Early 50's cars as hot rods NOT customs...GALLERY

My next 50's hot rod. Hopefully I will be starting on it soon.

 

needlouvers, so you are saying because the engines set back on a 50's car there is not as much weight on the front. with the Mustang II set up, the susp is now directly below the motor (before the cross member was ahead). would like other's thoughts on this subject

 

Absolutely Boones. That is part of what has made the Mustang II front end work under cars slightly heavier than it was intended for, for these many years (within reason, Of course). By the mid sixties the companies were pushing the engine farther forward to gain interior room in cars and putting more of the engine's weight over the axle centerline. In the earlier cars like ours, a typical Mustang II rack and pinion settles in just under the damper on the engine. In the Mustang II it came out of, that rack is more under the front 1/3 of the oil pan. It really hasn't anything to do with where the cross member is, but axle centerline. The stock '49-'54 Chevy had its cross member way out at the front and it's control arms swept back. The further back the engine goes from that axle centerline, the less weight is being bared by that end of the car. Same reason old gassers and such and sports cars of all ilk have always strived to move the engine to the middle. Less weight on the front end equals more on the rear for the drag guys to launch, for the sporty car guys it means better weight distribution so that a car grips evenly in the lateral sense.

Now, I'm not saying that a 165X15 tire will be optimal in any way shape or form. That is why when I went after my car's handling potential I went up to a non H.A.M.B. friendly 205/60X15, for more rubber on the road and a shorter, stiffer sidewall. But since the common availability of radial tires in the mid to late seventies a "traditional" tire combo has been a 165X15 front, and a 235/75X15 under fat fendered cars and early fifties stuff. it has been done many, many times over.

 

49 Olds coupe...the original factory Hot Rod.

 

^ Great looking '55!

 

I think it fits..I thought I posted before..It is Friday..

 

Not "early" 50's but this is the '59 Biscayne my son Chris & I built for his high school ride back in the late 90's...

 

Surprise!

 

The Chrisman-built SOHC in that red '50 makes a Hellacious noise. Wonderful!

 

What a "sleeper".

 

He would not be able to sneak up on you, though.

 

Rick, I dig the Biscayne. Always wanted one of those. I remember seeing a cream yellow '60 Pontiac sedan at SIR once, with tripps, a 4 speed, and Cragars all around. Still have wet dreams about that car 20 yrs later...

 

Nice car! I like the Merc taillights too, they look way better than the originals. What drivetrain are you running?

 

Thank you!

It's a '57 312 bored .060 over w/a mild cam, ECG-Z heads, Edelbrock FM257 intake and a pair of WCFB's. 1960 Green Dot Cruise O and a 9" with 3.10 cogs.

 

Thanks Fraud...I've been droolin' over your Customline for a long time.

 

Here is my friends Olds. Lots of time in this build!

 

Thank YOU. Mine is a phantom, though -- it's a '56 Fairlane Vic that's been disguised as a '55 Customline.

 

Lately I've been thinking lots about a '49-'52 Chevy ragtop running a 327 and a four-speed. The revival of this thread is not helping.

 

Sorry OahuEli, just saw this. The Desoto drivetrain is completely stock.

 

Rick Finch gets an A+ in "Early 50's cars as hot rods NOT customs 101"

 

here is something from last weekend (it could use a little more rear tire)



and an update on mine. I broke down and remove the hurst cheaters.. just could not get it to drive down the freeway at 75 safely (moving around to much). I tried to get a 275/60 under it but could not muster that big



I know I have ruined the early vibe by removing the bias fronts and cheaters in the rear.. but now I can drive the car on long distance trips without fear of wrecking it.

 

I don't know, maybe a '49...I get so confused.