Why the high nose on so many Early B's?

[Dodge 330]

I realize the tire technology left something to be desired in the early '60's.

Was this the reason for the nose up attitude?

I see Mosher still builds his cars with this look and wonder if it helps with traction on a stock suspension car?

My Mopar Chassis Manual says 2-3 degree rake with the front-end being the low end. 1/2" off the lower control arm bumpers. :dontknow:

Basically a 2" difference (nose down) between the sill and the ground at the front to the sill and the ground at the back.

 

[MoparMikey]

Probably weight transfer to the rear.

 

[Dodge 330]

I gathered that but it's in direct conflict of the Mopar Chassis Manual.

It's just odd to see some cars nose down and others sky high.

Nostalgia thing to have them up high?

 

[MoparMikey]

Sure, just look at gassers

 

[67 B-body]

I set mine up a little nose high too.... I thought it would help with traction, but I'm not sure it does now that I've drivin several times pretty hard! It seems very stiff, and you have what you have regarding traction! I just loosened the front end back up some today, and will probably take out even more of the torsion bar pre-load before I take it out again. I think the loose front end allows the car to sling that weight up and transfer back. Now maybe if the rear was softer, you could get it to squat and that high front end would serve a better purpose.

 

[Darter6]

Sign of the times....... Back in the early 60's it was the trend.(and gassers were the hot thing then) Then the 70's came and the rears got jacked up.Remember long shackels and Gabriel Highjackers ? How about coil spring cars and the twist in spacers,put so many in and you hit a bump and half of em' would fall out.
On the front ends it was in reality the theory of weight transfer.

 

[terzmo]

it was that way...nose up, since the 30's thru the late 50's and early 60's. It gave the car a "rocket" type look....meaner and faster look..for whatever reason,rearends started jacking up in the late 60's when someone invented rear spring shackles...cheaper and faster than changing entire rear spring...chevy couldn't do it because of coil springs and chevy sucks so who cares anyways.

 

[wedgie]

The thought at the time was that when a car launched, some of the energy was wasted when the front end lifted and the rear squatted. The logical conclusion was that raising the front and lowering the rear would lessen this wasted energy loss. My '58 Plymouth was set up like that in 1963-64. We know now that logic was flawed but we were all sheep following the pack.

 

[kidmopar]

wedgie said it all! my dad went thru the same thing, times and technology have changed. The direct connection manual was written after the 60s so that info was outdated with high front ends.

 

[383man]

It was because the tires back then were no good for traction and they wanted as much weight as they could get on the rear. Its the same reason they built altered wheelbase cars to get as much weight as they could over the rear wheels to help traction. By the 70's the slicks were hooking much better and they did not have to raise the front since it did not help the cars handling going down the track. They went to loose front ends that came up quick and went down fast in the 70's and were jacking up the rear to fit big tires under the car. Ron

 

[ga66mopar]

Whatever the reason was it sure does make them look tough.

 

[HitIt]

Whatever the reason was it sure does make them look tough.

I agree with that!!

 

[Stumper]

Whatever the reason was it sure does make them look tough.

I agree. My 62 Savoy has two vertical positions on the rear spring perch that is almost 2" apart. I tried it on the high spot for awhile with the rear sitting up but I like the looks of the car better with it sitting down and the front raised slightly. It looks like it's under power just sitting still that way. The same stance would not look right on a late 60s B body though.

 

[tpodwdog]

personally, I like the " nose draggin' and the tail waggin' " look!...but i AM a child of the '70's

 

[Cranky]

Sign of the times....... Back in the early 60's it was the trend.(and gassers were the hot thing then) Then the 70's came and the rears got jacked up.Remember long shackels and Gabriel Highjackers ? How about coil spring cars and the twist in spacers,put so many in and you hit a bump and half of em' would fall out.
On the front ends it was in reality the theory of weight transfer.

So true lol but many in the 50's that lowered the rear and raised the front had no idea about weight transfer...

It was because the tires back then were no good for traction and they wanted as much weight as they could get on the rear. Its the same reason they built altered wheelbase cars to get as much weight as they could over the rear wheels to help traction. By the 70's the slicks were hooking much better and they did not have to raise the front since it did not help the cars handling going down the track. They went to loose front ends that came up quick and went down fast in the 70's and were jacking up the rear to fit big tires under the car. Ron

The drag racers knew that but by the time large tires were offered, they had become too big for stock wheel wells so up went the rears...and about the same time, the Funny Car craze hit and all the street meat heads (that's what my crowd called them....big rear meats and don't need em=meat heads) were jacking up the back and sticking in big tires even if the car couldn't turn em.

 

[Montclaire]

Don't forget that they were also transplanting A-100 straight axles including leaf springs under the fronts of these things. And I think many classes were limited to a 10 inch slick?

 

[brian.linn]

Here is an article I refer to and re-read several times. http://www.moparmax.com/features/2008/iii_4-moshertour-1.html
They touch on the nose high and high and level cars...

 

[Cranky]

I got bumped up in class just because of a different size street tire on the rear vs the front.....and not even sure if I could use slicks. Been too many moons ago and I now have CRS. It strikes full force at 60!

 

[crossram 426]

Whatever the reason was it sure does make them look tough.

^+1

it's the only way to have em............:headbang:

 

[rrowdy]

This is a picture of my old MW race car back then most of the SS
cars had a nose up attitude.
The idea at the time was weight transfer to the rear during a launch.
In my case it was for oil pan clearance as it only had 3"