Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
torque tube conversion to torque arm |
Post Reply |
Author | |
typhoon
AMC Apprentice Joined: Oct/11/2009 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 94 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Posted: May/05/2017 at 12:20pm |
Yes I know there is a few posts about converting torque tube to open ,but I would like some opinion on going to a torque Arm set up , I don't believe it has been mentioned.
64 classic going to Ford 9",keep coil spring suspension. From what I have read ,the torque arm suspension is the best all around suspension for solid axle.Meaning, straight line and cornering traction and no suspension binding. Trying to replicate a torque tube! Its the length of the torque arm I would like some input. I have also found a torque arms from Chris Alston,used in Mustangs that are 33 and 36 ". Are these too short? F Bodies are around 48" . I don't think there is enough space in the tunnel for the bar to run beside the drive shaft. The torque arm if installed as they are in GM F bodies to the Trans,would required to be 60". Nothing I have found readily available for this length. If I could use the short arm I could make a cross member to support it as well as lower control arms. Thanks for any input . |
|
73Gremlin401
Supporter of TheAMCForum Joined: Mar/02/2013 Location: Stmbt Sprgs CO Status: Offline Points: 946 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
This is a great question! Will be good to see if anyone has gone down this route, rather than just dumping the whole torque tube concept. IIRC, the Torque arms that were used on the later F bodies (and I think some versions of the Chevy Monza?) were lightweight and absolutely solved axle windup tendencies under acceleration as well as braking. |
|
73 Gremlin 401/5-spd.
77 Matador Wagon 360/727. 81 Jeep J10 LWB 360/4-spd 83 Concord DL 4-dr 258/auto |
|
tomj
AMC Addicted Joined: Jan/27/2010 Location: earth Status: Offline Points: 7544 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
though not to solve a torque tube replacement, i built a rigid wishbone rear suspension. picture "truck arms" that are extra long, and meet in the middle at the front. all of a sudden no binding when the car rolls. the catch is you need to place the front joint (i used a big heim, but i think a threaded rod with strut bushings would be better) under the tail of the transmission. i made a "spider" that does so.
if you stuck with "truck arms", eg. torque arms, if you made the very long you could run them up to the transmission crossmember, to locate and absorb thrush both. you already have a panhard. i did some crazy nonsense you are unlikely to do, but you can see the previous version of my wishbone setup here: http://www.sensitiveresearch.com/1961-Rambler-Roadster/axletransupgrade/index.html the current one got triangulated fore to aft. i had some flex, that's gone. i used the 4-link lower ears, added a pair at the top, of a 98 mustang axle i had narrowed. the bonus is it's all adjustable, i dialed in 1 - 0.5 degree of pinion angle, and got the four wheels precisely square, like with 1/16", front to rear and diagonal. whatever you end up doing, pay attention to body roll. i've seen a couple TT conversions where that was ignored, and one wheel up binds, and breaks links in short order (like a month). 4-link rears all have bind -- but if you are Ford you can design geometry and compliant joints that makes it work. that's harder to do at home on a one-off. that's why i stuck with the wishbone, the geometry is simple, zero bind in any direction, just that PITA of the front mount. |
|
1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5 http://www.ramblerLore.com |
|
tyrodtom
AMC Addicted Joined: Sep/14/2007 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 6213 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
To this day Nascar Nextel Cup ( or whatever they're called now) use the 3 link, modernized truck arm rear, 2 long bottom diagonal links, and a panhard bar. Full travel, no bind.
Those single rear arms like the 82 and up Camaro/Firebird had put the rear center sections through some stress it took a while to engineer out. But any rearend is designed to take stress out near the wheel hubs.
|
|
66 American SW, 66 American 2dr, 82 J10, 70 Hornet, Pound, Va.
|
|
mixed up
AMC Addicted Joined: Jun/16/2015 Location: Monroe mich Status: Offline Points: 2177 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
i seen one one of he tech shows on valocity tv they put a torq arm set up from alston from a 9inch in a galixe that might be longer than all others
|
|
69 amx 290 auto
65 220 290 4spd 80 ford fairmont |
|
Red Devil
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/10/2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1743 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
An under-mount torque arm, like the Mustang ones from Maximum Motorsports, might work. Likely need to make a custom front crossmember and modified clamps to bolt to an AMC axle, or use a Ford 8.8.
|
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 19676 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
In a car with a near stock engine the torque arm is a good call. It doesn't have to be as stout as all the replacement Camaro arms and the Mustang arms you find on-line -- those are racing replacements. Unless of course you intend to drag race the car.Lookj at TomJ's site and read about his wishbone setup. You would want to use something a bit stouter, since he's running a modified 196 -- 170-175 hp or so tops. I designed an arm to fit a late model 8.8", fits on the right side. Has to be an 8.8" with a two bolt flange on the right (passenger) side though. Didn't work out all the details, but would be easy enough to figure out pinion angle in car. The longer the arm the better -- it should pivot in the front just behind or beside the front u-joint. If behind it has to be able to move front to back some. Most of the aftermarket designs use a smooth 1" or so piece of rod in the front and a sway bar mount. Rod sticks straight out front, swaybar mount is sideways. Rod has 2-3" on each side of swaybar mount. The lower arms keep the rear axle from moving forward or back too much, so the front of the arm is free to float. Not as lot of pressure on it...
|
|
Frank Swygert
|
|
typhoon
AMC Apprentice Joined: Oct/11/2009 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 94 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Gentlemen, I don't know if this is required but ,thank you for your input .
I am a complete amateur at this,but from way too much reading on this subject . for a pavement driven car no road course hopefully the occasional drag run ,i don't think suspension bind is going to be an issue but I am probably wrong. I think I will go with a 4 bar parallel to start.this gives me the option of a torque arm or 3 link at a later date. now to get my A$$! in gear and get it on the road so I can go to Kenosha and Cordova! Again thanks for the input . |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |