Technical Corvair front suspension for a street rod

Greetings all. I'm soon to buy my dads 1940 Chevy Coupe that he built and then sold in 1976. You can read more and see a pic here.


http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/first-build-1940-chevy-coupe.926597/

My dad had replaced the knee action front suspension with a straight axle. After he had sold it, one of the three owners after that replaced the straight axle with a Corvair front end. I will be driving out to Illinois in 18 days to buy it and trailer it home, so as of now I can't tell you anything more about it. My question is this, should I keep it or replace it with a modern IFS? Thanks in advance for any help.

 

Years ago before anyone heard of a mustang II the hot setup was a Corvair front suspension,they were fairly simple to set up and it wasn't that hard to add Chevelle spindles and disc brakes.

I'm sure the Mustang II front may be engineered to a better standard but if everything is in good condition and it doesn't have excess wear on the tires from improper alignment I would go through all the trouble to change it,,it worked back in the 70's and I know of a couple of cars around this area that still running with the Corvair front suspension,,one that has over 100,000 miles since it hit the road in 1973. HRP

 

Corvair suspensions were popular 30-40 years ago. I'd replace it.

 

the Corvair front suspension has been talked about many times here on the HAMB , some say it's OK and some hate it.....i'm in the later group. i would get rid of it , there are better choices now. Mustang II done properly would be a better choice. others will disagree with me

 

My friend has it on a 32 ford that his dad built back in the day. The only reason he keeps it is because his dad built it.

 

I know its really not the answer to your question but I had a air vair (65) and it drove and handled real well.

 

Yep, we did em back in the day, but think about this====
The engine was in the rear of a Vair, so not much weight was ever on the front suspension.
I'd never do it 2 day

 

Asking a question like that will get you as many different answers as answers you get..
My personal experience with corvair front suspensions deal with one I put under a 37 Chevy coupe several years ago. The front steering geometry is originally set up in the Corvair to use the Pitman arm and a shorter arc Idler arm to overcome the Ackerman principle in the situation found with the tie rod ball joints ahead of the front A arms. There will be many that will tell you that ackerman is not important when building a hot rod, good for them, evidently they are far more educated than the original engineers that design front suspensions and can do without all that unneeded education,
The Corvair front suspension will "push" when in a corner , meaning the inside tire will NOT turn in a smaller circle than the outside tire.... therefore you will NOT get a nice tight turning radius. They are Great in a straight line when in a hot rod but NOT in a Streetkhana or any other windy road situation.
There ARE ways to adjust the front tie rod connections to get pretty close to what you need, but not really a good idea.
Please believe me.. I KNOW thru experience about these front suspensions. An aftermarket Mustang II is the Best way to go. Best to do it right the first time than to become dis-illusioned by constant changes having to be made to your project

 

Once you get it home, drive it, if it seems OK and the turning radius is good I'd keep it, at least for a while...

 

When you think about it the Corvair had no engine over the front suspension This is the reason their popularity was short lived they were a little to light for most vehicles with a V8

 

The big draw for them in the 60's and early 70's was that they came off the Corvairs easily and in one piece and were fairly simple to put on the early hot rods that they got stuck on. They were also very inexpensive at the wrecking yard at a time that the only independent suspension kits that i know of were Kugle's Jag XKE front suspension kits that were pretty high zoot for most guys pockets at the time.
While the Corvair suspension works to a degree there are far better options available now and I'd wait until I had the car home in the shop and could look the install and condition of the suspension over in detail before making a decision on which way to go. Most likely a complete rebuild is in order and the cost of that might go quite a ways towards an MII setup.

 

Bill, I had a 31 Model A Deluxe Pheaton, Chevy powered, with a Corvair front end for about 15 years. Drove it over 40 thousand miles, handled and drove great, don't waste your time and money putting in a Heights or Fat Man Mustang 2, you do not need it. The fellow who built my car has done at least seven cars with the same front end, all are still on the road and the owners love the way they handle. If it is not handling properly take it to a quality front end shop, you will be happy with the results.

 

I will concede that in it's stock configuration the turning radius was strange,generally it turned better in one direction than the other.

I mounted a colt reverse rack & pinion and my steering was extremely good.

My thought process is I would not do this today,but then again I won't be using a mustang II ether. HRP

 

Corvair suspension was popular in the sixties. They are good on light cars, the Corvair weighed about 2400 pounds. A 1940 Chev, about the same.

One of the drawbacks is that no Corvair came with disc brakes and they had funny 4 bolt 13" wheels.

As others have pointed out, Camaro spindles and ball joints will fit with a little work.

If I were building a car today I wouldn't use one, even if I got it for free. On the other hand if it is in the car and working well I wouldn't change it, I would replace worn parts and update the brakes if necessary and let it go at that.

The basic design of the Mustang II isn't that much different. In other words if it is installed properly and working well it's not worth the bother and expense of changing it.

 

Thanks for all the input. Since it will be another 18 days (feels like forever now....lol) before I get the car, I really don't know how it handles. My thoughts are that since I'm going to have to save some money to do anything to it that I would drive it as is. I couldn't understand how a Corvair suspension could handle the extra weight of a motor and this had me concerned about handling. In Illinois (from what I remember) the curves on the roads are in general, not tight. Here in Pennsylvania the curves are many and tight. I think I will eventually change it to a Fatman IFS before the repaint and interior is redone. This car will be driven right after the last snow melts up until the first snow falls. She's not going to be a trailer queen. I want it to be safe and dependable.

Thanks again to all who have responded, I really do appreciate it. I will be asking many more questions once I get her to where I live in Butler, Pennsylvania.

 

Ha ha ha the difference in weight between a 1940 Chev and a 1960 Corvair isn't that much. They even have the same power, both came with an 80HP six cylinder engine.

The reason I am laughing is that a Mustang II weighed about the same as a Corvair but no one thinks twice about putting one of them in a 3500 pound or 4500 pound car.

They also don't think twice about using a Corvair steering box in a roadster.

 

For even more lulz I looked up the weights of 1940 Chev vs 1965 Corvair. I picked that year because it is half way through the production life of the car and should have "average" weight.

1940 Chevrolet - 2665 - 2990 depending on model

1965 Corvair - 2405 - 2710

1978 Mustang II - 2610 - 2735

So the 1940 is about 250 lbs heavier than a Corvair and 55 - 255 heavier than a Mustang. But note the overlap in weight.

Bear in mind, both are made to carry up to 5 p***engers who could average 200 pounds or 1000 pounds plus baggage let's say another 200 or 300. So really the difference in weight capacity is not that much.

Plus, if the 1940 now has a V8, that is 100 pounds lighter than the old six.

So, as far as weight goes there isn't much in it.

 

I knew of on model A with a 327 and a Corvair front. It seemed to handle OK, but when you look at the front tires, there were about 1/4 or 3/8 circles worn in the tires. The tires were good quality, and didnt wear out, but those circles told me there was something it needed. I just wasnt smart enough to know what. I would not use one today.

 

There are so many better options today than to use a front suspension engineeered for a rear-engined car, I would chuck it for a Jaguar XJ front end, which should be relatively inexpensive and not hard to set up, has discs, R&P, can be bagged, unbolts off the Jag body, and has the same wheel bolt pattern as Chevrolet p***enger cars (5 on 4.75").

 

I had a Corvair spyder with 5 lug under a 30 model A around 1979. I put the quick steering arms on it with a triumph rack worked ok. Not the best looking setup.

 

Got a friend with a 36 plymouth coupe with 331 hemi. It works for him. I would get it out of there! Mustang II is great and a breeze to install. On a 40 Chevy coupe it ain't gonna show. When I see 28-34 with Mustang II its ugly

Larry

 

So many better choices today! Get rid of it. IMO

 

The Corvair front end is Fugly. At least on a fat fender 40 Chev you won't see.

 

I think most people have told you right. Once you have disc brakes and proper ackerman, they are no worse than the others. Drive it, if it is okay, freshen it up. It probably wont be worth the trouble to change it.

 

I will be glad when something better than a msII finally comes along. Never cared for the way they drive or feel. Never thought as the car itself as a good handling car.
Anyone look at putting a late model crown vic under a fat fender ? These look like they have great potential. Like the fact they have a complete alum bolt in crossmember ***embly not to mention they ride and drive nice.

 

Yes, my 36 Chevy Tudor has a Pontiac tempest clip. It. Drives like a Pontiac, it doesn't turn tight, but we sure feel good after driving 300 miles. I wish it sat lower, but will give that up for the ride.

Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

You might be laughing but it is due to lack of knowledge. The reason why no one thinks twice on putting them into almost any vehicle is because they work so well.

The weight distribution on a stock MII suspension in the MII is way different than most early vehicles.

The MII front end was loaded heavy in the MII with the engine practically centered over the front axle.

In most early vehicles the weight load on the MII is less than in the MII itself because of engine setback etc.
Add to that the improvements in the MII suspension in crossmember strength and improved upper and lower control arms that aftermarket builders have made and it's easy to see why they work in most early cars.

So maybe now you won't be laughing so hard.

 

To me the only thing that makes mII suspenion popular is its easy to put under an old rod. Anybody can do it, easy isnt always better but i do admit there isnt much else out there. They are like a sbc, its easier to go that route then to do something different or as cheap.
I will take a properlly set up straight axle any day over a mII infact im takin the one out of my 31 tudor and goin back to a straight axle.

 

nn

Lostone, just curious, why you would choose a properly set up straight axle over a Mustang II? I would think that if straight axles were so good then modern day cars manufacturers would continue to use them. I'm not trying to be a smart a**, I just want to know your reason so I can be better informed. Once I am finished rebuilding this coupe I plan to drive it a lot, as long as there is no snow. This would not only be local drives, but to different states. I want something safe, dependable, and comfortable.