It appears that a Pacer front suspension would work well under my 41 Pontiac, and be easy for a first timer to install. anyone have experience with these. anyone know where I could find one? thanks
I agree, there's better alternative out there now. The Pacer hasn't been made in what - 25 years or so. How easy are the parts to get? Not that hard but they'll only get harder as time goes on - and more expensive. PM ElPolacko on here - he makes a Dakota IFS kit that more than a few guys here have used. I believe he has them in 3 different widths.
Ditto, Did you check the track width? Pacer's are a bit on the wide side somewhere around 60-62" if I remember correctly. Your Poncho should need something around 58"
Thank's for the prompt Mike, I do have Dakota based suspensions but I wouldn't recommend them for this application. Stuff that would fit, of course Mustang II, Corvair (but why), and some Corvette based kits would work well. If you are in a clipping mood the G-body GM would be narrow enough (78-80? Malibu, ElCamino, Cutlass, etc.) but be aware of steering box interference problems with your radiator and core supports
Thanks for the response guys. Sure appreciate the tip on checking the width. They've been used on 40's Chevy's so I just assumed the Pontiac was as wide or wider. As for the other suggestions... why is a 78 - 80 GM Ok, but not a 75 - 80 Pacer? Just availability? I do not have the cajones to cut up my frame and try to stub in a new front end. From what I've read, the Pacer is a complete unit - disc brakes, rack and pinion steering - that lays in as a unit, and welds to the existing frame. I could handle that. Mustang II....Heard they weren't stout enough, don't like the handling in the mustang, why would I intentionally put it in something else, IMO. Also seems they are as hard to find as anything else, unless you want to buy a kit, which I don't. So the original 2 questions. Anyone have experience with these things, know where to find one?
I know of a local guy that put one in a '40 Ford ten years ago, and it was way too wide. I remember him saying parts were hard to find then. There were hundreds of thousands more '80 Malibus made than '80 Pacers, so it only makes sense that NAPA will have more Malibu parts. Doesn't the Pontiac have a crossmember and spring cups as part of the framerails? Not nice and clean straight rails? If so, you will probably end up halfway stubbing the car no matter what front end you use. Sounds like the Malibu may still be your best bet.
There is only one company making rotors for a Pacer front, they are $110 each. Calipers are no problem, same as Ford. Suspension bushings are near impossible to find. Now, as to why a 78 to 87 GM over the Pacer, the Pacer is too wide, and the GM isn't. I'm not saying the Pacer can't be made to work, but it will be a lot more work, and more Expen$ive. Using a mustang Kit will be the cheapest route, even figuring in the kit. And the Mustang uses the same bearings, ect, as the GM clip, and bigger ones than a Pacer.
Ok, I will lay it out like this: Mustang II suspension details *track width is 56" stock and with the S-10 rotor conversion(5 on 3/4" BC), 58" with the Granada 11" rotor (5 on 4 1/2" BC) * designed to carry about 1800 to 1900 pound over the front axle. And stop a 2500-2750 pound car. The Dodge Dakota front suspension: * track width of 61" with it's 11 3/8" rotors, some Dakotas had 10 3/4" rotors and those narrow the track to 59 1/2" but can be difficult to find. * designed to carry 2500-2800 pounds over the front axle and stop a 2950-3500 pound truck. The 40's GM cars are narrow, stock track width is around 57" wide and anything wider is going to put the tires into the fenders. As a matter of weight, these cars don't weigh all that much. 1500-1800 pounds over the front wheels and come in under 3000 pounds ususally! For the most part they carry a near nuetral weight balance favoring the rear. In short, the Dakota is just too heavy duty for it. Too wide and will ride like hell! For those who fear using a Mustang II because of some rumored reputation, it stems from improper useage. Most driveability problems with the Mustang II can be directly contributed to operator/installer (kit manufacturer) error. Because they are very simple front suspesions, amatuers hack the crap out of them without any regard. I have gotten into it here before with a few HAMBers who have a personal bias against them. Most of their negative experience comes from the stock Mustang II and it's downfalls. But we are attaching these front ends to a fairly stiff frame and actually removing weight from them, changing the weight bias and putting improved parts in place of the inferior ones. That said, the Mustang II is hardly universal. I would not dream of putting one under a 56 F100. Will it work? Sure, but it has to be compramised to fit the application. Track width has to be altered, spring rates increased and suspension geometry has to be altered to make components clear the frame rails properly (and you belived your supplier when he told you it has factory geometry, PTHTHTTH). In conclusion, it is best to match up donor suspensions to the size and weight of the vehicle you are working on.
How about the Volare front end? Old as well but parts are surely easier to get than for a dead AMC car?
I went the rounds with this too (I have a '41 Pontiac sedan on the backburner) and finally decided it would be best to either rebuild the stock suspension and add some modern shocks and upgrade the brakes or go the Mustang II route. Like was said on here, the frame is pretty complicated so you pretty much need to clip the front end to get something to work, then you have to worry about fitting radiator, sheetmetal, etc. FWIW the Pinto front end components are the same as Mustang II and there's a lot of those donors out there but you'd want to go through the bushings, nuts and bolts, maybe ball joints, etc. so you wind up elbows deep in it anyway. If you're set on doing a complete clip, look at the mid-to-late 70's Chevelle/Omega, etc; they'll fit pretty close, but the steering at the front will interfere somewhat with the radiatior. I looked at a Pacer front end in the junkyard and it would be like 6" or 7" too wide in track width, definitely not worth it.
El Cid. I've considered just reworking the front end. It's fair to good right now so there's no rush. What I'm looking for is 1. better brakes (maybe a power booster would do the trick) 2. ability to put regular shocks on it (the knee actions are real expensive and you can't go firmer/softer/dual action etc. like tube shocks) 3. Better front end geometry (cranked all the way back I can only get 1/2 degree positive caster. I think 3 to 3 1/2 would make it track a lot better) 4. If I was doing the whole shebang I would add power steering, but that's real low on the list. I'm sitting here wondering if there is a different upper A frame I could use that would solve 2 & 3. Any thoughts in that direction? Would be a lot easier than a subframe.
If you havent given up on the pacer...i have a complete hub to hub front end from a pacer v8 wagon....god knows how you'd ship it, but i'll take $150 for it.....
I have a 75 Pacer and wouldnt even consider cutting it up. The fishbowl wagon is cool. I love the ugly ones!
wanna win a bar bet??? bet someone that the pass door of a pacer is longer than the drviers door.. they ARE!!! like 2 1/2- 3" longer, its easy to spot, look at the door lock location...
I clipped my 51 ford with a 79-85 GM "metric". Mine just happened to be donated from a Grand Prix. The sub has all the gm motor mount holes in it, pont. 6/8, buick 6/8, olds 6/8, chev 6/8. the best part is that if you dont want to weld the clip in real high to lower the car, S-10 dropped spindles bolt right on. Oh yeah, the dirt track guys use these frames and you can get variable rate coil springs for them. Like Steve said, You will have to "alter" the radiator mounting due to the gear box location. Measure twice, cut once, and study it first. Crash.
How anyone could even consider cuttin up a Pacer is beyond me! The classics are gonna disappear if we dont protect them! haha
I'm still circling my car and scrathin my ass. Looked up the specs, says 61 1/2 inches track width on the 41 Pontiac. Haven't checked the details, like whether the wheels have offset centers, etc. It weighs in at 3350 or so. It has a channel frame that "Y's" at the front and a front crossmember that would support a tank. I hear it is nothing like the chevy's, or fords. The crossmember supports the front clip. I really want to do something that doesn't involve chopping off the frame. Scares the hell out of me and I would have to pull engine, front clip etc. and all that is done. Don't know what the hell I'm talking about here, so all comments, observations, tips and insults will add something to my knowledge.
alchemy, sorry, didn't mean to ignore your question. I think the answer to your question is No. Upper A frame is connected via the knee action shock, which is centered over the spring (Which is why you can't put tube shocks on it). I may need to strip one side and take pictures to really understand what I have.
Mustang II parts are EVERYWHERE because it has been the "standard" street rod suspension almost since they were new. 78-88 midsize GM are super-easy (and therefore cheap) to find and find parts for because so many cars had the exact same chassis (Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, Malibu, Cutlass, Regal, LeMans, and a couple others in oddball years, literally millions of cars) AND because stock car racers use the suspensions. (I have a racing catalog that is just full of upgrade parts for 78-88 GM "metric" midsize front suspensions!) Pacer front ends only came in Pacers, and no one ever used one for a stock car, so parts are hard to come by and upgrade stuff is nonexistant. Pretty much everyone in the universe sells parts for Mustang II and GM metric, and they don't have to special order any of it.
atomickustom. Yes, continued availability of parts would be a major concern. Seems like the GM is the right answer, but that subframe swap is way over my head. I need a near bolt on, not fabrication solution.
Guys, a little sympathy for a dumb ass OK? Here is what it looks like now. I should have done the front end first, but it seemed to drive OK so I went on to other things. Now I am not happy with it, especially the brakes, And it will really piss me off to tear down everything I just did. Bolt on solutions please???
Am I the ONLY one that thought Pacer front suspensions were just widened Mustang II units? AMC used lots of other make parts over the years. Dan
To convert your original suspension to tube shocks just built frame brackets and stud the lower A-frames. It's been done a thousand times.
Man am i glad i found this link i know for a fact a Pacer will fit in that Chevy i am running one under my car now and it is perfect in width and size, sure a mustang parts are readly available but this pacer unit is really easy fit minimal welding and cutting and works awesome and best part is its a heavier duty front suspension than a mustang ll id love to share any ?'s and photos with you heres my car later George
The Jalopy Journal
