My guess is 1970's aftermarket axle with '53-54 Chevy spindles & unknown disk conversion kit. Your next move depends on the car you want to use it on.
i believe you have a tube axle set up for `49-`54 Chevy car spindles...maybe made by Speedway or MAS there is no boss to attach wishbones/spring/radius rods/etc....that would have to be welded on the next step depends on what car you want to use it on and how you want it set up
So where do I mesure to see if its stock or speedway, and thanks for all advice. I want to use this on a 65 falcon
'53/'54 Chevys were IFS so the axle isn't "stock". Hard to tell who made it and it doesn't matter anyway. You know you have Chevy spindles and custom disc brake mounts. Cool axle, use it if it fits.
I was trying to figure out if the spindles were indeed chevy or if they were the redesigned units. The attached image shows the measurements of both i just dont understand how to measure them. The difference would be what hub works with it, thanks Jim
the clue might be the spacer between the bearing race, and the spindle. ECI made disc brake conversions for older Chevys that used a spacer like that. my guess is they are original spindles. The Speedway spindles don't need a bearing adapter to use disc brakes. The caliper bracket also looks like an old ECI part.
This steering arm (see arrow) is for a drag link to attach to so it would go on the same side of the frame as the steering box. One thing to think about is your Ackerman angle. Once you get the axle in the ch***is and get it setting on its wheels you may have to bend the steering arms where the tie rod attaches to make adjustments for that. search Ackerman to see how that is done.
Before you go too far with this axle I would look into two things. Is it the right width for your Falcon? You will have to "guesstimate" the actual hub to hub width unless you have hubs for it. (sounds like you don't) The Hambers may be able to post a picture or dimensions of the applicable Chevy hub. It may be too wide or too narrow to look good. The second is the wall thickness of the main tube. Lots of axles were made for light duty applications such as T buckets and are not strong enough for a full size car. Your local automotive machine shop may be able to sonic check it for thickness. .250" wall tube seems to be what current street axles are made of. Good luck.
If your planning on building a G***er styled Falcon,why use a dropped axle,a straight axle from someone like Speedway would be much better IMPO. HRP
Unless of course you are building the falcon version of the maalco g***er. LOL I have told this story before and the g***er" crowd was severely offended, it was good for 'em. A fella we worked with bought a later '60s to earlier '70s fairlane that had no front suspension, we shoved a drop tube axle under it because it was cheap, ended up set up a lot like the maalco g***er maybe only lifted a couple of inches over the way it would have set stock. Got him on the road cheap, he drove it daily and it was mildly compe***ive at the local strip when he would drive it down there and run it. I would think that if a fella was setting a Nova or a falcon up to drive and race that would be the hot setup.
Actually I need it low to work on from a wheel chair, thanks guys! Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
A tale of two Novas. In the mid-seventies, there were two Novas in my town (well there were more than that, but these two really stand out in my mind). One was a red primered '64 2 dr sedan. It had a dropped van axle, a BB '67 Corvette scoop grafted onto a fibergl*** hood, an L-78 396, an M-22, radiused rear fenders and a 12 bolt with 4.56's. It had a solid front axle conversion not because he was "playing g***er" or because he wanted it all jacked up in the air, it had an axle in it because that was the easiest way to make the BB fit. It was pretty much gutted, it had black painted rally rims all around, it was all-business, and FAST AS ****. Pretty much everyone that grew up in the Maple Ridge car scene remembers this car, it was all solid lifter clatter and gear whine and it was known as "Pennocks Nova". It has crossed my mind a few times to clone it. Wish to hell I had a photo. There was another one, a blue '66 sedan. This car was jacked way the **** up in the air, high enough to clear N-50s on the back without radiused wheelwheels. It had a near stock small block in it with a high 3 series rear gear, and even then, it was a bit of a joke around town, and SLOW AS ****. When I get together with the guys from the old days, I am the ONLY one who remembers it. But then, I remember practically every modified car from around Maple Ridge back then, the good, the bad, AND the ugly.
Trouble with this liberal society today is that they only remember the 'fast ****s'. I was always careful to take my time...
Do axles normally have any caster built in or is everything squared up? I know I need a gauge to set it / twist axle
caster comes from how you set the spring perches on the axle. Usually you want 5-8 degrees, although if someone wants to offer some different caster angle advice, go for it. The camber is built into the axle, the angle of the king pin holes. The tie rod goes to the back of the axle, to make the "Ackerman" work properly (so both wheels will steer the correct amount relative to each other).
5 to 8 degrees is good numbers, I usually shoot for the bigger number on one that is lifted much, a lower setting car is just naturally more stable at speed. I seldom go past 7 degrees. It doesn't hurt to check ackerman even if the tie rod is behind the axle. the tendency to boat steer is exaggerated when the tie rod is in front of the axle but it never hurts to have it right either way. Maybe that is a little **** of me. To set your caster angle takes nothing more than an angle finder, they are not expensive.
my thought is that the solid end should go to the same side as the steering box, and the shackle on the other end. So if the steering is ahead of the axle, put the shackles on back. If the steering is behind the axle, put the shackles up front.
What I learned driving off road is that a vehicle with the shackles in front is not as stable as one with the shackle behind the axle. One of the mods that was commonly made to jeeps for example to help them not be so dodgy was to move the shackle to the rear. it was common enough that there were companies that actually sold kits to do just that. granted driving off road is a more extreme atmosphere that most if us drive but it does seem to make a difference.
Only late model, the early Willys stuff has the box mounted behind the axle with a drag link. This goes way beyond the scope of the board so forgive me but back in the '80s four wheel and off road had a real good article explaining the benefits of mounting the shackles behind the axle. The gist of it was that with the shackles behind you had less deflection and in turn less loss of camber on compression. I don't understand all I know about it. I think that it may be more of an issue with a vehicle that sticks a landing @ 80 the it does with a vehicle that hits a bump at 80. None of this is to say that the squirrel is incorrect just a different point of view being offered.
Well the box is behind the axel. The way the Falcon frame drops at the rear makes it look like the spring would be more level with the shackle at the front
Looks good. Goes right along with what Squirrel said too. I'd sure radius or at least de-burr those brackets before welding it all together though- saves you from the blood-letting later..... Progress!!
Doesn't matter where the shackle goes [or the box] if you are using cross steer..If using side steer I can't argue much but [for opposite example from above posts] my Crosley has side steer, front shackles, steering box front mounted [right near the shackle mount] and has "0" bump steer..And a dime in the road is a bump for a Crosley!
The Jalopy Journal
