Brad's 1954 R Series Build

My S series had square pieces of what I call belting between the bed and frame at the bolts. It probably would help eliminate wear and squeaks if there was movement between the two. I'll see if I can find a picture later. I'm pretty sure I posted a picture once, but I didn't find it in a search.

Dean

hmmm, maybe pieces of cut up old tire or something along those lines would work out good.

Mine have all had the square pieces of belting as well. About 1/4 inch thick. I would suspect that cut up tire would be too thick, making it difficult to bolt the running boards to the rear fenders. Pieces from an old round baler belt would probably be better. Or https://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-rubb ... s/=17goubv

The bed mounts were very similar to the front engine mount rubbers-

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6332&p=47421

They were the same size, maybe thinner. I'll try to find one of the originals tonight.

Dean

Thanks Yall

She can't wait to go for a ride in daddy's truck



Everything all painted up. Rear brake lines are run, although, not pictured. And, the two piece drive shaft will arrive Wednesday this week.

I want to say it looks like you're doing a fine job there. Your co-driver seems real intent on getting that ride - soon!!
However, and I might start a big debate, but I thought that shocks, especially rear shocks, were tilted inboard up to approx. 30 deg. to accommodate the rotation that the rear axle would see during up-down movement. Yours appear to be straight up. I don't want to claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination. At my advancing age, my recollection could be suspect. I just thought I had seen diagrams of shock placement angles or at least chassis design guides showing the tops of the shocks tilted inward.

Well, they certainly can be tilted inward.....and a suggested max tilt of something like 45 degrees. The more tilt you have, the less effective they are. The way i opted to mount the brackets on the outside of them frame, prevented me from tilting them inward, hence the cross brace that is just there for bracing and no upper mounts installed on it. With the triangulated setup, there won't be any (or very minimal) side to side movement of the rear end, and the vertical mounts of the shocks will actually provide the best ride quality. At least, that is based on the research I have done.

If that is way off base, then i suppose it would be better to figure that now

I should note also, that those shock mounts have like a swivel bearing(?)......that allows the front to back movement, which will allow the up and down without any binding. I can take the bolt out of the upper mount and rotate that shock all around on the lower mount. I believe it allows for that kind of travel.

Based on what I just found, I guess we're both right somewhat. What follows is a copy from the Speedway Motors website regarding the acceptable angles and a correction factor to allow for if you mount the shocks at a top inboard angle. There were a couple diagrams that did not copy over so if you're interested, a visit to their website will let you see them.


Compensate for mounted angle

Vertically mounted shocks will control suspension movement, but on a street rod, most shock manufacturers recommend mounting shocks at a slight angle (viewed from the front or rear). This increases handling by limiting side to side movement, which will decrease body roll during cornering. On most street rod applications a mounted angle of 15-25 degrees is preferable for great handling.

Spring Angle Installation
However, a spring rated at 200lbs will offer 200lbs per inch if it is mounted completely vertically. Which means the effective spring rate will decrease as the mounted angle increases. To compensate for the loss, use the chart below and take the mounted angle divided by the correction factor.

Type:
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
Mounted Angle
10*
15*
20*
25*
30*
35*
40*
45*
Rate Multiplier
.96
.93
.88
.82
.75
.65
.59
.50


Example:

If the desired spring rate is 300lbs per inch
Take the mounted angle, in this case 20 degrees, and divide it by the correction factor of .88
300 ÷ .88 = 340.9
The desired rate becomes 340.9lbs. For this example, moving to a 350 rate spring would be preferable

I'm guessing a good sway bar added to the mix would be beneficial too