Columbia Overdrive

[sidcharles]

i've read they can only be used with a leaf spring suspended rear axle, but just one trusted (to me, anyway) source manages to get one in a buggy spring suspension.

Q: is this "goosing the devil" as my grandfather would say?

i am surprised the '39 doesn't have semi-eliptical spring in the rear.

[Ace-Garageguy]

All the Columbias under Fords and Ford products were delivered with buggy springs.

Anybody who says otherwise is blowing "internet expert" smoke.

"Buggy springs" are, by the way, nothing but transverse leaf springs.

AND...you can set one up with parallel leaf springs or even coils (either of which can be put under virtually any car) but that usually requires changing the torque-tube snout on the housing to an "open" style universal joint...all standard practice on Ford "banjo" rear ends in non-stock applications for more than 70 years.

And for credibility's sake...part of what I've been doing for a living for over 5 decades is building "period" hot rods.

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:31 AM by Ace-Garageguy

[Radretireddad]

4 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

All the Columbias under Fords and Ford products were delivered with buggy springs.

Anybody who says otherwise is blowing "internet expert" smoke.

"Buggy springs" are, by the way, nothing but transverse leaf springs.

AND...you can set one up with parallel leaf springs or even coils (either of which can be put under virtually any car) but that usually requires changing the torque-tube snout on the housing to an "open" style universal joint...all standard practice on Ford "banjo" rear ends for more than 70 years.

And for credibility's sake...part of what I've been doing for a living for over 5 decades is building "period" hot rods.

 

I love the vintage look an old banjo rear end presents. Is it possible to set up an old banjo rear end to run reliably in daily use behind modest power levels and at modern freeway speeds?

Edited Tuesday at 03:06 AM by Radretireddad

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Radretireddad said:

I love the vintage look an old banjo rear end presents. Is it possible to set up an old banjo rear end to run reliably in daily use behind modest power levels and at modern freeway speeds?

Shouldn't really be a problem. The steels used in them is very good, and modernizing bearings, seals, and lubricants can give excellent reliability. (*You wouldn't want cheap "offshore" bearings and seals, as they tend to fail early even installed in things like little Toyotas. US or German or Japanese-made bearings and seals please, NOS if you can find it.)

"Modest power levels" is one key element, not abusing the drivetrain by clutch-dumping, etc. is another, and keeping vehicle weight down to what was expected when the rear-ends were made is another.

Though it's not common these days, there are some people who actually DRIVE their old cars as daily transportation, and it's important to remember that these were all quite dependable NEW cars at one point, in use every day and taken on long trips. 

In the early days of drag racing, it wasn't uncommon to see old Ford banjo rear axles behind Chrysler hemi engines making many times the power and torque the axles were designed for, and though failures were frequent (and not costly, as junkyards were full of cheap replacements), breakage was a direct consequence of severe abuse...NOT because of any inherent weakness that would affect normal day-to-day operation.

When you really get down to it, depending on the funds available, every internal component (including gears) inside an old Ford torque-tube style rear end can be re-engineered and made to the standards of late 1950s (the introduction of the Ford 9" rear end) through mid 1990s, when Detroit rear axle assemblies were as close to "bulletproof" as any OEM parts ever manufactured.

Edited Tuesday at 04:23 AM by Ace-Garageguy

[sidcharles]

8 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

All the Columbias under Fords and Ford products were delivered with buggy springs.

Anybody who says otherwise is blowing "internet expert" smoke.

"Buggy springs" are, by the way, nothing but transverse leaf springs.

AND...you can set one up with parallel leaf springs or even coils (either of which can be put under virtually any car) but that usually requires changing the torque-tube snout on the housing to an "open" style universal joint...all standard practice on Ford "banjo" rear ends in non-stock applications for more than 70 years.

And for credibility's sake...part of what I've been doing for a living for over 5 decades is building "period" hot rods.

 

i think this is where i got confused:    (don't know how to do a better quote)  from this thread:   

last entry on page #3

 

• Full Name:Bill Engwer

Posted August 29, 2021

  On 7/16/2021 at 12:34 PM, Paul Payne said:

Can a Columbia 2 speed rear axle be used on 49 and 50 Fords and Mercuries?

Missed this question...been kinda busy.   

Anyway, anything will work in pretty much anything, within reason, with enough mods and fabrication.

The Columbia is made for a "closed driveline" or "torque-tube" setup, but could be converted to an "open" style driveshaft coupling. The only other major mod required would be replacing the buggy-spring perches with semi-elliptic perches welded to the axle housings.

How long it would live under a much heavier car is another question entirely.

 

[sidcharles]

i was quite impressed with Iron Trap when the spring pack had to be cut curved to fit the chassis.

[bill-e-boy]

11 hours ago, sidcharles said:

I am surprised the '39 doesn't have semi-eliptical spring in the rear.

It has - on 39's it is mounted behind the axle - just hidden in that pix at the start. Certainly see it during the video.

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

NOTE TO MODS: I've written an in-depth response to this question, clarifying seeming contradictions.

HOWEVER, somewhere in the text is apparently one of the keywords or phrases that set your forum's software's hair on fire, and that has triggered the dreaded "PAGE CAN'T BE FOUND" when I try to post it.

Sorry, but it's just not my job to jump through hoops to compensate for software glitches when I take the time to write and post complete factual technical information in response to questions posted by forum members.

Edited Tuesday at 02:13 PM by Ace-Garageguy

[Ace-Garageguy]

The Columbia is made for a "closed driveline" or "torque-tube" setup, but could be converted to an "open" style driveshaft coupling. The only other major mod required would be replacing the buggy-spring perches with semi-elliptic perches welded to the axle housings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO sidcharles:

The above statement is self-explanatory.

It deals with additional modifications required to convert a torque-tube rear to an "open" configuration.

Conversely, to convert a torque-tube rear end on a transverse leaf spring to work with parallel leaf springs, the driveline must also be converted to an "open" configuration.

Sorry I can't go into more detail but some glitch in the forum's software prevents me from posting a very complete response.

Edited Tuesday at 02:15 PM by Ace-Garageguy

[sidcharles]

not to worry. just because i misread* something does not require you to expound. 

time in our lives to chill.

 

* i think [in the stickied speed equipment post] i overlooked the word "perches". in context, your description in context makes sense.