Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-16-2016, 09:19 AM   #1 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 452

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 33.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 54
Thanked 79 Times in 63 Posts
Transverse Leaf Springs ???

Just saw this article on Corvette Transverse Leaf Springs. The web page came up in a search for something else but it looked interesting so I read it. Not being a mechanic by any stretch of the imagination I have no clue exactly what it all meant, but I did wonder if anything like this could be adapted to any of our "eco-mobiles". Looks like they were stock on early model Corvettes possibly starting in '81. I'm sure there must be some out there in the local pick-and-pulls.

Thoughts?


C5/C6 Corvette Suspension Tech: Coilovers vs. Leafs - LSXTV

__________________



  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hat_man For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-18-2016), Joggernot (01-17-2016)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-16-2016, 10:35 AM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,020 Times in 1,303 Posts
Pretty sure Vettes had transverse leafs from 63 on when they went to irs. Ford started using them decades earlier and I'm sure they date back to buggys before cars.

How about a shock absorber that is the upper control arm?

regards
mech
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-18-2016), darcane (01-17-2016)
Old 01-16-2016, 05:28 PM   #3 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,761

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,546 Times in 2,215 Posts
a.k.a. "strut"
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-18-2016)
Old 01-16-2016, 06:05 PM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,020 Times in 1,303 Posts
Was thinking AH ,MG midget, but a strut works as well.

LOL, beware the question you ask, it may have more answers than you thought!

What shocks did Ferrari use first?

Same type as a 37 Ford.

http://applehydraulicsonline.com/

regards
mech
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-18-2016)
Old 01-16-2016, 07:02 PM   #5 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,761

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,546 Times in 2,215 Posts
I've been obsessing over tall T's and the like lately and thinking about buggy sprung suspensions. Independent suspensions were developed when roads were terrible and feedback from ruts and bumps from one side of the car to the other was quite detrimental for comfort and control. Now, the roads I drive are for the most part quite good- lacking substantial surface flaws- and I'm not careening around at the near limits of control so I'm thinking independent suspension front or rear or front and rear is not really needed.

Why do away with independent suspension? Simplicity, weight, cost, room, etc.

__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
aerohead (01-18-2016)
Old 01-16-2016, 07:41 PM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,508

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 324
Thanked 444 Times in 313 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Now, the roads I drive are for the most part quite good- lacking substantial surface flaws- and I'm not careening around at the near limits of control so I'm thinking independent suspension front or rear or front and rear is not really needed.

Why do away with independent suspension? Simplicity, weight, cost, room, etc.
Maybe not quite the same thing, but I have a double live axle Wrangler and I can assure you it's a scary thing to drive compared my old Isuzu Amigo that was just about identical in layout but had double wishbone IFS (it had leafs rear vs coils on the Wrangler).

Most smaller cars don't have IRS anyway, they have torsion beams for exactly the reasons you've listed. There's no practical way to have a live axle on a front wheel drive either, at the front the single arm/strut has been settled on exactly for the reasons you've listed. Honda used to have double wishbones all around but have now had to go to the standard strut/ beam setups mostly on cost grounds.

I would like to own a Model-T at some stage though, preferably one that's been rebuild in period as a European style 'special'
__________________






  Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2016, 08:11 PM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,020 Times in 1,303 Posts
I remember reading about Tom Cahill testing a 46 Ford versus a 66 Ford. He thought the 46 handled way better.

regards
mech
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2016, 11:52 AM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 452

Oh Deer - '03 Ford Ranger XL
90 day: 33.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 54
Thanked 79 Times in 63 Posts
I had the thought of replacing the rear leafs on a small truck like my Ranger and adapting a transverse leaf parallel with the rear axle. If the one from the Vette's could be used or modified, at around 8-10 lbs, they would be a great weight reduction. I can only imagine what steel leafs weigh. That and losing two of them and replacing it with a single one.

You could theoretically move the rear wheels inward almost to the bed box on a step side like mine, though I'm not sure how it would track with the front and rear wheels being offset like that. Would make room for some interesting "boat-tail" rear body work.
__________________



  Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2016, 03:37 PM   #9 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,020 Times in 1,303 Posts
You are trying to use one transverse leaf.

Problem is there is no one point on the existing frame where you have enough strength to carry all the loads that are now handled by 4 mounting points. Once you redesign the frame for additional strength, add the wishbones to carry horizontal stresses, the transverse leaf can't handle, you have a lot of work for no real improvement.

Stick a ladder bar and a couple coil overs on it?

I would leave it alone.

regards
mech
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
freebeard (01-17-2016)
Old 01-17-2016, 04:06 PM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
freebeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: northwest of normal
Posts: 20,172
Thanks: 5,658
Thanked 6,594 Times in 5,317 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
I've been obsessing over tall T's and the like lately and thinking about buggy sprung suspensions. Independent suspensions were developed when roads were terrible and feedback from ruts and bumps from one side of the car to the other was quite detrimental for comfort and control.
I think it was the other way around. Ford's traverse leaf spring was paired with a wishbone, so the car was suspended at two points on the centerline which allowed large excursions at the wheel. As roads improved the car owners went to split wishbones to allow lowering, and eventually 4-bars, which reduced changes in caster. Eventually the twin I-beam, which reduced changes in camber.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile
There's no practical way to have a live axle on a front wheel drive either
DeDion axle. FYI The early 50s Dodge Routevan had a DeDion rear axle (for low loading height) in truck sized parts.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com