Subframes gone wwwillldddd!!

LMAO!

I'm drawing up that bumper sticker without the parenthesis, that should get some comments.

 

So it seems that provided it looks OK, everyone that has owned/driven a subframed vehicle compared to stock, seems to like it.

I tell ya, those dummy engineers might have been onto something with progressing technology.

 

Get off your soapbox and go finish your disc to drum swap on the 2000 Altima.

 

I know of one done back in the day...

It was '1940's ford into 1937 Cord 812. And it was a *******ization, too.

BTTT for drama!

-bill

 

didnt that car already have ifs from the factory? why change it?
i had a 51 shoebox (factory front) on bi-ply tires,with new king pins and all .....on air ride and it drove fine


and my 2 i think subs on a fendered car are ok....
but ive so many ugly (rat rods) no fenders, choped, rusted out p.o.s.es with ifs and cragers ---pick a era..........

 

I figured by now someone would have photoshopped that hawaiian shirt guy with the beard and the hat, into one of those photos. That's like the only thing missing....


I think guys see subframing as the quickie cure-all for an old front end that you can't easily get parts for... and figure a couple cuts and a couple welds is a lot less work. Sort of the lazy man's way to do it. And it's fine, if you engineer it properly. That's where the problem comes in. Half the people doing it because it's the lazy way out, are too lazy to engineer it to the original frame properly. Sort of like a patch panel made of pop-riveted galvanized tin pieces covered with bondo.

 

Why swap in a later design front end ..besides disc brakes?
ANTI DIVE GEOMETRY.
But i'm almost as guily as the 'engineer 'who did the Ford at the beginning of this thread.I bought this back in 1975 through Alfster....it's a repro Duece Ch***is with a GM front clip... like a Nova etc .Looked ****in' terrible then and a lot worse now.

 

Wow

 

i had the front end in my 50 chevy completely rebuilt with drop spindel and cut coils and buick brakes old school all the way that was 1991 if i redo it today it be a clip or m-2 and at marks

 

I'm a little late on this but back to the ABS brakes vs non ABS. I had the opertunity a few years ago to spend a couple of days driving on a police training course with the police training vehicles. These were equiped with ABS brakes and a switch that you could flip to turn off the ABS system.

Part of the course was to p*** a set of cones at 30 mph and then slow down and and make a left turn in a short distance. We did this several times with and without the anti-lock brakes. With out exception when we tried to slow down fast without the ABS brakes we would lock up and slide past the turn and take out several cones. With the ABS system on, we could slow down and make the turn. With a lot of practice we could do pretty good without the ABS system.

The problem is not with the braking system but with the human element. Best braking occurs when the tires are almost locked up but not quite (race car drivers call this 90% braking), The ABS does this for you. Locking the brakes causes the tires to brake loose and loose traction and away you slide.

I have a friend that is a race car driver. He told me that on the race circuit he prefers non ABS brakes as he is skillful enough to consistantly brake at 90% because he knows the track and can plan ahead. On the streets he prefers ABS because when you have to stop quick you don't have time to think about it and will almost always lock them up and slide.

 

I sure do.... The bickering back and forth over keep it original verses Clip it with a better suspension design

Most of those purists don't realize that the original front suspension had BAD GEOMETERY.... At that time in history the use of computer designed suspension was not available... Sure maybe cutting off a 50 year old clip and replacing it with a 30 year old clip is not the best but its 20 years better than the original.....

I just picked up a 50 Ford Shoebox... YES Its going to get clipped with a 79 Monte Carlo Clip...

I drove both and the 30 year newer clip drive and handles a lot better than that ANTIQUE suspension that in the Showbox now........

 

Oh god, not this thread again....

 

lets hear it its been a while....im ready for some more odoyle anti subframe ********!!!!

 

Bill.....

Its as simple as going to the TOP OF THE THREAD

CLICK ON THREAD TOOL....

And Unsubscribe from the thread....

Rich........

 

This **** again..... where are the O'Doyle's?

 

i'm one of the O'Doyles...and as far as im concerned..customs aren't made to be street racers and handle like a BMW...why have a traditional custom with mullet suspension? my shoebox drives FINE on NJ roads with it's Bias Plys. All of you people that complain about your original suspension riding like ****, rebuild it, will ride like new. Where's the fun in driving a shoebox bodied 72 nova? beats me. I've got cl*** in 10 minutes...

 

i put a 1950 Buick front stub in my 74 sd trans am..... 50s suspension..on big cars.. great, if you like under steer and the sensation of falling backwards over the lip. with the trans am suspension welded in low, my Buick is as responsive and predictable as the trans am. if you don't like a sub don't do em,
you cant look at my car and tell its been clipped.

 

The Cow says "Shazoo!"

 

Mines subframed and looks spot on.That being said,subframes **** except for mine!lol

 

Anthony........

How come you dont have any photos of your car in your profile??????

Do you know What Clip do you have in the Shoebox....????

Rich
NJ

My Old Shoe box ----- Gone but not forgotten......

 

ow here also a nice example its says Frame off restoration but look at the frame work damn!!!!!

http://www.lakewaymotorscl***iccars.com/53chevycustompickup/53chevycustompickup.htm

 

The shoebox is my buddy Joes and its not clipped.My merc is and although I wish it wasnt subframed,I can live with the way ity looks.The wheels are tucked in pretty good.

 

He has a 49 Merc, that has a subframe.

I would do a little more research, I have nothing against subframes but I saw one on a shoebox, a G body subframe and it looked wide. People use that subframe under a Merc and it looks nice, so I can't see it fitting the shoebox at all. If the Monte is that nice sell it and pick up some $300 S 10, get what fits and probably get a few bucks out of it for your project.

 

go to cl***....YOU MIGHT JUST LEARN SOMETHIN!!!!! you sure get schooled on here....

 

i clicked on your myspace, i couldnt see all your pics but i saw your backround and im ***uming the grey buick is yours, well its not the greatest picture but your tires look awfully close to the fenders...it could be the offset of your wheels, bad pic, or subframe too wide.

 

someone **** the bed on that one.

 

amen to your signature

 

haha...everyone has their own opinions...i like to drive old cars...not 70s cars..i don't understand how people say stock suspensions from old (50s and older) cars are not good...maybe if you're planning to build a professional race car and going to compete with newer race cars, than yeah, be my guest and upgrade the suspension, but then again if you're planning to compete in races with this thing... you would upgrade it with something more state of the art than a 70s car...but as far as im concerned and most of other hambers, we are building these cars to have fun with and drive, and again..as for the type of driving (normal driving how ever how many miles) MOST hambers are doing, stock suspensions are more than adequate...and for the reason not subframing...well in my eyes, which may be skewed to my ideas for i have no reason, replacing a car's suspension with a newer suspension beyond the era of the styling of the hotrod or custom, too me ruins the traditionality of the car.. which in turn ruins the coolness of the car. I have been brainwashed to hate new cars at a young age so i don't like new cars...although i have to admit, they are reliable..but so are old cars, if you leave them ALONE! hahaha that being said, i admit to some stuff i've done to my car that I don't like although i have reasons for doing so...I have installed a cd player (in the glovebox of course) the only reason i did this is so i can listen to music i like while I drive...back then i would've turned the radio on and listened to the music I like...can't do that now-a-days, another, i rewired my car with one of those universal wiring harnesses...i would've rather used original cloth wiring, but don't have that type of coin to splurge on wires, i also put an alternator on top of the flat head...but I promise, the generator is going back on..was just a quick and easy solution to get the car driving...back to subframes, im planning my shoebox to look like it was built around 58 or so...i dont want it made out of 70s parts. thats enough rambling about nothing.

 

build em to drive em fast drive em hard...now that is my definition of normal!!!!

whats yours?>

 

My Frame on my Cranbrook was rotted out bad! I had no choice to sub frame it. I personally really don't care what people think. I'm also on a budget. If you don't like it Don't look at it !
At least I saved another car from the crusher and I'm having fun building it.