What's the "traditional" way to make a car handle?

The Edsel is coming along, soon to be back on the road and I'd like to start gathering parts to get the chassis sorted out. I'm not a drag racer, but I like to put my cars through their paces out in the hill country. I'm looking to get improved (or at least predictable) handling out of the old Edsel for back road adventures. If I may dare to dream, I'd like the Edsel to be able to survive the occasional track day.

Obviously the modern solution is radical rear ends and Mustang II clips, but what did they do back in the day? I know Ford raced in Nascar with the big Galaxies, and I've soon pictures of a '58 Edsel in stock car trim. None looked severely lowered. Is it just drop leaves in the back and new coils in the front? Bigger sway bar in the front and maybe adding one in the rear?

Now how about brakes? Did road racers just use discs for the front or just fit better shoes to stock drums?

Thanks in advance guys!

 

Double shocks. Drilled backing plates. 170-180 MPH no problem. They didn't need any fancy stuff, they just weren't scared.

 

Olde parallel spring cars are transformed by much heavier rear springs, much much much heavier front springs, modern shocks and tires. Any further tuning can be handled by adding anti-roll bars, but you may not even want any once springs are stouter. In my opinion, the cars become actually more comfortable through the radical decrease in roll and better stability. You are basically turning the thing into a police car.
Fast steering is also a great change...I love GM police car boxes...but I have no idea what would fit on an Edsel.

 

Thank F'ing god!!! someone who isnt talking M2 or S10! Like bruce said, and DBL check A-arm geometry too, some cars have bad problems in that dept. too As brakes go try a power assist dual M/C and see if you have noticable brake fade after a hard run, at worst a set of brake scoops and drilled backing plates might be needed

 

sway bar my plymouth has a factory one

 

It's pretty easy to get decent handling.

Good tires number one. If you want Atlas Bucron's than forget handling.

Good shocks, preferably adjustable are mandatory. Look in Bilstien catalog for ones with similar characteristics if you cant find direct replacements

Heavier sway bar in front and add one in rear,

Get best alignment and your good to go.

 

On my 53 Club Coupe I used a front sway bar off a 70 something Ford station wagon and on the rear I used a sway bar off a 80s Tbird. Good shocks and 1 1/2 coils out of the front and a 3in block in the back. Stock steering, Arm Strong power steering !! Uses Bias ply wide whites and handles pretty good

 

Instead making them I would just buy one of these


You'll probably need more than one though

 

The Edsel was never a popular race car. But you can do anything to it that you can do to a galaxie or a fairlane.

Like Bruce said play with the spring rates and sway bars on both ends. There were a plethera of shocks to be had at the time and even disc brakes but era discs are pretty pricey, today. I believe Little Wing has some old school race shocks. One thing to keep in mind is that a race car and a lumber wagon road about the same.

Once Ford got into the disc brake game (factory I believe around '65 or 6) they used 4 piston bendix units. I don't know that they had anything that was offered to the general public prior to the Mustang.

Oversized drums were used a lot, you could get 2.5 x 11s from Ford and 12s from Buick.

Racers were also known to source and adapt parts from other vehicles. Jag pieces were popular, as well as believe it or not Studebaker for race pieces. The stude box for the Commander/Hawk was a little quicker than the one you will have. Not the Ross box, you want the Sag.

 

Old sources: There is a great HRM article on circa 1959 Merc police specials, numerous articles on '60-64 Holman Moody stuff when stock cars were stock based, some articles om Lincoln brkes onto '57-64 Ford type chassis.
Factory had police, heavy duty, export packages, but of course that info is generally useless in terms of finding actual parts.
IMHO, fat springs give broader set of improvements including roll that going straight to huge anti roll bars. I think the firmer ride is better.

 

That's what I was thinking!

 

Great stuff guys! I'm definitely not looking to build a full on race car here, I daily drove a CSP car in my youth and my kidneys still haven't full recovered. I'm looking at the typical race car prep to get an idea of which direction to proceed. Most of the 50's cars I've ridden in have suspensions that are like the business end of a marshmallow. They ranged from unsuitable to downright dangerous when you leaned into them.

I'm no expert for sure, but I can tell you what I see. The arms look dreadfully heavy, but I'm ok with that. With steel wheels and drum brakes quibling over unsprung weight seems like a moot point. The only potential odity is that the lower arm's axis is not parallel. The rear mount points are several inches inboard of the front points. Seems that would decrease caster as the suspension compresses, which is already in short supply. Not sure if that's much of an issue though. It'll never be a drifter for sure

Stiffer springs is easy enough. Leaf packs are available in any number of configurations, I'm sure I can find something. I really don't want to use blocks though. Seems like that would make for a ton of wheel hop giving the axle a lever arm to wrap the springs with. As for the fronts, I'm guessing custom coils is the easiest way to go. Any idea the dimensions of the coil (dia. / height) or what spring rate I should shoot for?

Also, as far as shocks, I'm guessing modern shocks make doubling them up unnecisary. Anybody know the uncompressed height of the shock? Same as any other 57-59 Ford. I bet a 1 ton truck double adjustable could be found that works if I know what size shock body to look for.

As for steering, I may deviate from traditional there. I may keep it recirculating ball, but if I can find a good doner for rack and pinion that keeps the rear steer arrangement that would be ideal.

 

in the tradition of hot roddding ,use the best parts you can come up with.....that being said dont worry about using the wrong parts .unless you are trying to be ERA correct and in that case your screwed.i would put some big disc brakes up front,and a 9'' also with disc out back.....as said before good shocks ,may have to change the mounts to get good ones to fit.sway bars are a must!!!!!there are some neat aftermarket universal stuff out there.or look around a salvage for some big ford cars&trucks alot of those had rear bars.its under the car so most wont even notice you have (god forbid) late model parts........enjoy YOUR car

 

I learned this because Chevelles have a problem with the a arms the top A-arm is too short on them, so they get negitive camber as it moves up, on those cars it can be fixed with longer upper a-arms, more shims, and taller spindels, But #1 start on them is springs because that creates less suspention movement and will skirt part of the problem, 'cuz if the suspention dont move as much, it wont go as funny

 

My 54 210 transformed into a modernish ride and handling by:

Radial tires
New Shocks
Lowered front with spindles
Lowered rear with 2 or 3 inch blocks, don't remember.
Big front sway bar
Added rear sway bar.
Rebuilt front pins and bushings.
Good string and ruler alignment.

Still stock origonal springs all around. Stock drums with new lining.

I'm real happy with the results. It's been on the road for 20 years like this, made the improvements a little at a time as I tried to get it better. This last month included 2500 miles of road trips. You do need to keep up maintenance on the old stuff, grease like you would have back in the 50's, every 1000 miles on the front and it will last forever.

Frank

Edit, no problem with wheel hop with the stock soft springs and blocks, and if you are adding stiffness to the springs it would lessen the possibility for this. and poly bushings for the front of the spring would help the movement there.

 

Good thread corsair and I too dig your using stock suspension rather than a Mustang II and such. Not that there is anything wrong with going that route if that's what pleases you. Good luck and let us know what you do and how it works.

 

I think I remember something from the late 50's that the stock car guys would use the stiffer convertable chassis under the seadans that they were racing.

Boxing or stiffing the frame will also help in the handling.

 

Here is how I would do it,

New front springs with a 1/2 coil cut off to increase rate and lower ride height

Rear springs that have about a 2 " lower ride height (Eaton)

QA1 adjustable shock or your preferable alternative, paint them and they will blend right in

The biggest front anti roll bar I could find and make fit 1 1/4" is common for camaros and readily available and I think would adapt pretty well. There are also bars in much bigger diameters but for a street car this would work well.

while I am not against the rear anti roll bar (no more than an inch in diameter you will notice a much bigger difference in the way the car handles with a properly set up panhard bar in the rear. the car will turn in better and will be much more predictable going in and coming out of corners. Just remember longer is better.

Try adapting a quick ratio steering box. I know gearhead cruiser products does a 605 conversion but I don't think that they are very fast. 12 to 14 to 1 would be good.

Good quality tires are more important than the actual size if you realy want to push it hard and don't forget the alignment. Static negative camber ( 3/4 to 1 degree) and 2 to 3 degrees of positive caster. Big gains in handling horspower with proper alignment.

The above will make you happy with your handling at the track and then just take of few clicks out of the shocks and drive it home, comfortably. Stiff springs are not the answer on a car that is primarily street driven.

Anything you can do to reduce unsprung rate will make a difference also, both in ride quality and performance. All of mods will fall under the "traditional" scope I feel.

For the record I have a 58 ranger that intend on getting to eventually but that will get a new camaro sub (likely a heidts) and truck arms on the rear. And so you don't think I am a clown, I am the guy that autocrosses my black roadster with a dropped axle, I ran 34.2 at GG columbus. Much faster than a LOT of "street machines" that rode in a trailer. Oh yeah, I drove there, too.

Last piece of advice, don't be scared to try something and see if it will work but don't do anything that can't be undone without ruining your car.

 

I don't have any practical experience with '50s cars but I can tell you what I know that applies to just about any vehicle. Your spring rate should be determined by a number of different factors, including desired ride height, sprung weight at each corner of the car, and the suspension geometry, which will alter the spring rate that the wheel "sees" based on the leverage of the suspension arms and the installed angle (if any) of the spring in the chassis.

But the number one factor for choosing spring rate is suspension natural frequency. This is how fast the car will oscillate on the springs (cycles per second), without any shocks. Passenger cars tend to have a low frequency for comfort, '50s American cars would be super-low, giving you the "wallowing" sick-to-your stomach feeling. Sports cars are on the high side, and race cars are uncomfortably high. This is done to control wheel motion, with no regard for driver comfort.

If you want to read more (by experts, not just some dude on a forum) here are some great books that would help you a lot:

1. How To Make Your Car Handle, by Fred Puhn. Lots of great practical info especially for large American cars. Written in the '70s.
2. The Unfair Advantage, by Mark Donohue. Mark drove Trans-Am Camaros for Penske, and his book explains all the ins and outs of car setup, with tons of great stories.
3. Competition Car Suspension, by Allan Staniforth. Very in-depth suspension theory, design, and setup. Oriented more towards lightweight race & sports cars but the theory all applies.

Overall, however you decide to upgrade the suspension, spend some time setting it up. This is where a ton of improvement can be made. Things like chassis stiffness, roll bar stiffness, and shock settings (if you buy adjustable shocks) can make or break a car's handling.

Take my limited knowledge with a grain of salt please.

 

http://www.p-s-t.com/
Shocks, springs, sway bars, poly bushings

I cut the new coils on my T-bird 1 round and swapped in Granada spindles for an additional 1" drop plus disc brakes- stops great. Bigger sway bar in front, added bar in back.

poly bushings up front and radials. Corners flat, still comfortable ride

 

Keep it simple. Gas shocks and a larger anti-roll bar as has been said already. Try to get a disc conversion. Even the best drums fade real fast in a heavy car. If you want or need radials all of this is a must (exc. the disc brakes) as well as adding some extra caster to the front alignment. By adding a degree or 2 the steering becomes more predictable and wanders less, a big plus for a radial tire. Out back an anti-roll bar or some harder bushings in the panhard bar if it has one. You'll love what it's like and your budget will love it more. Don't re-invent the wheel.

 

Don't forget- if you are going to a big sway bar- that it will put more stress on it's attachment points.

On my '38 Chrysler (which came with about a 1/2" sway bar) when I fattened the bar up to 11/16" I also re-made the attachment to the lower A-arms, and boxed the frame rails where the bushings attached.

There is probably some science to figuring how beefy the attachments must be, I just know the sway bar is exerting is a lot of pushing and twisting on a big, heavy car like yours.

 

By the way, people herein are mixing up anti roll bar sizes from front and rear steer chassis...not comparable. Obviously, greater thickness is stiffere...but longer arms make it weaker, a dividing factor in computation. 3/4--1" bars on rear steer cars, typically, are pretty stiff because armas are usually short and bar is close in...think '69 Z28. On front steer cars (think '70 Z28), the bar has to be mounted farther from wheel axis and the resulting longer arms DIVIDE into the equation of strength, resulting in nars well over 1" to give same strength as other type.
'54 Chevy has a torque tube...so no wheel hop from lowering blocks!

 

As an old time Mulholland racer I can tell you most of the basic stuff has been covered. Springs, shocks, bars, bushings, lowering. If you lower the car you have to pay attention to suspension travel, you don't want to run out of travel and bottom the suspension. Also in the front you have to look at camber, castor and toe changes as the suspension is loaded. Another area to look at is weight distribution. "50s American cars are way nose heavy. You can lighten the front a bit with an aluminum intake and tube headers, helps the HP too. You can also move the battery to the trunk. It's not a lot but every bit helps.

Cheers,
Kurt O.

 

Note the "frequency" discussion above. That is one of the reasons that major spring stiffening is a good start; springs also contribute greatly to anti-roll, in a way that I feel is superior to bars alone. Anti-roll from the springs IMHO allows freer suspension movement under the circumstances in which the bars are working, while stiff bars on a flabby set of springs give response that gets notchy and irregular as the bars engage. I prefer stiff springs tuned by fairly light bars...a lot of roll in 1950's and 60's cars comes from total lack of resistance to almost any direction of stress. The slack-ass suspensions are only comfortable when driven slowly on corners and bumps. In some cases, the actual cornering isn't actually bad, but car is wildly uncomfortable and feels out of control even though actually doing fine because the roll affects the driver more than the car! Roll is sometimes less important to the car than it seems IF the suspension is capable of keeping the wheels vertical, but roll is seriously disturbing to the driver's sense of control. Killing roll is a big comfort factor lost in the early evolution of the modern chassis...I can remember a time when I had access to my '48 Ford, a '53 Chevy, and a '55 Pontiac. I could comfortably corner the Ford at illegal speeds and happily drive like a maniac...but in the GM barges, all corners required considerable slowing to avoid that looking-out-the-side-window-at the ground roll and a general feeling of impending death.

 

don't forget your bushings, any rubber bushing you have can usually be gotten from energy suspension, if they don't have it,one can usually be modified to fit. you can get any bushing they have in black, the poly bushings make a world of difference on anything.

 

Your car will only handle as well as your ass can stay planted on the bench seat

 

I would really like to know how the truck arms work out. These cars don't seem like good candidates for a 4 link, not much room between the axle and the back seat. The truck arm seems like the logical choice, but I'm not brave enough to try just yet.

Car will be getting new bushings all around. The front end is sorely in need of a rebuild right now.

Freakin yo. I can't stomach the idea of bucket seats in an Edsel, but 5 point harnesses might work. I've seen ways of fabricating a bar that goes behind the front seat for the upper belt mounts. That way I can keep using the car as a sedan. Hopefully that will keep me planted.

Now I've heard a few people mention panhards. This car doesn't have one. Would a panhard bar do anything for parallel leaves? I thought the leaves were stiff enough to locate the axle side to side by themselves

 

Well I didn't mention the 4 speed and open drive with a Nova 10 bolt rear.

 

reinforce your control arms to help reduce deflection. boxing them will help also,1/8" plate will work.