Jaguar Suspension

[Richard D]

This is a popular swap for 50s cars and trucks; my buddy and I are planning one on a '51 Chevy Sport Coupe. If all goes well, I'd like to try it on my '77 GMC shortbed.
Both the front and rear are complete assemblies, bolted through rubber bushings to the frame.
Front:



Rear:


Not much to it but welding some plates on the frame to bolt it up to, or you can weld it straight to the frame.

Why?
Price-We found two complete cars on craigslist nearby for around a grand, one even had a smallblock Chevy in it. All the parts can be had at O'Reillys for cheap; many have chevy part numbers, including the power steering pump and rear gears(which are limited slip).
Ground clearance-No more massive front crossmember hanging down.
Handling-Jaguar spent millions developing these cars for a world-class ride and sports car cornering.
Ride-see above.
If anyone is interested, I can post links to this swap being done on 50s cars and trucks, and I'll snap some photos when we get our project started.

[cvalcore]

ive thought about doing this on my 71 blazer

[slb1985]

Where will you be for final ride heigth and are there going to any clearance issues with your oil pan
Posted via Mobile Device

[AceX]

That rear fits like a freaking glove. That's just amazing...

What car did this come out of exactly? I mihgt have to go on CL and find one for the rear suspension alone...

[N2TRUX]

I see the advantages this offers on a 50's era vehicle. I also understand using the rear on a later vehicle because of the IRS. What would be the advantages or improvements for a 70's IFS.

[allengator]

I am interested for my '51 sedan delivery...

What year Jag's??

[Richard D]

The photos are from a '49-'52 Chevy car, but would work on most any vehicle with a perimeter frame. I believe the jags are roughly the same from '68-'92, but the '74-up have the better brakes with 4 piston calipers. Benifit would be, a much better IFS than one designed for trucks in 1962, which has been further compromised by modifying it. My '87 has dropped spindles and short coils, rides and drives just fine, but it's no Jaguar.

[Richard D]

Actually, the front was an F100.
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...d.php?t=451036
The rear was '49-52 Chevy car('52 to be precise):
http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...d.php?t=533262
A search of the H.A.M.B. website pulles up about a half dozen or more of these
projects with mucho photos. My buddy here in Texas has done a few; I have access to his car and I'll be getting his help when I get started.

[N2TRUX]

Originally Posted by Richard D

.....Benifit would be, a much better IFS than one designed for trucks in 1962, which has been further compromised by modifying it. My '87 has dropped spindles and short coils, rides and drives just fine, but it's no Jaguar.

Sorry, but I don't see it. The reason the front suspension ran for so long of a time on these trucks is it is a very good design, that works well with mods. I feel that the savings seen from buying a Jag IFS cheaply will be diminished once its actually installed and made to function properly. I will agree that its a good system to adapt to pre-62 trucks and cars, but I see no mechanical advantage on a later IFS.

Is the one pictured a right hand drive?

[Slonaker]

I would like to see how it comes out, Richard. My Dad was a Jag guy. I sold his rusty '77 XJ12 with a smallblock for $300 after he died because no one wanted to buy it. I have been regretting it ever since reading on the HAMB about how easy the swaps are, considering that I also have his '37 Chevy coupe.

The Jags ride well, handle great, and have awesome braking. They even use a Chevy bolt pattern for the wheels and a Chevy trans (TH350 or TH400, I can't remember which).

Slonaker

[allengator]

Originally Posted by Richard D

The photos are from a '49-'52 Chevy car, but would work on most any vehicle with a perimeter frame. I believe the jags are roughly the same from '68-'92, but the '74-up have the better brakes with 4 piston calipers. Benifit would be, a much better IFS than one designed for trucks in 1962, which has been further compromised by modifying it. My '87 has dropped spindles and short coils, rides and drives just fine, but it's no Jaguar.

just sell me that frame when you got it all tricked out

[Richard D]

Originally Posted by Slonaker

The Jags ride well, handle great, and have awesome braking. They even use a Chevy bolt pattern for the wheels and a Chevy trans (TH350 or TH400, I can't remember which).

Slonaker

I forgot about the 5 on 4.75 bolt pattern, another +. The center hole is sometimes too small, however. Didn't know about the trans.

[Pop's C-10]

Tha rear would be cool from tha eye candy point of view..aslong as tha track with is about equal is would be a nice add..

[Big Port Jimmy 6]

Wouldn't it be a bit narrow?
the 40-50s chevys and the XJ are approx 58 inches
the Square trucks are 64-65 inches
Jay

[Richard D]

Wide offset wheels.

[3r!c84]

is the sterering wheel going to be on the other side of the truck?

[clinebarger]

The XJS used TH400s behind a 5.3L V12 but the bellhousing was Jaguar specific.
They ride well because the rubber isolator bushings between the suspension & unibody (in the pics they welded it in).
Ever change rotors on the rear of a Jaguar? Complete PITA!
Rear steering sucks (behind the crossmember). The way the rack is designed you will have trouble linking it with the steering column even with aftermarket heim joints & steering u-joints fom borgeson or flaming river.
The rack bushings are notorious for going bad very quickly.

[AceX]

I'm with Ken on this one. the rear looks like it would be a solid swap with some advantages, but I'm not diggin' the front, not with great companies like Porterbuilt, Thornbecke, and Scott's Hot Rods building the high quality kits that they are.

[DREAMER1]

$1000 for a jaguar front and rear end along with a small block should out weigh the $3200 price tag of just a front end IMO. Then again I'm still trying to see how it all works out in the pics. I'd really like to see more pics along with the final product. Is it all really worth it?
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigBlocksRule]

I've dealt with IRS on Corvettes.
They're dead-nut sexy when it comes to a sports car.
But they can't take a lot of power in stock form. Keep the half shafts as square to the ground as possible and limit the squat at take-off and you should be fine.
IMHO, it'll look right at home in an old car if the job is done right.

[Slonaker]

Originally Posted by AceX

I'm with Ken on this one. the rear looks like it would be a solid swap with some advantages, but I'm not diggin' the front, not with great companies like Porterbuilt, Thornbecke, and Scott's Hot Rods building the high quality kits that they are.

I guess it depends on your point of view. Those kits probably cost almost as much as my whole truck is worth. Richard is trying to do something cheaply, and the donor cars can be bought for just a few hundred dollars.

It isn't something I would want to do with my truck, but I would love to see him do it. I will agree that the swap makes more sense on an older car than it does for a 73-87 Chevy.

Slonaker

[Richard D]

Originally Posted by Slonaker

I guess it depends on your point of view. Those kits probably cost almost as much as my whole truck is worth. Richard is trying to do something cheaply, and the donor cars can be bought for just a few hundred dollars.

You hit the nail on the head. We are doing the '51 first anyway, I'll be able to forsee any problems.

[burger]

How are you going to connect the steering linkage?

[David Baker]

Looks like this is a good why to go I'm just starting on a second series 55 Chev truck and looking at ways to get rid of all the old log wagon parts. But this is my first time to do a ground up and need all the help I can get.

[Slonaker]

Originally Posted by 3r!c84

is the sterering wheel going to be on the other side of the truck?

I think he is using another person's photos from a right hand drive vehicle as an example. See the first link in post #8.

Slonaker