ClassicCar

46HudsonPU

Within a recent thread concerning IFS and stub frames for Hudsons there was mention made of triangulated four-links for the rear suspension.

There is more than a bit on the web concerning this, but it all seems to envolve more 'basic' kits and quite a bit of improvisation and imagination...

Question - Has anyone considered using a rearend from a production vehicle that has has triangulated four-link, from the factory? In particular, I've been looking at an 8.8" Mustang rearend(96-02). It already has the attachment points for a triangulated four-link, and is within about 1 1/2" of the '46 & '47 Hudsons (59 1/2" vice 61"), is widely available in various gear ratios, and can be had with either drums or disc.

Also, here are some links with discussion, information, advise -
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137011
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98967
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=159746
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121982&highlight=triangulated
http://www.sporttruck.com/techarticles/0812st_four_link_install_on_chevy_s10/index.html

lsfirth

Yes, there's a lot of interest in the 4-link department. I imagine the 8.8s would be a good swap....they're very dependable and there's a lot of them out there. I was planning on c-notching my '49 and putting bags under the back as well. Thanks for your reference links....I'm looking forward to paging through them. Here's a link the seems to do a pretty good job of giving a step by step approach to a 4-link system. When I do mine, I'll probably put the bags out where they put the shocks and move the shocks just inboard of the bags ( I think you want the bags as close to the wheels as possible).

http://www.customrodder.com/tech/0701cr_1953_pontiac_suspension/index.html

Lee

jsrail

I followed the install on this awhile back and was wondering when they were going to do the rear, as I have wanted to do this on my Coupe for a couple years now. I was trying to see if someone had templates for the c notch, but the only guy I remembered doing it on a Hudson here, had it done by someone else and didn't have the templates. Since I've been working on the Dodge, I haven't heard if anyone else was doing it.

classictint

The guy started it and we finished it not sure where the notches were purchased. it cycles up and down smoothly .. goes up to around stock height and almost lays bumper when aired out.. was gonna do a 4link but the 3 just seemed to work out better.. good luck with yours

Lance

46HudsonPU

classictint wrote:

The guy started it and we finished it not sure where the notches were purchased. it cycles up and down smoothly .. goes up to around stock height and almost lays bumper when aired out.. was gonna do a 4link but the 3 just seemed to work out better.. good luck with yours
Lance

Lance - Didn't you require a panhard bar with that tri-link?

jsrail

46HudsonPU wrote:

Lance - Didn't you require a panhard bar with that tri-link?

Shouldn't have to with a triangulated 4 link Rick, just a 3 link or parallel 4 link.

46HudsonPU

jsrail wrote:

Shouldn't have to with a triangulated 4 link Rick, just a 3 link or parallel 4 link.

Understood. The question was referring to Lance's tri-link (one central link at the top, two at the bottom). I believe that type of setup may not be able to control side-to-side movement adequately, and would require a panhard bar to keep it in place.

jsrail

46HudsonPU wrote:

Understood. The question was referring to Lance's tri-link (one central link at the top, two at the bottom). I believe that type of setup may not be able to control side-to-side movement adequately, and would require a panhard bar to keep it in place.

Duh! Sorry Rick I should have looked at the prior post more carefully. Old age Dude, it's gettin' the better of me! LOL

Yeah, 3 links should have a panhard bar as they will move side-to-side a bit. I little movement on a Step Down is too much, that's why I moved to the 4 link idea. Though I'm considering that it might not be a good idea to put small tub wheel wells in. It's just that there is so little room on these things. I was thinking of cutting the wheelwell around the seam front-to-back and welding in a strip to make it just a tad 3"-4" wider without having to buy those tubs that are really wide. But, I'll have to wait until I cut out the floor for the notch to decide exactly what to do. It's just too bad we don't have a pattern for the c notch. Someone is making boxed metal frame plates to use in making a c notch that sort of flex (not sure where I saw it). I can't explain it so I should just shut up and go and find it! LOL

I'm going to try and find it now. Later. :-)

lsfirth

jsrail wrote:

Duh! Sorry Rick I should have looked at the prior post more carefully. Old age Dude, it's gettin' the better of me! LOL

Yeah, 3 links should have a panhard bar as they will move side-to-side a bit. I little movement on a Step Down is too much, that's why I moved to the 4 link idea.

I'm not sure that Lance's coupe is a true 3 link. His set-up would not need a panhard bar since his upper arm is actually a large triangle that attaches to the frame in 2 places. I think he essentially has a 4 link, with the two upper links combined into 1 large arm that attaches at the center of the axle housing above the dropout. In my opinion, Lance's 3 link will operate exactly like a triangulated 4-link.....unless I'm missing something :-)

I went back and found his post.

http://classiccar.com/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=62&jfile=showthread.php&t=15921&page=2

Lee

46HudsonPU

lsfirth wrote:

I'm not sure that Lance's coupe is a true 3 link. His set-up would not need a panhard bar since his upper arm is actually a large triangle that attaches to the frame in 2 places. I think he essentially has a 4 link, with the two upper links combined into 1 large arm that attaches at the center of the axle housing above the dropout. In my opinion, Lance's 3 link will operate exactly like a triangulated 4-link.....unless I'm missing something

I went back and found his post.
http://classiccar.com/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=62&jfile=showthread.php&t=15921&page=2

Lee

That's what had me curious... Looks like it wouldn't go much of anywhere (except up and down - i.e., very little side-to-side movement). Also from the pictures, it didn't look like it was quite finished welding when the pictures were taken, only one side actually welded to the triangle-shaped arm where it meets the top of the rear...

jsrail

But, you don't think it would move some because the two arms meet at one point, where a tri 4 link has the two upper diagonal rods mounted at separate points? I don't remember my geometry too well, but it seems to me that you could still get some side-to-side movement, maybe not as much but some. I am going to use the tri 4 link as a for sure thing. Hudson's don't cut you much slack in that department.

lsfirth

Okay I ordered the JW Rod Garage 4-link kit.....it showed up last week...here's some pics. I can't wait to instal this stuff. JWRG makes some nice stuff. None of the parts are very complex, but all looks well built!!!

It'll probably be a month or so before I can start on the back end....still wrapping up the MII install on the fron end..

Lee

jsrail

Lee, I'm going to watch your rear end set-up closely if you don't mind. I want to do a "c" notch, but was wondering if anyone had the drawings of the notch pieces and what thickness they were using. If you don't mind, I could use your advice on this as your build goes along. I was thinking of cutting the wheel tubs around the middle were the lip is (where the two halves are welded toether) and welding in a 3-4" piece to give some room in the tubs. I've gotten a hold of a mustang gas tank that is also a trunk floor (possibly), so I think they would work out well also.

I also like Rick's thoughts on the Ford 8.8 rear end. though I am considering building a street blower motor outta the Hemi and I don't know if one would hold up to it. But, if I keep the original dual quads, I may go that route to cut down some costs.

Anxious to see how your project progresses as usual. Nice work dude!

Jay

lsfirth

jsrail wrote:

Lee, I'm going to watch your rear end set-up closely if you don't mind. I want to do a "c" notch, but was wondering if anyone had the drawings of the notch pieces and what thickness they were using. If you don't mind, I could use your advice on this as your build goes along. I was thinking of cutting the wheel tubs around the middle were the lip is (where the two halves are welded toether) and welding in a 3-4" piece to give some room in the tubs. I've gotten a hold of a mustang gas tank that is also a trunk floor (possibly), so I think they would work out well also.

I also like Rick's thoughts on the Ford 8.8 rear end. though I am considering building a street blower motor outta the Hemi and I don't know if one would hold up to it. But, if I keep the original dual quads, I may go that route to cut down some costs.

Anxious to see how your project progresses as usual. Nice work dude!

Jay

Hi Jay....I picked up a 9" from a '73 ranchero that I'm going to use. I thought it had the 31 spline axles (which I would prefer since I have a nodular 3rd member I'm planning on using), but after pulling one of the axles out, it's a 28 spline (so much for the 3-hole trick in the end of the axle to signify 31 spines). At least the axles don't taper so I can have them cut and resplined to the length I need, but I really wanted the 31 splines.

Anyway, I had the c-notching all figured out....I even made a few sketches of how I was going to do it, then I realized that if I wanted to run tires wider than stock, I'd need to narrow the frame as well. Which brings up your comment.....if you want to widen the wheelwells, you'll need to narrow your frame too since the frame is the exact width of the inner wheel house. Does that make sense? If you just weld your several inch strap in to widen them, it won't do you any good since the frame will still limit your tire size....at least that's how my '49 is.

So now I have a new plan....I'm going to make new frame rails that come up higher (like c-notching) and are a couple inches inboard of the original frame rails. The new frame rails will come off the existing lateral beam that has the hole in the middle for the drive line. Once I have the new narrower frame welded in, then I'll cut out the old frame where it goes up under the wheelhouse and finish welding the old frame to the new narrower one. I can then widen the wheel houses like you mentioned and be able to run some 245's back there

I'll make some sketchs.....I think it will work really well.

Also, do you see my post for the new trunk pan out in the general hudson forum?? I was going to do the same thing with the mustang tank, but I didn't know you could by a complete trunk pan.....I think that's my new plan....I'm going to chop out my entire trunk pan so I have access for the 4-link installation, then buy that new trunk pan (actually 3 pieces) and weld it back in. Then I can get any old gas tank from the junk yard to mount up under it since I won't be using the space for the original barrel muffler

Lee

RL Chilton

Lee-

That four-link set-up is the way to go and the pictures sure look like quality pieces. Interested to see how you solve the wider rear wheels/narrower track, as you are right, this is extensive "re-framing" in order to get the necessary space. Step-downs aren't exactly the easiest body to do this modification.

Anytime I do a custom build, it's a triangulated four-link for me, as I happen to think it's the strongest and most versatile set-up (lots of adjustments).

Hudson308

lsfirth wrote:

Okay I ordered the JW Rod Garage 4-link kit.....it showed up last week...here's some pics. I can't wait to instal this stuff. JWRG makes some nice stuff. None of the parts are very complex, but all looks well built!!!

Yeah, those are pretty!

46HudsonPU

Very nice - Can hardly wait to see how you incorporate it into your project!

jsrail

You know Lee, I should have mentioned the frame issue, I was just recalling something I had read about the wheelwells and how I thought I could deal with it. My original thought was that one could make new framerails from the crossmember (and I can't remember exactly what the frame looks like under there) back inboard of the existing perimeter outboard framerails. Raise them up a little and go straight back like most of the complete rear end and rear frame set-ups one can buy and weld in. I'm not really good at explaining myself though. You would just have to take the perimeter frame and move in inward around the wheelwells and back out to the perimeter behind the wheelwells. So long as one could mount the fenders, rockers, and fenderskirts well enough it should work. Maybe this is what you are talking about. Too bad we aren't standing around a garage and talking this through with a tape measure! lol Well, anxiously watching your build dude, Jay.

Hudson308

jsrail wrote:

You would just have to take the perimeter frame and move in inward around the wheelwells and back out to the perimeter behind the wheelwells. So long as one could mount the fenders, rockers, and fenderskirts well enough it should work.

You could leave the perimeter (external) rails in place, and replace the inner rails with aftermarket "back half" pieces, if you didn't want to go through the work of moving and "C-notching" the inner rails...

[ATTACH]7166[/ATTACH]

lsfirth

Hudson308 wrote:

You could leave the perimeter (external) rails in place, and replace the inner rails with aftermarket "back half" pieces, if you didn't want to go through the work of moving and "C-notching" the inner rails...

[ATTACH]7166[/ATTACH]

YES...exactly....build new frame rails "inboard" of the existing ones but make them higher over the rear-end to facilitate the airbags and lowering the car. No sense in moving the existing ones unless you didn't want to lower it. And yes....leave the perimeter frame alone.....this is the plan!!!

I'll put together a sketch in the next few days.

Hudson308

Something like this would give you all the clearances you'll need...

http://www.jegs.com/p/Competition-Engineering/Competition-Engineering-Universal-Frame-Rails-Kits/749704/10002/-1

You'll want to reinforce/replace the rear crossmember that the driveshaft runs through as well, to provide a good strong attachment point for your control arms.

ralpie

This maybe a set of pictures you have already seen. But it clearly shows how someone modified a Hudson with C notch and 4 point rear control.

http://s793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/classictint/1950%20Hudson/

http://s793.photobucket.com/albums/yy217/classictint/1950%20Hudson/

lsfirth

Thanks Ken.....I had seen Lance's coupe in another post along with a couple pictures, but hadn't seen most of these. These are great and show some of the details for doing this modification. As I was underneath mine I noticed that I could probably pick up the forward leaf mounting locations with my lower 4-link members.....and this is certainly what Lance did. Then I realized I needed to narrow the frame for the wheels I want to run, so then I wouldn't be able to use these mounting locations. But that's okay since I'll have a nice clean frame to weld on the lower mount that came with the 4-link setup. I'm wondering now how much room I'll have to mount the upper arms when I narrow the frame rails....we shall see!

Thanks,

Lee

lsfirth

saw this on craig's list while roaming around.......looks kind of familiar

This would be a pretty good deal if someone wanted a jump start on a project!!

Lee

MikeWA

Aside from the obvious typo on the year (no Caddies, or anything else, in 1943), I've never heard of flathead Caddies as hot rod engines- anybody got any insight?

BTW, that does look like a great buy for someone.

Hudson308

Mike (WA) wrote: »

Aside from the obvious typo on the year (no Caddies, or anything else, in 1943), I've never heard of flathead Caddies as hot rod engines- anybody got any insight?QUOTE]

Well, there is one source for Caddy engines from around 1943...

[ATTACH]7709[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]7710[/ATTACH]

Looking at the tranny I thought this example was from a bit later, but it turns out they actually installed hydramatics in the M5A1 even before WWII. This thing sure would look good bolted into a stepdown, though... run those exhaust stacks straight up through the hood! :eek:

MikeWA

Hudson308 wrote:

Well, there is one source for Caddy engines from around 1943...

[... run those exhaust stacks straight up through the hood! :eek:

Was the exhaust system the same on the automobile version of that engine? Seems like you needn't worry too much about durability, because sooner rather than later, your carb will catch fire from all that heat surrounding it! Also, little wear on vital engine parts, because even if it never actually burns up, you'll spend most of the summer vapor locked. . .:rolleyes:

Hudson308

Mike (WA) wrote:

Was the exhaust system the same on the automobile version of that engine? Seems like you needn't worry too much about durability, because sooner rather than later, your carb will catch fire from all that heat surrounding it! Also, little wear on vital engine parts, because even if it never actually burns up, you'll spend most of the summer vapor locked. . .:rolleyes:

They do appear to at least be derivatives of the 346CI (3-1/2" x 4-1/2") engines used in (prewar) Cadillacs. Those engines were rated at 150 bhp @3400 RPM. It's interesting that the sign shown as posted with the engine at the Heartland Military Museum (Lexington, NE) notes 692 cubes... which would be the displacement for BOTH engines combined. From info seen elsewhere, I think the horsepower and weight specs listed are for both engines, as well.

Sorry for the thread jack, Rick & Lee... now back to those 4-links! :o

lsfirth

That would look pretty sweet sitting between the rails. I about crapped when I first saw the cubes of 692 and a weight of over 800#, then it made sense when someone mentioned that was for both engines. I'm kind of surprised that it only has one water pump....seems like that would make one side run hotter than the other??? Thanks for the history lesson!!!

Lee

ClassicCar

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

We'd love to hear from you! info@classiccar.com