Printable View
Seems I recieved good info on the rear suspension, so lets try the front.
I have been researching Hub to Hub kits for mustang 2 suspension install on my 37 chevy coupe.
Most (TCI, Heidt's) all seem pretty close to the same pkg, I am wondering if anyone has used a Jim Weimer Rod Garage kit?
They do not seem to be a big name, and as far as I am concerned, a name is only as good as the product, but true credibility comes from a product that performes.
Their site : JW ROD GARAGE
Quick suggestion. If you put the www. in front of the site name you put up it will create a hot link so folks won't have to do a cut and paste.
There are a lot of good suspension packages besides Heidt's and TCI. I used to be a dealer for Heidt's, till I found other companies making equal or better packages for a lot less money. I do like the Heidt's for open wheel cars cuz they offer everything either chromed or polished but for a fendered car, paying a couple hundred extra for the name just doesn't do it for me....
I've been looking at Heidt's Deluxe MII kit (not the Superide). I want some shine under my fat fenders, but I don't need everything shiney. The Heidt's Deluxe MII is less than $1800 with chrome coilovers. That is the same as JW Rod Garage and with Heidt's you get a good name and customer service. I haven't heard of JW Rod Garage though...
I started out looking at the Speedway kit when I came across it for ~$1600 (tubular control arms, chrome coilovers,etc.), but a few of the parts are rebuilt and for not much less why not go for a name more commonly used that specializes in IFS? That was my reasoning...
I will look at the Heidts delux kit......and Uncle Bob, thanks for the tip....we are always learnin' around here !!
Well, many companies specialize in IFS. I have nothing against Heaidts, still use them on some projects... I guess on a one time purchase $100 bucks isn't that big of a deal.... Having installed many types, I've just found certain things about all of the kits that I like and don't like.. This one comes with QA-1 coilovers, powdercoated arms..... All comes down to what you are looking for, I guess.
Dave, is this a heidts kit in the photo?
Mine came from Progressive automotive out of Baltimore Ohio. Been very pleased with it and it's been under the car for about 18 years. They have more options today than then and prices are reasonable with good customer support. Mine doesn't have a lick of shiny stuff on it, but then again you can't see it tucked under those big fenders anyway.
Here's a link to Heidt's site; Mustang II Crossmembers
Not pushing Heidt's per se, but admittedly I tend to their product. One reason is the finish quality of their welds. Another is a small issue from a performance/functionality point of view, but IMO speaks to the overall quality and that's the upper shock mount cup. I like the look of the stamped "cone" rather than a fabbad cup that looks something like a piece of pipe with a plug in the end. Just suits my sense of esthetics better. Lastly, and this could be argued too, I like that Heidt's spindle is steel rather than cast. In most of these apps the cast probably lasts as well and as long as most hot rods require. Again, it's a personal choice thing for the more durable steel, to me.
Nope, not a Heidt's, but it is a forged spindle and the powdercoated control arms are just like they come out of the box. As Bob said, that may or may not even be a consideration. I've never broken, cracked, or otherwise damaged either type of spindle.... As for the upper coil over mount, yeah, it could be a stamped cone shape. But I gotta ask if that alone is worthy $100 or so bucks more? Good point Bob, just not sure how many customers would pay the extra $$$ to get a couple Heidt's decals on the control arms...that they have to scrape off when they paint anyhow.......
Thanks....I am still mulling over using a coil-over front end kit vs. the std coil/shock frt end .....have heard that they can be ride height adjusted where a std front end would only have the drop from 2"drop spindles.....decisions....decisions !!!!...
a question about the components used. Could you use stock M2 spindles,ball joints, brake calipers, rack, tie rod ends, control arm bushings etc. and just buy a set of bare tubular a-arms and coilovers and save a pile of money. Just fab up the mounts. All of the components look to be stock, exept the mounts and a-arms.
...I don't know....sounds likely, but I will be needing crossmember,A-arms, 2'' drop spindles, and then go and get everything else gathered up. you are probably correct, but to have it all in a pkg and with support from the mfgr if (when) I have questions is probably worth the added expense.
[QUOTE=37ChevTxCoupe]...I don't know....sounds likely, but I will be needing crossmember,A-arms, 2'' drop spindles, and then go and get everything else gathered up. you are probably correct, but to have it all in a pkg and with support from the mfgr if (when) I have questions is probably worth the added expense.[/QUOTE
agreed...not to mention MOST of those MII kits come with all NEW parts where as gathering a bunch of junk parts you never know what you are getting...
I hope I won't get off topic here, but I think this may be valuable for more here in this thread than just me...I was hoping to have my crossmember welded in by a nearby shop then installing the rest on my own, but the shop told me today that they wouldn't feel comfortable installing the crossmember without installing the rest to ensure that the crossmember is positioned correctly....which makes sense i guess. I was under the impression that the measurements supplied would be enough to get the crossmember set, but I guess you never know for sure until it goes together. I'm a little disappointed to hear this as I want to install it myself not to mention the labor they will charge....Opinions?? thanks
A shop here in Ft.Worth told me that they would be happy to install just the crossmember...or install the entire kit, whichever I decided. My Frame is still rolling with stock suspension, so proper placement should not be an issue (knowing the origional placement of the spindles). I am like you and want to do as much myself as possible, but I know that the crossmember placement is critical. I am a good welder and have the proper equipment to do the job, but putting that sucker in the right spot, I am going to get a little help !!!
Installing the crossmember isn't that difficult, just be sure to mark the frame rails with the centerline of the original king pins, the center the new crossmember on this mark and center the coil over top mounts or spring mounts on the same centerline. The most important thing is to have the frame supported solidly before you remove anything.... If you don't have to remove the original crossmember before installing the new crossmember it's a cake walk. Oh yeah, you will also have to box the frame rails where before installing the new crossmember. I've include a pic of a '58 Chevy pickup that I did recently, different truck, same procedure.... I've done enough of them now that I have the whole install process down to about 6 hours....
On the pic, note the centerline drawn on the boxing plate from the old straight axle. As you can see, the original crossmember is still in place. After this pic was taken I added a new front crossmember where the frame rails end, then removed the original crossmember...
Hope this helps, if not, let me know what else you have concerns with....
It's a 50/50 deal. If the installer is experienced, with this type of install, with your type of vehicle, with that (whatever) brand of crossmember assy, then it should be a caker to just have him do the crossmember install by the measurements. But something else to think of. IF, when you put it together and get the components aligned properly, it turns out not to be in the correct position, you take it back to him to complain, he looks at you and says something like "Hey man, I told you I wanted to do the whole assembly so this kind of thing wouldn't happen. I did it your way so it's all your problem!" That's how you end up with two ticked off people. All comes down to your tolerance for risk and your ability to choose a shop.
Then there's the other factors in play. Some vehicles look better after they've been lowered, and raked, with the front axle moved slightly from the stock centerline. Mid fifties F100's for example. So sometimes a mockup is helpful that way too. Depends a lot on your sense of aesthetics and how picky you are/will be.
And, it should go without saying, the first step in the process is to make sure the frame is square, and not a parallelogram or tweaked in some other way. If the shop doesn't do that then you could end up with one side right, the other wrong.
Very good points made by Uncle Bob, all the stuff I forgot. You should also notice in the pic that the frame is securely mounted on my chassis table, everything was measured and leveled multiple times, then carefully tacked and welded in a manner that would not twist anything out of shape. Thanks Bob!!!!
I won't have a table, but will put multiple supports from rail to rail to hold everything in position. My frame is what is called a "tophat" frame, on the bottom side is a flat plate that extends horizonoly across the bottom of each rail. once I mark my centerline I should only have to notch this lip the width of the new crossmember in order for it to fit agianst the "box" of my rail. Does this sound correct to ya'll?
Also...while we are talking frames....I am looking at the 4-link (triangulated ) with coil-overs.....I want the widest tire/wheel combo without narrowing the frame. This "lip" on the frame sticks out approx 2", I was considering shaving the outside frame lip and then re-inforcing the effected area to allow for wheel/tire combo. I hate to destroy a good frame by narrowing ....plus the added cost... and my inner fenders are the best part of my floor !!......opinions from the experienced ?????
I have my stock front end intact as well so placement of the new crossmember shouldn't be a big deal, but I can just see it now...they weld in the new crossmember exactly where it is "supposed" to go then I get it home to install the rest of the front end and it ends up not going together right. Then I have to take it back to them and have it repositioned so I'm probably better off just letting them do it. Then I'll be getting a half roller back so I may as well have them weld/bolt a couple new leaf springs on while they're at it but, at $50 an hour where do I draw the line? O well that's just the joys of building a car I guess! :D
Dave, Bob- all very good information. Bob, good point about a possible argument with the installer...that's the exact thing I'm worried about. I believe most of his experience is on Chevys of similar years and trucks so I'm not sure he will nessesarily have the experience with this car to rely soley on the measurements and leads me to just say screw it I'll just let him install the whole kit.
If you're relatively sure your frame is in good shape the rear suspension is an area where you CAN save some of that labor $. Both Chassis Engineering, www.chassisengineeringinc.com, and SAC, http://www.sachotrod.com/index.htm and perhaps others sell very nice dual rear leaf spring setups that are essentially bolt ins. I've had both and been happy with both. The SAC will sit lower than the CE, but the CE is spaced for either a Maverick, or a Nova 10 bolt (see the catalog on their site). They're not pure bolt ons as you will have to drill out more holes, but they use Ford factory existing holes to start with. Really pretty easy installs all things considered. SAC doesn't list theirs on the above site, you'll have to call and talk to them about it.
On both of these, once you've got them located and even partial bolted in, you could have the shop weld the brackets to the frame if that was more to your liking.
Shouldn't hurt to lose the lip, long as you box that section on the inside of the rail. Triangulated 4 bars are my favorites. As far as who's to get, lots of good ones out there. I have a job shop here in town laser cut me a bunch of brackets, then build my own. I prefer that to the store bought universal ones.... If they make one application specific for you, then you're in luck....
The notch for the front should work. Also, when I make "house calls" to install an IFS, I clamp some 1 1/2" X 2" rectangular tubing in front and behind the point where the new crossmember goes in, just added security to keep from moving a rail where I don't want it... If you don't want to spend a bunch of money on clamps, it works to just tack the tubing to the frame securely, then grind the welds off when the boxing plates and crossmember installation is complete.....
Thanks for the info, I should be making the call on ordering the M2 kit early next week. I am getting a hand with some assembly and he said we would fab our 4 link rather than buy a kit, ya'll are on the same page...right down to the use of polyurethane bushings......and I really like that !!!!
It is sort of wierd....after 4 years of collecting parts.....looks like the 'ol coupe will start the building process !!!
Bob- I have looked at both the CE and SAC bolt in rear leaf kits and like you said SAC doesn't list their kit on the website so I'll have to give them a call although I like to see what I'm buying before I buy be it in person or just pictures. Rear leafs shouldn't take long to install so I may just have the shop do that too just to get a roller back...I wouldn't be saving much to install the rear springs myself probably.
37Chev- what MII kit did you end up deciding on? I thought I had picked Heidts Deluxe kit, but I also like Fatman's Stage III and along with the catelog, they sent me a 35-40 Ford specific insert with some good information...
If you're really going "hog wild" on your car, think about front and rear anti-sway bars...........you'd be surprised what a difference it makes in cornering and overall ride quality.
Here's a couple pics of my '36 roadster, the bars are CE front and rear, the suspensions are Heidt's in front, CE in the rear.
That's the Heidt's Deluxe there right Bob? Also, what size blocks are those on the rear and do you have side pictures with the body/fenders on yet? Happen to have any pics of the rear upper shock mounts? Thanks
Don't remember ordering it by the term "Deluxe", but it's the ground crossmember, narrowed control arms, dropped spindles, big brakes. The blocks in the rear are 3" for now (before useage), and once the rear springs settle (as they always seem to do), I'll probably change to 2", maybe less if I take out a leaf for tuning once it's on the road. The front coil needed trimming too to get to the ride height in the mock up picture below.
I see you edited for the shock mounts. The second pic is the best I've got, they're basically triangular shaped brackets that fasten to the stock rear crossmember. Also you can sort of make out the rear spring hangers attached to the frame rail.
Bob, I noticed you said narrowed control arms, is this to allow for a wider than stock wheel/tire on the front without fender clearence problems?
If you look at the mock up pic you'll see the wheel is pretty close to being centered to the fender, so you are correct. It was especially important for this build because I wanted to use these specific wheels (decision made prior to specing the suspension), and if you look carefully you may notice the front wheel has a fair bit of negative offset, if I recall the backspace is less than 3" (2 5/8?) on a 6" wide rim. Also selected a brake setup that didn't push the wheel outward like most of the typical "big brake" conversions do (typically 5/8" per side). Mixing the "right" parts gives what I consider the "good" look without punishing bearings and negatively affecting steering quality.
so many questions...let me know when I start annoying you :D
I too was wondering about narrowed control arms...I would like at least a 205 or so wide front tire (I don't have a specific wheel picked out yet so I don't know about backspacing) so I assume I would need narrowed control arms. So everyone that uses the regular control arms uses narrow wheels 6" and under?
Is that CE rear spring kit bolted or welded in?
So you have the stock frame with a stock rear crossmember? Did you do any boxing or added support to the rear of the frame or just the front?
What is that wheel tire combination and what backspacing on the rear? I know I asked you before about the suspension on the '40 sedan you have a picture of on here, but it realy helps to hear what all fits from others to save time and money figuring it out you know?
Finally, what engine are you using with that stock firewall?
37chev, sorry, I think I got the two of you confused as we went along here, though most of what's been posted is fairly generic. I missed your question about the top hat frame. Just for general info, pictured below is a '39 Chev we had in the late '80's. That one used a stock MII/Pinto crossmember and components that we "sunk" into the front rails (can't exactly remember 3 or 4") the crossmember essentially "boxed" the notch. Also trimmed the coils, we were shooting for cartoon low. For some reason people thought we trailered the car (they're probably parents of todays rat rodders:eek: ), they seemed not to believe something with 1 5/8" clearance under the center of the grille could be street driven.:D
Now, 20 years of technology and learning later I'd probably do it differently, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
You might want to read the commentary on Chassis Engineering's site about the top hat frame construction type and welding in of a front crossmember. Not sure I agree with it 100%, but it makes for interesting reading.
sorry 37Chev...somewhere along the line I went from generic questions that would benefit both of us to stealing Bob away from you in your own thread:o
Well..............that would be right now!!!:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by 35fordcoupe
Just kidding................just kidding.........$1000 payment to my paypal account will take care of everything!:LOL:
Here's how I earned the title "Uncle", or would that be curmudgeon? (and maybe some others not said to my online face:p ). You used the word "assume". There's no reason to do that, and it's a good way to waste time and money and/or end up with unsatisfactory results. It's not that hard to measure for what you want/need. I'd say one of the biggest mistakes made in car building is folks getting impatient. I sure have done it way too many times. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes not. See my sig lines for my thoughts on luck. Mockup, mockup, mockup! Yeah, it's extra work, but it accomplishes so much in the long run it's worth every moment, and is one of the most cost effective things you'll do in a build. As an example, later I will answer your questions about what fits MY car, but don't assume it will work for you exactly the same, even though our cars are very similar in design. Build tolerances back in the day were a lot more flexible than today and sometimes the ravages of time have changed things as well.
Wheel and tire combos are one of the most abused applications out there. It drives me nuts (short trip) when someone comes on here and asks something like, "What size tire will fit my 1958 Whizbang Deluxe." There are so many unknowns about that particular car (what size wheels, what offset, what kind of brakes, has it ever had any body work done that may have left inner panels closer together, all kinds of questions like that). The guy has the car right there, measure it!!! The reason this happens is people are on unfamiliar ground. Okay, enough with the sermon so let's cover some basics.
I strongly recommend you figure out what you want to do for wheels, which will lead to tires, which will lead to your choices in components, which might lead back to your adjusting your thoughts on wheels and tires. You're building a custom fabricated car, so you control the variables. When I envisioned the '36 roadster I had an idea of stance, and I had my heart set on the wheels that are on it. Like you're doing here, I looked at similar cars. As we know, the '35 to '40 Fords use the same chassis, and the body dimensions are similar from year to year. As a GUIDE (emphasis intended) I used what was done to a buddie's '39 coupe. As an example, his was the first one I'd driven with anti-sway bars front and rear which taught me how much affect they had. Okay, one parameter set. Then I went to school on the rest of his setup, which is what we're doing here with mine. I would just want to emphasize once more, use what I tell you as a guide, not an absolute. You may have to/want to adjust to your vehicle, tastes, budget, time, experience, intended use, etc.
Okay, we've talked about the front offset and wheel size, the tire size is 195/60 in front (I like a rubber rake, and the extra width without going crazy on the aspect ratio and losing the sidewall flex for ride quality). The rear is an 8" wide wheel with 3 1/4" backspace, carrying a 255/70 tire (the 70 fills the wheel opening better than the 60 to my eye). At this point, some folks will factor in their desires based on diameter and how that effects gear ratio, I'm less concerned about that than appearance. To me, the small difference in ratio is tolerable. Speed/acceleration is low on my priority list.
Since I locked myself in on wheel/tire, that left the variable being the rear axle width, and the front track width. We set up the car, put the wheels underneath where we wanted them for spacing, and then measured. The rear axle is "easy", just take it to the shop that does narrowing and have it made to fit. Cut the housing, fab an axle or two (only need one for this application) and you're there. The front was only slightly more difficult. Typical stock MII dimensions are 56 1/2" hub flange to hub flange with stock 9" rotors. Well, I knew I wanted 11" rotors, so had to take those into consideration. The typical way most brake kits get there, and maintain a 4 1/2" bolt circle, is with a Dodge rotor. But those push the flange out 5/8" (as I recall) on each side. I was shooting for something more like 55", so that wasn't going to work. So that led to the choice of the narrowed control arms, which only got me half way there. I did a little research and learned that ECI Brakes (http://ecihotrodbrakes.com/index.html Ralph is a very helpful and knowledgable guy) made a custom hub that left the flange in the same relative position as the stock MII, so I got the 5/8" per side back right there, giving me a net 55 1/4" which worked just fine. I ended up having to shorten the rack and pinion tie rods as at the time a rack that narrow wasn't available.........at least not that I could find.
So, you can use practically any tire/wheel combo you want, you just have to adjust accordingly on whatever other variables you have. It works the other way too. If you look in my gallery, there's a maroon '32 roadster. I bought that one as a "finished", running car. It was two tone with black fenders, frame, and fuel tank, sat way too high, and had some ugly, old chrome wire wheels on it. I wanted to give it more of a traditional look, with a better stance, and didn't want to break the bank or get too deep into changing the car. In that case I carefully measured axle spacing (my fixed dimensions in that case) after lowering it and figured out what size tires would fill the wheel wells nicely, then had wheels fabbed (my most controlable variable in this case) to fit. Some color matching and painting on the black stuff, wheels and voila!!!! A fresh looking car that most people thought was built entirely to the resultant look. The "secret" was planning what I wanted and measuring how I could get there.
The CE rear springs were bolted to get the placement, and then the front and rear brackets were welded, mainly just because we were doing a frame off deal and had the welder going while it was on the rotisserie. Had I been doing a frame on deal, I would have just drilled all the holes necessary and done the bolt in method.
As for boxing, the front was done as you noted, but it's unnecessary in the rear for a street driven car. It's already a double C channel as the "tails" of the X member extend all the way to the ends of the frame within the outer rails. Since this is a roadster, I felt it needed some more frame bracing in the center of the side rails, so we added some box plate sections and some braces from the center of the X to the side rails (you can see them in the chassis rear shot). I probably wouldn't have done that on a coupe/sedan, especially if the body stayed on the frame. The center of the X member was strengthened with the CE mount that also serves to make clearance/mounting for the GM trans.
The engine is a normal SBC with a small housing MSD distributor. The trans mount actually dictates where the engine sits, although there is some room for adjustment. It sits a little tight to the radiator, and if I had it to do over again, I would move it back another 3/8" which would give me more fan options (learn something on each build).
...HEY !!!!!.....everything I am reading .....for my car or yours is just giving me more info...and in the long run....more questions.....but I like it !!!
and yes Bob.... I have read CE's opinion on using a bolt on crossmember, but that is one opinion, and I don't fully agree...but we all get to have opinions.....deep stuff, huh??
I believe you helped me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter
Bob, the payment is in the mail errr...it's coming :LOL: .
The big reason I like to ask others what works/fits is due mainly to my inexperience. I realize every car goes together different...maybe it's just nice to hear I'm on the right track after asking or maybe I'm trying to copy :LOL: .
I want as wide of rear tires as I can fit, but again due to inexperience I tend to shy away from doing exactly what I want and settle for something that will be easy/cost effective for me to accomplish. Example, the 275 rear tires I have sitting around would look great on this car, but they won't fit w/o heavy modification so I settle for a narrower tire...narrowing a rear doesn't seem cost effective for me. I would tend to see what I can get and chose a wheel/tire combo to fit that. I'm not real sure how to measure for a rear width/tire/wheel backspacing either. Also, are those wheels 16"? That look and stance is more or less what I'm after...
As for the front...I will be at 56 1/2" plus 11" rotors (which I understand as well is an extra 5/8" x 2). I don't see myself not using the rotors that will come with my kit so other than gaining 2" from narrowed control arms I will likely run a tire that will fit where I'm at there. I guess the way I figure it is if others get by with that set up with narrow tires I can too...just just want to make it through this build alive and not get too crazy with this :3dSMILE: :LOL:
I know I was told before the rear of the frame should be okay, but the shop reccommends partially boxing the rear as well so I want to be well imformed before I refuse. I do plan to replace the center of the X so that should help there. Did you say that was the stock rear crossmemeber...is that suffiecient for the shock mounts?
Actually I think both of you are doing fine all things considered. Indulge me my little bursts of sermonizing as I'm never sure what level of comprehension is at the other end until more back and forth occurs. So "in the beginning" I'd rather err on the side of overemphasis rather than unintentionally misleading.
As for "getting it right", I'm not sure in reality any of us hobbyists ever reaches that nirvana. There's always some way or other we outsmart ourselves. And then there's the "the more you learn, the more you learn you don't know" theorem.
You might want to double check your numbers on the amount gained from the narrowed control arms. I believe Heidt's is only 5/8" per side, not a full inch. If there is a full inch option there I'd love to learn about it.
If you were to go down the path of wider tires in back then the parallel leaves attached to stock rails isn't the optimum. That's why God invented four bars, or ladder bars, and coilovers. And that relates to the stock frame strength issue. First off, most rodders aren't exactly engineers (though we do have a few here that are), and as such will sometimes "over engineer" an application just because they THINK it's better. If you were to go the narrowed rear frame section, coilover/ladder bar, build it for high stress launches and so forth, I could see a reasonable argument in favor of additional boxing, or replacement with box or round tubing. With parallel leaves, you're basically playing to the greatest strength of the existing structure. Fairly modest torque input to the frame rails, and virtually all vertical rather than rotational (most of that type of input is disipated in spring flex). At the other end (the front), boxing is realistic because the inputs from both the engine and the control arms is more direct and rotaional.
As for questioning the strength of the stock rear crossmember, remember, with the stock transverse spring the entire sprung weight of the rear half of the car was supported by that crossmember. It's more than adequate for taking the inputs from two small shock absorbers (assuming it's not weakened by rust or damage).
Measuring wheel and tire fitment is pretty straight forward once you get the info you want/need. Your baseline for placement is the axle/rotor mounting flange. I find a long enough straight edge of some kind is useful for projecting my "midpoint". If I think I want a 26" diameter tire, then I use at least a 26" straightedge (stick if you will). If you jack the car up by the suspension that will give you the approximate mid point of travel. If you don't know, you might have to guess how much travel you'll have, particularly upward, to know where to measure for the top of tire travel. This is usually fairly critical because most wheel houses get narrower higher up. In front it's anticipating fender rub in a turn. Sometimes in the effort to fill the fenderwell nicely for visual effect, we crowd the turn interference situation. Many times it won't show on a moderate speed turn on flat surface, but on those usually rare occasions where your hitting a drive ramp at a good speed, you'll get just enough more compression to cause a hit (even worse if you've got a load of passengers with you). Your call on how big a risk that is, and if you can discipline yourself to avoid those kinds of manuevers. That orange '39 Chev was a real test for my powers of discipline!:D
Most tire websites have charts that give you diameter, cross section width, sidewall height data to help you figure the tire dimensions. The wheel is a little bit confusing if you don't understand a couple of variables. When a wheel is classified as six inch wide, that's the dimension BETWEEN the inner beads of the wheel outer flanges. The actual full width of the metal structure is more like seven inches, depending on how it's manufactured (cast aluminum wheels could be even wider for example). This comes into play on back space, because that's measured from the rear (hub) mounting surface to the plain of the back flange of the wheel. So our six inch wheel that has a 3" backspace, will have 4" of overall width to the front flange face (some folks think that since it's a 6" wheel the mounting flange is "centered"......not quite). So, just for discussion, let's say the tire manufacturer says a certain sized tire, mounted on a 6" rim will have an 8" cross section (the "bulge" of the sidewall at it's widest), and is 26" tall. There you have pretty much all you need to start measuring. The next thing is to keep all those other factors mentioned in mind as well as being observent aboult all the other things under there that could come in contact with the wheel/tire, e.g. brake components, tierod ends, control arms, shocks, leaf springs, and so on.
I have looked at several kits recently...some of them were 1" narrowed control arms. I don't have that specific information yet for Heidt's since it's been a few weeks and still no catelog (I talked to Fatman at the same time and they got me a catelog within a couple days along with a 35-40 specific insert :rolleyes: ...). So you are probably right...Heidt's could be only 5/8".
I'll be using parallel leafs...so whatever tire I can fit I'll be using. No four link or anything so it sounds like the rear of the frame should hold up fine as it is.
My questioning of the rear crossmember was more about age and possible damage (visual or non visual damage). Realizing the shocks would not be adding much stress I wasn't sure if adding a new crossmember would be a good idea anyway. My crossmember seems fine, but I'll have to inspect it after blasting to make a decision.
I wasn't sure if there was a definate way to measure for a wheel/tire or not...sounds like there is still a good amount of guesswork involved especially with the upward travel. Measuring for backspacing still has me a little confused...if I were to use the stick on the hub method that will determine overall height, but how do I determine wheel/tire width and backspacing. I guess the maximum overall width is fairly straight forward, but after knowing the width how do I take that and determine the backspacing I need? Also, what is an acceptable distance for the tire from something like the leaf springs? Thanks
FYI: I recieved a nice e-mail from an individual up in the great northeast that has used the Jim Weimer Rod Garage M2 kits. He spoke very highly of them and said that they were"VERY nice kits".
Also, after speaking with this forum I contacted them (rod shop) and confirmed that they use steel spindles, give the option on power or manual racks, option 2" drop or std spindles, 11" chevy or ford pattern disc brakes , tubular control arms etc.....and ship for free to lower 48 states.
Many of the other kits I viewed offered these options, but at a +$$ per item.
So I have just ordered my M2 kit from them. I should have it towards the end of the week, and depending on schedules, I hope to get the install going soon. I will send out a thread just to keep anyone interrested in the progress of a rookie.
Only two reasons I could see for changing the rear crossmember; 1) it's too rusted or damaged to be trustworthy, 2) you want something less bulky and more "attractive".
For the measuring stuff here's a link that has some artwork and internal links that will save me a lot of typing, and not subject you to my incompetent attempts at drawing. http://www.rsracing.com/tech-wheel.html
And you can print it out for reference again and again.