When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
What kind of ride do those 17" tires give you compared to stock 15" tires? Just wondering since you have less rubber to absorb the road bumps and pot holes.
There are effectively three springs in the car dampening the passengers from feeling the bumps in the road. The tire, suspension spring, and cushion in the seat. These restomods usually have low profile tire, sometimes stiffer springs (and less suspension travel because of the convertible top), and thinner seat bottoms to accommodate taller drivers (than there were in the 60's). All these things can contribute to a firm ride. Road conditions are a factor too. Period correct tire sizes in both profile and width would offer a better ride, but won't look at cool to some. Trade off, trade offs.
As Ken spoke earlier, Art Morrison has come out with a C-2 chassis. I have attached a copy of the C-2 chassis page from their 2019 catalog. We have a Morrison chassis under our C-1 '59. We have a Street Shop chassis under our '64 Coupe. It is my understanding that Street Shop buys their frame rails and other structural components from Art Morrison. Both of our cars ride, handle and perform excellently. Ken has hit it on the nose about the financial considerations.
I've posted these pictures of our cars before...Here they are again to give you a comparison view of their stance and wheel tuck.
Paul
First off your cars are beautiful, love em. If I was in the market for a chassis and I could afford an Art Morrison I would definitely give them a very good look. I only wish you had posted this info 3 years ago. When I was looking at chassis to get ideas to build mine I ran across pics a guy posted of his frame kit arriving at Street Shop. I thought man I wish I could get ahold of one of those. But I assumed they just contracted with a vendor to form the steel to their specs. Then I ran across a guy in California with a little more notoriety doing the same thing. He was buying the AME chassis kits and building them, at least that's what he told customers. Don't know how many ever actually received a car. But anyway the craftsmanship on the real AME chassis is great. For my personal taste I just like square tube chassis better than round, but that's just me.
Don't know if you have given up on this idea. But I can tell you which ever chassis you choose, if you stay with a 26" tall tire in the rear. The chassis can be stretched 2-2.5 inches between the rear seat and tire. Of course there's mods to the rear inner structure but the exterior can stay the same. The inner fender in the lower section in the rear will have to be trimmed and the rear cross member will set in it's spot.
There are effectively three springs in the car dampening the passengers from feeling the bumps in the road. The tire, suspension spring, and cushion in the seat. These restomods usually have low profile tire, sometimes stiffer springs (and less suspension travel because of the convertible top), and thinner seat bottoms to accommodate taller drivers (than there were in the 60's). All these things can contribute to a firm ride. Road conditions are a factor too. Period correct tire sizes in both profile and width would offer a better ride, but won't look at cool to some. Trade off, trade offs.
Period correct tire sizes in both profile and width would offer a better ride, but won't look at cool to some. Trade off, trade offs.[/QUOTE]
You spend all that money.....go for the ride.... I agree......Plus, I think the correct tire size and stock wheels looks better....Just my opinion........
Tom, I dont know if you're still shopping for a chassis, but Ill throw this one out there just to play Devil's Advocate....
If I were going to build a car with a budget to support one of these $20K+ aftermarket chassis, I would instead strip the car down to the bare factory frame and have a competent shop (Duntov) prepare the frame in accordance with the GM Power Manual. At that point I would carefully outline my goals for the car with regard to intended use and performance. With that sorted, I would work from the tires up. Determine what size and compound tires I want to run, what wheel size I need to support that footprint, then how best to fit those wheels on the car....likely via flares if you want to go big. Then I would take a hard look at the available suspension components from the various manufacturers to determine what I need to best attain my performance goals. I know these aftermarket frames are super sexy, but I really question their necessity as there a whole lot of very fast C2s and C3s running around on stock frames and a few carefully chosen bolt ons.
Tom, I dont know if you're still shopping for a chassis, but Ill throw this one out there just to play Devil's Advocate....
If I were going to build a car with a budget to support one of these $20K+ aftermarket chassis, I would instead strip the car down to the bare factory frame and have a competent shop (Duntov) prepare the frame in accordance with the GM Power Manual. At that point I would carefully outline my goals for the car with regard to intended use and performance. With that sorted, I would work from the tires up. Determine what size and compound tires I want to run, what wheel size I need to support that footprint, then how best to fit those wheels on the car....likely via flares if you want to go big. Then I would take a hard look at the available suspension components from the various manufacturers to determine what I need to best attain my performance goals. I know these aftermarket frames are super sexy, but I really question their necessity as there a whole lot of very fast C2s and C3s running around on stock frames and a few carefully chosen bolt ons.
Just a thought
Greg
I won't disagree that an aftermarket chassis is expensive. However, when you compare what you will spend upgrading a stock chassis with modern suspension and brakes(and nobody ever upgrades the differential in a stock chassis), then calculate in what you could sell your rolling chassis for; you've already spend what a new modern chassis would cost.
Tom could go with a Corvette corrections chassis with C4 suspension and only be at $15K invested. It's a no brainer in my opinion.
Tom, I dont know if you're still shopping for a chassis, but Ill throw this one out there just to play Devil's Advocate....
If I were going to build a car with a budget to support one of these $20K+ aftermarket chassis, I would instead strip the car down to the bare factory frame and have a competent shop (Duntov) prepare the frame in accordance with the GM Power Manual. At that point I would carefully outline my goals for the car with regard to intended use and performance. With that sorted, I would work from the tires up. Determine what size and compound tires I want to run, what wheel size I need to support that footprint, then how best to fit those wheels on the car....likely via flares if you want to go big. Then I would take a hard look at the available suspension components from the various manufacturers to determine what I need to best attain my performance goals. I know these aftermarket frames are super sexy, but I really question their necessity as there a whole lot of very fast C2s and C3s running around on stock frames and a few carefully chosen bolt ons.
Just a thought
Greg
This is a path I would like to go down, however lack of a coupe, time, and garage space may keep me from ever getting started. I do have the flares and a front spoiler so I’m still looking for that coupe.
this also requires a car with a nice frame. If the frame is too rusty a restomod frame would be best.
I have built several SRIII chassis cars in both C1 and C2 models. The most recent was a 65 couple with a Winters quick change IRS and C5 front suspension. I am a big guy, and there is plenty of room in this car for me. The only reason that I went with the QC center section, was because I wanted to run more tire than a 9" ford center section would have allowed. If you do not want to get carried away with huge rubber, a 9" is probably the better choice, as it is incredibly durable and a bunch of people make a 9" center section for use with a IRS. That polished Winters center section sure looks good under the car though! For really big tires, you just can't find a center section that is narrower than the venerable QC rear. I have 345 rear tires and they are completely under the quarters. Of course, I used some GTS quarters that give me an extra 1.5" on each side. Mike is a great guy to deal with and builds a great product. I probably bought my first chassis from him over 15 years ago.If you use the QC, you will need to buy some bevel cut gears for the quickchange, as the standard straight cut gears that are used for racing applications are just too damn noisy! I use the straight cut gears autocross and drag racing, but the bevel cuts go back in before I leave the track!
Regards, John McGraw
Last edited by John McGraw; 08-02-2019 at 04:56 PM.
I have built several SRIII chassis cars in both C1 and C2 models. The most recent was a 65 couple with a Winters quick change IRS and C5 front suspension. I am a big guy, and there is plenty of room in this car for me. The only reason that I went with the QC center section, was because I wanted to run more tire than a 9" ford center section would have allowed. If you do not want to get carried away with huge rubber, a 9" is probably the better choice, as it is incredibly durable and a bunch of people make a 9" center section for use with a IRS. That polished Winters center section sure looks good under the car though! For really big tires, you just can't find a center section that is narrower than the venerable QC rear. I have 345 rear tires and they are completely under the quarters. Of course, I used some GTS quarters that give me an extra 1.5" on each side. Mike is a great guy to deal with and builds a great product. I probably bought my first chassis from him over 15 years ago.If you use the QC, you will need to buy some bevel cut gears for the quickchange, as the standard straight cut gears that are used for racing applications are just too damn noisy! I use the straight cut gears autocross and drag racing, but the bevel cuts go back in before I leave the track!
02-02-2019, 11:17 PM
For really big tires, you just can't find a center section that is narrower than the venerable QC rear. I have 345 rear tires and they are completely under the quarters. Of course, I used some GTS quarters that give me an extra 1.5" on each side. Mike is a great guy to deal with and builds a great product. I probably bought my first chassis from him over 15 years ago.If you use the QC, you will need to buy some bevel cut gears for the quickchange, as the standard straight cut gears that are used for racing applications are just too damn noisy! I use the straight cut gears autocross and drag racing, but the bevel cuts go back in before I leave the track!