This will take you to the main site where there is history, technical information and other information on these cars.
This takes you back to the main page of the forums.
This is the control panel to change your password, information and preferences on this message board.
Click here if your lost your password or need to register on this message board. You must be a registered user to post. Registration is free.
Search this board for information you need.
Click here to buy cool Squarebirds mechandise.
Click here to support Squarebirds.org. For $20 annually receive 20mBytes webspace, a Squarebirds e-mail address and member's icon on the message board.
  #21  
Old 03-17-2016, 05:32 PM
chris58 chris58 is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: May 28 2014
Posts: 243
chris58 is on a distinguished road
Default

Unfortunately Dave the amount of people in this country with any knowledge of these cars is extremely minimal and the squarebird cars are very rare here as well.
Therefore I probably don't have much choice but to take on board what people here say.
There's no harm in trying something a little different to get a good result.
If it doesn't work I'll move on and try something else.
Cheers Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-17-2016, 05:42 PM
RustyNCa RustyNCa is offline
Super-Experienced
 
Join Date: May 31 2007
Posts: 1,300
RustyNCa is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by simplyconnected View Post
Chris, I'm flattered but it's your car to do what you wish. I don't take other people's 'personal preference' personal.

I believe the coil spring setup was NOT a Ford-engineered product but something Ford paid Budd to come up with. Yes, Ford signed off on and approved the drawings. I'm sad to say, sometimes our engineers drop the ball because they do not want to take responsibility. This engineering fiasco could not be denied so Ford dropped it in favor of leaf springs. They are cheap, tried and proven (but a step backward).

Coil spring rear ends were commonplace with GM cars back in Squarebird days and Ford has a history of following suit. We built the first Thunderbirds with great success. However, I think it was a mistake to commission Budd to manufacture the Squarebird body. As soon as Wixom was in full swing, the T-bird's Body Shop came back home to roost.

...clappers... what a dumb idea... '58 T-bird is the only car in history to have them. - Dave
I guess I need to ask, what the clappers are? I was assuming it was a term Chris was using down under for, well, I don't know, I guess a bushing in the rear end.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-17-2016, 05:45 PM
RustyNCa RustyNCa is offline
Super-Experienced
 
Join Date: May 31 2007
Posts: 1,300
RustyNCa is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris58 View Post
Hence the reason why it's best to try and stay within the rules.
I'll go with Dave's idea, he hasn't let me down yet with any help I've needed on this car.
Would anyone know any part numbers of shocks though that would be interchangeable with a thunderbird, and better still I might be able to get in Australia.
Cheers Chris.
Chris I can see if I can find a part number on the KYBs I'm running on my 58. But it will not be till Saturday at the soonest, I can ask the wife, if I kept a receipt for them in the tbird file.

I do know that I went to the local parts store and we picked the shocks I have based on the shocks I pulled off the car, not based on a 58 application
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-17-2016, 06:05 PM
chris58 chris58 is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: May 28 2014
Posts: 243
chris58 is on a distinguished road
Default

Haha rusty, Dave's term but I can see how it could be interpreted with the Aussie slang from down under.
As for the shocks, that would be very helpful. I know the ones that are currently in the car are a coil over the shock type of thing and unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything similar here.
Cheers Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-17-2016, 07:02 PM
pbf777 pbf777 is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Jan 9 2016
Posts: 158
pbf777 is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm not the one working on it, so I see nothing; hence I can only add some miscellaneous ramblings.
Your experience when replacing rubber (or rubber-like) bushing materials for urethane is not uncommon, for a number of reasons.
The urethane material is more rigid, and therefore does offer more accurate location, and less deflexion under load, for the suspension components. It may even represent a longer life span in use, and over time. This is the good!
But remember, being more rigid means they will transfer more vibrations and road noise to the chassis and it's occupants.
The "soft" rubber bushings also are used/required to aid in covering bad engineering. When the control arms traverse in their function the mounting points and their relationships change; the flexible bushings allow for these progressive misalignments thru their distortion. the urethane being less flexible is not as forgiving and may cause a certain amount of resistance/binding in the suspension travel function.
All this being said; seizing of the suspension travel (as radical as you present), after the installation is most commonly caused by the fact that the urethane bushing is being "tapped" in it's thrust relationship. Often, the relationship between the provided area which receives the bushing in length, i.e. two ears/flanges of the bracket bolted to sub-frame, the shell supporting the bushing pressed into the control arm, and the dowel or spacer that limits the minimum distance between the flanges when tightened is incorrect. In-other-words, the urethane bushing is to long, the dowel is to short, the flanges are to close together; therefore pinching the more rigid urethane bushing until with the tightening of the bolts the suspension is bound.
Note, this is only one possibility, which I have witnessed, of many; remember, I'm not looking at it. It is also a good idea to torque all fasteners with the suspension loaded at normal ride height so as not to induce preload due to the fore mentioned distortions.
Try loosening each pear (L & R) of fasteners in the system and see if your suspension travel returns (although still damped for reasons as stated above). You cannot leave these fasteners loose in use, but try it for testing. Also, only be concerned in the applicable travel range; as stated previously the geometry goes bad in distance from nominal.
Dave is correct in that if you will remove the springs a better observation can be had. Good luck, Scott.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-17-2016, 07:31 PM
simplyconnected's Avatar
simplyconnected simplyconnected is offline
Slow Typist
 
Join Date: May 26 2009
Posts: 7,080
simplyconnected is on a distinguished road
Default

Clappers:



Look at this unnecessary and complicated design:




We have a trailing arm with what amounts to a pillow block (5555) bolted to it. Then the top 'clapper' is 'U' bolted to the axle, a solid connection.

At the same time the upper arms are attached to the upper axle mount (5503).

You have to visualize that the axle needs to turn in a parallelogram fashion as it goes up and down. Each of the four joints in a parallelogram needs to pivot. If one or two seize and motion continues, the arms start breaking.

Since the axle is solid-mounted to the upper clapper, any restriction from the rubbers in the rear (5537) stop all pivot of the axle in that pillow block. That turns the axle into a lever, pulling up and down on those upper arms.

It all makes sense if you remove the springs and move the axle up and down, checking for free motion, not binding motion.

So yes, remove ALL hardware from the rubber end of the clappers. If that becomes too loud, replace the rubbers with dense foam rubber, something really soft, and by all means, do not tighten them down. Maintain restriction-free motion. - Dave
__________________
My latest project:
CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee Iacocca
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-17-2016, 07:46 PM
chris58 chris58 is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: May 28 2014
Posts: 243
chris58 is on a distinguished road
Default

Your definitely on to something there Scott. I did have a nightmare of a time 're-installing all the bushes. Actually from memory every bush had to be linished so the could be pressed in. For the record I used the bush kit from Rare Parts.
I think it could be time to completely start over.
Didn't think a lot of it when I installed the new parts, probably assumed that it would be a bit tighter due to the new bushes.
Lots to think about.
I'll back the whole lot off and see what happens.
I'm still going to remove the rubbers from the clappers as the description Dave has given makes perfect sense, especially when I've done this work already I know the load required to bolts the clappers up.
Cheers Chris.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-18-2016, 03:31 AM
scumdog's Avatar
scumdog scumdog is offline
Super-Experienced
 
Join Date: May 12 2006
Posts: 1,339
scumdog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris58 View Post
Yep. Never used to be to bad but probably the last 2 years it's gotten a bit silly.
Hence the reason for trying to keep most things reasonably legal.
I'll be barely within the rules for the engine swap and disc brake front end, don't want to push my luck to far if you know what I mean.
I feel for you knowing the Aussie regulations and rules, must be bloody frustrating

Here in NZ you can build a total custom air-bagged, roof-chopped blown big-block Thunderbird no sweat, you DO have to get it certified which (depending on the level of modification) could cost $400 to $1500 but it is achievable.

Even a blown 460 powered Anglia on the street can be done.

Rims widened by welding in a rolled steel 'band' is OK.
__________________
A Thunderbirder from the Land of the Long White Cloud.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-18-2016, 11:30 AM
pbf777 pbf777 is offline
Experienced
 
Join Date: Jan 9 2016
Posts: 158
pbf777 is on a distinguished road
Default

I don't know, that it would be a good idea to leave the vertical bolt, bushings/donunts and other hardware out that clamp the "clappers" and trailing arms together.
It appears that their purpose is to limit & dampen the motion permitted by the pillow block mounting, which acts as pivot/hinge in the control arm connection between the sub-frame and axle. Without this value I fear the axle may suffer excessive pitch angle changes with torque application, in both directions (wheel-hop & axle-tramp).
This does seem a rather complicated "Rube-Goldberg" engineering endeavor, but as Dave states in his parallelogram example, some sort pivot must be permitted to alleviate binding in it's function. Hey, it was the 1950s, and everyone was trying to re-invent the wheel, w/ new & better "stuff".
It would seem the movement required at these "donuts" is only that which is required to rectify the difference between the instant centers of the upper & lower control arm which should not be great (w/ proper engineering). And yes, this might not be a good place for too rigid of installation, at least until one establishes what specific motion is imparted and how it's delt with (aka. look-at-it & think-about-it; your the new engineer). Scott.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-18-2016, 02:49 PM
simplyconnected's Avatar
simplyconnected simplyconnected is offline
Slow Typist
 
Join Date: May 26 2009
Posts: 7,080
simplyconnected is on a distinguished road
Default

Ok, let's look at this another way... What do modern rear wheel drive with trailing arm suspension cars use?

A Mustang comes to mind. It simply has two upper control arms and two lower but longer control arms. No panhard bar. No clappers.

The only dampener is a shock absorber, one on each side, which serves as a 'bottom limit' when the axle hangs down.

Because the upper arms are shorter, they have a tighter radius (just like your front "A" arms) which causes the axle (or front spindle) to intentionally roll. Notice, your front "A" arms have no clappers or any pivot restrictions.

So, this is not a parallelogram but a trapezoid; a quadrilateral with two sides parallel. All pivot points must be free to move. Restricting motion on one pivot point will have a 'lever' affect on the opposite joint. That's why your mounts are tearing out.

In the illustrations, each pivot point is labeled with a letter for you to study.

With that, I'm done. Do what you want, it's your car. - Dave
__________________
My latest project:
CLICK HERE to see my custom hydraulic roller 390 FE build.

"We've got to pause and ask ourselves: How much clean air do we need?"
--Lee Iacocca
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:22 AM.

Driving, racing or working on cars can be hazardous. The procedures and advice on this website including the message board are opinion only. Squarebirds.org and its webmasters and contributors do not guarantee the correctness of the advice and procedures. The Squarebirds.org and its webmasters assume no liability for any damage, fines, punishment, injury or death resulting from following these procedures or advice. If you do not have the skills or tools to repair your car, please consult a professional. By using this site you agree to hold harmless the Squarebirds.org, its authors and its webmasters from any resulting claim and costs that may occur from using the information found on this site.

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.