I am getting ready to put a new rear suspension in a 34 coupe and am wondering how happy I would be with a transverse mounted leaf instead of coil overs. This car is going to be driven alot and Im trying to get some sort of a decent ride out of it.
Nothing wrong with a transverse leaf spring suspension. Henry Ford built MILLIONS of cars using this system. Air bags and coilovers have come into vogue since hot rodding was revived in the late 60's. If your willing to spend some time building a correct system and fine tuning it to suit your application you'll be more than satisfied with the final result. Frank
What do you guys think about reversing the leaf springs on a 55 ford Customline? A guy suggested that I do that to get the rear end lower on my car, but I can not think of how the mechanics of that would work. For clarification making them look like an n instead of a u.
Just inverting them won't work as the leaves will not be supporting any weight. Think about it. And why bother as all you need are some lowering blocks ,much less time and work.
I have coils on one car and a stock transverse spring on the other, both '32 Fords. The stock transverse with lever shocks is a much better ride. The coils usually have a valve to adjust compression and rebound but you must very closely match the coil rate to the car. With the transverse spring you can fine tune it by adding or removing leafs. With the coils, unless you use a triangulated rear four bar you'll end up needing a panhard bar. I will be changing my coupe to a transverse spring this summer. Good luck, The FOGGER
I was bouncing around using a triangulated 4 bar or the so-cal ladder bar set up. Brizio builds a whole lot of drivers using ladder bars as well so I am leaning toward those
That was my thinking exactly when he mentioned it. I just wanted to see if anyone has ever hard of it before. Thanks for hearing me out.
Most coilovers on a 32 have too stiff of springs, I went from 250# to 220# to 200# and would try 180# next. Ago
I went from this to this with the help of Eaton Spring in Detroit. It rides great now Nothing wrong with theis spring set up IMO
Obviously, transverse leaves are more traditional, but it seems to me that adding or removing leaves vs. changing coils to fine-tune the spring rate is a wash. What is it about transverse leaves that makes for a better ride? And how are compression/rebound adjustments done on lever shocks?
A classic example of a know-nothing guy tossing out an idea that he thinks should work except he don't know jack about the subject. Probably one of those wondrous types who've learned to talk in a loud and firm voice because people seldom question him. Seen most times at work and if you're really unlucky . . . other places.
There are many issues that determine spring rates, the weight of the vehicle, the unsprung weight, load amounts, tire type, ect. The area available for coil-over rear shocks, for an example a '32 Ford, will determine the maximum diameter of the coil. Usually because of the small diameter of the coil the amount of suspension travel is very limited. Too high a spring rate and the ride is too harsh, too light a spring you can encounter coil bind. If a transverse rear spring is set up correctly you can expect to double the amount of suspension travel compared to a coil-over shock. The problem I've found with coil-over shocks is my personal opinion. I have come to appreciate the engineering of the Ford design in the early cars. I always prep the spring leafs by tapering the ends so that the leafs don't dig into each other. I also use spring liners and find that after many miles the spring action/rate doesn't change. After establishing the spring pack then I set up the lever shocks. The Houdaille web site gives information on adjusting the shock valving. My original '32 hi-boy roadster has a firm but predictable ride with a '40 transverse rear spring and original rebuilt lever shocks front and back. Even with bias-ply tires it handles really well. No split bones, stock rebuilt steering box and non-dropped front axle. I think, again, this is a personal preference and I know people who wouldn't change their coil-overs Most coil-over cars have radial tires that absorb a great amount of road shock, so the tires act as a component to soften the ride. All elements a never equal so a comparison between the two types is difficult. So my preference for transverse springs is based on my own experience and need not be considered anything but an opinion. Builders use what works for them. The FOGGER
I believe he was referring to the practice of reversing the eyes on the main leaf. I've never done it or seen it done, but I know that many of the springs available for hot rod come that way already, and it can be done to an original spring also. Anyone know how it's done?
Buy a new main leaf from an aftermarket supplier. Or a complete spring. Basics on doing it to the old spring are removing the main leaf and re-arching it in the opposite direction then re-installing it into the spring pack. You'll gain about 1" drop for a lot of work. Iinstalling a flat rear crossmember and a 40 Ford spring pack - get em at SoCal - works quite well. Thing with coilovers is, they don't have much travel and are way less tunable than a transverse leaf spring with separate shocks. Got pics if you need.
I'm also an advocate of using tranverse spring, but your above comments don't make any sense . If you use a different length spring of the same rate, you'll normally eliminate coil-bind. Just think about it. A spring is nothing more than a torsion bar wound into a circle. The wire diameter and unwound length is what determines the rate. If you replace the spring that's binding with another that has fewer turns and different wire diameter, there'll be more space between the turns. This way you can eliminate coil-bind and maintain the same suspension travel. Just take a quick look in the Speedway racing catalog. A 2.5" I.D. #200 spring is available in the following lengths: 8", 10", 12" and 14". If ya' select the proper spring for the length coil-over you're using, you won't have coil-bind. Now how can you say that you can double the amount of suspension travel going to a transverse spring? How can you technically make this statement ??? This is false. Your suspension travel is limited by the movement of the suspension before it impacts the chassis or rubber bump stops. You've already answered this question if your suspension is set-up correctly and your tube shocks are the correct length. If your transverse rear spring has a pair of tube shocks and they run free through the entire suspension movement, than why would correct length coil-overs and non-coil bind springs restrict the movement to be anything less that what the transverse spring was? Technically, you'll have to explain where you come up with your reasoning, 'cause I don't see how it can flush . Typically a 5", 7" and sometimes 9" stroke coil-over shock is used for hot rods. For dirt modified racing I use 9" and longer. If you center the travel in the 9" shock you'll have 4.5" of compression and 4.5" of rebound. If ya' have more suspension travel than that, then I guess you should be on the 4x4 Off Road Forum. Go here for some tech info: http://www.proshocks.com/srshocks/tech1a.htm#stravel
Thanks for the clarification. When the guy I was talking to mentioned it, I just smiled and said I would think about it. I knew it wouldn't work the way he described. Just thought maybe he knew something I didn't. Thanks again guys!
I don,t want to hijack this thread, but I,ve got a model A spring and crossmember here that I want to put in my 34, anyone on here done this?
I still stand by my statement that you will have twice the amount of suspension travel with a transverse rear spring and this is based on actual application not catalog specs. Think about it, you have a typical 4" stroke coil-over set up on a '32 Ford. Even with the correct coil spring rate you will not have 4" of suspension travel, which is the maximum amount allowed by the shock. With a transverse spring the travel is set to limit the contact of the axle to the frame/rubber bumper. Again on my roadster with lever shocks I have 6" of non-binding non-contact rear suspension travel. This is an actual measurement not some BS theory. The FOGGER
My 34 Ford Coupe had a '55 Chev rearend with transverse rear springs. I did not like the look (too wide) and the springs were shot. I changed to a '77 Ford Bronco 9" rear-end and new transverse springs. Great look and great ride. The springs are a little stiff for the moment but so much better. Also, I like the more traditional look. I'm happy.
I've run into this same situation vis a vis coilovers on my 32 roadster. 2" compression travel isn't enough. The 32 frame under my 31 roadster has a transverse spring and it's easy to see that available compression travel is more than double. Granted, the shocks could limit travel, but if you get the right ones not a prob. I'm pretty much through with coilovers for street use....
You can stand by your statement, but technically you're still wrong. This isn't some BS theory, as you mention. I don't need to even look at a catalog or shock tech information to understand why you have a problem. If you have 4" of suspension travel you need a shock with a 9" stroke, not some little short 4" stroke look good shock that is not technically correct for the application. Here's pics of my modified rear suspension. No coil bind and ample suspension travel for the roughest dirt tracks you'll find. If this went into coil bind you'll rip the mounting brackets right off the mounts. The bottom mounts would be the first to go 'cause they are aluminum. No rubber bump stops here. If it were to go into coil bind or bottom out you'd feel it. So, don't hand me "your Bull Shit answer" about theory. Here is my "real world" application that technically works, no outa' the catalog BS. I designed it, I built it, I set it up with the correct length shocks and proper length/rate springs. I drive it on dirt and asphalt. The conditions met here are much more severe than anything a street driven hot rod will ever see (unless you're doin' something real stupid). I set the rubber suspension travel indicators on the shocks before we go out and race. When I come back in we look at them to see what kind of suspension travel we have. This info is used as a chassis set-up indicator. AND ....... just outa' curiosity, if you have 6" of suspension travel on your roadster it must sit as high as a 4x4 truck . I'd like to see pics of it. (Is this 6" measurement the same one you try to pass off on female companions ?) Seriously, is that 6" in jounce (compression) and rebound, or only in jounce. By the way, I'm experienced with tranverse springs and lever action shocks too. I run them on my '38 convert and '40 coupe. My '40 pickup and '39 tudor have tube rear shocks. I like the adjustable lever action shocks better. If any one of those had 6" of suspension travel in compression I'd have to wear an oxygen mask when driving.
Fogger, is that +/- 3" (from static ride height) for a total of 6" of travel, or is that +/- 6" for a total of 12". Just askin, cause I can't tell from the way you wrote it. FWIW a brainstorm (or is that a brainfart?) I had when speaking to knowlegeable people on transverse leaf setups riding better (I wouldn't know, but I've heard it before) is that there isn't alot of unsprung weight in a transverse leaf setup (comparatively). Not saying they're not heavier overall, but there isn't alot of mass at the spring eye. I don't know however how you figure the % of mass to use for transverse leaf spring (to mathematically compare it to a coil over). I expect the motion ratio figures into that, haven't worked with leaves in a performance app, so this is unfarmiliar territory for me.
In response to your latest post. You and I are talking apples and oranges. I am specifically referring to a 1932 Ford Passenger car with a transverse rear suspension. You are comparing your modified suspension. Have you ever seen a 9" stroke coil-over on a 1932 Ford? It would be quite difficult to install that long of a shock with the limited space available on the Fords and maintain the desired low stance. You have a good looking well engineered suspension on your modified and I am sure it works really well, but that's not what I have discussed in my posts. Peace. The FOGGER
SPRINGS? as in plural? Sounds like you have parallel leafs NOT a Transverse (as in mounted tranversely) Leaf Spring (singular) setup.
The Jalopy Journal
