Has anybody here put a clip in a 50 ford that was front steer? Like a 79 cutlass. The reason I'm asking is if I were to use a rear steer the sector comes very close to the firewall and wouldn't allow enough room for the column shifter to work. I've put dropped spindles, fatmans trick tie rods , whatever I do it still doesn't drive worth a crap. IT's been on the front end machine several times and tried different settings but it drives like the front wheels don't work together especially in the corners. I guess that sounds stupid . IT has 1 1/8 degrees caster which is more than ford speced for it. The front steer clip has the steering sector way out in front and I'm afraid it will interfere with the radiator. Thanks Stafford
Be sure not to get too wide a clip, but dont go too narrow where you don't have room for the radiator.
I have a '51 Victoria with a front clip from a mid-70s Camaro/Nova front steer. It was necessary to narrow the clip 3" to match the Ford rails, and it was stepped 4" at the firewall to lower the front with full spring travel. Some fabrication was necessary to the core support, but the radiator fits OK. Other alterations were that the engine was moved back 1" (and of course it rose relative to the body with the step in the frame), and a recess was made in the firewall for the distributor. The trans tunnel had to be raised. The only downside, clearance-wise, was that the upper inner A-arms are very close to the exhaust manifolds. Small rams-horns or custom headers are the only manifolds that will fit. For all the trouble, the car turned out great. Handles and rides like a stock Camaro, and I love it. Would I do it again? I don't think so.
For all the trouble, the car turned out great. Handles and rides like a stock Camaro, and I love it. Would I do it again? I don't think so.[/QUOTE] Awsome. i got a good laugh out of that one.
Thanks for the help guys, I didn't bring it up but I'm running a flathead with tube headers on it. I looked a little closer tonight at the cutlass and the steering sector will be very very close to the radiator, but it's really hard to tell without doing some more measuring. I've been thinking about the frame stub that fatmans sells. It is more expensive but probably easier in the long run. I'm pretty much just checking out the different options before I saw it off and commit myself to fighting a losing battle. Thanks guys. Stafford
Before you do anything else... and dig a financial hole... have you called FatMan and asked for theiri nput?
Not yet 19fordy but I will before I do anything. So far I'm undecided what to do for certain but am leaning towards the fatman snout. I'm not in a terrible hurry over this , I can drive it like it is, I'd just like it to handle a little better. it's not undrivable, I took it to Pigeon Forge last weekend which is about 125 miles from here. Stafford
start nosing around on shoeboxford.com. THere are 100s of posts on this issue. I have spent WAY too many hours researching this and I am still confused. I probably will be doing a Vovlo steering box conversion. Also, talk to Jim at JAMCO (jamcosuspension.com). You'll find everyone is all over the map on this. Since these fords have IFS already, some believe (like me) that its a shame to cut the frame. JAMCO stuff works w/o major fab work, and those who run it like it. BUT, it is expensive. R U running radials? IMHO, Fatman doesn't know too much about these cars (at least the 3 guys I talked to). And, to put on thier clip, you have to fork over $800 for a sub frame.
My 51 Vick has a 1970 Nova clip on it. It drives the way you wanta car to. I did however go with 1" narrowed A ams to get the tires where I wanted them. It's a rear steer and went on the stock frame very well. If your un sure how the front steer will clear everything take your front sheet metal off as a complete unit and sit it over the frame unit you plan to use. It has to come off the car anyway to do the kind of frame work your talking about. I have some pretty good photos of my frame. If you'd like to see them pm me your E-address and I'll send you some. The Wizzard
Not quite a Shoebox. But I have a 53 Ford sedan with a Chrysler torsion bar front end on a rectangular tube frame section. It was a lot of work to make sure it was right, but in return I got a good suspension, disk brakes and power steering. I'm running a 351M and only have room for the stock exhaust manifolds due to the steering box. The engine had a rear sump oil pan so that worked out great. It works great but was a lot of work to make sure it was done right. Front clips are not for the light hearted. One mistake and youv'e got an ill handeling piece of S*#t..
Early 80's Monte Carlo, Malibu ect.... have a track width 3" narrower than the 70's-early 80's Camaro.
Their "input" is actually the only real aftermarket solution. All the frontends on the market won't do any good without first addressing the frame, which Fatman already did. Like Studebakers, post-'55 Chevys, etc., the nature of the frame where you'd traditionally cut for the clip splice is not a nice, straight angle. It's a lot of work and can be accomplished, but having done two of the Fatman Shoebox stubs, I wouldn't ever do it any other way.
I can vouch for Jim Gentry (JAMCO)- he is one hell of a guy and will help you out as much as he can. BTW...I've got JAMCO gear on my '52 (Ford) and it rides like a dream. Good luck- hope this helps. BD
A friend put a S-10 clip in his and it fits awesome.Plus with all the aftermarket chit for S-10s its a good replacement for the shoebox. I'm prolly gonna do this swap instead of spending all the dough for the Volvo steerbox and all the Jamco/Fatman parts to make it steer and stop better. The S-10 diff fits good too......Shiny
ha! Thats some good info at the right time. I think you just saved me some money. How well does it fit? I was gonna run a 10 bolt but it would need to be shortened
i think the s 10 is a little narrow. na dlet me know whn you do this and ill pick up your old parts sko
i'd look into the steering box... they are notouriously sloppy. i have a '50 and have every intention of doin' the volvo box swap after other issues are addressed. a pal of mine did the volvo box swap on his '49 and it tracks and turns nicely. this is a cheap way and with a little cutting and mods. is a good solution in my humble opinion. good luck. nic
Lets get this post going again...... I just picked up a 1950 Tudor.... Nice original 54K mile car that has been in storage... I also just made a deal on a 1979 Chevy Monte Carlo.... Great car again this one has been in storage since 1990.... Actaully the Monte is so nice I hate to cut it up.. But life isnt a dress rehursal... and Im not getting younger every day goes by quicker and quicker.... So plans are to use the Monte as the Doner for my New KUSTOM... Clip the front and use the 305 with the 350 trans coupled up to the monte rear... Now I do have a buddy that has done over 35 clips and he told me that the 78-79 monte is by far one of the easiest clips that he has done... And when done its going to ride and handle 100 percent better than doing any modification to the original suspension.... One thing that I like about this swap is the fact that its a complete driveline.... No mis match of parts Chevy engine and trans coupled to a Ford rear .... Anybody out there want to jump in and give some comments I would be interested. Rich & Rocky North Jersey
I have a Monte front clip, you'll need to experiment with the offset, but overall i works out pretty good. It turns like a Monte Carlo and will turn a cul-de-sac into a party.... I have to admit it was on the car when I got it, so I can't offer any first hand input regarding the swap.
go to the junkyard and find yourself a racknpinion the same with , make to brackets to mount it to the crossmember, i did it on mine works and drives like a charm. also invest in a swaybar (a big one).
according to posts I have seen the Shoe Box is 57 flange to flange...... If this is WRONG.. Please post the correct flange to flange dim......... The 79 from what I understand (Like I said my buddy has done a ton of these clips) was a NARROW CLIP and is within 1 inch no problems using Early 15 inch steel wheels.... Im running 6:70 x 15 Wide Whites..... Clip Info 58 Inch -----------78-88 Mid sized GM Car, Malibu/Monte Carlo Olds Cutlass, Buick Regal (82 up Metric Studs), 80 Granada & Lincoln Versailles, Regal with 10 bolt axle, S-10 P.U., 65-67 Nova http://www.teufert.net/other/rear end dimensions.htm Hope I did my homework.........
GEEMANN.... Seen many pictures of your can and its definately LOW... Im assuming that was done with the offset and not cut springs or dropped spindles.... CORRECT????? Rich..........
Response to "The MAN" I can't really follow your logic if you are responding to my post regarding the Installation of the Monte Carlo Clip in my 50 Shoebox... I dont think that you got the picture... I don't want to rely on a suspension system that is 60 years old... I had one of those in my last shoe box and it literally sucked.... Hammered and banged bump steer so on and so forth....Truthfully I dont see any advantage of a rack and pinion on this old suspension..... In addition the Small Block oil pan really limits the installation of a RACK. No Offense... Just wasn't sure if your post was refering to my post or to some previous post.... Rich North Jersey............
If you can part with the bucks the FATMAN front stub is the best way to go. It fits the frame perfect and mounts the radiator support in the corect spot. Everything fits perfect when you put the fenders and hood on.Many of those G.M. clips will work but you will spend many hours fabricating everything. I have my 51 Ford wagon that I put the fatman stub in and it has worked great for over 14 years. I also own a 55 ford wagon with a monte clip that came in it when I bought it as a complete car. This goes down the road good but the radiator support and the whole nose is moving all over everytime you hit a bump. It's not to often you can buy a part for your car and have it fit perfect with no modifications,but in this case FATMAN has the answer.
Bob..... Let me just say that I currently have a 40 Ford Coupe with a complete Fatman Chassis.... If I had to do it all over again... I would have kept the original chassis and modified it.... Way to much money and aggervation doing the conversion including missed mounting holes poor placement of components etc. Surly was not worth the money that I paid for it.... Yes it does ride good but its not exceptional. Now being retired I find that I have a lot more time than I do money so building on a budget can be done but it takes more labor than purchase power. I have seen the Fatman and the Streetrod Engineering front clips. Yes they are nice but hardly worth the big $$$ that they get for them.. In regards to your Monte Clipped car. You more than likely purchased a pretty car... I will assume that you took it for a ride before you bought it... So if there was a problem you should have determined it at that time... I agree the excitement of a new vehicle can sometime shadow some imperfections. I have also seen cases where a slick looks sometime outweighs the practical aspect...... Sure I would love to lay frame on my shoebox... BUT then again if you have ever driven on NJ roads we do the POT HOLE SHUFFEL HERE!.... Shaking sheetmetal is just a lack of connecting the chassis to the sheet metal to stabilize the assembly.... I hope you don't take offense at this reply...and I'm not trying to be a smart ass... If I was that I wouldn't be asking questions on the HAMB..... Open the hood on your car.. Nudge the front end and see what's moving.... I venture to guess that stabilizing the front sheet metal is a lot less costly than that new Fatman set up cost... Rich.........
A disc brake 69 Camaro clip with disc brakes is 59" There are narrow hub kits that will narrow it down to 57" and not alter the geometry. Guys like the super tucked look might frown on clip but it really is about .5" wider on each side. Easily made up with wheel offsets. I think Mustang 2 kits are 56"????
The Jalopy Journal
