Has anybody installed a camaro front clip on a 41 Buick sedanette and if so what generation camaro? Thanks guys
I had redone driveshaft work on a '39 Buick coupe back in maybe 1995. That car had a narrowed 2nd gen Camaro front clip. It was narrowed 2" in the middle. That car had a driving characteristic that felt darting with any steering wheel movement. I'm not sure if the way it was done is wrong, or if the steering characteristics of that clip changed that much based on being narrowed. I had to drive the car to troubleshoot driveshaft vibrations and to make corrections. I did that.
Had a guy in our car club with a 41 Buick special sedanette...used a 1st [rear steer] gen. camaro/nova subframe and it tucked in nicely, looked great and worked fine drum brake sub...he also ..er...used a ahem...302 ford engine/****** in it..go figure.
I used a TCI '55 chevy pu kit. The track width was just right. I have not seen a-arm bend. How are are they driving the car, like an offroad car? Unless its a cheap kit or junk yard parts. The handling is all in the set up or how its installed.
That's why they don't handle and bend...Don't use fatman. You need to use better quality like TCI or Heidts.
First off, there is no reason a Camaro clip, or most others, can't be narrowed successfully. You do have to narrow the cross member accurately and narrow the center link to retain the original geometry, and install it at the correct angle,but with that done it should drive just like it did in the original application. If it doesn't, one or more of the preceding was done poorly. As for MMII front ends, that has evolved into a generic term and all are not created equal. And, installation and alignment must accurate. In my experience, Fatman MMII is at least equal to, and usually better than, the compe***ive units I have either purchased or examined carefully. I have a Heidts unit that is satisfactory but the main crossmember is thinner than a Fatman unit which is 5/16 material. It seems to me that Fatman, like a lot of other highly successful businesses, become a target or "whipping boy" for people who resent others success. I have never seen any evidence of the alleged "inferiority". You are, of course, free to make any choice that suits you, but I would suggest you do more personal investigation than merely the hearsay you seem to accept without question. Ray
i have put in several malibu and cuttl*** front clips.all have been driving around for years.s 10 dropped spindles and coils fit if you want to go lower after it is in.i happen to be doing a 41 buick right now with a 84 cuttl*** clip and a big block buick,hope this helps
A properly set up Mustang II unit will work just fine. The bigest problems with Mustang II kits has stemmed from the lower arms since the "strut arm eliminator" type kits have become available. The problem is that most use an "A" type lower arm that the rear joint of which is supported by a tube through the crossmember and nothing else. The arms don't really bend, but the back of the unsupported crossmemeber "blows out" from braking force and extreme road jolt such as railroad tracks, pot holes, etc. This can be solved very easily by tying the rear pivots into the frame with a simple bracket or even better, two to place the joint in double shear. That way the jolts and road shock goes into the frame and not the back of the crossmember. I still prefer when possible to run stock style or tube struts that mimic stock geometery. I will not speak at any length about my distaste for Fatman stuff, it is not from any jealousy at his success as I am not in compi***ion with him in any way. He has a tendency to try to over build with heavier material rather than correct engineering IN MY OPINION. He seems to have no problem changing and comprimising key geometrical ellements of the Mustang II system to suit fitment needs, such as standing up springs and relocating pivot centers... Simple thought and engineering would solve most problems. That is all I will say, but I will add I see allot of the same issues in other manufacturers as well. I won't turn your thread into an argument about this. As much as I like the correctly engineered Mustang II system, and as much as I normally disdane frame "clips", if you brought your car to me for this, the first suspension I would look into would be a '78-'87 A or G body clip from any GM of the period. That would be the malibu, Monte Carlo, Chevelle, 'Camino, etc. This clip is right at 58 1/2" hub to hub, which should be right in the ballpark for your needs and has quite a bit better camber curve and roll center values than the earlier Nova/Camaro unit. Also still super common in wrecking yards and just driving down the street. It's also about three inches narrower than the lates and widest of the Nova/Camaro clips as well. Oh, and weight values are real close to correct too. Just my .06 Just after I hit send on this I saw the post above... perfect timing!
Thanks guys, The main reason for this thread is to save money but without hurting the project.I have a sedanette that I have spent hours chopping 4" which came out great. I have many more hours of metal work to finish the frenched head lights, tail lights and bumpers so since I'm 61 and retired I need to save as much money as I can if I ever want to get this thing finished. It also needs to be on air ride !!! Thanks again for all the help guys
I saw a GM car maybe a 39 pontica those big fenders cars 37 chevy ect.When using a front steer 70s camaro clip make sure it isn,t going to stick out the front fender.It does happen.
someone did a not so good job on mine,(before I bought it)They Cut the X member out and the trailing arms out too! I had to get another frame from a 41 buick
I upholstered a 41 buick convertible coupe a couple of years ago, it was clipped with a first gen camaro, and about twenty years ago I did an olds coupe with a first gen camaro. The steering lines up nice.
The Jalopy Journal
