Jantrix Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 (edited) What is up with this front suspension? Why the heck does it sit so low? The lower a-arms are the lowest part of the car. The whole thing sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at it from the front. The Avanti isn't like this. My Google search of the real car doesn't show the suspension visible from the front of the car. Has anyone tackled this kit recently and dealt with this issue? What did you do? Any advice would be great. The depth of the front crossmember seems necessary for proper engine fitment, yet it's very low. Yuck. Edited March 19, 2011 by Jantrix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slantasaurus Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I just pulled out my 53 to look at the problem. I never really noticed or thought about it before but you do seem to be right. Those A arms are way low. More than anything I think it's a consession to making a kit. Using the dropped (upper holes)suspension setting and/or using short tires just makes things worse putting it almost on the ground. The only fix I can see would be to cut the A arms off the crossmember, shortening the spring and relocating them higher up......but the crossmember is still going to be hanging pretty low and the only fix for that would be a custom crossmember. With that low hood line, it doesn't seem that you have many options. Have you considered a Boxer style engine like in a Subaru, Porsche, or Ferarri ??? LOL !!! Those might be flat enough to fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 I was planning on this as a Carrera Panamericana racer as well as for my Cannonball CBP. For the CP, from what I've read need to be very vintage and using original engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slantasaurus Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 i was kidding about the Boxxer engine Rob. It would solve the low crossmember and hood clearance issues but then you would be complaining that the engine compartment is too narrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 I replaced the front crossmember and suspension (both front and rear) with the parts from Revell's '69 Z/28 Camaro when I built this '53 in 1994: Much improved stance: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Pugh Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 That does sit well and looks great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Myers Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 When I was in high school I brought home a '58 Goldenhawk. I Looked underneath and saw major scuff marks on the lower A arms. I didn't buy it.Ended up with a '58 MGA Roadster . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo426 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Seems ok to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Philo it does look fine from this vantage point. Would you show us a pic of the front of the car? A full nose shot? And then you'll see what I mean. Here's some shots. The fairing I added is lower then the stock bumper and fairing and still the suspension juts from beneath. A pic of the real car shows that the lower a-arms are visible, but just barely, and that is true of most cars anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spad007 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Philo it does look fine from this vantage point. Would you show us a pic of the front of the car? A full nose shot? And then you'll see what I mean. Here's some shots. The fairing I added is lower then the stock bumper and fairing and still the suspension juts from beneath. A pic of the real car shows that the lower a-arms are visible, but just barely, and that is true of most cars anyway. In the photo as i look at it (no real 1:1 car has 3 places to mount the spindle's ) the 3 holes look like your choice for mounting the wheels is a kit thing. and they missed the hight/thickness of the cross member that sway bar looks way low. get out your saw . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gibbons Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 As said above, it's likely a modeling concession to make the wheels positionable. I guess that back in the '60s, models with working features got better sales. I know it did with me. Opening hoods, doors, steerable wheels; modeling heaven back then! I remember building my first Revell '57 Chevy with all the operating features (including pivoting, retractable rear windows!) with the internal engine detail. I thought it was the coolest thing. The old Revell '59 Ford Skyliner retractable hardtop with a working roof!? The Revell VW DeLuxe bus with all the opening panels? Nirvana. I need to get another version of both of those and relive my youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Pugh Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 As said above, it's likely a modeling concession to make the wheels positionable. I guess that back in the '60s, models with working features got better sales. I know it did with me. Opening hoods, doors, steerable wheels; modeling heaven back then! I remember building my first Revell '57 Chevy with all the operating features (including pivoting, retractable rear windows!) with the internal engine detail. I thought it was the coolest thing. The old Revell '59 Ford Skyliner retractable hardtop with a working roof!? The Revell VW DeLuxe bus with all the opening panels? Nirvana. I need to get another version of both of those and relive my youth. You're a sick....sick man!! j/k but really, I definately hate that Revell '57 Chevy. I have the '59 Ford in my "to-do" collection still on the shelf, patiently waiting. I've heard it's a real booger. We'll see how that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my66s55 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I have the 53 Stude Double Whammy. It appears to be the same tooling and may be part of the cause. It may be that way to get the front end up enough for the dragster. Just a thought. It's a 2 in 1 kit that can also be built stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo426 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Ok! Here is a pic of the front! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High octane Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 You could always put a straight axle under it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 Guys, I have cut out the original front end and added the front and rear suspension from a Revell 68 Corvette. Since I'm building a custom road machine anyway, it's no big deal. The stock suspension would have been easier but life goes on. Philo thanks for posting that second pic. You can really see how low the suspension/crossmember is. Pics of my revamped chassis as soon as I get the rear end narrowed a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philo426 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Yes it is bit low! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george 53 Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Rob, it's a little too late, but MAYBE if you had just REMOVED the engine /suspension carraige from the chassisby cutting it AT the junction of the cradle AND side frame rails, you could've moved it up just a tad an re glued it back in to where it would give yo the clearance you needed. I built this car SO long ago, I didn't remember the problem. NOW i see EXACTLY what your talking about. I still have TWO in my stash, and Im gonna give it a shot. I'll get back with ya on it later! Wish me luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Rob, I hadn't noticed that it wasn't suppose to be that low, but thinking back at my past builds I do remember I couldn't get it to sit lower because of the cross member. I do like the idea of cutting off the front and putting a vette engine in it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 Rob, it's a little too late, but MAYBE if you had just REMOVED the engine /suspension carraige from the chassisby cutting it AT the junction of the cradle AND side frame rails, you could've moved it up just a tad an re glued it back in to where it would give yo the clearance you needed. I built this car SO long ago, I didn't remember the problem. NOW i see EXACTLY what your talking about. I still have TWO in my stash, and Im gonna give it a shot. I'll get back with ya on it later! Wish me luck! :D George I did look at moving up the front cross-member, but the Stude engine needs that much clearance there. The lower pulley was just a couple mils from the cross-member. Thanks for kicking this around with me guys. I appreciate the assist. Good luck George, let us know how it works out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr moto Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) I was planning on this as a Carrera Panamericana racer as well as for my Cannonball CBP. For the CP, from what I've read need to be very vintage and using original engines. That depends on the class that they're entered in. Turismo Producion uses original engines. Turismo Mayor is a lot more wide open and the winning Studebakers are running what amounts to a NASCAR small block Chevy. They've been known to top 190 mph during the event on public roads that aren't even closed! Edited March 14, 2011 by mr moto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danno Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 That's always been an issue with the Studey kit. It obviously has to do with the engineering they had to build into it in order to have the poseable front wheels ... given the state of the art back in the 60's when the kit was designed. (They needed a lot of room under the engine oil pan for the pivot piece. It was either jack the engine up, shave the oil pan, or stack all that stuff downward ... I have no idea why they didn't just shave the oil pan!) The grafted crossmember idea is great for customs, competition cars, street machines, prostreet, etc., but doesn't much help the replica stock builder. I think the pivot mechanism for the working steering has to be eliminated, the frame slightly modified, and the crossmember modified in order to get a proper stance with the stock appearance. Guess they figured few Loewy coupes would be built factory stock!!! LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 That depends on the class that they're entered in. Turismo Producion uses original engines. Turismo Mayor is a lot more wide open and the winning Studebakers are running what amounts to a NASCAR small block Chevy. They've been known to top 190 mph during the event on public roads that aren't even closed! Sounds like suicide. Thanks for the info. I don't feel bad about the Corvette running gear and 427 now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted March 19, 2011 Author Share Posted March 19, 2011 I spliced in the front end from a 68 Vette. Looks good and sits right. Rear suspension too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.