Rocky, remember Rocky? He set this susspension up, the spring pack is reversed and works just like it is supposed to. Rocky pm'd me about this set up and said he copied off of a 20's European car.The set up allows someone like me, a die hard use everything Chevy you can, f&^%$ a bunch of ford stuff,to use all Chevy front axel set up for dual leaves springs.this set up allows an extremely low ch***is set up.Very low center of gravity, and I'll wager the ability to put the car deeper into a turn at a faster speed than another set up.Want to try?
What? I'm confused here. He asked why we do it (make an underslung). Why do we do anything we do? It isn't logical to build a 70 year old car. If you went by pure logic, you'd buy a Volvo. You build an old car because you feel the need to create something that identifies yourself; something that you can look at and say "I made that with my own two hands, I've bled and cursed and toiled to make something that is wholly mine." I like to be able to try different things and see what I can make work.
Guy was asking about the history behind underslung suspensions, and you suggested that he but a Volvo...
Still didn't answer his questions though. What are the advantages of an underslug suspension? Other than for asthetic reasons, why would you choose underslung over a more frame/spring/axle or suicide setup?
I just got a hold of a 31' chev tudor sedan (this is going to be my first hot rod) and have been considering building it underslung using the original frame and suspension. The front seems pretty straight forward but the back leaves me wondering. The frame naturally has a bit of a kick-up in the rear for axle clearance thus making it the lowest part on a flipped frame. What can I do or what have others done to have clearance between the ground and the rear kick-up with out having a serious rake in the frame. Pics of rear underslung suspensions would be greatly appreciated... I already have seen ones of the '17 Dodge Brothers touring but not any other rear pics.
I just wanted to try something different. I wanted an interesting challenge. I don't really think there are any distinct advantages, but I like to engineer and overthink things, and this setup appealed to me. It gets the car really low without paying for a dropped axle, and I like to have the mechanical items in the open. I really like the absolute no-nonsense mechanical beauty of a Miller race car, and this is about as close as a hack like me is going to get.
I think it's cool on your car. In a nice way really.... I'm not confident in my whole lot more conventional suspension I'm using, i.e. dropped axle etc. let alone trying to invent some ****. I hope I can get it to handle at speed and corner with confidence. If it doesn't I'll just drive my wife's vovlo S70 instead. LOL.
Seems like his question was answered before he ever asked it. Parallel semi-eliptic leaf springs are likely to have much better cornering stability than a single one mounted transversely, and don't require hairpins/wishbones to locate them. All the stresses of the car's weight are also transferred directly to the heavier framerails, reducing the structure required in the crossmembers. Ugly Z's don't have to be performed on the framerails to get the frame down, which leaves more room inside the car and more clearance up high around the engine. Fair 'nuff?
All MG-TC's 1946-49 had underslung rears, and the design should be looked at by anyone planing to build an underslung ch***is.
Many of the REALLY old folks used the term "underslung" to describe any lowered car. I have a 1951 Salt Lake Tribune page of cl***ified ads that has 3 listings for modified cars - 2 have ''underslung" in the wording.
i dont act like i know it all (if im wrong let me know and have some artical prov'n me so)but the reason the car corners better is theres no roll,no suspension,or little,its stiff as hell........and the center of gravity comes alot from the motor.where it sets in the car,over the axle,behind it,and how low it sets in the frame,...alot of guys put the motor where it looks good or where it will clear (whatever) and not where it goes. the geometry of the car should come first .now that being said we are building traditional cars and thats a traditional styled suspension. the problems we are talkin about were found years ago.
I really like that one. The way the axel sits on top of the spring pack is bad ***.And screw a bunch of scrub line police.
Just to prove a point, I'm going out to my garage, RIGHT NOW, and undersling the suspension in MY wife's volvo wagon. She was pissed when I Scotch-Brited the whole thing, took the muffler off and put bias-ply's on it.
Gow and Cosmo got it right... The American Underslung was one of the best-handling cars of its period - period. Part of the success of the design is a low center of gravity, the other part is suspension geometry. Roll resistance of a pair of semi-elliptics is superior to a buggy spring - especially if they are splayed (not parallel) like in a stepdown Hudson. At a time when vinage speedparts are goin' for long green - using a restacked spring pack and a flipped '31 Chevy frame and axle is one hella cool way to go for a fraction of the price.
A completely underslung ch***is might be able to consist of nothing but a couple of frame rails with 3-4 crossmembers. Simple, light too. Might need a torque arm in the back but you'd be getting rid of a lot of suspension parts and pieces like hairpins, batwings, panhard bars, etc.
Quote: (Many of the REALLY old folks used the term "underslung" to describe any lowered car. I have a 1951 Salt Lake Tribune page of cl***ified ads that has 3 listings for modified cars - 2 have ''underslung" in the wording.) As one of those "REALLY old folks", let me clear up a couple of things. First -- the mere fact that we're all using the term "underslung" means that phraseology invented in the 1920s accurately defined an accepted method of suspension. (Look at it upside down -- what’s the difference? Second -- maybe the good folk out there have less automotive knowledge than the good folk in other parts of the country. They ALL call lowered cars "underslung"? Then they're boomers masquerading as codgers. I they were REALLY codgers, they'd know the difference. Sorry, but I wasted a night in Salt Lake City looking for a bar when I should have been looking to join a “private club”.
"Used " was the key word there, Bill ... I was thinking of old timers long gone. I meant the term was in common misuse in 1951. Utah isn't a bad place to be if you stay close to the car people, by the way.
Could someone on this thread explain to me how the shocks are set up on these underslung cars. Not the friction shocks, but more contemporary shocks with the cylinder in them. Thank you.
How sure are you of that? I've been known to dabble in the lotus/triumph/MG's, and I dont think I've ever heard or seen that. (Then again, I've never been into the MG T's before. lol)
Its not hard. I've just got a mount welded to the axle. Here's a pic, I don't have any 'great' shots of the front uploaded to photobucket and I'm at work so this'll have to do.
The function of the shock is to control the rebound in the spring.Any shock, friction,lever action, or tube type would work.It seems some think the travel is towards the frame but I've found the clearence issuses were above the axel not below.I relocated my light bar height twice to clear the axel movement.For the axel to hit the frame the spring would have to bow the opposite way of the it's arch.the better the rebound control the more tire contact with the road.
The Jalopy Journal
