37 – 57 BOP (Buick, Olds, Pontiac) suspension and disc brake upgrade. For those of you who are newbies, or just new to BOP’s, we have the answer. As with all custom modifications, there are lots of variables and side issues. Since there is almost no Information or aftermarket parts for these cars, this will be as much Tutorial as Tech Article I am going to divide this into sections, with more detail than most people want, so you can jump over the stuff you already know. Also I need to put a disclaimer here. Most of this info came from other sources including members of this board, hence the “we”, I’m merely trying to put it all in one place. First, let’s look at what the problem is. With minor variation between models and years, all BOP share a common frame/front suspension setup. (Not Chevrolet – The other 3 GM’s that are referred to as the 3 ugly stepsisters). The front suspension is made up of unequal length upper and lower control arms and coil springs. The coils sit in a spring pocket on the lower control arm, and a spring perch built into the frame design on the upper end. Steering is thru a kingpin steering knuckle. Alignment is accomplished with an inner and outer concentric screw adjustment in the upper steering knuckle mount. (accessible by removing the grease fitting and inserting an allen wrench into the hole). There are two types of shock arrangements. Roughly 37 – 49 (not all 3 changed the same year) have a lever action shock that is built into the upper control arm and serves as the upper control arm mount. 50’s models went to a separate tube type shock. Some internal to the spring, some external. The upper control arm is still a fixed frame mount, with caster/camber adjustment in the concentric sleeves. These cars actually drive reasonably well, and this basic technology was a mainstay for 50 years. So, let’s talk specific shortcomings. <o></o> First, these cars came with zero to ½ negative caster. Negative caster makes the car easier to turn and gives greater control in deep muddy ruts and other bad road conditions prevalent in the 40’s and 50’s. (Maximum speed limit nationwide in 1940 Was 45 MPH.) Generally speaking, positive camber will help the car Steer itself and stay centered and stable at todays highway speeds. High positive caster became more common as power steering became common. <o></o> Conversely, Manual steering is fine at speeds, but parking lots will give you an upper body workout so you can drop your Golds Gym membership. Manual steering works best at about 2 ½ to 3 degrees of caster, which is a compromise between high speed stability and slow speed turning effort. Due to the up and down only rotation of the control arms and Cross rotation of the king pins, any attempt to add more caster is fraught with problems. Anti dive geometry is impossible in this setup. On the pre 50’s models the lever action shocks also present problems. (Aside from the fact they are hard to find and run about $200 each plus $100 core charge if yours aren’t rebuildable). Even in perfect working order they have shortcomings. They are basically a stock only application. Raising or lowering the vehicle puts them out of their designed operating range. Increasing or decreasing weight with engine/trans swaps alters their effectiveness. I should also note here that the hubs/drums run on ball bearings. While serviceable if properly maintained, it is generally agreed tapered roller bearings are stronger, more stable and stand up better to continuous high speed driving. (Ball bearings are now hard to find and cost about $200 for the full set. By comparison a full set of tapered<o></o> bearings will run about $25). <o></o> Brakes are non power 4 wheel drums with a single reservoir hydraulic system, enough said.<o></o> With this basic understanding of the issues, we can start to discuss solutions. Most attempts to gather advice will result in 2 stock answers, Mustang II or GM sub frame. Personally I think the MII is a totally misguided answer. It may work well on Chevy’s, but they have a straight frame rail, so installation is straight forward and weight is within specifications. For BOP’s the frame rails is neither flat nor straight, plus there is that built in spring pocket, so modification of the frame rails would be required, and there is still a weight issue. The GM sub frame approach is definitely viable, and some would say, the best possible solution. If you have the tools, welding and fabrication skills, and your car is stripped to the frame, go for it. If your car is assembled with the engine in and fenders on, your fabrication skills are minimal, or you just don’t like the idea of hacking your frame, read on. This Buds for you. <o></o> I’m going to take a break here and add some pictures. The next section will deal with the brakes. That is not only the worst part of these cars, it is the first decision that dictates the path you follow in later steps. <o></o> <o> </o>
The brakes on these cars definitely need improvement. [The information listed here is general in nature and varies from model to model and year to year.] Im diverting to a brake discussion here, because a decision on brakes determines the spindles you need, and you must have your spindles before you can design your suspension. Earliest models had 1 ¾ by 11 inch brakes with 1 inch wheel cylinders. Post war they were 2 ¼ by 12 with 1 1/8 wheel cylinders. The most basic upgrade would be to the later, larger, Components. Control arms and spindles are unchanged for 20 years, so this is a basic bolt on. Even the shop manuals refer to this upgrade. The single system master cylinder is located under the floor and bolted to the frame. A new split system master cylinder and power booster will be an amazing transformation of your stopping ability. Several aftermarket MCs and 7 inch boosters, with universal pedal mounts are available. (With a V8 engine swap a 7 inch booster seems to be the max you can squeeze under the hood). I like the Geo Metro hanging pedal and 7 inch booster, but the MC is small. Didnt chase down a match, but the center hole and bolt pattern appear to be typical GM. Be sure to get one designed for a booster application, and pay attention to the pushrod length. (Pulling the old pedals out was twice the work of putting the new one in). I located the unit just outboard of the steering column to clear the engine. Under the dash I had to bend the hanging pedal slightly to the center to get a good pedal position. I also welded on a new larger pedal pad that seems more appropriate to a large car and automatic transmission. If you elect to do a power only upgrade and keep 4 wheel drums, be aware most MCs are designed for a disc/drum setup and you will have to add 10# residual valves to the front lines. At this point I would like to comment on the cost of doing a brake job on the original brake setup. The front drums and hubs come together, at about $130 each. Wheel cylinders are $32 each, Shoes are $25 plus cores, hardware is $15, flex hoses are $25 each and the above mentioned wheel bearings are $200. So, a complete brake job will run $600 just for the 2 front wheels, without the MC or booster. So lets consider the next option, front disc brakes. There are several ways to go here, but personally, I like the Scarebird* setup. Basically they supply the brackets for the calipers and the correct spacers for the spindles/rotors, and a tech list of parts to finish the job. For clarification purposes only, here is an example. On a 58 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1lace>Pontiac</st1lace></st1:City> they supply the brackets and spacers - From any source, new or used, you need a pair of 77 Bonneville 12 inch hubs/rotors, a pair of 88-91 GM truck calipers, and 2 choices of flex hoses depending on whether you want them 12 or 15 inches long. Note: From CPP (Classic Performance Parts) you can get a tapered bearing conversion kit. Bottom line, if you are using all new parts, you can have disc brakes cheaper than rebuilding the original drum setup. Before you rush out and order parts, finish the tutorial. We will be discussing suspension upgrades that include changing spindles, which will change the Scarebird setup you need. Footnotes; Your original drum setup used ¼ inch brake lines. 3/16 is recommended for disc brakes. Many aftermarket MCs have Metric fittings. You may find yourself putting different fittings on each end of your new lines to convert from Metric to Standard. There is a direct metric match to the American 3/16 line size, so that is not a problem. Master cylinder size is important, but slightly flexible. I like the corvette style MC, with ports out each side. Makes installation easier, and they are pretty cheap. The 1 inch bore will do the job, but expect the pedal travel to be a bit long. On the other hand, a 1 ¼ or larger MC will move the fluid faster (shorter stroke) but the small 7 inch booster will not be up to the job. Your original MC may push the discs fine as far as volume goes, but pressure could be another matter. Virtually all cars will need an adjustable proportioning valve. (Any change from the original setup front or rear weight change, tire sizes, line sizes, rake or tail drag, disc conversion, etc. etc. has the potential to throw your brake system out of balance.) Most disc conversions will require at least 15 inch wheels, check it out before you order. *I have no personal connection, or interest in, Scarebird Classic Brakes, in fact I didnt even use them on my car, but thats a whole different story well get into in the next chapter. I recommend them because others have been very impressed with the product and they make a setup for Buick, Olds, <st1:City><st1lace>Pontiac</st1lace></st1:City>, Corvair, Dodge, <st1:City><st1lace>Plymouth</st1lace></st1:City>, Cadillac, Ford, Mustang, MGB, you name it. Plus I like the idea of knowing exactly what over the counter, inexpensive, parts will be needed later when you do a brake job. Update. I ended up with a corvette 1 inch master cylinder and a 7 in single stage booster. My opinion is: close enough. The brakes are a vast improvement over manual drums, but not perfect. Stopping power is great to about the last 20% of pedal travel. I made several panic stops to test the system. At the very bottom, you just cant push hard enough to lock them up. Simply put, the system needs a 9 or 10 inch booster to be perfect. The tech man I spoke with at CPP felt the 7 inch dual diaphragm would have been better, but not much. There simply isnt enough power in a 7in booster to lock up a set of 215x75 15s on a 3500 pound car, on dry pavement. The reason I say close enough; this would only be an issue in a total panic situation, to a full stop, on dry pavement. In that situation, do you want them to lock up? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o> <o> </o>
Front Suspension Here is where the fun starts. The original idea came from a magazine article that showed an upgrade for a 55 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1lace>Pontiac</st1lace></st1:City>. Reading this article, which has some decent pictures, will get you thinking in the right direction. http://www.pontiacsafari.com/L1Garage/BallJointConversion.pdf With some research we figured this would work on all 37-57 BOPs cause they all had the same basic set up. What we learned was, the 58 Pontiac Lower Control arms are the key. They are a direct bolt in, exactly the same as the originals, but with ball joints instead of king pins. 59 and later BOPs went to a completely different control arm mount. 58 Buick lowers are not symmetrical, so they wont work. (waiting for someone to confirm that 37-57 Buicks are the same as BOPs, right now it is unconfirmed) Also we do not have a 58 Olds to check those lower control arms. What we do know is 57 is king pins, and 59 is all new. So 58 is it. We used the 58 <st1:City><st1lace>Pontiac</st1lace></st1:City> upper control arms simply because we got the whole front end. Make a note that several uppers will work. Looks like 58 to 60 BOPs all had the same basic dimensions on their upper control arms. In fact, the 58 Buick uppers we used on one conversion had some built in twist that allowed us to add more anti dive than we could get with the <st1:City><st1lace>Pontiac</st1lace></st1:City> uppers. As you can see in the pics, the 58 control arms are more substantial than the 41. But all critical dimensions are the same. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>
The upper control arm mount is a fairly simple fabrication. If you have a pre 50s car, the upper mount will differ from the article. The pre 50s had the lever action shock, therefore no upper shock mount. On both of our conversions (41 Pontiac and 49 Olds) we fabricated the mounts out of angle iron. We used ¼ in. 3x3 angle iron on the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City><st1lace>Pontiac</st1lace></st1:City> and added 2 gussets. On the Olds we had some 3/8 in. 4x6 angle iron, so only added one gusset. Note in the pictures how the front mount is higher than the rear mount. This sets up the anti dive angle. Up to 10 * is fine, as long as the upper ball joint is not in a bind. Be sure the frame is level side to side and has the correct front to rear angle that you want. (with 15 inch wheels, my spindle center was 12.5 inches off the ground. I blocked the frame, so that when the lower A was level, the spindle was 12.5 in up) Even a small error here will be costly. It takes ½ inch of shims to adjust 1 degree of camber. If you need to put additional shims on the rear of the bracket, to increase caster, and cant take enough out of the front to keep the camber static, you will have to cut it loose and start over. Unfortunately, you cant do a full alignment until it is totally finished, basically driveable. So get this part right. If you have any doubts, shade towards the positive camber side, you can add more shims later to move it towards negative. Likewise, move the upper mount to a position about 3/4 inch behind the plumb line for the spindle, to set up at least 5 * of caster in the neutral position (neutral being the static position as mocked up, before final alignment). If you intend to add power steering, I would shoot for 6 * in the neutral position, but dont get the uppers so far behind the lowers you put the ball joints in a bind. I drilled holes in the bottom plate of the angle iron and when I had it mocked up, I drilled thru the frame and bolted it up with 3/8 inch bolts. This was strong enough to allow me to assemble the entire front end, with springs, put the wheels and tires on it and set it on the ground. Since I had my engine in, I was basically in a final drive setup. I double checked everything, then tore it down and had it welded in place. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o> <o> </o>
<FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3>For spindles, I started with the 68 Pontiac spindles as advised in the article. ( Tapered bearings and a good Scarebird kit available.) Unfortunately when I set it on the ground, it was too high. This led to a search for dropped spindles. BOP – they don’t exist. </FONT></FONT></FONT></P><P><FONT face=[/IMG]Chevy drop spindles are readily available, but they come with a problem. Note the side by side comparisons in the picture. The 63 Pontiac spindle has a deep 90* bend at the bottom. That is to clear the wide corners on the lower control arm. The 60’s stock Chevy spindle has a 45* angle there, and won’t work. The third spindle is the 65-70 Chevy drop spindle from CPP (Classic Performance Products). It is their own in house design and is very close to the dimensions/configuration of a Pontiac spindle. I had to trim the ears off the front side of the lower A frame, but that was a minor modification. Here is where I appreciated the bolt in mock up. The dropped spindle from CPP was almost 2 inches longer than the stock spindle. Not a problem, in fact they say the longer spindle gives move stability. But the longer spindle changed the geometry and I had to reset the location of the upper control arm mounts. Glad it wasn’t welded in at this point. Note: CPP’s drop spindle is available alone, or in a disc brake kit. Be sure you get the CP30101 spindle. It has no steering arms built in. Stock spindles are front steer and won’t work. With the CP30101 you can just add a pair of 65-70 stock arms. Flipped over they fit your rear steer perfectly, even the taper is the right direction. Unlike the 63 Pontiac arm in the article, the Chevy arms are pretty straight. I only needed to shorten my tie rods less than an inch, rather than the 3 inches in the article. I got there by trimming a little off both the inner and outer tie rod threads and the sleeve. No cutting and welding. Incidently, It looks like my tie rod ends are closer to the ackerman line than the 55 conversion in the article. *The taper in the Chevy arms was a bit small for the Pontiac tie rods, so I had to ream them a touch. The CPP drop spindle/disc brake kit uses Chevelle 11 inch rotors and S10 Calipers. When I priced the individual pieces, it was cheaper to order the entire kit, plus it was a matched set. Spindles, Rotors/hubs, bearings, brackets, calipers, pads, flex hoses, Nuts, Washers, even cotter pins, $500. Service was unbelievable, 3 days from phone call to parts in hand. So there is your most straight forward approach. 58 Pontiac Upper and lower Control arms and either 63 Pontiac spindles and Scarebird brackets for disc brakes and stock height, or CPP Dropped spindles and their setup. Springs – The stock springs should work fine. As the Article suggested, you will need to spread the bottom of the spring a bit. The 58 Pontiac spring pocket is about ¼ inch larger than the previous years. I had chopped 3 inches out of my original springs to get ride height. So now I needed new springs. My original springs were too long, and to stiff, since the SBC conversion, so buying new stock ones made no sense. I went hunting replacements. FWIW, I needed a spring rate of approximately 300 pounds, with a ride height of 9.5 inches and a free height of 15 inches. I ended up with 69 Cougar springs. They were listed at 295 pounds, 10.5 ride height and 17 inches free height. Once I cut a full coil off, everything fell into place. They were also 3.88 inches in diameter. Halfway between the original upper pocket and the 58 lower pocket. Shocks - Shocks will be a problem on the pre 50’s, without a shock tower. Note on the picture of the frame spring pocket area. 3 Holes in a row. The outer 2 are the original mounting holes for the lever action shock. The one in the middle is drilled at the dead center of the spring pocket, later enlarged to fit the shock bushing. I used a pair of shocks from a 79 Dodge Diplomat. They have the Stem mount on both ends. Easy to mount through that frame hole. I had to fabricate the lower mount. (Even tho the lower Control arms had shock mounts, there were no shocks short enough that fit that mount). With level control arms the ride height on my car was 9.5 inches. That meant a shock collapsed height of about 7 1/2 inches. The Dodge shocks were not only the right ride height, they were designed for a similar weight car. Note: 58 Buick has an external shock mount, riveted to the frame. You could get a set of those, or fabricate some, and have many more shock options than you would up the center of the spring.
For the more adventuresome, and fabrication minded, there is another approach. The only real issue with the stock lower control arms is the king pin mounts. My buddy with the 49 Olds has a yard, but no 58 Pontiacs. He didn’t want to wait for one to come in, so we cut the outer end off his lower control arms and welded on a 3/8 plate for a ball joint mount. He did have a 58 Buick, so those were the uppers we used. He had already pulled a complete spindle/disc brake setup off an early 70’s Chevy so we knew going in the 45* angle on the spindle was going to be a problem. As it turns out, the narrower end on the original lower control arms is a blessing. A chevy spindle can be made to work. He knew the Ford Courier had a ball joint with a 3 point “crowsfoot” design, it is very narrow at the outer end, and the Chevy spindle cleared with no problems. There must be several ball joint mounts that could be adapted to the original arms. Just remember, the ball joints point down. We used his original springs, but don’t have it finished yet, so we may do some adjusting to the ride height when all is said and done. Be aware, if you use a disc brake kit with the caliper to the front, you will probably have an issue with the sway bar. One other tidbit. The 40’s cars had very small sway bars. 5/8 inch. Happened to stumble across a 56 Buick. The sway bar was ¾ inch and bolted in without modification. Well, there it is. Hopefully enough information to convince you to upgrade, not sub frame. Sorry I didn’t take more pictures. Oh yeah, forgot to say, it works great. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o> Feel free to PM me if I’ve left you more confused than enlightened.
This thread needs an update from those who have made the modifications. Also, there might be other alternatives that haven't been discussed. There are a number of us in the BOP category that would love to know more about the possible changes we can make.
Now that it has been 2 years, I do have some follow up comments. The installation worked fine. I also added power rack and pinion later. There are no handling issues whatsoever. Car drives, tracks, turns very well. I will say, my spring choice was a bit soft. It gives a very comfortable ride, but a bit mushy, like a typical luxury car from the 70's/80's. If you want a stiffer, more performance feel, I would recommend stiffer springs, shocks and possibly sway bar. We use this as an "extra" car. It is driven by family, visitors, etc. No one has a problem driving it. They have mentioned that the steering is "quicker" than they would expect from an old car. Unfortunately, my friend with the 49 Olds is still building it. I have no feed back on that setup. I am currently working on a 53 Studebaker (same suspension from 53 to the end of production in 60's). It is also a kingpin setup. In the early mock up stages I see no reason why it won't work on that car, by fabricating ball joint mounts to the original A frames. In short, the 58 Pontiac Controll arms make it a near bolt in solution, but even without them, the conversion can be done with some fabrication.
I read your write up a couple of weeks ago when some one posted a link to it when I asked about the front suspension for my '37 Buick. Really informative article. If I can scrape up the cash and parts I'll be doing it my Buick.
This might be a bit o/t but my 60 Olds has the same tie rod ends from 39-60. When I lowered it I knew there would be bump steer issues so after a lot of checking I found that Baer Tracker tie rods for the 70-73 mustang have the same threads and taper! This allows the tie rod to track in a parallel arc for almost no bump steer. Not sure what can be done for the Buicks and Pontiacs. They are a bit flashy and pricey but you can spray em flat black and they make a huge difference when lowering the olds as far as tie rod tracking.
More tidbits. I finally got around to redoing the booster. managed to fit a 9" dual diaphragm booster from a 95 camaro in there. NOW I have power bakes. definetly the way to go.
offset ball joint ? I have a 1956 2 dr pontiac stationwagon. nice survivor type car. years ago a 305 sbc and 350 were cleanly installed, otherwise stock. 30 year old paint etc., manual steering , drum brakes. Its a pleasure to drives up to about 60mph. Above 60 it does not handle well. I feel no need to drive it above 75mph. hopefully some minor modifications would work. Disk brakes from a kit look faily easy and with some help within my ability, as does a 605 type steering box. I am probally showing my lack of knowledge but It appears all I need to get to a smooth 75 mph is a couple degrees positive caster. Could it be as easy as weilding plates on the control arms and installing offset ball joint ? I even see you can get adjustable offsets. I dont want to have this car cut, lowered, or go cart type steering. I just want to stop streight, have power steering, and be able to go up to 75 mph comfortably without breaking the bank. Any thoughts ?
FWIW, rather than repeat myself from the lengthy post above, I sent a PM in response. We are discussing the exact situation with the 56 wagon. Anyone else who has car specific questions; feel free to shoot me a pm and I'll see what I can do to help.
Hello. I'm late to the game here but I've read this article thoroughly and I'm wondering... Using the 58 Pontiac or 58 upper Buick control arms seems to be the answer, but should the lowers be the same? The article shows lower Buick control arms don't work. So what is used for the lower control arms? I'm getting ready to do this on my 53 Buick and Pontiac arms are hard to find but i know a guy with 58 Buick upper arms. Any help is greatly appreciated!!!
The Jalopy Journal
