Subframes gone wwwillldddd!!

dude, just like i said above, do things how you want, i don't give a shit....I'm a kustom car fanatic, not really into hotrods or speed, low and slow is the way to go for me, BUT i have my opinions and you have yours...thats what makes the world go round....

 

OK so disc brakes (which can save your life), power steering, and balljoint conversions are ok but subframing a car which usually incorporates all of these things is not? Basically what it boils down to is if the suspension is "stock" whith upgrades its ok; but if the frame is changed completely it crosses the line?

Let's take this a 50 Ford. A MII clip can be had for roughly 3000 or cheaper, yes decent amount of money. However, it gives you balljoints, disc brakes and a good IFS. Jamco's kit which incorporates ball joints and disc brakes on the stock suspension, goes for almost 2500. So when it comes to spending money on front suspension, a subframe and upgrading the stock suspension are just about the same.

 

Sub framed cars are like anything else; some good some bad. ( That shoebox is definately the latter) This is a pic of my subbed '54 Cad (I did it over 15yrs ago) Scavenged a '76 DeVille frame, and the 500 cu in driveline. This car still runs, drives and stops like a Cad should-

 

I just did one for cheaper.
labor and clip (not counting the rear and master cylinder)along with rebuild kit ran around 2k.
I have done them cheaper than that,too, but I started with a remarkably solid front end I got for CHEEP.

 

Exactly so how can you detest subframes because of how much they "cost" when they end up being cheaper than bolt on stuff. I don't get it.

 

no billy, you are missing my point...i'm not in favor of "modernizing" any components...i was just listing some alternitives to subframing...bottom line for me is i have a bad taste in my mouth for subframes because over the years i've seen SO many fucked up ones that ruined an otherwise great looking car..tire placement, in my opinion, is very vital to the overall look ...i have seen very few that pulled it off and didn't look at least a little wrong....

 

Where the fuck, in my post does it say the word traditional????...SUBFRAMES SUCK!!!!

 

damn...are you guys holding hands,too?

 

man this is way outta hand.- i gonna hafta go with LUX on this one. they work / look great when done correctly. for my $ the sub is the way to go. if a mII casts roughly $2500, and you can buy a running driving car that has the correct sub for the same cash, go for it.

 

Well then that is just plain stupid. I would not trust almost 60 year old shit across the country, I ain't rebel john. I know you drive your car as much and as far as anyone on here and to leave stock components is asking for trouble. BTW isnt your car 12V?

I read bewteen the lines, calm down killer.

 

Everything breaks down no matter what it is. I have 2007 Ford Trucks dead in the water with 1000 miles on them at work. Theres no escaping it. But its about preventing that sort of thing. The parts might not be under the rock on the side of the road but your head sure is if you're against "modern parts."

 

I ran outta POPCORN reading all this............

 

I have 6 you can choose from.

 

Wow some guys getting mad over this!!My 2 cents-about 10 years ago I built a 36 Oldsmobile coupe.I thought about Must II but those cars have some funky double rail front frame,most of you know what I mean.So I subframed it.The car rode, drove and handled great.And unless you really knew what to look for,it was hard to tell where it was done.I took my time,measured,cut and fit,and welded.Since then I have had a 36 Plymouth coupe,MustII,power steering.Worked great also,except should have gone for the big brake upgrade.I know we have all seen subframed cars that were screwed up with huge plates of metal welded all over,I don't think any of us like that kind of work,in any phase of rod building.And finally,I will be in the near future building a 39 Buick coupe,has a funky frame kinda like the Olds,and at this point it looks like it will be subframed.Yes I know Fatman makes a front frame kit for Must II but you still have to cut your frame off.And yeah,subframes give you heavier components and are cheaper.To each his own.It wouldn't be fun if all cars were built the same.

 

I see the point that both sides are making. I think now there are less reasons to subframe a car and more reasons. Now with dropped spindles, dics conversions...one doesn't need the more modern suspension to get the goodies. However, with aftermarket subframes readily available and coming down in price, it's easy to get a new M2 with the correct track width and have all the modern amenities. Both are valid reasons.

I thought about a Mopar clip in my 57 Ford when I put the 383 in, but I realized that clipping the frame is as much work as engineering the motor into the car. After rebuilding the front end and brakes the car stops well for what it is.

For me, the bottom line is that if I want a car to handle well, I'll drive my 98 Mustang GT. When I'm in my 57, body roll, a little steering wheel play and brake fade are just a part of the game. I accept it, it's an old car afterall

 

I can't wait to move to Austin. God I love people from Texas. Right on.

 

That was out of line, Bill. Seriously. You need to chill out

 

just had to respond to this....yes, my BROTHERS car, not mine...so much for the first point, as for the "mullets" i roll around with, you honestly have about 5% of their knowledge and appreciation for what a true period style kustom is all about.. don't believe it, talk to Anthony White, he will fill you in on that.. you might have the look, but unless something has drastically changed in the last 18 or so months, thats where it ends...if you want to start making this about personal attacks, i would seriously rethink that....

 

I personally don't mind subs if they are done right . I was workin for a dude in ks and i built a 49 chevy pu for him already been clipped and wrecked just sheetmetal damage but no one knew till it was almost done how fucked and wacked in the sub was (ie . had to roll the fender edges so tires would clear wheel base was off about 2.5 inches and it was just a fuckin mess.) I got to go it's pissin me off just thinkin about it . if you are gonna do it do it fuckin RIGHT!!!!!!

 

man, I hear ya.
a properly installed one is just damn nice to play with. one that is hacked on...it will take weeks for the cloud of cursing to clear out of the shop.

I guess that at least with mustang II, if it is screwed up, there is alot less to cut and grind off when you gotta start over.

and again...folks have been known to choose the wrong application altogether. I am NOT saying every car on the road needs a Camaro clip. far from it. there are the select group of cars out there that it's like it was made for it. same with mII- I cannot fathom sticking a camaro clip under an early 50's ford- it has been done, but to me, it's too dang wide unless you narrow something- and at that point, the beauty of clipping is lost. I can do it, but I don't like to.

alright kids, I'm going home. I still need to arrange my pile of subframes in the backyard.

and to all, lighten up.

 

first and foremost, i didnt put the tube axle/brakes in the car.... second, if you dont know what your talking about (which is usually the case), you shouldn't say shit at all....and as for the "mullets" u speak of, they may not look the part like you try to, but they have the knowledge and know how, thats what counts....

Lowering the axle more than an inch required a brand-new design, which was supplied by a company known as Bell Auto. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Bell Auto offered dropped tube axles that lowered the car a full 5 inches (13 cm). Tube axles were built from smooth, steel tubing and balanced strength with superb aerodynamics. The steel surface also accepted chrome plating better than the forged I-beam axles, so hot rodders often preferred them for their aesthetic qualities, as well.

Some hot rod enthusiasts, however, argued that the tube axle's rigidity and inability to flex compromised how it handled the stresses of driving. To accommodate this, hot rodders introduced the four-bar suspension, using two mounting points on the axle and two on the frame. At each mounting point, aircraft-style rod ends provided plenty of movement at all angles. The result? The four-bar system improved how the suspension worked in all sorts of driving conditions.

Modern-style disc brakes first appeared on the low-volume Crosley Hotshot in 1949, although they had to be discontinued in 1950 due to design problems. Chrysler's Imperial division also offered a type of disc brake from 1949 through 1953, though in this instance they were enclosed with dual internal-expanding, full-circle pressure plates. Reliable modern disc brakes were developed in the UK by Dunlop and first appeared in 1953 on the Jaguar C-Type racing car. The Citroën DS of 1955, with powered inboard front disc brakes, and the 1956 Triumph TR3 were the first European production cars to feature modern disc brakes. The next American production cars to be fitted with disc brakes were the 1963 Studebaker Avanti.

 

there is nothing wrong with subframes if they are done right..this one ..which may not nessesarily be a subframe...car could be on a different chassis all together.but if it is indeed a subframe... it is obviously the WRONG ONE for this application.

 

i dont understand how disc brakes will save someones lives, if you lock up your tires with drum brakes and do the same with disc, how are disc brakes better? you cant get any better stopping power than locking up the tires can you? unless you have some new car antilock computer stuff, and kingpins....aren't they stronger than ball joints? if not, why do they still have kingpins in trucks? seems to me like people go backwards with ball joints...wouldn't it be logical to convert to kingpins from balljoints? fuck my 50 ford has its original kingpins with no slop with cut coils, stock brakes and i ride perfectly fine as I drive everyday. So in my opinion subframes are garbadge...unless you want an ugly ass column or something...and yeah im same with bias plys, radials are played out, as the ride comparison is very very minimal its not worth the look of having blocky new carish tires. sub frames are garbadge!!!

 

there is no need to change over to balljoints, theres nothing wrong with kingpins. i think they converted just to save money, just like how they changed over to 12 volts to save money on wire.

 

Has anyone noticed how black and white New Jersey is?

 

i would like to add something to this, first quite a few of you are making making good points as far as subframe pros and cons. i was told by someone once that to do a subframe in a shoebox you have to remove a couple inches i think 2 out of the crossmember so the wheels dont stick out. two i saw mention of rebel john on here, his shoebox is subframed,enter why he drove the thing allover without a care in the world. and the personal attacks on eachother over subframe pros and cons, grow up. you guys should spend more time in the garage then arguin about dumb shit on here.

 

SIDE NOTE ABOUT A MISCONCEPTION!!!!!
abs(antilock) WILL NOT make a car stop in a shorter distance!
it allows you to steer around what ever you're gonna hit if the brakes would have locked up!
keep that in mind if you gotta panic stop and there's no place to go to the side.


btw, i personally don't care for abs...traction control is even worse..

 

According to theory of vehicle dynamics, a car's maximum braking occurs when the front wheels are moving 22% slower than the car is. Any less, the car isn't stopping as hard as it could be, any more, you lock the wheel. ABS basically adjusts brake pressure to stay at this threshold without crossing it. Because you don't lock the wheels you can still steer with maximum braking force.

The same theory holds true for acceleration