Register now to get rid of these ads!

Sooo...you still want to split your rear wishbone??

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Slick Willy, Sep 8, 2011.

  1. johnny bondo
    Joined: Aug 20, 2005
    Posts: 1,547

    johnny bondo
    Member
    from illinois

    thats pretty much how i have my T setup.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. striper
    Joined: Mar 22, 2005
    Posts: 4,498

    striper
    Member

    This is now kind of getting away from the original intent of the look of split bones on the rails but this is how I did mine.

    [​IMG]

    I used the ball and socket of a front wishbone with '48 rear radius rods. I added my patented design "torque fork"(TM) with an open drive banjo.

    Absolutely no chance of bind.

    Just reading this thread though I'm considering beefing up those '48 rears with a '48 front wishbone I have.... just for added strength.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011
  3. 117harv
    Joined: Nov 12, 2009
    Posts: 6,586

    117harv
    Member

    :rolleyes: Nice design, nice work!!!
     
  4. chop32
    Joined: Oct 13, 2002
    Posts: 1,077

    chop32
    Member

    I have been planning out how to do what you did with your wishbones on my A coupe. Making my own 4 link using the '36 bones (parallel with the frame rails) on the bottom with rubber or urethane bushings at the rear, Ford tie rod ends up front, and round tubing for the upper (triangulated) bars.
    Im using the stock '36 spring mounts, and am toying with the idea of bolting the rear lower pivot thru the web portion of the spring mount and adding another plate bracket (on the inside where its not visible) below the housing so the mounting bolt would be in double shear.
    This way, at a glance, it will still looks like the wishbone and spring mount are one unit.
     
  5. willowbilly3
    Joined: Jun 18, 2004
    Posts: 4,356

    willowbilly3
    Member Emeritus
    from Sturgis

    It only makes sense that a suspension where the torque tube took the twist of the rear end and now the wishbones that were never designed to have the task.
     
  6. pecdaddy
    Joined: May 23, 2010
    Posts: 197

    pecdaddy
    Member

    Chop32 my bones will have tie rod ends as well. Got the bushing kit from Pete & Jakes. I was going to do a 4 link type of deal but, I have a superx crossmember from Dagles(sp?) Street Rods. This takes up alot of space on the the inside of the frame. So my friend (race car guy) and I decieded a 3 link is the easiest. I am going to go w/a quick change using SoCal side bells. I sold those cut offs to a fellow HAMBER to boot.
     
  7. chop32
    Joined: Oct 13, 2002
    Posts: 1,077

    chop32
    Member

    Thats exactly why Im building a 4 link, rather than using rigidly mounted wishbones. The addition of the upper bars and the use of rubber/urethane bushings and tie rod ends should keep the suspension from binding and bending/breaking things.
    Pretty sure that adding a pair of stout upper bars will take a bit of stress off of the lower ('36 wishbone) bars.
     
  8. RB35
    Joined: Dec 15, 2006
    Posts: 965

    RB35
    Member

    Looking at the Hot Rod Works from Chopt top above, I was wondering...
    There's a jam nut on the eye bolt that the radius rods bolt to. Do you really need the jam nut? Once the proper length is reached, it can't back out (or in). So if the jam nut was eliminated, wouldn't it give more pivot?
    I'm reading with interest for a '29 with open d/s.
    RB
     
  9. fab32
    Joined: May 14, 2002
    Posts: 13,985

    fab32
    Member Emeritus

    If you did that the threads would not be locked together and would "work" in and out,eventually failing and pulling out. Take a simple nut and bolt thread the nut on so the bolt sticks through the nut. Now grab the nut an feel the movement that occurs between the threads. This is what would happen with your suggestion.........eventually failing. Now thread two nuts on the bolt and jam them together...................no movement as the nuts form a mechanical lock with the bolt preventing movement.

    Frank
     
  10. thunderbirdesq
    Joined: Feb 15, 2006
    Posts: 7,091

    thunderbirdesq
    Member

    Agreed, definitely needs the jam nut.
     
  11. stillrunners
    Joined: Aug 27, 2009
    Posts: 10,586

    stillrunners
    Member
    from dallas

    just learning....was going to run the 42-47 open truck enter with early split housings....with a flathead...
     
  12. swissmike
    Joined: Oct 22, 2003
    Posts: 1,297

    swissmike
    Member

    If you have the unsplit radius rods ( basically what the hotrodworks setup is) the entire rear axle and rods move together as a unit and therefore do not induce any torque in the individual rods. Tightening the jam nuts is a good idea. However I am just building a split setup similar to a Pete & Jake and the thought had crossed my mind as well. I wil tighten mine but it will be interesting to observe if the jam nuts will stay tight over time.
     
  13. tarpley1
    Joined: Aug 21, 2011
    Posts: 27

    tarpley1
    Member

    good read. thanks for the info. :)
     
  14. Hemiman 426
    Joined: Apr 7, 2011
    Posts: 718

    Hemiman 426
    Member
    from Tulsa, Ok.

     
  15. RatFink5768
    Joined: Nov 9, 2009
    Posts: 2

    RatFink5768
    Member

    Would there be a problem with running the original torque tube to a frame cross member with a short coupler/driveshaft between it and a newer transmission. Was just an idea and curious if it would work safely.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.