Here's on my A sedan. 2" x 2" x 1/4" tubing. Trailing arm bushings in the front for torsional twist. Rides fine......Mike
funny how the wheel keep getting reinvented. i ran this suspension on my dirt track late model in the 70,s now i have it under my 60 dodge for about 5yrs. any how i doubt you can improve on the factory engineering. this basically is the same as a torque tube. 83 camaros do the same thing with the guard rail running from the rear axle to the tranny.
i`d like to thank everyone who has posted, i know its helped me make up my mind on this setup for my rear suspension...i think i`ll make mine much like the stock Gm setup..2 chanels back to back and do up a little tooling to form the pockets for the u-bolts, coils out back.
I am thinking about running a setup like this on my 64 cutlass how would it compare to a hotchkis type of kit? Is this pretty easy to install?
Steve at Hot Rods to Hell in Glendale (Ca) does a ton of these on every type of car from Novas to 38 Chevys, and everything in between. Been wrote up in lots of magazines in the last couple years. He swears by it for all around performance. I've never driven a "before and after" of his, but he's got a lot of happy customers/repeat business. If you're interested in talking to a guy who's done plenty of these, call information for his number.
I was thinking about doing this myself from stock truck parts but it may be a better idea to use hot rods to hell. they do seem to offer a good setup but was trying to do it cheaper.
I just picked up a set of '61 arms and they are going under my '50. Been wanting to do this for a long time, so this winter, yes. I have seen the arms with small plates welded across the arms....3-4 2x2 plates each. This is good if there is any question about rust weakening them. I have had several of the Chev trucks and I could always blast across a dirt field a lot faster than with my leaf sprung Ford pickups. Good on hard pack dirt roads too. they handle.
i ran this set on my dirt track cars as early as 1978. its basicly a torque tube clone. this idea has been around for ever and is proven. just look at all the ford and chevy torque tube cars.the 82 up camaro used the same idea with the rail bolted to the rear axle and running beside the driveline to the trans. a proven suspension. the beauty is a pair of stock car springs cost less than 100.00 and come in about every rate you want.
As we speak I am helping a buddy install truck arm suspension in his 40 ford coupe. We are using the truck crossmember welded into the 40 frame,we were able to use the truck u-bolts to bolt an 8 inch ford rear end to the truck arms. We are using a speedway panhard rod kit and coilovers. Anybody have any advice or tips on this installation?
Hey Guys~ I used the suspension out of a 65 chevy on my 37 chevy pickup. I modified the stock cross member to work and used air bags in place of the coils due to space limitations then mounted the shocks behind the axle off the trailing arms. I built my own pan hard bar and mounted up a 8.8 out of a Exploder with axle perches that I built. The perches also lower the rear 1.25" more then the stock style. The pickup ride better in the rear then any other pickup I've owned or ridden in. If any one wants a pair of the perches I built send me a PM. They are cut at the correct angle where the arms meet the rear end and will lower the rear 1.25" without blocks. This is a great post about this style of suspension and it shows how adaptable this type of suspension is.
That's a "I don't know"...You know your truck.. When I was selling new GMC's in '67 one of our big selling points was that they all had the "real truck suspension" leaf spring rear suspension. What the '60-'66 had I'm not so sure about now, I thought that was always the case. but if the GMCs had "Chevy" springs I'd be curious to know if the tried the torsion bar front suspension when Chevy did too?
it works.....but I wouldn't be looking for a perfect setup under a nascar or anything else with a 2 link. that IS essentially what that is.
I say there is nothing wrong with it. as long as some type of panhard bar is being used. Perfect for the budget minded build.
I watched clark build one of these setups for our buddy glasshole, and knew I needed the same. so I went home and figured out how to put one under my 40 ford convertable sedan.. I liked the ride so much I built a 48 f1 ON a chevy truck chassis.. and the chassis under my new 40 ford wagon will duplicate the setup once again. the only issue this install creates is exhaust clearance, AND as for strength.. i dont think you'll break the truck arms before the rear axle. Just as someone else posted I have mounted other rears to these trailing arms with ease.. (one car has a 8.8 ford, the other has a 55 chevy rear) (in addition, although I cant remember exactly which vendor, someone manufactures a kit that provides the necessary brackets to mount a different rear to these trailing arms.. (if you didnt want to fab the necessary mounts) to mount this setup in a 35 - 40 ford frame (with air bags) I build and a second crossmember that is positioned just hehind the pinion yoke on the rear. and into it I build a "snubber" that the rear can rest on when I am aired out.. this allows the bags to be "forward" of the stock spring location.. which inturn allows the rear to have MORE travel.. panhard bar is a necessity..
i was hoping GrantH would make his case being he implied there is a problem with them. i'm a believer, you'll see me upthread and anywhere else this topic comes up praising this setup.
perfect would be something that DOESNT allow the rear end to move side to side. a 4 link and watts link would be "perfect", given it is designed right, as well as a triangulated 4 or satchell link. nascars don't have a lot of suspension travel, and I believe they DO use a panhard bar...it works for them. the chevy trucks flex like crazy, and the links allow for that, it works. again though.....it's not the best suspension design.
theres nothing "wrong" with them....for nascar and incredibly flexy trucks. It doesn't make sense if not anything else. I have talked to a couple guys that know their shit and they say the chevy trucks worked because the links being so long, and well.....flexy themselves. the whole frame flexes on those, you can see that for yourself driving behind one.....i know they ALL flex, but these are more so than most. the links spread the load and all of the stress across more of the frame. I doubt you put that into account when installing it on a fully boxed frame. i've argued the same point in another thread, saying the exact same thing. it works for nascar......that DOESNT say anything at all.
The long arms of the NASCAR suspension are used to provide a minimum of angular change as the suspension moves which you can also achieve with a 4 link set-up. Mainly though, the long trailing arms help the NASCAR guys bias the suspension for left turns by pre-loading the track bar. It's a good street set-up too, but not every chassis can accomodate it, particularly a unibody car.
That is exactly what I want to do on my '26. What did you use for the front bushings (ie trailing arm bushings from what)? Any specific details on how you mounted the rearend to the arms??
I'm not sayin' truck arm / two link is perfect, but I notice that the Cup and Bush guys seem to be able to recover the car when it is farhter out of shape than say the ASA or ARCA guys seem to be able to. I'm sure there are other factors in the chassis that affect this, but it just seems to be more forgiving. Not sayin' I'm building a drifter either (but a drifter model A would be kinda neat, in a sick and demented sort of way).
Truck arms can be every bit as rigid and positively located as any other suspension arm layout. You need to run a panard bar, a j-bar, a watts linkage, a jacobs ladder, or some other lateral locating device with them in order to positively located the housing side to side. If you have that, you have a perfectly acceptable rear suspension for travel in the range of 3"-5" on one or both rear wheels. They have a high degree of anti-squat built in as well, which is always a plus, provided that you can minimize and control the tendency to wheel hop under hard braking. I'm more of a fan of three bar suspensions personally. Two trailing arms mounted with heims, one upper traction link at a fairly steep angle or a torque arm with a rubber buffer/chain mount, a panard bar/j-bar/watts linkage/jacobs ladder for lateral location, and floating brake mounts with separate links angled up to prevent wheel hop under hard braking. By using heims at all the mount points, you eliminate the possibility of binds, but that also means you have to control every axis and direction of axle movement with a link of some kind. It can make for a somewhat crowded rear section, but IMO you'll not find a better handling system for both forward bite and cornering.
It's a very good Hot Rod setup. Chevy and GMC trucks could be ordered both ways. I have a 1972 Chevy truck with leaf spring rear suspension. I wondered why, so I researched it. Very few GMC's were ordered with the Chevy style arms, but some were produced.
Here's a 54 build that explains a lot of this setup (to me, at least). Definitely worth a read if you're looking at this kind of setup... and even more so if you're putting it in a 49-54 Chevy. Scoot on down to page 2 for the rear suspension stuff. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193742
The Jalopy Journal
