Register now to get rid of these ads!

'40 Ford-New suspension, wrong wheelbase question

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by loogy, Jan 15, 2006.

  1. Shakey Jakey
    Joined: Apr 26, 2005
    Posts: 119

    Shakey Jakey
    Member

    I'm in the process of building my 40 truck frame. I am using CE MII front and CE parallel kit out back. In my instructions they make a big deal out of inconsistancies in wheelbase from 35-40. They say to use the front bumpstops on the 35-38 frames as the rears were off about an inch. And use the rear bumpstops on the 39-40 frames as the fronts would be off about an inch. Then make sure you end up with a 112 inch wheelbase. They also suggest mounting the fenders to make sure the wheels are centered in the hole, I wish I had that play available to me. I just did as I was told and referenced everything off the rear bumpstops, and still have my fingers crossed. Of course I was able to adjust my wheelbase to 112 inches as I was welding in a new front crossmember.
     
  2. 40Tudor
    Joined: Jan 1, 2002
    Posts: 635

    40Tudor
    Member

    BvMike mentioned it in his first post with the pic, but it's important so I'll point it out again...

    If you decide to use longer shackles, make darned sure that you also have a panhard bar up front. The frame swings easier on the longer shackles. When the frame moves side to side relative to the axle it induces oversteer in a side-steer car....and it is unpleasant...trust me.

    Back in the day, Dad put my '40 in the ditch after he and his brother put 4" shackles in it up front. He described it as 'nearly undriveable'. Lucky there wasn't a culvert nearby or there'd probably be no me.

    Now be a good boy and help me sleep tonight. Say it with me... "I promise to put a panhard bar on my car so I don't die when I put long shackles on it"

    Thankyou
    C
    :D
     
  3. Whatever compromise that leads to longer shackles, I would start over and avoid that, even if it lead to a more radical dropped axle and splitting the bones.
     
  4. loogy
    Joined: Mar 6, 2004
    Posts: 1,236

    loogy
    Member

    Don't worry, I'm not planning on putting longer shackles in it. I've had experience driving a '40 Ford Sedan that had long shackles front and rear, no panhard bars. SCARY!I think that at this point I am going to do as alchemy suggested and cut the front of the perch tube(?) off and weld it to the rear of the remaining tube.
    The only problem that I can see with this is that in order to cut 3/4" off, I will have to make the cut at nearly the center of the hook part of the perch. I will have to make gusset on the backside to replace the cut off material.

    Here's a crappy illustration of what I plan to do.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. Crappy? Dang, you've made two nice illustrations so far.

    And yes, as others have said, I have front and rear pan hard bars. The most the shackles were extended was 1.5". Not drastic. I've seen some crazy long stuff looking under cars.
     
  6. That's a good idea, but check for clearance problems before ya' start wacking stuff up.

    As for the wishbones. If ya' use a Magnum axle the perch pin spacing is the same as a stock axle. Perfect if ya' are still going to run the flathead. No need ta' go looking for earlier radius rods.

    Magnum is my preference in these cars, although one of my '40 coupes has a Super Bell and it's great, but the radius rods are split on that one.

    I did a '40 Tudor with a Chassis Engr. axle several years ago and it worked OK too, but again the rods were split.





     
  7. loogy
    Joined: Mar 6, 2004
    Posts: 1,236

    loogy
    Member

    Thanks Mike. I was just curious to know how long your shackles were so that I could reference them to the ones that were in that '40 Sedan that I drove. That thing had like 6" long shackles in it. Your truck sits really nice. That is the other reason that I asked. At this point, we are fairly commited to using what we have. The wishbones have already been split, but not mounted. I think that the solution mentioned above will work out just fine.

    Thanks! Yes, we will definately check all clearences before we hack anything up.

    Thank you for the great idea alchemy. I'll let you know how it turns out.
     
  8. I don't have all the answers but I've found that the wheel wells were hand rolled up to about 1954. The opening themselves vary up to a couple of inches. This certainly affects the visual placement of the tire.
     
  9. oletrux4evr
    Joined: Dec 7, 2008
    Posts: 21

    oletrux4evr
    Member
    from KS

    I vote for this also..........no suspension compromises involved.
     
  10. Man,this thread is 9 years old! HRP
     
  11. Man,this thread is 8 years old! HRP
     
  12. And I read through the whole thing to see how he was gonna fix it!.............eh eh
     
  13. Chuck R
    Joined: Dec 23, 2001
    Posts: 1,347

    Chuck R
    Member

    Thats funny, me too.
    chuck
     
  14. I didn't notice it was an old thread until I saw a response from C9. He's been gone since 2009!
     
  15. DD COOPMAN
    Joined: Jul 25, 2009
    Posts: 1,122

    DD COOPMAN
    Member

    Yes this is an old thread, but the front wheels/tires on a '40 have "appeared" to be in the wrong place in the fender opening for nearly 75 years. Tony Miller's rendition in the picture below shows how good the tire and wheel can appear when the issue is addressed to make it look like the way it should have come from the factory. DD

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.