Squarebirds, Rocketbirds, and Fifties/Sixties Ford Discussion Forum

Squarebirds, Rocketbirds, and Fifties/Sixties Ford Discussion Forum (http://squarebirds.org/vbulletin/index.php)
-   1958 To 1960 Squarebirds - General Technical Discussion (http://squarebirds.org/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   ī58 Rear suspension "issues" (http://squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10678)

Anders 03-03-2011 03:59 PM

ī58 Rear suspension "issues"
 
1 Attachment(s)
Does anyone know, or maybe have the heart to check on your own ī58, the length of the spacer ( metal tube ) that sits inside the two isolators on the rear axle. After m u c h work on all possibilities I have located the problem with my stiff rear end and limited suspension travel to this area. My isolators are the original rubber, meaning they are very hard after +50 years, but I know that my spacers are not original, so I need to find out the original length if I ever is to have the rear suspension working properly. I need to find some real soft isolators also, in order to get this work as it should. :o
On a bonus note, it would be interesting to know if you have the treads even to the nut or how far ( or how many treads ) you might have through the nut.
Thanks in advance,
Anders

Astrowing 03-03-2011 09:40 PM

I'll measure and take pictures of my '58 but won't get to it until weekend after this one coming up. I'm not quite ready to disassemble everything. What do you need to do to offload this isolator to remove it?

Anders 03-04-2011 12:32 AM

Yes. It is quite simple and fast. But I recommend that you put notes on on the distance of the tread, so you can adjust it.
Iīts pretty simple. But you need to lift the car so you squeeze yourself in there :)

Thank you VERY much!!!

/Anders

tbird430 03-04-2011 11:20 AM

Are we talking tread of the tire or do you mean thread on the bolt??


:confused:

Anders 03-04-2011 02:54 PM

Bolt :) Just to give an estimation about how hard or loose they are adjusted.

frank58 03-04-2011 07:02 PM

This one?



Astrowing 03-04-2011 10:48 PM

Looks like the sleeve is 2.5 inches or 6.35 cm from the picture. Do you have a measurement for the bolt?

Do you also have measurements or pictures for the track arm bushings and the control arm? This is good stuff! Thanks.

Anders 03-05-2011 02:21 AM

My sleeve is 70 mm...:o
Mine are aftermarket, but what I realy like to know is how long is the original. Need to dig in and learn this as the whole travel set-up is done by this bolt. If I tighteen them as much as I can ( limiting the movement ), I have a travel of the rear axle of approx. 2":eek:. If I loosen everything and take out the rubber isolators, My rear axle can move 2 feet up and down, so to find the right length and then hunt after some realy soft rubber to make new isolators from.
When I bought my car, somebody hade put on super hard isolators. Like a hockey puck. No flex what so ever, meaning the stress transportated ( as the car tryed to move up and down while driving ) itself through the upper control arm, and created breaks in the framepart where the upper control arm sits.
Unfortunally there is no words in the shop manual about how to adjust or where the "factory setting" is, or what shore the rubber shall have.

Astrowing 03-05-2011 09:07 AM

Is the bolt you have a picture of an original? How long is the bolt and how far back is it threaded?

Anders 03-05-2011 12:06 PM

Yes, the bolt and locknut is Original.
The length, excl. the head is 113 mm. The threads are 41 mm of these. Donīt know inch.....:o

GTE427 03-05-2011 12:50 PM

2 Attachment(s)
Maybe we can collectively Reverse Engineer the length of this spacer (Item 5540).

Has the bolt been replaced from the original one? My assumption is that the bolt has a larger diameter shank than the threaded portion of the bolt.

Look at the attached diagram and see if my conclusions make sense when looking at the suspension assembly of your car. I think washer 55596 seats against the shank of bolt *45859-S, this keeps anyone from over-compressing the bushings. If that is true, than the length of your spacer 5540 is fractional shorter than the lenght of bolt *45859-S MINUS the thickness of the Axle Perch (part of 4010 axle housing), but long enough to retain the compressed thickness of bushings 5537. Also if washer 55596 or the bolt have been replaced by something different, that could change this connection from the way it should function. Looks like your bolt is different than my conclusion. I have a hardware catalog that I can check later this evening to see if the bolt is unique.

If your bolt is the original design, than the lenght of the spacer would be fractionally smaller than the bolt shank lenght MINUS(-) the spring perch thickness MINUS(-) washer 55596 thickness. This would assume that your nut would be run up to the ends of the bolt threads.

It appears the purpose of the spacer and bushings is to allow this connection to move side-to-side as well as up and down for suspension travel.

Maybe someone else has some ideas after reading this.

Added an additional sketch for clarity.

simplyconnected 03-05-2011 02:01 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Ken, you're good so far. Use the TEXT Catalog for the component dimensions. The 'standard of measure' on this car is in 'inches'. The bolt is 4-1/2" long and 5/8" diameter with 18-threads per inch. The rubber parts are 3"-total thickness. The bolt probably had no more than 1/2" of threads hanging passed the nut when properly installed:

GTE427 03-05-2011 02:17 PM

Dave,
I didn't see the bolt specifications when i looked at the Text Catalog, thanks. Do you have a Standard and Utility catalog, what copyright?

I did look at the text for spacer 5540, no lenght was given

simplyconnected 03-05-2011 02:36 PM

Ford Group Numbers are kinda 'fuzzy' at best. Notice there is nothing about the bolt if you look for 5859, but it's there if you look for the whole assembly. In fact, there are three applications for the same bolt and nut in that assembly.

I marvel when I think of the scheme Ford used waaaaaay back before we had computers... and we're still using it today.

Anders 03-05-2011 03:53 PM

Before Carl helped me getting a set of used, but original Isolators and washer( 55596 ) I was long gone in making this work. As the parts I have now, the total length of the two isolators ( 5537 ) is longer than my sleeve. Having in mind that the sleeve also runs through the lower trailing arm and the isolators are on one side of it, it add little more "air". Now, I donīt know if this is the right length of the sleeve or not. I just donīt think itīs the right one as it is yellowish, as modern treaten metal parts.
I am 99,99% sure my bolt is original though. It is the very same Ford split-lock-nut and the bolt look just like the others, but with itīs own length as the rest in the rear suspension.
Why I am trying to figure out the right length is that it is a important input about how much the isolators should be able to compress. Bringing some more experianced friends having a look at this last Friday, we tryed every possible way to check every movement with and without attaching the coil springs, as we then could move the rear axle, and our conclusion was that the isolators most probably was way softer in 1958 than they have become since then ;) But still.
So if I only get hold of the "original length" of the sleeve, I can start chasing different shore of rubber to start trying what might work best.
So far guys, Iīm VERY greatful to your help and support! :) Especially as you seems to have ī59īs & ī60īs yourself. Where is the ī58 Nation?.... ;)

Anders 03-05-2011 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank58 (Post 53625)
This one?



Frank: Are these isolators soft? Can you squeeze them with your hand? I looked them up at Rare Parts, but they donīt mension anything regarding shore.

simplyconnected 03-05-2011 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders (Post 53640)
...Iīm VERY greatful to your help and support! Especially as you seems to have ī59īs & ī60īs yourself. Where is the ī58 Nation?...

Anders, my only Thunderbird sits ontop a trophy. (Thank You very much.)

But allow me to draw your attention to this part number again:

It indicates THREE of your bolts are the exact same part number on each side. Ken's attached picture verifies their exact locations. So, all SIX bolts (three on each side) are interchangeable unless someone has changed all six bolts. - Dave

GTE427 03-05-2011 04:36 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Anders,

Realising that the bolt is used in three places and from your conversation, I'd agree that the bolt is nothing special and original. That your spacer is shorter than the combined length of the bushings would indicate that the suspension travel shouldn't bind unless the spacer is still too long once it's compressed and carrying a load. I drew a scaled cross section with a 2.5" long spacer as found in the photos and the 1" and 2" bushing without being compressed. Probably of no help, it's attached just in case. Was hoping to help you solve this without having an original piece to measure. Good Luck!

Anders 03-05-2011 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTE427 (Post 53643)
Anders,

Realising that the bolt is used in three places and from your conversation, I'd agree that the bolt is nothing special and original. That your spacer is shorter than the combined length of the bushings would indicate that the suspension travel shouldn't bind unless the spacer is still too long once it's compressed and carrying a load. I drew a scaled cross section with a 2.5" long spacer as found in the photos and the 1" and 2" bushing without being compressed. Probably of no help, it's attached just in case. Was hoping to help you solve this without having an original piece to measure. Good Luck!

Yes, this is exactly as it looks. My sleeve, or spacer, is 70 mm, and that is 2, 75 inch, so if 2,5 is the right length, I need to cut mine, and that does make some sence, as the isolators will be able to compress more before the sleeve/spacer will "stop" the movement.

redstangbob 03-05-2011 05:39 PM

I've been following along but staying out of this because I don't have any first have knowledge of the 58 rear suspension. After looking at the pictures and Ken's drawings there's one thing I think I can conclude. When those bushings, or 'isolators' are used with a center sleeve, the nut is tightened all the way and torqued to keep it from backing off, there are no 'voids'. the isolators will allow movement when the weight of the car forces them to move, those arms should be HARD to move around by hand. We now know the sizes of the isolators and the bolt. the isolators must get squeezed somewhat to do their job. some pictures of the axle and lower arms/brackets would help me visualize the set up. That's my idea anyway, good luck, Bob C

simplyconnected 03-05-2011 08:06 PM

Anders, don't cut your spacer. I'm sure it's the correct length. I also agree with Bob C, because with EVERY suspension bushing Ford uses, the inner steel sleeve is torqued tight, and nothing ever pivots on the bolt. BTW, this 5/8" bolt is serious business. It requires a wrench of nearly one inch, with a very long handle.

If your rubber bushings are 3" and the steel spacer is 2-3/4", that only squeezes 1/4" plus the thickness of the lower arm. These bushings are not designed to move or slide under normal driving, otherwise they would erode away in the first year of service causing a terrible noise. The worst these rubber buscuits can do is crack, shrink, and get sloppy.

They are probably not the cause of a hard ride, either. Old springs get too stiff to bounce, worn shocks don't dampen, worn-through bushings cause slop, and old tires are never as smooth as new ones. All these factors constitute the feel of your rear suspension.

Restore the pivot (urethane) bushings and I can't say enough good things about new springs, shocks, and tires. Then, you will have a smooth ride. - Dave

Anders 03-05-2011 08:24 PM

I might not cut the spacers, but something here is wrong.
If I torque it tight, it will limit the whole rear axle movement. The whole travel of the rear axle, going up and down. What happend then is that the forces, created by the weigth of the whole car, will transport through the upper control arm and start breaking the bolt that holds the control arm in the frame/chassie. And that is what have happend in the past, as there is a pivot on the axle housing. Tighteen the spacer, and there is no movement for this pivot.

I have the whole thing set up in the car at the moment, as my rear axle is without the diff, driveshafts and tires. Itīs therefor light, and the springs are not there at the moment, so I can move everything I want in order to see how it line up, and runs up & down.
I will try to make a sketch on Monday to describe the "total movement". Or maybe take some pics tomorrow ( I need some assistance in order to hold the rear axle in different positions and be able to take pictures at the same time ;) )

simplyconnected 03-06-2011 12:14 AM

Let me think this out...
This whole rear end is a parallelogram. Basically a box with one side fixed to the frame,
and the other three sides hanging with the springs pushing the axle down.



The fixed frame is one side of the box. If you draw a line from A to C (or F to H) pivot points,
that represents the stationary side of the box.

Because the lower arms are so much longer than the top rods (these arms are two sides of
the box), the axle will be allowed to roll to compensate for the difference in swing radii.

The last side of the box is the portion the axle is bolted to; draw a line from B to D (or I to G)
pivot points.

WOOPS! I see what you mean, Anders. Drawing that bolt tight will make the axle and bottom swing
arm one peice. That would stop the axle from rolling. They need to pivot independently. Maybe Ford
tried to lighten the load on the bottom bushing (B) with that rubber. You would be better off with no
rubber in the back. What idiot came up with this design... and Ford used it for a whole model year?
Anders, try running without the bolt and rubbers. I don't see where they actually do any good for your
suspension.

The very top bar is a panhard rod (E to J).



Doesn't make much sense to connect the bottom arm in three places.

If someone sees this differently, please let me know. What a dumb design... - Dave

Anders 03-06-2011 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplyconnected (Post 53657)
Let me think this out...
This whole rear end is a parallelogram. Basically a box with one side fixed to the frame,
and the other three sides hanging with the springs pushing the axle down.

WOOPS! I see what you mean, Anders. Drawing that bolt tight will make the axle and bottom swing
arm one peice. That would stop the axle from rolling. They need to pivot independently. Maybe Ford
tried to lighten the load on the bottom bushing (B) with that rubber. You would be better off with no
rubber in the back. What idiot came up with this design... and Ford used it for a whole model year?
Anders, try running without the bolt and rubbers. I don't see where they actually do any good for your
suspension.

Doesn't make much sense to connect the bottom arm in three places.

If someone sees this differently, please let me know. What a dumb design... - Dave

He,he,he.. ;)
I think the first mistake they did, was to not make it parallel. It took me a while to figure out why my upper control arm was either to short or to long (?). The hole for the bolt that holds the front part of the Control Arm ( C & H in your drawing ) have a welded bolt inside that "helpframe", and the only way to reach that one was to cut up the bowl that hold the coil spring:eek:. Very tight I tell you. Even more to be able to weld in there...I did it this winter, as one have gone loose due to the forces and I have velded it all together again. But I can also see that a previous owner have welded bigger washers on the outside of booth sides, indicating there have been issues in the past as well. So the forces on this area is very strong.
I first did the same conclusion that you did by proposing to my friends who helped me here last friday, to just ignore the rubber, but we found out that it would most probably give us a "jumpy " rear axle during acceleration or heavy braking. So in the end, we agreed that the isolators ( rubber ) must have been much softer 50 years ago. This is why I also are interested in the original lenght of the sleeve/spacer, as that part is a decider for one of the directions if the rubber compress to its leight.
Yeah, itīs a funny design. Or as one of my friends say: No wonder some people change to leaf springs on these cars.... :o

simplyconnected 03-06-2011 03:35 AM

Try it, Anders. I don't think you will find any difference without the rubber because good shocks should take care of any wheel hop. Shorter arms cause the axle to roll more, like your front suspension. There, your bottom arms are MUCH longer than the top "A" arms.

If you had a hotter engine I would suggest leaf springs. After all, you are welding on the sub-frame anyway... might as well weld some perches in and be done with it. New leaf spring sets are US$200.00 here.

Another more difficult but solid option is to retrofit a Fox Mustang 8.8 axle setup. The Fox models used a very stiff back seat plate (#3 crossmember) that Ford welded perches to for the control arms. Mustang GT's used four shocks. Two were horizontal, called 'quarter shocks'.

I still think I would use leaf springs with your axle. They work just fine and are cheap.. I highly doubt that Ford engineered your independent rear setup. I gotta believe Ford bought that change from Budd. I have never seen a more shabby design. - Dave

Anders 03-06-2011 04:32 AM

1 Attachment(s)
And all I wanted to know was the length of the sleeves.....:o
I mean, the original stuff worked on this car ( pic ). That look soft and nice :)

redstangbob 03-06-2011 04:53 AM

I'm still not seeing the way the axle housing is being attached to the lower arms, well not clearly anyhow:mad: Looking at the general set-up, other than being a little busy it should be fine. There's two lower arms that pivot in front, the axle should be allowed to roll a little but that's controlled by the two top links. The 'magic' seems to be in the rear bushing/sleeve set-up, and the bushing/bolt that comes up through the square hole. I'm guessing that's where the roll comes in?

Anders 03-06-2011 08:39 AM

Correct. But there is nothing that come up in the "square hole". Just above, in dotted lines, is the rear axle itself. All these things are the same piece.
But the million dollar questions are: How long is the original sleeve/spacer/bushing and how soft is the original Isolator/rubber? :confused:
There must be someone 40 miles east of Wixom who still knows this?..... ;)

redstangbob 03-06-2011 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anders (Post 53664)
There must be someone 40 miles east of Wixom who still knows this?..... ;)

Yes, I have someone in mind but He may be somewhere warmer for the winter. I'll make a call and see if I can talk to him. I think I can tell how everything goes together now, tell me again which bolts were breaking? How are the bushings in the front end of the lower arm? Hey, it's only nuts and bolts, right;)

Anders 03-06-2011 01:06 PM

Actually, it was not the bolt that breaked but where the bolt get into and through the subframe from the front position of the upper control arm into a welded bolt on the inside. One of these bolts welds broke as well. Fixed now. If the bolt ( in the rear that holds the isolators ) is too tight, the control arm is too long, meaning it stressed the most forward point of the control arm ( there is a hughe C in the drawing a few post down ).
All bushings works just perfect.
I have also fixed brand new bushings in the control arm as well. Have them custom made by a shop that do stuff like this on a professional basis. Luckely just like 3 minutes from my home :)

frank58 03-06-2011 01:25 PM

Anders, sorry, that picture came from one of our members "Travlin" whom I haven't seen in a while. He used the kits from Rareparts and posted pictures of the parts. Thats what I plan to use on my '58..... (when $$$ allows) ;)


Anders 03-06-2011 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frank58 (Post 53673)
Anders, sorry, that picture came from one of our members "Travlin" whom I haven't seen in a while. He used the kits from Rareparts and posted pictures of the parts. Thats what I plan to use on my '58..... (when $$$ allows) ;)

Thatīs cool, because it gave me the idea to ask them :) If Iīm lucky, they know and hopefully give me an answer when they come to work after the weekend.;)
I also sometime wonder what happends to Dear Travlin. I still laugh when I read what he wrote to his pictures. "Houston, we have a problem!" is a classic ( http://www.freewebs.com/squarebird/roof.htm ):D
You donīt happend to know how long your ( carīs.. ) sleeve is?

Anders 03-06-2011 04:53 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Thanks to Carl ( partsetal ) I now know that the bolt seems to be tighten quite alot. This means the rubber have to be soft. It most probably also means that my sleeves are to long and the ones from Rareparts might be a better leingth. Weīre getting there :)

GTE427 03-07-2011 02:30 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Dave,

Your box (parallelogram) is a great visual in this case. Each corner of the box must pivot for the suspension to travel. Anchor one corner and it will lock the box and there will be no movement.

In your diagram points (A) 5549, (C) (D) 5500 are obvious pivot points, not so obvious is (B) 5555. See my attached red-line. In order for 5555 to pivot, bushing 5537 has to allow vertical travel. If the spacer 5540 is too long or this point is bolted tight, this corner is anchored and the suspension binds or locks the box.

This was Anders orginal observation, too tight and there's only 2" of travel, the looser he makes it, the move travel he gains. Make sense?

Hopefully Anders can find the infromation he needs from Rare Parts.

EDIT: these bushings 5537 are actually acting like coil springs, in that case the spacer lenght should not be as big a worry, if the bushings were reproduced, maybe the hardness of the bushing is too great, like have too high a spring rate that they can't be compressed. Looking at the photos Carl supplied, that looks more like the bushing height I'm use to seeing, I was surpised to see the lower bushing listed as being 2" tall, in Carl's photos, it's been compressed quite a bit.

simplyconnected 03-07-2011 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTE427 (Post 53709)
...Anchor one corner and it will lock the box... ...If the spacer 5540 is too long or this point is bolted tight, this corner is anchored and the suspension binds or locks the box... ...these bushings 5537 are actually acting like coil springs...

Nice job on the drawing, Ken. I would really like to see a side-view of the pivot points. After re-thinking this system (in my long post), I totally agree with you.

5555 is a pillow block fixed to the lower arm (that the top portion pivots on). That's the key. In your drawing, it is noted that all the U-bolt and cradle parts are part of, and fixed to, the axle assembly.

Three mounting points on the lower arm will stop all pivoting. If the back rubbers are torqued tight and the wheel hits a bump or hole, the upper arm (C-D) will tend to snap off.

But, if we allow space between the rubbers, they will 'slap' and cause noise (in both directions). I'm still not comfortable with the center sleeve sliding in the lower arm hole steel. That's just plain wrong, and that is what messed me up.

But you're right, Ken... if the rubber assembly is designed to limit motion, they just transfer torque to the adjacent sides. That's wrong, too.

If this were my car and I HAD to live with this setup, I would omit the rubber assembly altogether and run with nothing back there. I do not see what purpose the rubber serves, that the shocks don't already cover. - Dave

Anders 03-07-2011 04:19 PM

4 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by simplyconnected (Post 53712)
Nice job on the drawing, Ken. I would really like to see a side-view of the pivot points. After re-thinking this system (in my long post), I totally agree with you.

5555 is a pillow block fixed to the lower arm (that the top portion pivots on). That's the key. In your drawing, it is noted that all the U-bolt and cradle parts are part of, and fixed to, the axle assembly.

Three mounting points on the lower arm will stop all pivoting. If the back rubbers are torqued tight and the wheel hits a bump or hole, the upper arm (C-D) will tend to snap off.

But, if we allow space between the rubbers, they will 'slap' and cause noise (in both directions). I'm still not comfortable with the center sleeve sliding in the lower arm hole steel. That's just plain wrong, and that is what messed me up.

But you're right, Ken... if the rubber assembly is designed to limit motion, they just transfer torque to the adjacent sides. That's wrong, too.

If this were my car and I HAD to live with this setup, I would omit the rubber assembly altogether and run with nothing back there. I do not see what purpose the rubber serves, that the shocks don't already cover. - Dave

Weīre talking about what might happend at work today, and we guessed that it might make the tire to jump on heavy acceleration or sudden stop. The shocks and springs helps of course, but there is no way Ford put this on if they didnīt needed it. No matter how stupid it looks.
A little comment to you guess what happend if it is too tight and the car hits a bump or a hole, the control arm donīt snap, but all forces goes strait to the front position bolt and the chassie, and that is just what have happend in the past. Interesting is that the bolts seems to be bulletproof as they are still strait, and the threads works like new. And they ARE original. On booth sides of this holes, someone in the past have velded bigger square "washers" to the subframe as extra streingth and support. Original is smaller round ones. Upon that, on one side, the bolt of the inside of the subframe, got loose, and took a piece of the frame in the process. Strong forces, no doubt.

Now today I vent to the place who helped me with the vulcanisation of the upper control arms bushings and talked about making new isolators for the rear. The softest they can come up with is 35-40 Shore. I donīt know if these are to soft or hard, but I am thinking of let them make two set, so I can "take out parts" with waterjet in one set. That way, I would get a even softer pair to play with.
The big deal is that I now finally understand the whole system and know where to fine tune the whole "thang" :)

Rare Parts did come back today, but only with a picture of the parts, not with and information regarding the hardness of the rubber. But I sended that question back, so maybe tomorrow? ;)

Love you guys! You are a great support!!! My fellow "US-old-car friends" at work, who owns Babybirds, Torinos, Rancheros and even Chryslers envy me alot because of this forum. I like that :D


Some "before pics" showing how it looked before when the bushings was all gone in the control arms. You see how the lack of bushings took up the play... Note one of these "nests" I have all over the car. Found one in the front suspension, and to in the rear suspension just 2 weeks ago. So far the total is up at 15 or so by now... ;) Further down, The control arms before, and after.

Anders 03-07-2011 05:34 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Here is a picture showing how it looks. You see without the bolt and isolators the whole rear axle drops quite a bit. I guess the bolt and nut at least prevent the rear axle to drop all this... As it looks here, I can easy push it up against the exhaust pipes.
The smaller isolator ( rubber ) is located above the trailer arm ( black ) and under the rear axle part that is not painted here, and the thick under the black arm. So they kind of takes up the "end" of the movement. The upper for when the car bumps down, and the lower, when the car goes up.

redstangbob 03-07-2011 05:40 PM

The pictures sure help. It looks like quite a contraption , but there has to be some way for the pinion angle to be maintained through the axle travel. The lower arms move in an arc, I don't know why they didn't set the upper links in such a way to keep the diff at the right angle with a loaded trunk or hitting a bump. Maybe it was supposed to be smoother or quieter, I can see why it only lasted a year. Good luck Anders, the prices on that stuff looks pretty serious:eek:

simplyconnected 03-07-2011 05:47 PM

Anders, I feel your pain and I want to help as much as possible. Thank you for the good pictures. Now, let's talk:

We have been making cars for a very long time, and I always beg the question, 'what do modern cars use?' I do not limit this question to one brand, but I look for the very best solution.

Your suspension was installed for one 're-designed' model year, then it was dropped for years and for good reasons. We know that auto manufacturers buy engineering for 'specialty' applications, and I believe this was the case with the '58 Thunderbird.

Back to the problem. ??? What car with rear coil springs, uses 'dampers' like yours? After all these decades, I don't know of any. The rear brakes don't do much braking (maybe 20%), and the car is 1,000 pounds heavier than the '57 with not much more HP, so no wheel hop.

It makes sense that all suspension should freely pivot and not exert any unnecessary binding forces on the mounting bolts (perches). This isn't a matter of 'looks' but of function. Apparently, Ford engineers found this system to be a bad idea, and all of the competitors avoided it. - Dave

Edit: I forgot to say; usually your shock absorbers and frame bumpers limit axle travel.

Anders 03-07-2011 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplyconnected (Post 53717)
Anders, I feel your pain and I want to help as much as possible. Thank you for the good pictures. Now, let's talk:

We have been making cars for a very long time, and I always beg the question, 'what do modern cars use?'

Canīt resist, but isnīt the answer: Spring coils? :rolleyes: Only old timers and trucks use Leaf........;)
We have all learned how it works by now. The only thing that I donīt know is the length of the sleeve, even if 2 1/2" seems closest. And we donīt know the Shore. As soon as we know that, we are home I beleve, as I will be very careful how I set up the ther suspension by the bolt.
I guess most never figured it out and just tighten it, and came out with other problms, only later, so they maybe not did the conclution why....
I sure agree with redstangbob, that the geomerty with all pivots points sucks. Big time. Someone didnīt do there math ;)


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Any submissions to this site and any post on this site becomes property of Squarebirds.org . The webmasters reserve the right to edit and modify any submissions to this site. All material on this is site is copyrighted by the Squarebirds.org. Reproduction by any means other than for personal use is strictly prohibited. Permission to use material on this site can be obtained by contacting the webmasters. Copyright 2002-2016 by Squarebirds.org.