How Many Fat Fendered guys are running IFS and proud of it?

I have a MII in my 37 Nash and love it. I drove the car 1500 miles on the original I beam when I bought it and at times it scared the living crap out of me. Getting the Nash much lower in the front was a number one priority for me and it just wasn't going to happen with the original I beam.

It rides like a dream now and I love it. You can't see it unless you look for it.

 

Our 1939 Ford coupe has 1954 Chevy spindles and brakes up front and 57 rear with 57 leaves. Been that way since early 60's but hasn't been driven in years. Only thing is the front needed better shocks for softer ride .
As for MMII being new, I worked with a guy in mid 60's who put an original MMII crossmember, etc in his 40 Ford back then. Wanted to do mine including parts for $500 in 60's.
Such a fine line in traditonal. If every part needs to be 1964 on back I understand but rod builders always improved their cars. The difference between driving in traffic and sitting on a trailer or at a car show makes a difference. If we started driving our 39 I'd swap to a MMII in a minute. It doesn't show unless you are under it.

 

Uh, Couldn't have, Mustang II's didn't come out until 1974!

 

68' camaro clip on a 41 chevy frame.

 

Dynaflash,
That's not a GM body is it? Just a question, it doesn't remind me of my '41 Chev, but it has been since '69 or so that I had it so ???

QUOTE=hotroddon;7816850]Uh, Couldn't have, Mustang II's didn't come out until 1974![/QUOTE]

Actually they were pinto front ends prior to that so it would have been when the pintos hit the market, but that still wouldn't have been the '60s. I think the major difference is th strut rod on the mustang front.

I do think that there are a lot of fellas hung up on the drivability of the old Ford front suspension. This is not to speak against IFS, but to think that the old ford axle and cross leaf is not drivable is a general misconception. They drove real well and were comfortable way back when and can still be a real driver front end and comfortable now.

I think also that when someone mentions IFS it is immediately assumed that the Mustang Ii is the suspension in question. I put a lot of early '60s GM front ends under fender cars back when i was a kid, they are also IFS.

If one is leaning toward modernization of the vehicle I don't think that the mustang front end is actually moderenization any more, the new corvetter suspension is a far superior IFS to the mustanng. You probably can't have it in kit form but that doesn't make it not doable.

 

Sorry, mid 70's. Bought the 39 Ford mid 70's...Time flys when were havin fun!

 

Ya know, I have spent allot of years in my life running around in straight axle cars. Not just weekends either. I don't own late model cars, period. I have driven them in MN in the snaow in mid winter, and 122 degree days here in Phoenix (no A/C pussies!). They work well. I have earned the right to put what ever the hell I want under my car as long as I'm honest about what the car is.Is my Plymouth a traditional Hot Rod? Ehh, if you squint and look just right, kinda.

When I bought my car and bought the tires and wheels I wanted to use, and mocked it up to the ride height I wanted, I relized I was in a bit of a pickle. If I was going to run that ride height, I was going to need to hire a really quick midget to sit on the bumper and dig a small trench to allow my car to run at it's chosen ride height! The front crossmember was on the ground at mock up height. So what to do? Do I jack my car up so it's something I could care less about driving? Do I Z the stock front end and deal with it's crappy brakes, weird roll center, weak steering, weird geometery and bump steer? Hell no! Elpolacko and I built an entire clip that was Z'd and contained a suspension that had some modern gometric factors to it so I could do what I wanted... Drive the living shit out of it!!!

And, I'm gonna wager that I don't drive my car the same way some of you guys do. Going straight in a hurry is fun, but going fast around corners up or down a twisty road is lots more fun in my book. I live in a town with an avarage freeway in town speed of 75, with long stretches between towns that are marked at 75, but you won't be ticketed until you hit the 95-100mph mark. At those kind of speeds you don't have allot of room to screw around with all the things most early suspensions deal out to you.My car is a product of what I like, and of my surroundings. If it's not what you like, don't look.

You know why it sits so low? 'Cause it puts the viewer in a perfect posistion while viewing the underside that if they complain about what I did, a simple kick in the ass will generally shut them up!!!

 

Well my 53 F100 Fat Fendered Truck, which I purchased many years ago as a roller and a bunch of boxes of parts, came with a butt ugly Volare IFS in it. Luckily you can't see it unless you lay down beside it or open the hood. It drives quite smoothly but since I never drove it with a straight axle I have nothing to compare it to. Every winter I seem to look at it and think about removing it for a different IFS that is less butt ugly but that never seems to happen.

 

Your plymouth had a funky kind of a king pin almost an indpendent front end didn't it?

 

Ya complete with no idler in the steering, two different tie rod lengths, and the shocks cleverly placed between the upper and lower control arms... For a guy that digs on canyon carving, it just wasn't going to be a player. Damned glad there was an alternative.

 

Just a little food for thought for all the IFS haters - doesn't Ryan have a MII under his '38? So should he be booted off the HAMB for being untraditional?

 

classic!

 

I believe he just had it removed and replaced with a dropped axle.

 

To quote a famous actor, "You can't stand the truth". Can't we all just get along? Tradition has a different meaning depending upon your background. Building a hot rod, street rod, custom car or whatever is about an individuals expression of his taste. I certainly don't condemn anyone who has an interest in modifying old cars even if it is different than I what I like.

 

"You can't handle the truth!"

 

I really really like Hot Rods! for me they are of Ford origin and original build dates between 1923 to 1934, I love fat fendered Fords, I dont think of them as Hot rods, I get the 34 Chevs that look good to, not hot rods either, those Willys coupes, way kool, even the glass ones, weather they have axles or the independent whatevers but you guessed it there not hot rods to me, but they are great cars, some of the rides in this thread are way kool also, but thats my world of hot rod, Is this of topic? Wayne

 

I just like to turn and stop. If you have a thing about it must be old. Then run it that way. Don't gotta be like you to be cool!

 

I can almost agree with you on allot of what you wrote. I came in at the very tail end of the Hot Rod meaning fords up to '34 era. But, where you fall is the fact that the thread is titled "How Many Fat Fendered guys..." Which puts it out of your scope. By the mid seventies, '35 - '48 cars were pretty much accepted into the fold and that's where we sit today. Would I ever call my '48 Plymouth a "Traditional Hot Rod"? Probably not. Is it a Street Rod? Even though I still hold the old definition of that term and it doesn't bug me like it does the newer guys, it doesn't fit there at all either. Not even with the MustangII and the A/C. I prefer to call it a dumb old hot rod...

 

Weasel,
That would be had an ifs on bags. Search him out him and Tardel have lately began revamping the old hooptie.

I think the deal with the '38 is that he didn't wear it as a badge of honor. He built the car before he was really deep into the traditional rod scene and then waited until he was flush and could revamp.

Those were or are pretty hard to work with. I can actually think of several older suspensions that are difficult to do anything with.

That said you are old enough to remember other alternatives. That is not to say that your choice was a bad one. I have hung more early '60s GM truck suspensions under fat fender cars than I would like to admit. I have even swapped a newer (newer being a realitive term here) stude king pin suspension for the earlier version at least once. Those first stude king pin semi independents were awful.

Another one I would be tempted to do away with would be the '48/'49 Willys wagon 2WD fronts. That cross leaf on the lower control arm was just a rotten riding bastard.

That said I will still encourage anyone wanting to build a traditional car with a beam axle under it to stay with it. I have driven them (a bunch) and they can be made to be more than passable. The older cars have a truckish feeling to them and some fellas don't care for that. I would have to say that for the fellas that don't care for the early feeling when they drive that a more modern suspension is the way to go. But to anyone new to the game it is something that should be experienced.

Its funny, I have everything that I need to go the mustang/pinto route (including the heavier thunder bird power rack) as well as a solid axle setup that I could have thrown under my Stude. Either would have been a cheap way to go for me just because I have the pieces at my disposal. Either of the other solutions would have made engine placement easier as well. I chose the original route because I just love the feel of the old Commander king pin suspension. It is not for everyone, hell most of what I do is not for anyone.

It is just a matter of where you are at and where you are going I suppose.

Ha,
I had a '53 Chassis that had an AMC Pacer front under it. I guess that was popular for awhile. I gave the chassis to a friend all I wanted was the sheet metal. He is still using it and loves it.

I have a buddy that is into pintos, I can't say much about his taste and just for comparisons sake he pulled the Pinto suspension out from under it and replaced it with GM mid size suspension.

People will do one of anything, some of it is a good idea and some of it isn't.

 

I'm with Avgas but as usual in life there will always be exceptions.

Whats stands out in this thread is:

i. How old you are and what kinda shape YOU are in
ii. How you actually USE /DRIVE your ride
iii. What is more important to you - form (tradition) or function (IFS) or a combination
of both?

I look at it like this.

If the early Hot Rodding pioneers had the gold/dinero and the access to IFS or any other auto tech innovation, would they have used it ?

I think we know the answer to that one.

Still, I don't run IFS and will not on my 47 Chevy Fleet even though you could'nt see it if it was fitted. It drives like an older car and thats what I want. It's taildragged, but no bags and no laying frame stuff for me, will never do it. I made a concession and fitted an early SBC and early rear, and went to great pains to ensure that it looked factory but I can now drive it at highway speeds and ENJOY the car so thats MY concession to usability, no different to what gearheads did in the 50s really.

On an early/trad hot rod, Id rather be uncomfortable than run IFS. I have already had 2 back operations, so I have the PERCEIVED need to change but will NEVER do it. An early Ford I beam/front end is a thing of beauty to my eye and I would never change it and absolutely HATE they way they look on "hot rods". But that's me.

Everyone's situ is different just as is everyone's taste in music and women.

Choose your poison , then DRIVE.

Rat

 

WOW!! I thought I had a pretty narrow view of what a HOT ROD was, but my definition goes up to 1948 and does include cars other than FORD's - Even though Ford's are the only HOT ROD I have ever owned.
Of Course ask 100 people for a definition and you'll get 100 different answers. And the dictionary one won't make you happy at all.
And YES, these are HOT RODS to me;

 

I am trying to get from who has an IFS under their fat fender car to the definition of a hot rod.

 

HA HA - yep the thread has wandered a bit

 

Me too....

 

It's been removed, but thanks for playing.

 

and i always thought form followed function.

 

In my 48 Ford 2dr sedan I used CE Mustang II complete kit with tubular a arms. I love the way it drives, although the steering is a bit quick. Took a bit to get used to.
My full fendered 33 Ford 2dr is getting an original Henry Ford I beam that I will have dropped 2 inches. Trying for a more late 50's early 60's look to this car.

 

It's a no-brainer, M2's steer, handle, and stop better. period. end of discussion. Is it traditional to the Hamb standards? no. Is there anything wrong with a axle? no. Facts are facts. Tradition is built by what most people do most of the time for a certian period of time. M2's have been around a long time, they have also become traditional, like it or not, Just not traditional for the hamb. I love the look of a solid axle car. Although my 41 chevy is has bags and M2, While staying WWW's and mostly a stock interior. Why? Because my family will be riding in it and safety is my #1 concern. My next car, maybe an axle. They are both great options, depends more on what tops your list as important. Decide what is important to you and then you can decide which option is YOUR best

 

I have a 37 Chevy p/u that has a dropped axle,I have a couple things to do to try to improve the handling (replace worn spindle) but if they do not work the next rebuild (many years away) might include a IFS.

 

Have had both Must II and dropped solid axle, and even have the real early IFS on fat fender cars. My cars are hot rods, I don't try and fit any specific definition.

My 37 Chevy pickup had a stock Must II crossmember swapped in and it was my daily driver. Larger disc brakes, 350/350/57 Chevy car rearend. Sold this one.
My 38 Chevy has aftermarket crossmember with stock Must II arms. 454/700R4/Versailles 9-inch. Larger disc front and rear disc. Drive it anywhere no problems in 15 years since built. IT had orig solid axle and I drove it for a year or so like that, Must II is definite improvement.
My 37 Ford Ute has dropped solid axle with disc brakes conversion. 302/C4/9-inch and it is my daily driver when running (currently apart for body repairs and painting). I think it rides and drives fine.
My 37 Chevy Ute has the original Dubonnet IFS. It is all stock and I certainly would say it rides the worst of all of them. Too floaty and of course it sits too high. The bias ply tires probably contribute some to the poor driving vs radials on the others.

I do not approve of any IFS on open fender. Fat fender you never see the susp, so why not use what makes it sit right and drive nice?