He just picked this up. His plan is to build a basic hot rod with stuff he's got around. Unfinished, kind of rat rod style.
Can't do a traditional style with a BB motor and original style (missing) Mopar front suspension, but close.
I provided a few books and magazines for him to get acquainted with transverse spring, over/behind axle, radiator-to-axle centerline, highboy VS lowboy and other nuances of a good looking fenderless rod.
The current frame is an unfinished mix of Model A rails, boxing plates and rectangle tubing. It may be finished or go.

very COOL car

when you say BB engine I sure hope you mean BB mopar.
it would be a shame to use anything other than a MOPAR in it.

I went with a qtr elliptical spring setup and a dodge wavy axle on my 35 project
just to be a little bit different.

You know it, Ron!
This guy is Mopar all the way through.
The main reason he got it is because it's so rare to see a 20s Mopar.
He has various big blocks and maybe another 426 hemi, plus a 5.7 hemi and an SRT4 engine. Various transmissions and an 8.75 axle.
He's got other projects first, but this will have a Mopar drivetrain.
He's been thinking a 4 speed, but I explained the shifter will probably take up valuable space.
It will probably be a couple years before it gets built, but it has a GOOD home.
Hope to find the passenger side hinges....
The trunk lid is MIA, along with the tail pan, grille shell and all inside garnishes. The body parts will probably get fabb'ed.

that sounds great...
good to see that some people get that a Mopar deserves a mopar in it
Ive got a 28 4 door here with plans to build it someday.
I've had the car for like 28 years.

Got a line on a rolling chassis, in San Diego!
Road trip tomorrow!

Well, Saturday was a long day...
Went to a local car show first thing in the morning, then hit the road by 8:30.
Had overheating issues with the truck going up the grade east of San Diego, leading to being late to the meeting with the seller and taking it very easy on the way back. Didn't get home until a little after 3AM.

So, my friend found the needle in the hay stack - a custom rolling chassis built for a 28 Dodge coupe (3 window) to put under his 28 Dodge 5 window!
Mustang II front suspension with the strut rod delete, power rack, 1932 Ford style front frame horns, an 8.75 rear axle with centered pinion, and a weird triangulated 4-link with coil springs in the rear. It even has BB Mopar motor mounts!

So I go get the chassis and haul it back. I had a 400 and auto trans (running when pulled) sitting in the garage. I get that into the back of the truck and take it and the chassis over to his dad's place. Stuff the engine in and then drag it over to his house to slap the body on. His dad has a set of long rams so they went on to see how the thing looks along with some headers. Nice!
It will probably go highboy rather than the channeled framework tacked in right now.
It needs a little finessing to get all the proportions right (get the rear wheels centered perfectly in the rear wheel wells, probably move the engine mounts back a couple inches and that firewall gap!), some rust removal and finish welding on the center framework, but it's a great start and much better than the frame he got with the body!

cool deal
looks like a great start.
you sure were a busy boy.
the long ram looks so cool on there.

Thanks Ron.
Have you seen a tri 4-link with the bottom bars angled?
Normally, the bottom bars are fairly parallel, with the top bars angled.
Just wondering if this is dead wrong.
Now is the time to change it if it's going to mess up.
It does look like the bars can be adjusted to get them parallel in the side view (more street rod than drag).

my take on a 4 bar, parallel or not, is the lower bars set wheelbase and the upper bars set pinion angle. that setup with the lower bars looks odd. not saying it won't work but

Looks like it might have some rear steer with vehicle roll on corners. I would think the lower bars are going to change the wheel base side to side if one side goes up and the other side goes down or even more dramatically if one side moves up or down and the other side doesn't. I believe I would want to watch it as things move about. Stands under the chassis, 2 jacks, one on each side of the axle, start jacking things around and take measurements. Then all you need to decide is how much change is acceptable. Gene

Thanks for the input moparx and poorboy!
Here's a pic from the frame ad showing the back end a bit better.

I am no expert on rear suspension setups.
but that does look odd like that.
I would think it will still work like that.
but usually the lower bar is out as wide as possible
and the upper bars are either facing inside out or from the outside in from the rear end

if you remember the mid 60 chevy trucks had bars that went from the outside and went a long way to the middle.

Gene has a good idea, remove the springs and run it though
it's cycle to see if thing move straight.


now this is just my opinion
if it was mine I would remove the lower bars and move them
parallel and mount them under the frame rails and then put a panhard bar at the back

Ron...they used the control arms up to 1972 actually..but they did not pivot on the diff end. They bolt solid to the diff and pivot at the front only, and then use a panhard/track rod bar to control side to side movement. So you get a decent arch to the diff movement as far as the pinion angle goes compared to something with 4 bars. But they do work pretty well actually and nascar used them a bunch too from memory.

If you were going to move the bars around on that..you could go with parallel lowers and even just a single upper in the center if floor space wasn't an issue (then a panhard of course or watts link)

Lots of talk about the bars in plan view (top down) but what about from the side? The bars together form a link with the instant center at a point where lines projected from the two bars as seen from the side, meet. Adjusting the instant center is why four links have so many positions.

Remember the GM A-bodies with their four links that put the instant center too far forward, rear end would hop on acceleration, embarrassing and making for very slow 60' times. The solution was to move the rear arm mounting point on the axle up (no-hopp bars) to shorten the the IC.

Even if I explained this poorly, it is important to get the bar angles so the rear end will plant.

R.

something else i would look for while cycling the rear up and down without the springs is the pivot ends binding. it looks like that setup is going to do that.[depending on the ends/bushings used] but if it were me, i would do like has been mentioned: move the lower bars parallel[and longer] and use a panhard bar.

Thanks guys!
The entire center section was added after the main rails and ft/rr ends were done. Many are just tacked in.
The strength is good, and the strange lower bars do have a forward member that spreads the load out to the main rails.
I agree that moving the lowers out would make it more common and a panhard bar can be added.
As for the instant center, I didn't get a good shot from the side, but currently they are a mess.
The lower bars are fairly close to parallel to the ground (okay), but the uppers go upward from housing to frame! They can be lowered at the frame to get them closer, but the axle mount has a single hole and it's close to the housing and axle centerline.
These guys have drag cars with 4 links and have a basic program to map IC.
I'm sure this would raise RED flags.

This will be a street car so superb traction is going to be secondary to decent ride and being able to go around corners at normal speeds. They sure don't want axle hop, though.

While progress has been made in 2 weeks, this is a project for the back burner at this time. Better to plan ahead, get some parts, think about overall style, stance and wanted components.
Another pic of the rolling chassis...

wondering about the bolt on spring pockets. are there tubes inside the rear cross member to prevent crushing the material when tightened ?

Don't know, haven't taken them apart yet. I doubt it, the motor mounts have a single through bolt too.
Once the design is finalized, welding will happen! No need to have them unbolt, make them solid.

I'd go with coilover shock mounts as opposed to the current coil spring pockets, but this is his call. To me, they fit the early to mid 60's time frame, and that front suspension is solidly at least a decade later if not two decades later.

Love the long ram!

very kool