It never ceases to amaze us just how many people put up with faults on their hot rods that they’d never accept on a daily driver. This is especially true of cars that have been updated with IFS or other modern components. Sure, if you’re running a beam front axle and split ’bones, for instance, there’s a certain degree of acceptance of ancient suspension geometry. On the other hand, it’s amazing how many cars are running around with a transplanted IFS that sits on the bumpstops, doesn’t afford a decent turning circle without the tires rubbing the fenders, or bad geometry. Many of these cars were built years ago, with owners or subsequent owners continually putting up with the shortcomings.
Leaveil Degree found himself in just such a position with an extremely nice ’36 three-window he’d bought. Already fitted with a Mustang II based IFS crossmember and tubular lower control arms, to achieve the low ride height desired the builder had cut the coil springs so the coupe looked good. Trouble is, it didn’t ride good. Sure, it went down the road well enough, but the control arms were far from level, putting the ball joints at an angle before any suspension movement occurred, the shocks were bottoming out, and it hit the bumpstops with alarming regularity.
Here’s the all-too-common IFS problem: Control arms at an angle when they should ideally be parallel with the ground; ball joints and steering rack joints already partway through their working angles; shocks bottoming out, putting undue stress on the welds holding the top hat sections of the crossmember to the chassis ‘rails; and suspension hitting the bumpstops regularly.
We’d been chatting with our buddy Kiwi Steve Davies at Kiwi Steve’s Hot Rod Shop about this problem recently, and he mentioned he rectifies roughly one rod every month with this problem. If that’s just amongst his customers, there must be hundreds of cars out there suffering the same issues, so we arranged to come by his shop the next time such a car came in. Degree kindly allowed us to photograph his ’36 during the transformation.
Same Answer, Different Angle
