Any thoughts on this A-body chassis?

[suh weet]

It looks pretty solid. Any one know if it is any good? Still kicking around building a car.

[derekf]

Erm. Did you mean one in specific? There wasn't a pic or a link or anything.

[suh weet]

Gee, I might get a better reply if I post the link. Sorry about that.:hand:

http://www.pathfinderchassis.com/streetrods.html

[USAZR1]

Interesting. First time I've seen those photos. Any more details?

[sinned]

Looks pretty...a few things I don’t like that anybody building aftermarket chassis has done yet:



Why go with a C4L on a scratch built chassis? If you are starting from scratch anyways, why not go with a Torque-link, truck-arm, or 3-link?



Why go with such short front control arms? Again, this is scratch built, do it right. Put some more length in the arms to reduce scrub radius and provide for a smoother RC migration as well as smoother handling and ride across the board.



So many of builders out there waste their chassis construction talent by not doing any homework and correcting the original pitfalls of the early "A" body. I've seen 3 or 4 now and even spoken to 2 of the builders...they don't have a clue about suspension design or where pick-up placement should be.



I will admit this is the best looking chassis I’ve seen to date, good triangulation and solid construction. I hate seeing function sacrificed to make it “look” better; it’s a chassis for crying out loud.

[MuscleRodz]

Looks like nice construction, but it looks light in places I wouldn't want it to be. Probably a nice cruiser set up, but I don't think I would track it at all.

Mike

[yody]

Looks like nice construction, but it looks light in places I wouldn't want it to be. Probably a nice cruiser set up, but I don't think I would track it at all.

Mike

Well not that I know any better, but could you tell us which areas? Are they weaker than the stock frame? I ask because people "track" the stock A body frame all the time

[sinned]

Well not that I know any better, but could you tell us which areas? Are they weaker than the stock frame? I ask because people "track" the stock A body frame all the time
I "gulp" agree. The frame has it's short comings but strength does not appear to be one. It's tough to have "light" areas on a square or rectangular frame with decent triangulation and twin side rails.

[MuscleRodz]

I not saying it is weaker, but it is not what I would have done at all. The rails are not my concern, it is everything else bolted to them. The strut bar is useless unless you tie it to the body because it triangulates to nothing. What you have is a box and a box will colapse. That particular satchell type street rod rear end has been discussed here at length many times. Putting the angled bars below the axle will help roll center height at the rear. The SVSA looks so short on the MII front end the camber changes look severe. There is no real engine cross member either. It looks light, but there may be enough other stuff attached to it for it to work. The solid engine mounts could be my biggest complaint. It those are chrome, the engine will be laying on the ground about the third time you stand on it. I have had plenty on crap chrome engine parts to know if they see any vibration they will break due to hydrogen embrittlement.

This is just my honest opinion. It could be the greatest thing since slice bread but I doubt it. As I said before, it would make a great cruiser set up, but if you want handling, why bolt street rod parts to it when you can do it right the first time like Dennis stated earlier? Lots of good ideas and parts, I just don't think it is the right combination of stuff.

Mike

[MarkM66]

Anyone know a price?

I would imagine you could buy it bare, strip the suspension mounts, and do the style you wanted.

[Chevy350]

In addition to that already mentioned, I'm not quite sure what would happen to the driveshaft when the rear suspension is in droop, after going over a bump (the tube transversing the space between the trans.mount and rear axle), or what about alternatives for crossmember location for different transmissions? Just guessing from the pictures, the extreme angles of the front control arms have the IC on the inside of the opposite wheel? (Too short FVSA? Mike?)

I'm fairly new to this, so please bare with me - I might be wrong.

[suh weet]

It was on ebay yesterday with a buy it now price of $5XXX.oo. It is gone now, though. Thanks for all of the input. I always enjoy picking peoples brain on how to do things the right way.

[MuscleRodz]

Just guessing from the pictures, the extreme angles of the front control arms have the IC on the inside of the opposite wheel? (Too short FVSA? Mike?)


FVSA I think is correct. I am still learning too. The IC issue is what I was getting at along with the possible camber issues.

Mike

[yody]

so the only weak part is the strut bar as you call it?

[USAZR1]

[color=black]Looks pretty...a few things I don’t like that anybody building aftermarket chassis has done yet:



Why go with a C4L on a scratch built chassis? If you are starting from scratch anyways, why not go with a Torque-link, truck-arm, or 3-link?



Why go with such short front control arms? Again, this is scratch built, do it right. Put some more length in the arms to reduce scrub radius and provide for a smoother RC migration as well as smoother handling and ride across the board.



So many of builders out there waste their chassis construction talent by not doing any homework and correcting the original pitfalls of the early "A" body. I've seen 3 or 4 now and even spoken to 2 of the builders...they don't have a clue about suspension design or where pick-up placement should be.



I will admit this is the best looking chassis I’ve seen to date, good triangulation and solid construction. I hate seeing function sacrificed to make it “look” better; it’s a chassis for crying out loud.

Building a chassis with C4 or C5 IFS and three link rear would seem reasonable. However,would an unmodified body fit such a chassis?

[MuscleRodz]

so the only weak part is the strut bar as you call it?
No Yody, without triangulating the shock tower hoops, when that chassis goes into a hard turn, the shocks will flex those shock tower hoops. All that bar installed will do is cause it to flex the other hoop as well.

The rear portion of the chassis appears to be 2x4 tubing. Everything foward of that if you look close is 2x3 or less, even at the front suspension.

The birdcage mess in the middle including the tranny crossmember could all be eliminated by a beefy front tranny cross member and a rear crossmember with a drive shaft loop before the turn up in the rear chassis. It would also serve as a good location to attach the satchell bars under the rear end to improve rear roll center.

You can tell when you enlarge the picture that the solid engine mounts are billet aluminum. No way would I cantilever my engine that far out on solid mounts. You are asking for the motor to depart the car.

A couple questions for the Chevelle guys to answer. Is there that much kickup in the radiator supports on an OE frame? If not as I suspect, he could have easily corrected the super short FVSA of the upper a arm to improve handling.

Here is another good one for you. The splined sway bar is VERY close to the R&P steering rod. One good hard turn, and BAAMM!!! Bent parts.

There is a home link on that page for their front page. They build late model stock cars, and some Nascar stuff. They may know how to get around the track with a tube chassis car, but I am not so sure about this frame. The more I look at it the more I don't like it.

The fabrication they have done looks nice but it does not look like much thought was been put into it. And to bring up what Clint said, will it even go on a stock body? Ok Yody I am off my soap box for now.

Don't know why I got all stir fried over this one. It must be my time of the month. :hmm: :screwy:

Mike