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

thats pretty much how i have my T setup.

 

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.



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.

 

Nice design, nice work!!!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Agreed, definitely needs the jam nut.

 

just learning....was going to run the 42-47 open truck enter with early split housings....with a flathead...

 

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.

 

good read. thanks for the info.

 

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.