shoebox owners and builders, just looking for an overall consensus as to what method you guys prefer for the front of an airbagged shoebox? stock with flipped spindles? mII ? other ? just want to get some feedback from others who have been down this same road.
cut a coil and swap the spindals side for side, rides fine cut two coils and youll be bouncing the crossmember off the road
im not looking for ways to lower it. im looking for opinions on which is a better suspension setup period. ive done a few where i just flipped the spindles and of course bent the tie rod to compensate, and all of these were cars we bagged. im getting ready to do another one, and just wanted to see if anyone likes it a different way. trying to learn and be open to new ideas. this car WILL BE BAGGED so keep that in mind
My 'box is not bagged.I did swap,and flip the spindles,and cut one coil loop off. It lowered the front about 4 1/2". The tires(205-75-15) rub on a tight turn,and toes in with chassis rise. I think it is the max I can go. If I were to do it over again,with bags,I would use new,dropped spindles,and Jamco drop springs.The correct dropped steering arms,would keep toe in/bump steer to a minimum also. Sparky
My 50 is bagged with the stock front end and dropped spindles, the dropped spindles are coming back out, as the front end is too low. The car will be able to drive with a lower stance without dropped spindles, because the front crossmember will be higher off the ground. The stock front end works great, and will still sit the crossmember on the ground... Mount the bags as far out towards the wheels on the control arms for the best possible leverage to lift the front up. LUKESTER
Chris50 used the stock front clip with Fat Man stuff. He tried the Air Ride kit, but it didn't work for him, so he used the Shockwaves and modified the control arms. It works pretty slick and sets the car down pretty low.
Lukester has it right. Try putting a shovel on the garage floor with some sort of weight on the business end. Stand on the end of the handle or otherwise wedge it so it can't move. Pick it up near the spade end. Now pick it up near the far end, where it's wedged. You'll see it's much heavier because much of your effort is being transferred into the pivot end (handle end) than the shovel end.
Actually, for the front of that car there is no kit. First time around we used conventional bags up there, but then realized that anywhere I relocated the shocks, they would interfere with my turning radius. So I pulled it back apart and fabbed plates with lower shock mounts in them. Then they were welded to the bottom of the lower control arms and Shockwaves were used.
You guys are both technically correct. If LUKESTER mounts the bags toward the wheel (outward), the bag will lift the car easier, but not give as much lift. If slowpoke mounts the bags inward, the bag will lift the car higher....
im surprised how many use the shockwaves. i loved them at first but realized that they suck if your going super low. cuz it bottoms itself out unless you extend the mount then you lose on the other end
When I air mine out, the frame rests on the control arms which no longer have bump stops or bump stop mounts. The front crossmember is about 1/2" off the ground and that is with 6.70 15s up front.
mine has fatman uprights and steering arms, made up my own bag mounts its way low...crossmember is less than 1/2" off the ground..Too low, but it looks cool...
You started with the assumption that it's already bagged. If you haven't bagged it yet and you want to go that low without a weird-handling ride, look to Scot's "Super-Slam". If you just want a low-and-easy Shoebox, consider the Fatman's dropped spindles and a set of lowering blocks for the A-arms. Between the two you'll have about a five-inch drop without seriously affecting the ride or the handling -- a couple of grand cheaper and less shop-time.
im just looking for other opinions on which way is the best. like i said i usually switch them from one side to the other. but thought maybe there was a better way and maybe i was doing it the cheesey way. its not really a matter of price, im about to do it on one for myself, (not just what the customer wants) and thought id ask around i am baggin the car and do want it to lay frame
If your not concerned about price you could do what I did. It may not be the best way but it was any easy install and it works perfect. My car was a shell when I started and I either needed to rebuild everything on the front end or go with the Jamco option or mustang. The price difference between Jamco and mustang was a wash. I used a Street Rod Engineering mustang sub frame and thier hub to hub kit. I had the old frame cut off and the new sub installed in one afternoon. All the bumper brackets and rad support area was right on. I used stock springs and dropped spindles. It sits really low that way and is still driveable. If you put bags on you can get your frame to the pavement. I was going to do that but I am not sold on the whole air bag thing. I set it where I wanted it and made everything work around that. As Forest would say, "Thats all I have to say about that"
I can tell you, he is right. It does work good . It must be pretty easy to install, started with a stock shell and something like seven weeks later...... smokin the tires on a chopped and dropped shoebox. How cool is that? jeff
I dont think anyone can really tell you which one is best, they can only give you their opinion. With that being said....Id use the stock suspension because thats what i like, I drive mine everyday, everywhere and have no problems. It drives straight, smooth and stops just fine. It is very easy to get the car to lay frame using the stock front end with drop spindles so dont be discouraged that way.
p.s. Speedwaymotors.com makes a tie rod end extension/drop,for '48-'64 ford f-100's,it works for a shoebox ford also,it drops the outer tie rod end 2 1/8" keeping the ends parralel to keep the bumpsteer managable. (for those of us who didn't heat and bend the stock steering arms,when 'flipping' the spindles") Sparky
The Jalopy Journal
