Chassis Engineering parts

[trackster]

Bought the wife a 1939 Chevy sedan.   Was wondering if any body has experience with Chassis Engineering bolt on front and rear suspension setups.   Do they center the wheels in the fenders?   The stock rear axle placement has the wheel about and inch and a half too far forward.   Is this corrected in the design of the rear leaf spring kit?   Looking at the bolt on front since i'm not a welder.   Like the idea of the height adjustment feature.  Any and all comments are welcome and appreciated.   Thanks.

[GPster]

I personally like Chassis Engineering . I have followed their products over the years and although I haven't bought much from them (or anybody else) their ideas seem to be more with function rather than "Fluff". About that wheel being "off-center" . That seems to be a common statement about Chevys. Does it still have the stock rear axel in it or has it been switched over to "open drive-line"? The closed driveshaft Chevy rear ends (at least the newer old ones" had a hinge arrangement between the rear end and the spring. The design used springs with the center-bolt placed for the hinge rather than the axel so things didn't line up the rear wheels the same if something was changed. Chassis Engineering people know their products and seem to know what they fit and why, so a question to them won't get you a "Duh!". Their way to bolt-together things is not the only way but it is a good way. GPster

[39deluxe]

I have also been impressed with Chassis Engineering products over the years. You may need to give them a call but I'd be surprised if their rear spring components didn't center the wheel in the opening. It seems like Rod & Custom did one of these a while back with the centering of the wheel bing one of the main considerations. You might try their web site and search tech features for the article.

I spotted a '39 Chevy coupe for sale 2 nights ago. I doubt if I could sneak that one past my wife but I'd love to stop and look at it.

Tom

[trackster]

Thanks to every one for the input.   I think I am going with Chassis Engineeering for both the front and rear setups.   From the comments here and talking to a couple guys who had installed them at a show this weekend, it seems like the way to go.  Thanks again for taking the time to reply.  Any one have any comments on whether to go with the power rack or stay with the manual?

[Boyd Who]

I would go with a power rack. When I built my '48 Chevy p/u back in '98 I used a manual rack. It was okay as long as you were moving, but parking took a bit of effort. I eventually swapped over to a power rack and it was 100% nicer to drive.

[papastoyss]

I would go with a power rack. When I built my '48 Chevy p/u back in '98 I used a manual rack. It was okay as long as you were moving, but parking took a bit of effort. I eventually swapped over to a power rack and it was 100% nicer to drive.

If you do go w/a power rack , be sure to use the rack that is 3 turns lock to lock (85 T Bird is the app) instead of the M-2 which is 2 1/4 turns to help avoid the dreaded twichey steering wheel.

[Inprimer]

Have a CE under my '37 Chevy for 17 yrs Totally satisfied , had to replace the rack once, other than that, perfect

[UGLY OLDS]

I agree ..Go with power steering from the start.. I with that I would have installed it in the Olds  when I built it ...  

As far as using Chassis Engineering parts ... I have used them for years with no issues whatsoever ... I have even "modified" their kits to fit other cars ....   My Kid's Dodge has a '40 Ford rear end kit in it from them installed in 1988...  I wish my Olds rode that nice .....


Bob....

[trackster]

CE bolt in with power rack rack.   Thanks again for all the input.   Now, if things will slow down so I have some time to get back in the shop, we'll see about getting to the point of needing that setup!

[57larry]

I've used them on 4-5 projects. no problems. I did use Eaton rear springs instead of CE"s for a softer ride