I picked this rear end up recently. It's got a shortened torque tube, but the bones on it fall short of the mount. That's not what puzzles me. This strange floating bracket is what puzzles me. Has anybody seen a setup like this before?
Never seen one but I'll bet it doesn't "float" I'll bet it is flipped over and attached to a cross member.
patmanta, I meant to type doesn't float, autocorrect got to me again. Someone answer m this why in the world would Microsoft think that they know more about what I want to say then I do.
I got what you meant, no worries. Must have been a hard ride if that was bolted to a crossmember though. The rear would have had to have been hardmounted or close to it. Otherwise I'd think there'd be a LOT of stress on the rods. Maybe it was bolted to a piece that's no longer present, like a collar for the torque Tube or something. I think I'm going to put a new tab on or just relocate the stick tab to run it; I just really would like to know what this is!
It would tear the bone brackets up if it was hooked solid to a crossmember. Maybe an unfinished project? That M*** guy with the 29 A 2dr you were helping last week.....his front bone connection was hanging down, maybe never connected, because the later center X was in the way of the bones
[QUOTE="porkn******, Someone answer m this why in the world would Microsoft think that they know more about what I want to say then I do. [/QUOTE]............................That's hysterical '******........and a good point.
It would, yeah, I should have posted that particular musing instead of updating the last post. There was some indication it might have been in a dragster at some point, but the dragster frame that he had just sold had a Dana in it. So while it's possible this was a solid mount type rig, I kinda doubt it. The backing plates have bolts on them for fender brackets, so I'm thinking this is Fad T era engineering. Here's a pic with the brackets.
I think it is just a half-done new bracket intended to be welded to the torque tube. (And...it looks like intent was to hammer the flange to curve around the tube, then weld. Actual question may be...why are the braces headed downhill away from the tube? Will they get that bracket decently close to the tube if bolts at rear are loosened?)
Could be, but this rear came out of something that was on the road at some point. It was all painted yellow. These pictures show it after the previous owner had stripped it with naval jelly. The whole thing was yellow like the brackets and brake lines. This leads me to conclude it was run like this. Also, the bracket has between a 1/2" & 3/4" gap between its base and the TT. Maybe some sort of hard rubber or urethane bushing and some U bracket clamps?
A muffler clamp hold would more or less complete the thing, but then there'd be a scar around the tube. As is, on the road it would probably hammer the tube some on bumps, and the tube would be unbraced and so subject to extra stress from its job in the suspension, probably concentrated where it attaches to banjo. Still, why don't the rods arrive at the right place? If loosened at the rear, could that bracket be pushed to the tube ready for a bit of hammeroing and welding??
I really don't know. this thing has me baffled still. I would have thought the rods would at least want to be on the same plane as their intended mount but they're off. The fact that they don't reach, well, I guess they just didn't dial that in when they shortened the tube, I get that. I haven't really had much of a chance to do anything with it yet other than push it around the shop so I'm not super familiar with it yet.
If not for the shortened torque tube, paint, and intact speedo gear, I wouldn't rule trailer out. But, having seen my share of trailer conversions, none of this matches up to the way they get done (quick and dirty).
I think you could make it work if you made the bracket that the radius rods are attached to float but I can't imagine why anyone would go through the trouble.
I'm hoping someone, at some point, finds this thread and knows exactly what this oddball setup is all about. I'm just going to make it right and run it so this is going to be the last record of this particular aberration.
Well, without attachment to the torque tube the rods are just dead weight. They aren't really suspension locaters, so car would function normally but with a lot more load on torque tube .
Agreed, so it HAD TO attach to SOMETHING. I can't see going to the effort to fabricate a bracket like that otherwise. Looking closer, I found evidence of grinding at the end of the bones, making me think they were shortened a couple inches. I should probably measure them.
looks to me like if the bracket was rotated, so the plate faced forward, two short pieces of angle iron would complete the connection to the tube. maybe he needed them for something else and took it off before he sold it?
WHATEVER it was for, don't use it now. It is bad practice to split rear wishbones, and there is no reason to do it if you have a perfectly good torquetube right there. Just move the stock TT mount back a bit and bolt those wishbones to it. No problems, no binding.
Guys, it's OK, I never intended to run it like that, just trying to figure out what it was. I may try a set of 47 Merc bones I have to see if they reach (doubtful) first.
I believe what I see is an unfinished rear bar set-up . my t-5 had a similar thing going on . the rear bars .attaché to the torque tube originally , but mine with the t-5 attached to the bottom of the trans . not good as the bars must move with the rear end . I changed to wish bones ( low horse power) with hiems for movement . works good for years now .
That's same bones as '48 Ford. Back to the big question. Seems to me that the holes locating rear of rods are same on all '35-48, and torquetube is in same place...so whyinhell are the rods going off away from tube? Rear seems to be '46-8 because it has the antisway hole in right side there...
Bruce, the only thing I've come up with is either the bones have been shortened slightly and/or they were heated and pulled out (and the tab is just not located properly).
EGAD! There's no evidence of a parallel leaf setup on this rear, but I'm not ruling out bad ideas like that. That could explain why the rods seem bent downward. I've been suspecting this came out of a Fad T, were poor ideas like that a thing back then?
Most fad Ts didn't use banjo rears, they were obsolete by that time and fad Ts were all about being cutting edge (I use the term loosely). Could be that the radius rods were off of something different and didn't reach. I kind of thought about that a little yesterday on my way out to the shop. if I had some and that was what I had to build with I may try relocating in that fashion. Oh on that ******* bar thing I think the guy just forgot this .
I'd get it if the bracket had a provision for some U bolts, but all it's got is a little quarter-inch hole through some rather thin material. I suppose it could be done with a rubber spacer in there, but I'd be eternally su****ious of it.
We have all done some pretty sketchy chit over the years. Some of these guys won't admit it but it doesn't change the fact that it is true.
The Jalopy Journal
