Thread: Need help with Track width

Tweet

Following Richards suggestion, for what you have now that is the "...best vs easiest....". As Don says, there are some good clip jobs out there, and many horrible ones. The same for frame changes. I'll post one of my file pictures to demonstrate a too often problem with S10 frame swaps. There are folks who can do these things well, then there are folks who should never try it. Don't know you well enough to say where you fall. As for "....best vs easiest..." I'm kind of a stick in the mud. The least "difficult" is something based on a stock frame. The width is dead on, the wheelbase is dead on, and the track is "right". And given the modern hot rodding supply market there are a bazillion options for modification to overcome any concerns for whatever level of technology appeals to you.

Thank for all of the input guys, before anything is done I am definately going to be checking the measurements with the frame level. We have just not gotten around to doing so yet. As for the picture that you posted Bob, I definately don't want anything to look like that one does. Because this is a 'clipped' car I have looked into getting a stock frame vs. having one built to original specs. I would love to take a trip back to 1941 and to get whatever I needed. So far, that is just not an option and finding this stuff can be quite frustrating as you guys already know. . . Thanks alot again for the opinions and input, will try to get started on all of the measuring over the weekend hopefully everything is spot on. Will have more questions in the future I am certain of that.
Peter

Originally Posted by streetrodder74

..... finding this stuff can be quite frustrating as you guys already know. . . Peter

Okay Peter, not trying to put you down, trap you, or hold you up for public ridicule in any way. But i gotta ask; Why do you think/say that? I hear this from time to time from folks and just can't identify with it.


As an example, in just a few minutes I found these;
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1941-...spagenameZWDVW
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1948-...spagenameZWDVW
Yeah, the second one has a truck front suspension stuck on, but just put up for the exercise.
I'm neither suggesting you buy one of them without checking what you've got first, nor saying they can't be found even closer, it's just to show what can be found through only one resource in short order.

Well, to be honest with you, I have been checking ebay here and there and have gotten some parts for the car there. I had not personally seen any full frames prior to this time, unless the asking price is too much for what is being offered vs. what I can afford to pay at the time (I pray for deeper pockets on a daily basis to make get the car I envision become a reality). I will continue to check ebay and other areas for things that I come to need. This car is my first 'old' car though there is a '27 tudor T, a 29 tudor A, and a '37 Ford coupe currently in my family. I have been big into cars from a young age but have not had the chance to fully immerse myself until recently. I always loved the '41s and knew somewhere deep that I would eventually get the chance to have what I really wanted.

Maybe all isn't lost. Why don't you post some pictures of what is currently on the front of your rod, and let's take a look.

Don

Well, ebay is only one source. There's also Craigslist, Auto Trader, Fordbarn, the free classified papers that seem to be in every town, Deals on Wheels, and so on. Swap meets are still golden, and of course the best source.........networking with other car guys.

The next 10-20 years are going to be golden for younger guys who like these kind of cars. As we pre and early boomers near 80 we're going to be getting out of the hobby out of necessity.........dead or alive. Since you're new to this portion of the hobby I'll just say, there's more "stuff" out there than you can imagine. My generation and somewhat earlier have been packin crap away for decades. Some of us will begin thinning out our stashes thinking ahead to make it easier on our survivors, or because we need the money for medical stuff, or just because we get old, cranky, and disinterested. Others will die and their widows will have to deal with it. If you watch ebay for instance, you're already beginning to see a regular trickle of years long collections pop up. I posted a thread on a flathead cylinder head collection last week I think.

The point is, if you get yourself connected with like minded people, look seriously for what you want, you'll find it cause it's out there and, I believe, will be out there even more in the not too distant future. If it trickles out gradually over time, the pricing won't change a heck of a lot (ignoring the genuinely rare, unique, high value stuff), but if it starts to come in larger spurts then the prices will actually drop ..........................good ol' supply and demand...........works both ways.

I’m currently building a ’48 Ford sedan and spent a lot of time looking into the different frame options during the planning stages of the project so perhaps my observations will help you.

The stock front track on the ’48, when measured from face to face of the brake drums, is about 58 3/4 inches. Note that this IS NOT actual track width because it does not take into account the wheel offset.

I have a copy of the Early Ford V-8 Club of America’s 1941-48 Book that states “Beginning in 1942, Fords had a wider front and rear tread, longer springs with different shackle configuration and redesigned radius rods.” So although the wheelbase of your car and mine is the same (114”) your track is narrower. This would seem to substantiate Richard’s number of 56 ½ inches.

With that said, the first thing that caught my eye was the picture of your car. The front wheels seem to be sticking out quite a bit farther than what I would expect from an ‘80’s Monte clip which I believe is a G body metric chassis with an approximately 58” front track. Do you think you may have an earlier ‘70’s Monte front clip? They are considerably wider, although I don’t know by how much. What is the center to center measurement of your front tires and what is the wheel backspace? I’m building my own chassis using the front and rear frame clips from the ‘80’s GM metric series frame, and standard offset wheels fit fine underneath the ’48 fenders. The distance between the inside lips of the front fenders on my ’48 is 68-3/16 inches.

I agree with the other posters that you really need to look at the quality of the fabrication of your frame as you decide which way to go but I must also say that I’m not a big fan of shortened A –arms. A lot of engineering goes into the geometry of the front suspension and this kind of fix can adversely affect camber gain, roll steer, and roll center location and therefore should be approached with extreme caution. Also, one other question: What is your rear suspension? Do you still have the transverse leaf or has the car been changed over to parallel leafs or something else? I ask this only because if you need to change the back end as well as the front it might affect your overall decision.

The Mustang II style front end doesn’t look like a good alternative for you because you no longer have a front frame to attach it to. Now I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me, but personally I wouldn’t use the MII stuff (or its derivatives) for a larger daily driver even if I did have a complete frame. I don’t think it’s up to the task in the long run and there have been some failures documented both on this forum and the HAMB forum. I just think that the Detroit engineered stuff is the best bet for this type of application.

So on to the S-10. I looked very closely at this option for my project but didn’t go for it primarily because I wanted rear coil springs. ( I may end up with parallel leafs after all is said and done due to potential back seat to upper rear trailing link issues but that’s the stuff for another post.) In your case, I think the S-10 might be an attractive option IF you have the time, patience, work-space, and fabrication skills to tackle this job because the frame will have to be modified or it will end up looking like Bob’s picture. There are a number of different wheel-base options for the S-10 and I would recommend using one that is longer than 114” because it’s a whole lot easier to shorten a frame than it is to lengthen it. I think the standard cab with the 8 foot bed is 118” WB so it would be easy to cut 4” out of it. BTW, the front hub to hub width that I measured on a mid ‘80’s S-10 was 54 ½ ‘’ and the rear was 54”. If you go this route you may have to adjust your wheel backspacing some. One last thought on the S-10 is that it is very similar to the G series but it is narrower so engine and header clearance becomes more of a concern AND the front mounted steering box is an issue. I know that on my ’48 it’s REAL tight on the front because the grill is right up against the front of the steering box. A big plus is that many of the suspension components interchange with the metric cars including the spindles so inexpensive dropped spindles are available.

The following is a cut and paste from the HAMB forum:

fordnutz
01-25-2004, 01:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have any information on putting a 1940 ford pickup on an S-10 frame?

[/ QUOTE ]

A 40 pickup will work on S-10. Always use the long wheelbase versions, 118 or 123 as they are easy to shorten. Factory seam on the frame. My buddy has a 39 deluxe 2-door on an S-10. The steering box just clears the front fenders, the frame has to be cut even with the box. The rad will be a little offset, but it works. Won't work on a 41 ford car front end, but 42 and up will work. 39 standard and older won't work. The fenders don't clear the steering box.I am putting together a 48 coupe on one. Works good. Someone did an article in a mag once about adapting a rack to the S-10, but the jist of the article was don't bother. Too many problems.[/I]

And finally, as I’ve been writing this I’ve found myself thinking about a first gen rear steer Camaro front clip. It might be a little wide but the steering is behind the axle. If it were me, I might even think about cutting the cross-member and narrowing it if need be and, of coarse, motor mounts and oil pan issues would have to be addressed but all that stuff is available off the shelf. Perhaps you could replace the Monte with this clip.

Hope this helps

Mike

[QUOTE=m.mcc
The Mustang II style front end doesn’t look like a good alternative for you because you no longer have a front frame to attach it to. Now I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me, but personally I wouldn’t use the MII stuff (or its derivatives) for a larger daily driver even if I did have a complete frame. I don’t think it’s up to the task in the long run and there have been some failures documented both on this forum and the HAMB forum. I just think that the Detroit engineered stuff is the best bet for this type of application.

I would have to disagree with your thoughts on the MII suspension. The quality MII kits are as strong or stronger then the suspension they replaced. There are many, many more on the road with thousands of trouble free miles then there are with some sort of freak failure..... Any failures I've seen are from poor design and welding or just plain abuse. I've been installing MII suspensions for better then 20 years and have never had one of them fail....
Nothing is bullet proof, and some idiots could make a Sherman Tank Suspension fail......

In this case it would appear someone has either used the wrong clip or cobbled up the installation of it... I've seen a whole lot more front stub swaps wind up like this then I've ever seen MII QUALITY packages fail......