I'm considering suspension options for my 37 chev truck. I have a 40 chev p-up frame I plan on using. I ran across a 1980 Malibu cheap. Does anyone have any experiance using this subframe? Thanks
sub frames are too wide for vintage trucks. they look stupid with the tires out even with the fenders, back spacing the wheels helps but not enough. do your self a favor save for a good mustang suspension. if you shop you can find one for around 1200.00. besides they are much easier to install. if you insist on a sub frame find one close to the width of your original width. hope this helps.
Frames on those bow out both ahead and behind the wheels. Might be ok if you run fenders, looks like crap without them.
pm rebstew187 he has a s10 frame under a 36' chevy truck and has eliminated the steering box issue with a r&p conversion. the malibu track width is to wide like bullet man said. that clip will work on the later AD/TF trucks fine.
That's a pretty broad statement. What's a vintage truck to you? If done incorrectly, yes... if done right not so much... The $1200 ones are crap.... it's a case of you get what you pay for... and for $1200 you get crap... Hmmmm.... that's a 180 from your first statement... The right subframe in the right car or truck is fine...The right aftermarket suspension is good as well.. but crap is crap...
must 11 is the only deal here. a free sub frame will just devalue the truck and look like crap. just took delivery of a 1200.00 must11. its pretty much a tci deal hardly crap.
I found a Chevrolet sales brochure on line, it states the track width...which I assume is considered outside of tire to outside of tire, to be 58.5". This measurement on the 40 is 63". If the sales brochure is correct , the Malibu is 4.5" Narrower at the front. I hate to throw $1500 into a MII if this will also work. Just because it's easyer dosen't make it better.
Hey Primer, I have a 79 malibu wagon. I'll measure the width this afternoon and post it for you. It may be a hassle matin' the malibu frame to the truck because right around the firewall the frame goes wide(out to rocker panels) The ride on the Malibu is real good and a lot of the componates are the same as S-10s. Smokey
All right. I'm the closest to actually DOING one. I put an 80 Monte clip in a 54 Chevy car. The monte is probably the same as the Malibu, and Chevy pretty much used the same frame from the 30's to 54. Not a good swap to do. It IS good in that you will get superior handling and brakiing, even compared to an M2 swap. The track is narrow enough (don't cpmpare this to an 80 Camaro/Nova sub that's much wider!) to fit under my 54 with it stiing pretty low. The problem occurs in trying to match the frames. The monte frame is a perimeter frame, as said before, it curves out right behind the rear lower control arm mount. Just forward of the firewall, right were you would want to splice the 2 frames. I've seen some swaps where they just "sistered" the new frame against the outside of the old one, with plates attaching them....VERY crude, and ugle looking! The way I did it was to cut off the top and bottom plate of the Monte frame, straighten the sides out, and reweld straight lengths of 1/8" plate to the top and bottom. This put the rails pretty close to the old rails right were you want to splice them. It also allows you to keep the new frame's "kick-up", so the car will sit lower than originally. A factory "Z' if you like. The other problems are fabricating mounts for the sheet metal up front (not a small task!), steering to radiator clearance, esp. with power steering, and you need to make up new motor mounts as well. The newer frames mount the motor too far forward to use the factory mounts in an old car. Usually need to relocate the engine about 4-6 in. farther back than the 1980 factory mounts.
Thanks for the input, I've seen a picture of the Malibu frame and know what your saying about a perimeter frame. I guess I thought it widened out a little further back from the firewall. Yea sistering the frames together sounds ugly...sounds like you are doing a nice job and it should look "factory".
if the steering box is in the way use a dakota clip. there stock rack and pinion and the track width is real close.
While I am not a fan of any type of clip, I do know of several people here in town that have used the metric clips ('78-'88 GM-G bodies) on hot rods. One of them is a '37 Olds that sees thousands of miles a year, and the other is a '37 Chevy coupe. I have ridden in the Olds, and it rides, steers and handles great. Neither of them had any issues with the track width being too wide. By the way, the track width on a G-body is 58", I know because I built dozens of IMCA modifieds using that clip. You can widen the front track width on a G-body clip by swapping '67-'69 Camaro/Firebird or '68-'74 Nova lower control arms side for side, and installing them on the clip.
Hate to break it to you but all the $1200 ones I've seen are cheaper components, shitty bearings, half assed crossmembers. If they copied the TCI ones they should've fixed the problems with those. Go ahead and do a search and see what problems that people have had with the crappy Must II stuff. Hell you're in Phoenix just ask ELpolacko, he's fixed enough and posted here about it. Bad geometry, need extra reinforcement, the list goes on. There is a reason that people referred to the aftermarket Must II stuff as "show suspensions" for years. As a matter of fact Mustang II chronicles, failure abounds is the latest in threads on the subject... Anyone installing a Must II would be advised to go back and read a bunch of these posts, then they can make the improvements and have a safer & better handling car...
I've seen one or two done this way that looked ok... but not as good as your way sounds to me... You wouldn't happen to have any pics would you? Sounds like the kind of quality work I'm more interested in seeing... These problems seem to be the bane of any clip. Not that big of a deal really but it does take some thought and is something to think about when contemplating the swap... It seems that this is the real advantage of a Jag, Dakota, or Must II
Add me to the list of "experienced" owners of G-body clipped cars---79 Cutlass stub under a 48 Chevy coupe......15 years ago.. I heart subs done right.
I allways here every one talk about how hard it is to hang the sheet metal and get a core support to work. i built one for my buddys 50 chevy on a streched g-body chassis, and it wasnt that hard at all. he should have moved the motor back but didnt and we were still able to fit a 65 mustang rad and electric fan. it takes some time to figure it all out but i wouldnt let it stop me. If this shit was easy than every one would do it. i hate stock suspension and think frame swaps and chassis clips are the way to go. i know there are some haters out there but fuck the mustang 2 is for a little tiny light car and a v6 at most. add a big block and the weight of a late 40's early 50's car or truck and i think ill take a metric car clip.
The Jalopy Journal
