Anybody done a sweep on the rear of the chassis instead of Z-ing? I’m really not crazy about the clunky look of a Z, although it’s certainly the easiest option. I’m considering a sweep for a smoother look. Anybody done this? How did you do it??
The big issue with a sweep over a Z is space. Now add a channeled body less room in the truck for essentials. Most Zing will be hidden inside the sub rails. Is zing a frame pretty to look at No but it’s function as the rest is hidden. I had a friend mandrel bend me sone rails to sweep over the rear axle. It sure looked nice but too to much space. They now sell such subrails “sweep” and used for tubing out cars aka prostreet. They look like the cool tube video , I don’t see enough axle movement with the rear crossmember mounted on the top . With a 4 inch rail you will need to C notch the subrails to get it lower or have little drop. There’s a reason the model a ford has open ended crossmember this is for spring and axle clearance . A Z ed frame would not have that spring clearance issue . They have new deuce rails that a c notched for more axle movement..
HAMBer @rogue 's RPU "Faster Pussycat" had swept front & rear frame Zs and swept motor mounts and a bunch of other neat touches. Unfortunately, he hasn't been on the HAMB since 2010.
There are a dozen things about the way the guy on the video did things that i don't agree how he handled them. with that said, Why go through all that work and hours and have an inferior chassis when for 2G you can get this for A or T in multiple configuartions. Save your fab work for the hundreds of other things. Boling Brothers Early Iron
did the sweep once... i was given the 3"x2" swoops... don't know where to buy them... googled it... jorgensons will do 3"x2"...
Thanks for that insight. Wasn’t aware of the clearance issue. That’s why I ask you guys who have been there, done that!
That frame is a beautiful thing. Can’t imagine the hours of fab that went to it. Shame to cover it up!
The whole excessive lowering thing is rather R*t R*d IMO. It's a slippery slope. If you are talking "traditional", which is what this particular forum covers, chopping and/or channeling gives plenty of a lowered look. Bagging and all that is grouped into rice burner car stuff to me. Hate me if you want but "slammed" is akin to the following:
Doesn't look to be too excessive to me. Pretty conservative, actually. A long way from "slammed" (geez I hate that term). Funny video though.........
It’s crazy how much space is needed for gas tank and battery . Plus important things like tools spare, inter tube and cooler full of favorite beverage.. The sweep is cool because it lowers the front end at a low cost and a drop axle is not needed. The sweep also come with other issues with space . That’s because your going to have to have a transmission tunnel and driveshaft torque tube tunnel. The radiator will be shorter and engine fan and hose clearance come into factor. None of this can’t be addressed if that’s the look your going for . Planning is your friend and collecting the correct parts saves money and time .
The limiting factor on an A chassis is the front end. The lowest point of the axle shouldn't be lower than the scrub line, i.e. the bottom edge of the front wheel rim, and allowing for the axle curvature, axle vertical depth, suspension travel, spring, frame depth, and working clearances that puts the top of the frame rails about 8½" above the scrub line. If we extend the rails straight back, as on a stock A, that results in an 8½"-deep underfloor zone, something ordinarily associated with modern tall superminis like the Mercedes W168 A-class, which could likewise enable some clever packaging if there's stuff you can't find space for and you don't mind the height. On the other hand, the sweep allows you to reduce that underfloor zone to the depth of the frame rails, and take 4½" off the total height — or add 4½" of headroom to a chopped closed body. There are alternatives to the sweep, especially if you're looking at full fenders, starting with French Ford importers/modifiers Montier's abrupt vertical Z c. 1930: A Z of about 45° coinciding with the toeboard could be quite neat, despite faint overtones of Rattus norvegicus. It depends on how you approach it. As for the rear, one approach which is inexplicably uncommon in hot rods is to go underslung. Frames underslung front and rear were a brief and mainly American fashion before WWI, and are very seldom seen outside of that. By contrast, a conventional overslung front combined with an underslung rear was extremely common on lower-slung European cars well after WWII. Morgans were set up that way until they lost the live axle in 2020. The way to do that on an A would be to turn the rear part of the frame upside-down, so that the tops of the rails taper down under the rear axle. If you then set up the underside of the frame rails right on the scrub line, and assuming 16" rear wheels, you'd have 4" of space for suspension rebound travel and associated clearances. Just some ideas.
Right! Or many independent suspension based chassis designs in the 30s - Dusenberg, Auburn… all front and rear sweeps, which is what I have in my mind as beautiful chassis design.
Nah; a deuce frame has a smooth swoop to it; not the angular change in direction you get with a pie cut and swept A frame. Even that deuce frame with the added sweep looks goofy. The front rails on an A frame should be square to the firewall. If you Z an A frame in the toe board area behind the firewall so the frame runs out straight it will get you to the same place and will look like a channeled car instead of a broken one.
Nothing wrong with that; just saying that a swept A frame or one swoopy one made from mandrel bent rectangular tubing doesn't have the same look as "original" frames like a deuce or other similar OEM frames.
There are ways to straighten that with two chains, a beam, and a bottle jack! Seriously, it's all preference but to me it does have a somewhat broken backbone look to it. Hiding the sweeps within the body is difficult to argue with. Underslung, Z'd, suicide, chanelling, bags(ick) - there are multiple ways to lower a car but 10 times the opinions about each. In my area of the Midwest these types of cars are on FB and CL forever at a fraction of what they likely cost to build. Like those $100K, puddy-dipped-looking street rods, with billet everything, there is a just a relatively narrow market. Tastes change so it can pay to stay classic. You may say, "I'm building it for me - not to sell" but one day it will go elsewhere(like it or not) and that lower "sellability" implies a lower acceptance by many. Not really arguing - just an observation. Again, just taste and preference. D
If your wanting to do something to show off, then sure the sweep is the way to go, takes more time to execute correctly for sure. The standard Z or Step does the job just as well faster. Both are never seen when its a complete car or truck.. Thats where most people loose their way in this is over complicating something that can be simple and functional. Id take simple and functional and strong any day over pretty and time consuming. But that is me. Look at the projects sold half way in and some are very awesome hidden work, guy got too caught up in the details to see the trees from the forest. All personal tastes and preferences man... Its your ride not mine.
Will your steering box clear now? That is without u-joints, rack and pinion, or adding cross steer or vega parts? It appears the frame juts up where standard box would be mounted. D
Great outlook. Kinda get lost in the chassis when that all you’ve seen for months. Think I’ll do a Tardel Z, and move the f**k on! Appreciate the insight.
Crookshanks, You really don't see the rear Z once the car is together. FWIW, I don't think it looks clunky at all unless someone doesn't gusset it well. If you do it the way Tardel shows the gussets visually tie it together. The angles match the angles of the factory rear cross member gussets. D
Ya know..........I kinda like the "under-slung" concept! Never seen one done like that but................ 6sally6
Good point, when you compare it to those gussets, makes a lot of sense. Might be cool to incorporate some rivets into the Z?
The Jalopy Journal
