Making a frame from scratch??????

So I was talking to a good buddy of mine, who also has agreed to help me out with my project, and he suggested just making a new frame for my car. Instead of trying to put the camaro front end on the dodge frame, we just build a new frame. Do you guys think this is feasable? Would it make a better job? I know my buddy is skilled enough to pull it off. Without him, I prolly wouldnt of even thought about starting this project. Here is a pic of a frame he just finished for a stretched model a

http://upload4.postimage.org/1605220/100_1376.jpg

Couple more pics


http://upload4.postimage.org/1605226/100_1377.jpg


http://upload4.postimage.org/1605232/100_1382.jpg

http://upload4.postimage.org/1605232/100_1382.jpg

http://upload4.postimage.org/1605242/100_1375.jpg

I am going out on a limb here. While the workmanship on that frame looks nice, it is not a good frame. It lacks the proper bracing. It will not have any longitudinal, lateral or axial stiffness because it does not have a K member or any corner gusseting. It does not have any means of keeping the rails in the proper relatioship to each other. A search of tech forums here and on other forums will give you a better undersyanding of what I mean.
Good luck with your project.:)

it depends what you want, that frame looks fine, rear susp looks ok but is different to me,but thats just me.
i built my t bucket with a modified nova front clip and homemade frame from there back with nova leafs on the back. it functions very good with decent ride and impressive handling.(i drag race the car at our local track)
i looks like your buddy has the right idea as the frame looks good re welds etc.

i just read 61s e mail and do agree with what he said though only 2 actual x members never really noticed that at 1st

Thanks for the input guys. I will ask him about he plans to do for more support.

Like this......?

Guys, remember that frame still needs a X-member to hang the trans from. That'll stiffen it up enough.

..............

I've certainly seen a lot worse jobs on frames. Looks like he put a lot of thought into it, and the construction is pretty well done. Two areas that would concern me are the single tube rear crossmember,(it seems a little light duty) and the rear control arm thingies. These seem not only too small, but I'm not nuts about the way they are attached to the rear axle pads.

With a frame this long (this is going to be one looooooooooooong Model A :D ) you really need some stiffening fairly close together along the length of the frame. He needs more than one trans crossmember, IMO. One spot that is particularly vulneralble is the upper mounts for the rear bags. Weight on these is going to make them want to turn up, so he needs a crossmember right there.

Pretty front end though.

Don

146" wheel base. Its also gonna have 4 doors. Like you said, its gonna be a long model A

Locating the front end of the diagonal track bar with a single, fairly small-diameter bolt in single shear would make me a little nervous. But otherwise, I think a good trans crossmember would make this a pretty decent frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shawnlee28

Like this......?

---

Yeah, kinda like that. The way the frame appears, the transmission crossmember will be between the box sections. This won't add much to the frame. Depending on the engine height, a long x member could be added to the top or bottom between the box sections. This would provide some stiffness in the longitudinal and axial planes. There is still no strength in the box sections. Running a tube from the inside front corner to the outside rail in the rear of the box would take care of this and provide excellent longitudinal, lateral and axial stiffness. A frame this long and of that construction would flex like a wet noodle.
Do I overbuild? probably, but I have had enough of cars that the doors don't fit right and squeak like a mouse on speed because frame flex is making the body flex right along with it.:).
Don't get me wrong. I think he has done a fine job so far, but it can be better. It is a lot easier to correct a shortcoming before the car is put together. I speak from experience. The first one I built flexed so bad it broke the windshield.

Not to be negative, but I would also add some fish plates over the butt welds on the main rails ahead of the rear bags. On a race car butt welded joints need to be reinforced i.e. gussets or fishplate. I know it's not a race application, but I would think bumps and pot holes would be just as hard on a frame or even more so than a race track.
just my 2¢ for what it's worth.

Well I am a newbie and I am friends with greaser.I built this frame in the discussion.Thanks for all the criticism.The frame will still get front tube member in the motor mount area and there is also a bolt in style transmission crossmember that that is about 3 ft long and narrow that forms a small x member.The hole frame is .250 x 2.0 x 4.0.It is pie cut from firewall forward on the sides thet drops down to 3.0 tall for the crossmember.I have bagged many cars and trucks.Everybody does things different.The dually in the back ground is also my daily driver I bagged.The rear suspension I set up has never let me down in the past.The buddy I built this four is doing a 4 door 31 Murray body.Useing sedan doors for front and rear doors and then filling the back stock doors.I told him it is too long for me.Sitting next to my stock model a.Also here is the back frame portion on my 1953 ford I did.http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i7...4620AM9071.jpg

Looks good man!

Nice looking rear frame, the bags and everything else look like they are very nicely gusseted.

AHH ,good ol firestone double convoluted bags,I have em on my ride too!!That little gusset on top of the bag mount makes a world of difference in strenth.Nice work!!!

I hope you will allow me to offer some critism of the rear suspension for the Murray without getting upset with me.
I know you said it has worked for you in the past but I can't help but wonder just how WELL it worked...
I am a suspension designer by trade and all I see in your execution is a set of door hinges attached to the axle... The solid clamping at the axle and tightly constrained bushings up front will allow for no axle tramp or "roll" (i.e. left wheel down, right wheel up) without the bending and twisting of the front frame brackets. I HAVE to tell you to re-think this design with the addition of bushings at the axle attachments and at least a third "upper" bar to control the then present axle rotation. This will allow the axle to roll a bit as the car goes around corners and into driveways without over stressing the frame attachments. As it is, the only rotation the axle can do "freely", is up and down, like a door on straight hinges. It HAS to be able to rotate around the front and rear bushings also to operate properly and provide a decent ride without "skipping" around corners.
As was mentioned earlier the front panhard mount needs to be put into double shear also with the rotation direction of the bushing rotated 90*'s to put it into compliance with the rear axle motion. The design as it is is putting a pure bending moment on that single shear bolt and it will break over time...
I am concerned for your customers safety and his passengers and fellow drivers as well.
After some more study I would recommend putting the forward panhard bar attachment on the frame. Not the trailing link...
Mark