Mystery - Unusual split wishbones (history)

My 32 roadster has known history to 1957. I have not been able to backtrack any further.

The car was a channelled car probably from 1947 Los Angeles as the newspapers s****s were found in the door.

The front suspension is unique and was done before 1955. 1937 Hudson control arms were used instead of split wishbones. If anyone has seen a similar setup please let me know.

Could their be technical advantages to this setup? Notice that the front part of the frame was plated with 1/4" steel. The car may have some dirt track influence or history. The engine was set back.

 

Here is the car rebuilt for the street in 1959

 

interesting set up. thanks for posting it!

 

Interesting but not something I would be inclined to keep.

 

I have a local collector friend who had several Hudsons, I have always wanted to grab a pair of those. The hole is pefect to run the tie rod through, and modify the ends for tie rods.

I don't know if there is an advantage using those as opposed to Ford ones, your pics are the first ones I have seen with them in a custom appl.

 

The possible advantage I see is pitman arm clearance? It's not the most attractive thing I've seen, but not too terrible. How is the quality of the work on the suspension components? Safe? Looks like some not so great work on the frame rails and questionable where the spring mounts are.

Do you intend to keep the car pretty much as it was built, or? Great car you have there.

 

I'd keep it. If the quality of work is piss-poor, I'd re-do it, retaining the same components.

 

I think my question about the car has been answered. King Ch***is had posted a picture of the car from early 50's.

Check out
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=670641&highlight=stock+car

The car had a LaSalle V8 in it. The Hudson radius rods were stronger than split wishbones and were the right length for the channelled car.

Karl

 

If you plan to rebuild it, I'd use this photo as my goal.Nice period piece. Bob

 

Im with the "keep them" crowd. They are history. Hard to argue if they are traditional or "done back then" when they were "done back then".

 

Wow, what a piece of history from my favorite era in hot rodding...Keep 'em! The look of the car in this photo gives a lot of credence to the 40's build theory - it just 'feels' very mid-40's to me. Would love to see more!

 

^^Does that say "Du Bois Stock Car Racing ***n?"

 

That looks great with the flathead - is Dad thinking "What the hell's the boy doing with this jalopy"? Oh, and Hudsons are generally pretty well designed and engineered, so definitely stick with those 'bones.

 

Cool history,im with the keep it that way crowd.Reminds me of my old 32 that dated back to the late 50s,wish i kept it. JW.

 

Actually the work is very good and is way above average for the era. The plates are all smoothed and welded well. The top edge welds are ground and rounded off. The welding is nicely done by arc welding. The plates hang over the bottom of the frame a uniform 3/4".

The joint between the Hudson radius rods and the front of the original wishbone is a machined fit. They bolt together.

Subsequent owners no doubtedly cut and modified things to fit in other engines. The color pictures are taken in 1994. I have the frame but unfortunatly not the Hudson radius rods, front axle, and spring.

I believe a 42-48 front axle ***y. was used with the spring in front of the axle. This was not uncommon to use this on channelled cars to lower them in the front without using a dropped axle. I have the original headlight mounts and the shock mounts which were also from a Hudson.

Karl

 

I agree with the keeping them on there vote!

 

I think they are ugly, but they are a big part of the history of the car so I would keep them.

 

Good story - Unless you have all the photo shots of the sit up - I would do the norm on the front end set up - Ease of parts and not be the odd ball - I sure like the fact you are going to build it!

 

I think they're ugly. Obviously functional, but still ugly. I'd sell or give them to someone looking to build an oddball traditional ride.

 

Fred,,you and I think alike. HRP

 

Those are tractor bones aren't they?

 

I'm with y'all.... There's a lot more pleasing to the eye ways to do it that obviously work just as well, if not better. Especially if you don't even have all the parts. Just because it was done "Back in the Day" doesn't mean it was right. I definitely wouldn't hunt down those parts to do it again.

Just sayin'....

 

I was on the fence about using them when I thought you had the whole car. Since they are missing, I'd for sure go with early Ford parts instead....and take the opportunity to put the wheelbase back to 106" also.

There are ways to put a longer split bone through the body on a channeled car.

 

ugliest "tradional" or straight axle front end I have ever seen! That car deserves better. Just cause it was done back in the day dont make it cool

 

Here is what the car looks like now. I fixed the rust in the body. Otherwise I left it with all the handiwork (dents, welds, leadwork) others gave it through the years. The subrails were left intact when it was channelled. I put it back as a highboy. I've enjoyed all the comments.

 

Besides being unchannelled and obviously not a LaSalle engine it looks a lot to me like it did in the photo when Sid Kayman had it (or built it) around 1950. Maybe the chevy engine will come out.....

 

See this thread for more information on the trail of tracking down the past on this car.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=800962

Karl

 

I like your currecnt version much better Karl.

Check out these Packard arms I just came across....similar.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1937-packar...r_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item460c0f84ed

 

I'd personally like to see it returned to the original form, many of us would kill to have a car with that history, and without that stuff the way it was originally done it's just another roadster, boring and bland

 

Although I love the current version, and don't find it boring or bland, I agree with ****gy. There are only so many Rods left with known history, and the ones that have it should be cherished and left in their original form. But this is just my opinion, there are many on here that prefer to make their own history and not be bound to someone else's. Either way, great car.