipping . Good luck with your project.

 

This one came out of a 46 Ford. My friend still has it. He also has been trying to get information on it for a long time. Here in Fresno California