Is there any reason the front suspension out of a '60s bronco wouldn't work in the rear of a rod? Pros & Cons?
besides the fact that mose cars steer from the front, not the rear? I suppose it would make driving in reverse much easier.
So you're just talking about the springs then? Sure they would work, you'd just have to fab them in...am I missing something here?
Well for starters the radius ams are designed to be used in Compression not Tension. They aren't designed to bolt to any type of rear axle housing. They are pretty short so pinion angle will change drastically during suspension travel. Overall I'd say it would be a silly thing to try. And really the Twin I Beams were part of the Suspension. Oh yeah, nad the coils are pretty long.
Broncos have coil sprung front axles coil springs, I-beam style arms clamped to the axle, panhard bar. shocks mounted to the arms. I have one laying upside down behind my house. I was just wondering if there was any reason that the front suspension setup from that wouldnt work as a rear suspension on a rod
i am familiar with the setup he's talking about i'm pretty sure he just wants to use the arms and springs which are just like big heavy ladder bars not very pretty but if its under the car who'se going to see it ive seen this done pretty successfully on a mud buggy but didn't have alot of articulation travel but you dont need much on a hot rod btw no need to change gears when taking a frontend and moving to the rear they both spin the same its the transfer case that changes the direction
i think you must be thinking of the 80 and later stuff with the twin traction beams with the short stamped steel arms the broncos and f series 4x4s were solid axles with relativly long cast steel arms up till 80
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing about stiff springs. They are also pretty long. I ***ume you'd cut them, but it's one thing to cut a coil or two and something very different to cut them in half. You could probably easily adapt the control arms, but they aren't exactly a thing of beauty. I think they're a little short too (not sure, going from memory). Honestly, sounds a little rat roddish. But if that's what you're going for, then don't ask, just do it.
The early Bronco's used radius arms on a solid axle. Functionally the same as a split wishbone. It's strong and simple, but a little short and not very attractive. If you want to use bushings between the arms and axle like the Bronco setup, you have to come up with the wedges to weld to the axle. Halfway down this page; http://www.jamesduff.com/eb/suspension_components.html If you are planning to just rigidly bolt the arms to a bracket on the axle, it won't be able to flex and something will end up bending. I know it's tempting to use something you have sitting around, but I think there are better ways to build a suspension.
I can't figure out from that link how the radius arms are supposed to work. Do they rely on some sort of flexible connection? Presumably they work fine in practice but it seems like a highly compromised way to ***ure caster control. How is the axle located laterally? Whether the ring & pinion will work depends on how the transfer box works: do the front and rear drive shafts spin the same way? The ring and pinion will work if the shafts spin in opposite directions, but if you flip the axle the pinion height might not be where you want it on a rod. You can cut the coils: do an internet search for coil spring rate. Apply the math to coils that are known to work on a car similar to yours to figure out how much to cut off to get the rate you want, be it in half or whatever. The formulae are out there. Those progressive-rate coils in the link would be cool if you had old ones lying around: you'd use the low-rate part with the coils close together, as you probably don't have enough weight to bind the coils, or perhaps a bit around the transition. Theoretically you can use such a steering axle and set the toe-control links up to give you a tiny bit of toe-in on roll in both directions, but DON'T go there unless you REALLY ABSOLUTELY know what you're doing. You don't accidentally want to dial in toe-out when you least want it. It seems there might be more scope for raiding that suspension for bits and pieces than using it in its entirety.
If you do, you'll just end up with this guy's problems http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=368593
OMG your right! same maybe the whole lecture on suspension geometry was a waste? Hey guy, You could use the bronco arms but would have to lengthen them significantly to get the right geometry. To take torque stress off the lengthened arms you'd need to add at least one more suspension component to make it a 3 link or 4 link. You can buy the angled pucks to weld to the axle tubes off the internet for mounting the radius arms, they sell them for putting new axles into broncos.. The C-Bushings at the axle and the radius arm bushing should give a nice quiet ride with plenty of flex for a street machine...Much more than what you already have with the BillyBob suspension but leaving the radius arms short just keeps you in the same problem you already have. Second thoughts. If you do not lengthen the radius arms they can still be used like your thinking without creating the same durrogatory conditions if: You add upper control arm/arms and: Looking at the car from the side, imagine a line drawn through the 2 mounting points of the upper control arm and note where it intersects a line drawn through the 2 mounting points of the lower radius arm. This is geometrically where the forces from rear axle transmitted through the upper and lower arms will be applied to ch***is movement regardless of where the mounts actually are. Hope that helps
It's a proven design. Limits articulation in the off road enviroment but fine on the street. His previous problem with rear suspension was the result of too much arm angle combined with no shocks and no coil spring containment. Failure by design... Bronco front suspension stuff out back? Been done on some early Broncos in the 80's and 90's and worked well...although it isn't a hot ticket for rock crawling due to the limited free articulation available in the stock arm configuration. Can't see it being a big deal to work into a Hot Rod...although it is a bit homely. Different springs maybe...USE shocks this time(!!!)...pay attention to arm angle...etc. Bad driveshaft angle? Why? It works in the Bronco! Lateral control is by a Panhard bar BTW... The arms are I beam and could be drilled for a cooler look... The arms are a bit short but having a sensible angle to the arm will help a lot to prevent "jacking". Frame attachment is by those ugly donuts and equally ugly brackets though. THAT could be a job stopper unless you have plans to use some other style of attachment or have the room to just use what you have...and can ignore the looks. IF your really set on using a 2 arm to the rails...look at the suspension arms of a Land Rover/Range Rover (can't remember the actual model) or a Mercedes G-Wagon. Do a Google image search maybe... They use a forged I-beam on either side with 2 rubber bushings at the axle and another one at the frame attachment. I think they use all thru-bolt bushings that would make adapting easier than the confusing complication of the Bronco axle wedges and frame donuts. Ultimately, in your car....I'd still look at a set of parallel leaf springs!
Seems like a lot of work to use "what's laying around" Why not use something a bit more practical, like parallel leafs or a simple four bar.
ummm ... what? hot rods require more body work than damn near any other type of cars besides customs.
Yep, now you can all see the problem i've been having. Im just trying to find a way to cure that without having to revamp the whole rear of the frame. Honestly, if using the parts i have makes me a "rat rodder" than im guilty. Big woop. Lessons i've learned from previous posts are: mount the arms parrelell to the ground, have them pointing inward, mount them as close to the tail shaft of the ****** as possible. have the arms as long as possible. Tube shocks will be installed. Did i miss anything? These arms connect to the axle using clamps with triangle shaped blocks welded to the axle. The diameter of the two axles are the same so simply cutting and rewelding is pretty straight forward. The arms are much longer than my previous ones. I will lengthen them if needed. I would most likely use a stock style mount to the frame. Its going to be hidden under the body so looks wont matter much. I can deal with limited articulation. This will never leave pavement, and if it does i'll be cautious of my surroundings. I wont be using the bronco springs. "ummm ... what? hot rods require more body work than damn near any other type of cars besides customs." Ever hear of "patina"? what do you drive? A bondo sled? to those of you that are actually trying to think outside the box...thank you. There is some really helpful stuff here. I really like the idea of drilling the I-beams. Its really not as much work for me as it sounds. I have all the tools and knowledge of how to use them. Its simply cutting, and welding. Like anything else.
If you go with the Bronco radius arms, having the arms focus towards the trans output isn't a huge deal. Thats done to allow solidly mounted arms (at the rear end housing) to articulate easily when one wheel rises or drops. With the Bronco rubber bushings and triangles on the housing you'll have enough flex to get by on the street. It's really a smooth setup for basic use and tough. The rubber axle bushings can be changed out for aftermarket Urethane if your bushings are iffy AND the new bushings are available in various moulded in angles that, in front, would allow you to reset your caster angle after lifting the Bronco, but in your case could be used to dial in your pinion angle if you got it off a bit during the build. Lengthening the arms is reasonably easy, but 4wheelers have bent them unless they are lengthened AND reinforced. Heavy and clunky. I'd try to get away with minimal or no lengthening. I don't think its the best idea out there...but its certainly workable.
The Jalopy Journal
