I wanna air ride my 66 NY
- Thread starter Sbailor
- Start date
bluefury361
Old Man with a Hat
LeBaron1973
Old Man with a Hat
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2015
- Messages
- 6,311
- Reaction score
- 2,421
What Will probably means is that here on the forums we prefer to keep the vehicles with their original torsion bar suspension which was engineered to be - and probably still is - the best suspension ever designed - and which certainly provides the best ride quality you could ever want.
Perhaps hot rod sites could advise how you could change to an air-ride suspension - the forum members would just shake their heads and wonder why, but we mean no disrespect and hope the end results of any modifications you make are satisfactory.
There was someone once last year that had a project doing air ride. He was posting the details, but don’t remember who or what the thread was called. There are no kits available and it takes a lot of engineering, cutting, welding and rebuilding of the stub frame to make it work. It was definitely not a weekend project. It seems he had at least 6 months or more of time into it. Maybe someone else remembers.
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
Here's the best way to air-ride a Mopar.
1) sell it.
2) use money to buy a Chevy. Or Nissan.
And he used a Crown Vic front stub, totally changing out the torsion bar suspension.
Here's a bit longer explanation as to why you see many more GM and Fords bagged rather than post-1957 Chrysler products. In two words, "coil springs". It's very easy to replace the coils with air bags. Same suspension mounts and same vehicle frame interfaces for the load-bearing areas. Shock absorbers are not usually in the middle of the coil springs, either, although many are.
Pre-57 Chrysler cars had coil springs on the front, From 1972 and afterward, the pickup trucks had coil springs on the front. A '56 Dodge Sierra wagon went through B-J's auction. A customer bought it. It had a '90s Dakota front crossmember grafted onto the '56 Dodge frame rails, suspension and all. Everything was mentioned in the car's write-up in the B-J auction's listing, which turned out to be very useful. Where the coil springs would have been placed on the lower control arm, there was a cross-brace tacked on for the air bag lower support/mount. Not that hard to do, but to undo it (as the customer desired), it took some used lower control arms and a set of Dakota front coil springs from NAPA to get it unbagged.
The rear suspension was some unusual link affair, without bags.
I recall a thread on a guy in the midwest who had a black '66 Newport 2-dr hardtop that he had bagged the rear. I don't recall what he did with the front, but the car was level and low. As it turned out, he built some long arms to go from the front leaf spring mounting eyes to the rear axle. Turned out pretty neat, but was something akin to a "link-style" drag racing rear suspension.
I don't recall what he did with the front, BUT that would have been where the bulk of his engineering would have been. Why? The torsion bars front mount is at the lower control arm inner pivot. With the rear mount being rear of the transmission. Therefore, NO place to mount the upper air bag bracket. The only item which extends upward from the lower control arm is the shock absorber. In a metal tube that's about 1.50" in diameter.
In more recent times, the super-touring operatives have a front k-frame/coil-over front suspension unit for the E-body cars. Perhaps something of that nature might be grafted into the existing C-body front structure? Reliabily? Only issue with the air bags is where to mount the shocks to the suspension/structure, due to the nature of "coil-over shocks".
The "Aire" in "Torsion-Aire Ride" had nothing to do with air suspension, but the possible sensation of "gliding through the air", smooth and level, which the Chrysler Torsion Bar/Leaf Spring suspension could provide, along with a very high level of vehicle cornering and stopping performance when compared to anything that any GM or Ford brand could provide in the later 1950s . . . period. Which made that Chrysler suspension system one of the best every built . . . period. Which were aided by some of the patented engineering tweaks that Chrysler made to the system's design, by observation.
Many in here have experienced and come to love the way that torsion bar Chryslers ride and handle, which can make many in here wonder why anybody might desire to change it for something different. Especially when to do so would remove one of the main features of the vehicles!
The OTHER thing is that a C-body Chrysler had a somewhat longer rear overhang than other cars tend to. Even with stock ride height, they would drag the rear bumper on steep driveway approaches, by observation. Which required a bit of different vehicle approach angles to keep from dragging the factory dual exhaust pipes or the rear bumper. Been there, done that. A lowered ride height only makes things worse.
You might like the styling of the Chryslers and such, but those who know the cars and have lived with them since new, know that they are at their best on the open road. Even open roads with undulating surfaces and turns! Some HD shocks with the factory a/c suspension and some good tires and I soon discovered that turns where GMs and Fords need to slow down for, I could drive on through in our '66 Newport as if it was a straight section of road. THAT was fun and increased my confidence level in what the car could do . . . which made me glad I was driving a Chrysler.
So doing away with all of the great engineering that helped make Chrysler products the great vehicles they are seems like a total waste of resources. And "a shame", to me.
For that thread on the '66 Newport 2-dr hardtop I mentioned, I suspect it might be on the old C-Body Drydock forum. Drydock was still acccessible last time I looked, so that might be another place to look.
Thanks for your time,
CBODY67
Pre-57 Chrysler cars had coil springs on the front, From 1972 and afterward, the pickup trucks had coil springs on the front. A '56 Dodge Sierra wagon went through B-J's auction. A customer bought it. It had a '90s Dakota front crossmember grafted onto the '56 Dodge frame rails, suspension and all. Everything was mentioned in the car's write-up in the B-J auction's listing, which turned out to be very useful. Where the coil springs would have been placed on the lower control arm, there was a cross-brace tacked on for the air bag lower support/mount. Not that hard to do, but to undo it (as the customer desired), it took some used lower control arms and a set of Dakota front coil springs from NAPA to get it unbagged.
The rear suspension was some unusual link affair, without bags.
I recall a thread on a guy in the midwest who had a black '66 Newport 2-dr hardtop that he had bagged the rear. I don't recall what he did with the front, but the car was level and low. As it turned out, he built some long arms to go from the front leaf spring mounting eyes to the rear axle. Turned out pretty neat, but was something akin to a "link-style" drag racing rear suspension.
I don't recall what he did with the front, BUT that would have been where the bulk of his engineering would have been. Why? The torsion bars front mount is at the lower control arm inner pivot. With the rear mount being rear of the transmission. Therefore, NO place to mount the upper air bag bracket. The only item which extends upward from the lower control arm is the shock absorber. In a metal tube that's about 1.50" in diameter.
In more recent times, the super-touring operatives have a front k-frame/coil-over front suspension unit for the E-body cars. Perhaps something of that nature might be grafted into the existing C-body front structure? Reliabily? Only issue with the air bags is where to mount the shocks to the suspension/structure, due to the nature of "coil-over shocks".
The "Aire" in "Torsion-Aire Ride" had nothing to do with air suspension, but the possible sensation of "gliding through the air", smooth and level, which the Chrysler Torsion Bar/Leaf Spring suspension could provide, along with a very high level of vehicle cornering and stopping performance when compared to anything that any GM or Ford brand could provide in the later 1950s . . . period. Which made that Chrysler suspension system one of the best every built . . . period. Which were aided by some of the patented engineering tweaks that Chrysler made to the system's design, by observation.
Many in here have experienced and come to love the way that torsion bar Chryslers ride and handle, which can make many in here wonder why anybody might desire to change it for something different. Especially when to do so would remove one of the main features of the vehicles!
The OTHER thing is that a C-body Chrysler had a somewhat longer rear overhang than other cars tend to. Even with stock ride height, they would drag the rear bumper on steep driveway approaches, by observation. Which required a bit of different vehicle approach angles to keep from dragging the factory dual exhaust pipes or the rear bumper. Been there, done that. A lowered ride height only makes things worse.
You might like the styling of the Chryslers and such, but those who know the cars and have lived with them since new, know that they are at their best on the open road. Even open roads with undulating surfaces and turns! Some HD shocks with the factory a/c suspension and some good tires and I soon discovered that turns where GMs and Fords need to slow down for, I could drive on through in our '66 Newport as if it was a straight section of road. THAT was fun and increased my confidence level in what the car could do . . . which made me glad I was driving a Chrysler.
So doing away with all of the great engineering that helped make Chrysler products the great vehicles they are seems like a total waste of resources. And "a shame", to me.
For that thread on the '66 Newport 2-dr hardtop I mentioned, I suspect it might be on the old C-Body Drydock forum. Drydock was still acccessible last time I looked, so that might be another place to look.
Thanks for your time,
CBODY67
78Brougham
"Chump"
A six window no less.....
Here's the deal...
We've had quite a few guys say "I wanna bag my car, where can I buy a kit" or that type of nonsense. They've never touched a welder in their life, yet they are looking to take on this major project. Worse still, we've had a couple guys that we know started ripping their cars apart only to give up just far enough into the project to have ruined an otherwise good car.
So, everyone isn't real friendly to the idea. Most of us here aren't into that type of mod. I can count on two fingers the cars I've seen on these pages (at least what I remember) that have been "bagged". One turned out well, obviously a ton of work based on what I can see and the other... well... It wasn't by a member, but by a lowrider and it was linked here. I personally thought it was sloppy work all the way around and a total waste of a good car.
If you can do it, great. Knock yourself out... But you probably won't get any tech help here. Take some pics and realize that some childish remarks will happen. Don't take it personal. Just follow through and not quit part way through. Understand, and I think you do, this is not the easy car to do this to.
Personally, I think the bagging thing is passé along with flat black paint, but the last time I said that to someone that wanted to bag their car, they came unglued and called me all sorts of names. I got a pretty good chuckle on that one... I like tasteful, mild custom touches myself but what do I know?
Last edited:
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
< speechless >
Carmine
Old Man with a Hat
I wonder if it ever occurs to people that by the time you're actually capable of doing something, there isn't much reason to ask such a generic question.
Since most of us know nothing about changing to air bags, it's akin to asking about a cam swap but not knowing how to remove the "gear thingy" under the distributor. I guarantee you want no part of that engine, if it ever fires again.
Since most of us know nothing about changing to air bags, it's akin to asking about a cam swap but not knowing how to remove the "gear thingy" under the distributor. I guarantee you want no part of that engine, if it ever fires again.
Last edited:
twostick
Senior Member
Ridetech is probably who you want to talk to. They don't have any Cbody specific stuff but they have a 4 link B body kit that might be able to be modified to work for the rear.
Their Shockwave units combine the air spring and adjustable shock. Very compact. Very not cheap either.
Ridetech Home - Ridetech
Kevin
This was my last project. It’s far from being sloppy and flat black. I found a page where there seemed to be a lot of information and thought I’d ask for input. I’m sorry if I piss off the purists. If you are all so worried about this car being cut up, step up and make an offer. It’s a 60k mile one previous owner. Parked in 91 garage kept I rebuilt motor and had trans and torque converter rebuilt.
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
Ruined a perfectly good Edsel.
See that’s where a car guy and old stodgy guys stuck in there prehistoric childhood trying to relive something they probably never had in the first place are different. I can see a Honda Civic rice burner or an old gasser or a riddler level hot rod maybe even a rat rod or a concourse restoration and appreciate it for the work, time and effort put into it. You sir have no vision or creativity and that’s fine. You restore your car and eventually when you sell it me or someone else will chop it up and make something fun with it
polara71
Old Man with a Hat
So, after all of the artistry you did to the Edsel, what happened to it? When was the last time it saw the open road (to run the old gas out of it) rather than sitting low?
Respectfully, I can appreciatge the engineering that went into a different style of mod, whether it is a bagged car or an off-road Jeep with articulated suspension to crawl over huge rocks. When mini-trucks were the craze in the earlier 1980s, I was astounded at the detail their young (usually high school age) owners put into them, even on the graphic designs they put on the engine compartment cowl to match the ones on the outer body. Didn't make me a fan or want one, but the mini-trucks that were raised "cloudline high" not only wore u-joints quickly but were a traffic hazzard as they'd actually tip over far too easily, by observation.
Personally, I've seen the results of how some car people "have fun". I've even seen some cruise attendees who felt they should have received a trophy because they spent massive amounts of money on their car "making it special", fwiw. But I have lived with my '77 Camaro that had an exhaust system that hung lower than stock, as that's the way the muffler shop guy installed the new mufflers. Couldn't even drive in my driveway without the clamps dragging. I worked on it to try to get it adjusted back to where it should have been and finally had another shop do it right with correct mufflers and such. So I know a bit about "ground clearance", as that first deal had barely enough space for me to put a fist between the road and the muffler. There's also a reason those mid-'70s Camaros tended to have broken front valence panels, due to them being so low.
I also understand about wheel travel as I had several friends who cut coils on their GM cars to get them lower to the ground. There was one night that a small Japanese sedan almost got rear-ended as they stopped to ease over a railroad track crossing in their lowered (the inexpensive way) car. It could have ended very badly as they suddenly came to a creep on a 45mph roadway.
I like cars as they came from the factory with some good enhancements via the aftermarket. Be it electronic ignition systems, better carbs, HD shocks, rear sway bars, or other things that will enhancce my enjoyment of the vehicle on the road and also making it look nice when sitting still. Most of these things can be easily reversed just by swapping parts, if desired by later owners. Unfortunately, I don't put "bagging" in that orientation, unless the air bags might be on the rear axle for load-carrying (with normal ride height) purposes.
I came across a saying a while back (paraphrased) . . . "When you're young, you want people to like you and seek the approval of those you might desire to impress, to get them to notice you. By middle age, you determine that your increaed knowledge and expertise didn't seem to impress them, as they were in their own world, apparently. Later, you determine they never did "look", so you forget about them and do your own things, as they didn't care about what you had been doing anyway." Creativity knows no age boundaries, but in later ages, it can be influenced by available funding. Where most spending is prioritized for the best results and value received. BTAIM
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Respectfully, I can appreciatge the engineering that went into a different style of mod, whether it is a bagged car or an off-road Jeep with articulated suspension to crawl over huge rocks. When mini-trucks were the craze in the earlier 1980s, I was astounded at the detail their young (usually high school age) owners put into them, even on the graphic designs they put on the engine compartment cowl to match the ones on the outer body. Didn't make me a fan or want one, but the mini-trucks that were raised "cloudline high" not only wore u-joints quickly but were a traffic hazzard as they'd actually tip over far too easily, by observation.
Personally, I've seen the results of how some car people "have fun". I've even seen some cruise attendees who felt they should have received a trophy because they spent massive amounts of money on their car "making it special", fwiw. But I have lived with my '77 Camaro that had an exhaust system that hung lower than stock, as that's the way the muffler shop guy installed the new mufflers. Couldn't even drive in my driveway without the clamps dragging. I worked on it to try to get it adjusted back to where it should have been and finally had another shop do it right with correct mufflers and such. So I know a bit about "ground clearance", as that first deal had barely enough space for me to put a fist between the road and the muffler. There's also a reason those mid-'70s Camaros tended to have broken front valence panels, due to them being so low.
I also understand about wheel travel as I had several friends who cut coils on their GM cars to get them lower to the ground. There was one night that a small Japanese sedan almost got rear-ended as they stopped to ease over a railroad track crossing in their lowered (the inexpensive way) car. It could have ended very badly as they suddenly came to a creep on a 45mph roadway.
I like cars as they came from the factory with some good enhancements via the aftermarket. Be it electronic ignition systems, better carbs, HD shocks, rear sway bars, or other things that will enhancce my enjoyment of the vehicle on the road and also making it look nice when sitting still. Most of these things can be easily reversed just by swapping parts, if desired by later owners. Unfortunately, I don't put "bagging" in that orientation, unless the air bags might be on the rear axle for load-carrying (with normal ride height) purposes.
I came across a saying a while back (paraphrased) . . . "When you're young, you want people to like you and seek the approval of those you might desire to impress, to get them to notice you. By middle age, you determine that your increaed knowledge and expertise didn't seem to impress them, as they were in their own world, apparently. Later, you determine they never did "look", so you forget about them and do your own things, as they didn't care about what you had been doing anyway." Creativity knows no age boundaries, but in later ages, it can be influenced by available funding. Where most spending is prioritized for the best results and value received. BTAIM
Enjoy!
CBODY67
Similar threads
