Tube shocks on a EFV8

[blucar]

I recently posted a response to the F.B. Forum regarding a question about rear suspension on a '46-48 Merc.
I have a '46-48 Merc rear end under my '36 so I posted a couple of pix of my rear suspension.
I received a PM this AM asking questions about how I attached the tube shocks to the upper cross member under my car. I responded to the PM with an answer to the questions.

Throughout the years that I have been on the Barn I have received many questions as to how I put a '42-48 Columbia under my '36, and how many modifications I had to do to get the wider rear end, 51-1/4" vs 53" to fit
under the car. My response has always been 'none', using a combination of various years of Ford parts, '36-37-39 & '42-48 it is a bolt-in installation.
I was going to attach pix of the rear and front shock mounts, however, I was unable to attach them at this time.

 

[V8COOPMAN]

I recently posted a response to the F.B. Forum regarding a question about rear suspension on a '46-48 Merc.
I have a '46-48 Merc rear end under my '36 so I posted a couple of pix of my rear suspension.
I received a PM this AM asking questions about how I attached the tube shocks to the upper cross member under my car. I responded to the PM with an answer to the questions.

Throughout the years that I have been on the Barn I have received many questions as to how I put a '42-48 Columbia under my '36, and how many modifications I had to do to get the wider rear end, 51-1/4" vs 53" to fit
under the car. My response has always been 'none', using a combination of various years of Ford parts, '36-37-39 & '42-48 it is a bolt-in installation.
I was going to attach pix of the rear and front shock mounts, however, I was unable to attach them at this time.

I wouldn't have any problem imagining just how little dampening that those two shocks are producing when looking at the relatively horizontal angle that they're mounted. That bottom mount as Ford designed it is great, but more thought needs to go into the mount for the upper end to move it farther outboard on the rear crossmember. The fact that the exhaust pipe tends to get in the way of mounting the shock at a more-vertical angle is NOT good reason to overlook sound engineering.

When you look at a difference of 1-3/4" overall width between the earlier vs late rear ends, you have to realize that you're only talking about 7/8" or so wider on EACH side. The way that the ' 35-'40 cars were originally built with the skinny 4" wheels and correspondingly narrow tires, the tires actually look much better in the fender opening with the slightly-wider rear end. DD

 

[woodiewagon46]

I agree with V8coopman, the perfect shock angle is something like between 20 and 30 degrees, yours look like 45 degrees or so. You must be putting a lot of stress on the shafts and seals.

 

[Ol' Ron]

Yes, I like to use tube shocks on all my builds (2), They should be mounter at no more than 20 degrees from the vertical. i recommend 70/30 shocks all around. Unfortunately these can be very expensive. Most shocks have a bushing mount on the bottom but a stud at the top. I've mad an adapter for that to work with the earlier shocks. I've found that GM cars of the 70's used allot of these of different sizes.

 

[rotorwrench]

I was kind of curious as to why have both Houdaille shocks and tube shocks? That seems kind of redundant. A good set of well mounted tube shocks shouldn't need much help.

A lot of the old kits for tube shock conversion had frame mounts that bolted on and kept the geometry like it should be.

 

[V8COOPMAN]

I was kind of curious as to why have both Houdaille shocks and tube shocks? That seems kind of redundant. A good set of well mounted tube shocks shouldn't need much help.

A lot of the old kits for tube shock conversion had frame mounts that bolted on and kept the geometry like it should be.

rotorwrench ……..Now you've got me laughin' my *** off because I didn't even notice the Houdailles still linked-up 'til you mentioned it. Almost speaks volumes about the 'engineering' employed here. DD

 

[blucar]

In the mid '50's when most of the modifications to my '36 was done, there was very little thought to 'engineering' went into the project. We knew that the '30-40 model Fords were unstable on the road at their best. Improving the horse power of the engines added to the problems of keeping the cars in a straight line and on the road.
With the limited space under the rear of a '36 Ford, the addition of the tracking bar left little room for an anti-roll bar. Our thinking was that tube shocks on an angle and the Houdaille shocks adjusted to firm would tie the rear end down about as tight as could be. Of course the added width of the front and rear axles also added to the stability of the car.
During the many years I street raced my Ford, I never lost control of the car, spun it our a couple of time, but it stayed upright on all four wheels.

 

[LQQKER]

On my 35, I used a long bolt through the lower rear spring shackle, closest to the axle, and drilled through the rear spring crossmember for the upper mount. A little grinding on the lower frame rail for clearance. Has a nice working angle.
Using the lower spring shackle maybe takes away some of the shock absorber effect, but not noticeable to me.
Opinions as I was planning on the same set up for the 36 project

 

[blucar]

When it comes right down to it, I think the angle of the rear tube shocks on my '36 is very similar to the stock tube shocks on a '48.
I originally used an upper mount that attached to the cross member with two long U bolts. I did not like the fitment of the U bolts to the cross member, it limited the spring travel. I harvested a shock frame mount from a later model pickup, which I attached to the cross member via one 5/8" hole, no grinding, etc.

 

[corvette8n]

When it comes right down to it, I think the angle of the rear tube shocks on my '36 is very similar to the stock tube shocks on a '48.
I originally used an upper mount that attached to the cross member with two long U bolts. I did not like the fitment of the U bolts to the cross member, it limited the spring travel. I harvested a shock frame mount from a later model pickup, which I attached to the cross member via one 5/8" hole, no grinding, etc.

Bill do you have a picture of the top mount, in your picture it's hidden behind he exhaust.

 

[blucar]

In response to Corvette8n' question...
Yes I have a couple of pix of the mounts I used to attach the rear shocks to the upper cross member. I have tried several times to down-doad the pix to this topic, however, for some unknown reason I can't..
Send me a PM, with your email, I'll email you a pix of the frame mount.

 

[47Merc]

I used Bob Drakes Rear Shock and Sway bar kit on my 40 coupe and it made a huge improvement. The only problem I had was Drakes instructions show them to be mounted to the cross member where the exhausts are and as I had just installed new Stainless pipes I shifted the top mounts in a little. They may be at a bit more angle than they should be but they work good.
While I am at it, I should tell you that I live in Australia and ordered the kit on line specifying the standard height kit because they also supply a kit for lowered cars. It took a long time to arrive (about 6 weeks) as I had it shipped through an agent to keep the cost down and when I went to fit it they had sent the wrong kit.
I rang their help line and they checked the order, appologised for the mistake and I had the correct shocks and sway bar links four days later via urgent air express.
This is the second time I have had to contact Drakes for a problem. The first was with an electronic crab distributer and it was handled in exactly the same way, I have been very pleased with their after sales service.

 

[V8COOPMAN]

47merc ….…….It appears, in your pics, that you have decided to rely ONLY on the stamped sheet metal radius rods to control axle torque, AND to transmit forward and rearward force from the axle to propel the car. Just wondering if you realize how much weakened the situation is WITHOUT the torque tube, as the torque tube actually provided the majority of the control and transmittal of forces in the original set-up. Those wimpy little radius rods were never designed to handle those forces without the corresponding torque tube. In addition, the front ends of the two radius rods would need to be in line (front to rear) with the forward U-joint for the geometry to have a chance at working-out. Just curious...…….! DD

 

[Kahuna]

I'm sure he'll add a torque arm if it's needed

 

[47Merc]

"I'm sure he'll add a torque arm if it's needed"

You are right Kahuna. The photos I posted of the rear shocks were taken while I was in the process of installing a W55 Toyota 5 speed in the car.

I did indeed install a torque rod to replace the Torque tube as the photos below will show. Since that time the car has travelled a lot of miles and the conversion has made it a far better car to drive.

 

[V8COOPMAN]

"I'm sure he'll add a torque arm if it's needed"

You are right Kahuna. The photos I posted of the rear shocks were taken while I was in the process of installing a W55 Toyota 5 speed in the car.

I did indeed install a torque rod to replace the Torque tube as the photos below will show. Since that time the car has travelled a lot of miles and the conversion has made it a far better car to drive.

Wow, 47Merc.....I must say that your ENTIRE package, as you've ultimately shown here, surely looks very clean and seems to be well-though-out. No surprise that you've realized a "better car to drive". Do you by chance have a close-up pic of that forward wishbone mount, especially the BALL SOCKET part of it? VERY NICELY DONE, Sir! DD

 

[Kahuna]

Looks like those are 'Tie Rod" ends. Same way I did it on my 32.
.

 

[47Merc]

"Do you by chance have a close-up pic of that forward wishbone mount"


It is a bit hard to see properly but I used the original ball socket, cut it out of the old mount and welded into a piece of plate then incorparated it into the front of the new gearbox mount section. It locks into the front of bottom cross member plate to stop any rearward pressure from the front radius rods and is also held in with 6 bolts.
I also had to lower it about 1/2 inch from its original position to give clearance between the radius rods and the bottom of the gearbox when the axle is in a fully up position but it doesn't appear to have any effect on the handling of the car.

 

[V8COOPMAN]

"Do you by chance have a close-up pic of that forward wishbone mount"


It is a bit hard to see properly but I used the original ball socket, cut it out of the old mount and welded into a piece of plate then incorparated it into the front of the new gearbox mount section. It locks into the front of bottom cross member plate to stop any rearward pressure from the front radius rods and is also held in with 6 bolts.
I also had to lower it about 1/2 inch from its original position to give clearance between the radius rods and the bottom of the gearbox when the axle is in a fully up position but it doesn't appear to have any effect on the handling of the car.

47Merc …...Thank you for the additional pics. That is similar in concept to the way we made a new ball socket for the front of HEARD's '35 Ford pick-up that we incorporated a T5 into the torque tube drive line. You could click the "T5 W/TORQUE TUBE" at the lower left of any of my posts to read the entire thread, if interested. I've included a few pics of the way we did it. I really like the thought you have put into the mods on your car.....NICELY-done! DD

 

[Ol' Ron]

There are a number of books and articles on the suspension systems. It would be wise to read these befoer modifying your factory designed systems.I find the articles on spring rates and shocks to be very interesting. Especially on how the shock action is degraded by it instillation angle.