1953 Studebaker / Studillac project...

[SuperBuickGuy]

motor from an escalade is still a Cadillac motor... at least that's the story I'm sticking with in using the 6.0 LS motor in my Buick wagon.

[53 Studillac]

Here's a stance comparison. Doesn't look 2" lower but it is in the front! I'm really liking how she sits now. The updated suspension is about 1/4" narrower on each side to help with fender clearance while turning. If need the fender lip could be dropped just a hair and flared to get the fit to perfectly match the rear but I can't see it being much better!

I could slightly raise the rear but am already at 2.6-degree rake. I love the hot rod stance but don't want to go too far.

[53 Studillac]

I've made a lot of progress on the suspension and figured out a few things I did wrong the last time. I just got home from being gone for 4 weeks and I worked on suspension design for 2-3 hours almost every night. I will get into details of that later, but for now wanted to share some pics. It's so hot in MS these days that it's going to be difficult to spend time in the shop for the next couple months. My wife helped me get the front cap and hood set in place for these pics before it was all blown apart again. I have sold the Cadillac engine and am at a crossroads. We are leaning toward something more dependable. My heart is being pulled all over the place, but I have some ideas. Could it really not be a Studillac? More on that later as well. It was now or a ways into the future on getting pics with the engine. These are the first ones I have with the hood and engine fully together! We worked into the night and it's all blown back apart and the engine is ready for transport. It's headed to Kansas.

[53 Studillac]

I managed to get the body sitting on the chassis but needed a hand with the front cap. I only have one more day before I leave for work so this may be as far as I get. I think it’s going to be about where I want it, but need to see the tire in the fender to be sure. There’s about 4” ground clearance at the front xmbr and should be ok for a weekend warrior. Rake measured 2.6 degrees and is a little aggressive by today’s standards.

[Loren]

Just looking at random pics I come across this very old Lotus drawing but it shows what still are considered good control arm angles as seen from the front...the lower about flat, the upper around 5 degrees splayed upward...try to shoot for that, and in a corner you'll get just enough negative camber on the outside wheel and positive on the inside to counter body roll. In the Stude photos it looks like there is about 15 degrees or more on the uppers (I'd have to go get a protractor) which is nutso out-of-whack. Once you've installed normal upper ball joints you still may have to raise the inner shaft mounting via spacers etc., you won't know 'til you get there.

Part of what makes this drawing clear is it's not showing anti-dive on the upper arm which would have distracted from my point. The Mustang II and any normal car with some weight to it has some anti-dive angle (where the upper arm pivot shaft when seen from the side is at an angle to rearward) so when looking at your a-arms from the front, on the uppers you'll see the front bushing a little higher than the rear, pick the mid-point and consider that the line to see.




I have little doubt you'll be needing to re-fab the upper arms, doing so will give you a chance to have caster in a good place and the shafts mounted far enough out to clear your headers. I would NOT want to have to re-do the headers just because of that problem more easily solved at the a-arm.

You got another issue on the Stude, which is the rack looks like it's moved a couple inches forward from the stock MII location, which is going to screw with your ackermann angle, not something you'll notice as speed but you will in a parking lot. Since it's tucked under the pan anyhow, if possible it should be moved back to where the tie rods angle slightly forward as seen from above, not to the rear as they appear now.

Mustang II's with their tiny 13" wheels had the steering rack and arm height around the mid-point between the upper and lower ball joints as seen from the front and still were able to have the motor which was located over it at a good height from the ground. The Stude of-course has the rack mounted down low for pan clearance to where it's near even with the lower ball joint, in line with where most cars have it, thus the need for the spacers in this case. I see three routes to fix things up in that area...either make custom steering arms to eliminate the spacer scheme and it's twisting moment on the arms, or switch to something like a GM A/G-body spindle that has it's arms in a low position to begin with (I did something like that on my Challenger), or finally set the engine back enough that the rack can go back to it's "stock" Mustang II location, up and rearward with the engine front pulley behind it ala Corvette. That last would probably be a negative packaging-wise for you at this point, I'm just adding the thought.

[fatguyzinc]

In the next week or so I'll dig my Fiat out (moving), and take pictures of the upper control arm ball joints... I'm concerned the spindles are too tall too...

yes, pretty sure upper and lower arm should be parallel to each other ideally.
the upper arm going 'uphill' to spindle looks like hellacious bumpsteer to me.....

[SuperBuickGuy]

In the next week or so I'll dig my Fiat out (moving), and take pictures of the upper control arm ball joints... I'm concerned the spindles are too tall too...

[53 Studillac]

why did you use the spacer ball joints on the upper arms? you already have plenty of camber gain due to the unequal lengths of the upper and lower control arms. Get rid of those ball joints and you'll probably be able to get the castor that you're looking for....

also, if you're looking to lower the car - lowering spindles are cheap....

Ha! I measured those upper ball joints and they look 1/2” long to me as well. I bought these from Heidts years ago. Called tech this week and they acted like they had no idea they were not standard length. The guy also said they are pressed and not so screw-in. I think they are screw-in but hate to mess up a set of stainless arms! At least I could sell these for half off! I have another set somewhere, I will check out those ball joints.

How much camber gain should I try for?

The chassis already has 2” drop spindles. I need 3” but can’t find. Worse case I will raise the lower control arm pivot an inch or so. I really want to get body back on chassis to verify but have so many irons in the fire I may have to wait.

[SuperBuickGuy]

why did you use the spacer ball joints on the upper arms? you already have plenty of camber gain due to the unequal lengths of the upper and lower control arms. Get rid of those ball joints and you'll probably be able to get the castor that you're looking for....

also, if you're looking to lower the car - lowering spindles are cheap....

[53 Studillac]

Caster doesn't cause bump steer problems, anti-dive geometry changing the caster throughout suspension movement does.

When the MII spindle it tilted back for more caster the steer arm rotates up and does effect bump steer in that regard. Like you said a new arm will fix that easy enough.

I took a few more pics while at the shop today. I can't use a longer control arm due to header clearance. I really don't want to build another set of headers just yet. I may have to at some point. I could also raise the engine a little to help also. Tilting the spindle for more caster may actually increase header to UCA clearance.

A few days on the CAD at night and I should be able to figure out something. Of course it took me years to screw this up!

[53 Studillac]

what is the track width of your car? The C5/C6 stuff required 2" flares on the C3, so you may wish to check that issue... but you can get a custom rack, however, the arms are a lot longer then a M2.... fun stuff, isn't it?

As it sits I have 57.5" wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface. I was thinking I could relocate the lower control arm pivot farther inboard to keep the track close to where it is but allow for the longer arms. And by doing so I would probably need a rack with custom tie rod pivot spacing.

[Loren]

Kinda hard to solve the concerns here without actually looking at it. A couple things: From the photo it seems like a modified or altogether new upper a-arm is in order, or something with enough adjustment to work; jig up the bare spindle where you want it in terms of caster/camber at ride height and fab upper a-arms to fit, aiming for fasteners being in the middle of the adjustment slots. (Maybe an engineer could work out in a few minutes how much stress is on the welded area of the pictured adjustable units.) The struts instead of springs will work fine hanging in the air to do measurements, zero degrees camber there will probably turn into a half-degree negative with the car on the ground and five degrees caster is IMO a good angle to shoot for. Caster doesn't cause bump steer problems, anti-dive geometry changing the caster throughout suspension movement does. Just aim in the middle i.e. all geometry good at ride height, knowing it will change under acceleration or braking. With the rack at such a lower position than the steering arms are designed for I'd sure make new ones that eliminate the spacers, once you have your height known. (I'm assuming the tie rod length is appropriate, such as if the rack is even height-wise with the lower control arms then the tie rods should be the same length as those parts.) Ackerman will have to be paid attention to at that time, looking from above there should be a straight line from the center of the rear axle, through the front ball joints, to the steering pivot, also looking from above the tie rods should angle forward a bit. Sounds like a job for a guy who works w/ CAD (wink) and then a machinist with a block of cold-roll steel and a taper reamer. With that, if you'd rather be just fixing issues and not start a whole new project I'm sure the Mustang II/Wilwood stuff would be fine once you had those aspects worked out.

[silver_bullet]

some more options: https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Searc...0control%20arm

[SuperBuickGuy]

Just something to think about with that style a-arm. When on the brakes, that weld on the balljoint plate is the only thing keeping the spindle from moving forward or backward depending on if it's behind or in front of the balljoint. The other 3 points on the triangle are all bolted joints and are not going to resist any force front to back on the a-arm. Could make for an interesting panic stop...

I don't race sprint cars, but those come from that world - where adjustment is everything - but I see what you're seeing, I dunno, maybe have $274 mock up arms?

[dave.g.in.gansevoort]

-1.0 to -1.5 is optimal, at least 5 degrees of castor 7 is better
you know those teflon cookie sheets? you can buy them for a couple bucks each at any grocery store - those work quite well as turn/slip plates
the Mustang 2 suspension has a problem maintaining alignments because of that slip design - on a light car, it's not as bad, but on something with a 500 ci Cadillac... well, you're moving the right direction in solving the alignment issue - if you use what CST is recommending, you can solve two problems with one solution

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/sps-94340

what is the track width of your car? The C5/C6 stuff required 2" flares on the C3, so you may wish to check that issue... but you can get a custom rack, however, the arms are a lot longer then a M2.... fun stuff, isn't it?

Just something to think about with that style a-arm. When on the brakes, that weld on the balljoint plate is the only thing keeping the spindle from moving forward or backward depending on if it's behind or in front of the balljoint. The other 3 points on the triangle are all bolted joints and are not going to resist any force front to back on the a-arm. Could make for an interesting panic stop...