Anyone Seen this before?
- Thread starter Steve69
- Start date
68torinogt
Hey guys, guess what--I have a bi-pass!!!
2nd Mustang
Founding Member
69Rcode_Mach1
Active Member
Wayne Due is building frames for 1st gen Camaros. I have also seen this frame, and tried to get more info. Art Morrison also does some frames.
The basic idea was something I wanted to look into when I was first doing my convertible, figuring that a serious chassis would be a good starting point for a performance convertible. I wasn't thrilled with what I found [this was >2 yrs ago] for the cost, and thus we started cutting and welding.
The Ring Brothers had a custom frame [Art Morrison IIRC] for their 'vert.
The basic idea was something I wanted to look into when I was first doing my convertible, figuring that a serious chassis would be a good starting point for a performance convertible. I wasn't thrilled with what I found [this was >2 yrs ago] for the cost, and thus we started cutting and welding.
The Ring Brothers had a custom frame [Art Morrison IIRC] for their 'vert.
1320stang
Founding Member
Shoot, I'd go to US Body Source and get a 'glass '67 body to put on it and avoid the rust. Granted, now your dealing with subpar 'glass, but it ain't rust and a 'glass body would be cheaper to start with.
brianj5600
Active Member
Care to share? Steering looks like there is not enough travel for the long looking steering arms on the spindles.Sundance said:
brianj5600 said:
Well, to note a few problems;
The front swaybar looks like it may have ground clearence issues?
The upper A-arm heim joints are a little smaller then I would like, and the fact that every suspension point is solid would suck for a street car.
The worst thing I see is the upper and lower rear shock mounts are single sheer and stick way out. They look way weak.
The rear suspension is a satchel link four bar setup. If I was going to go to that much trouble to make a chassis like that I'd use a three link, or a properly designed parallel four link.
The rack and pinion input shaft looks like it would be a pain but other wise the nice long lower a-arms look good.
Good point about the spindle arms...guess its about on par with TCP stuff that everyone is gonzo about.
65ShelbyClone
Founding Member
Man, I can't use it.
It says I have to cut off my front torque boxes first, but I don't have front torque boxes...
Other than that, I can't help but wonder how hard it really is to put a full frame under a unibody car.
It says I have to cut off my front torque boxes first, but I don't have front torque boxes...
Other than that, I can't help but wonder how hard it really is to put a full frame under a unibody car.
kmterrill
kill joy
Sundance said:
A question. I thought the Satchel was better since it got rid of the Panhard bar?
brianj5600
Active Member
kmterrill said:
That is the reason a Satchel is inferior, because it does not have a Panhard or Watts. With the additional lateral link you can adjust the rear roll center.
It could be argued that a Satchel link suspension could be made to do the same, but a Panhard would allow more adjustment and be easier.
kmterrill
kill joy
Sundance said:
But by adding a watts or panhard bar you're just adding weight to the car? How much adjustment do you need on a properly designed suspension?
