'59 to '56 frt. suspension swap

[James Mundstock]

I just read the thread about swapping a '58 suspension to a '57. One of the more cofident answers was to swap a '59 front suspension to a '57 to get the more reliable and less expensive ball joints and that it is a direct bolt-on. I would like to know if it will bolt direct to a '56. My goal is to get rid of the king pin setup. My optimum goal is to change to a ball joint front suspension and to a disc brake setup without clipping the frame as most street rodders do. If a '57 Chevy setup is a direct bolt on, the answer is simple since there are so many manufacturers for Chevy disc brake setups. I forgot to mention, I am referring to a '56 Century. Thanks

[57buick]

I dont know about the 56. You will just have to do some measuring. I did some looking and found that the 59 parts all bolted on to my 57 without any issues. it was amatter of taking measurments and saw it all lined up like stock and the 59 balljoints were cheap. I am in the process of designing a disc brake setup for the 59 spindles right now, will hopefully be done with it next month sometime.

[Nailhead58]

Fatman Fabrication (www.fatmanfab.com) has a kit to put IFS on a '37 - '56
Buick that will give you a 2-1/2" drop. The website says the kit costs $380.00, and you have to heat and bend your steering arms to make it work, but I'd still rather go with a kit that fits. I don't know how well anything later than '56 would work for you to try to adapt. There was one of the rod magazines (Custom Rodder, Rod & Custom, etc.) that actually had an article on installing a late-model IFS on a '54 Buick - essentially the same car. I just wish I could remember for sure which magazine because it wasn't that long ago that the article appeared.

[James Mundstock]

Thanks for the feedback. I've heard of Fatman but assumed they were street rod so I will check their websight. I'll also do some measuring for the 59 to 56. I was just trying to keep from doing a subframe. Thanks again.

[WQ59B]

Fatman's stuff does not fit '59, tho with skill & a welder, much that doesn't work can be made to.
If you can get the '59 suspension hooked up, discs are a waste of time & money vs. the excellent finned aluminum drums. Well, I should say you will not see any braking performance improvements, but if you just want to be able to say 'It has discs', then knock yourself out.

[Scarebird]

We have setup for the 58-60, 61-64 etc. and are working on the 55-57. The aluminum drums are impressive- but are they being repopped? We plan on using 71-76 Riv/full size rotors, calipers etc.

[WQ59B]

To my knowledge, only faux repro Buick brakes are being repoped- but there are still plentiful used available.

In Buick road tests I have onhand of comparable cars, the drums bested the discs with less fade. Another test I have returned a 60-0 braking average of 138' on 1960 tires (reconstituted cow dung). Throw a modern-equivalent radial on and you'll better that distance handily.
Buick finned drums are the best drums available. Discs are just unneccessary from a performance standpoint. Like I said- it's fine if you just want to be able to say you have them (or if your drums are bad and you simply cannot find any others), but otherwise it's a waste of money.

[Scarebird]

138 feet? I immediately raise the bull**** flag. Note the 60-0 mph distances below. These are tests done by the Michigan State Police on current cop cars with modern tires and brakes. If front drums were/are so damn good, why can you not find them on ANY production vehicle sold in the US??? Simple- they do not work as well as consistently as disc.

0-60 mph Quarter-Mile Time/Speed Top Speed 60-0 Braking Road Course Average Times
Chevrolet Impala 9.25 sec. 17.02 sec. @ 83.20 mph 126 mph 133 ft.. 1:44.25
Dodge Intrepid 9.14 sec. 16.98 sec. @ 85.05 mph 136 mph 145 ft. 1:42.07
Ford Police Interceptor 9.14 sec. 16.99 sec. @ 84.10 mph 128 mph 148 ft. 1:41.66
AM General Hummer 20.65 sec. 22.11 sec. @ 61.80 mph 85 mph 170 ft. 2:00.87
Chevrolet Camaro* 5.69 sec. 14.14 sec. @ 102.48 mph 159 mph 141 ft. 1:37.14

*Data from 2002 MSP police vehicle evaluation program

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0310scc_coptest/

[WQ59B]

No bull****: your listing of modern cars assumes that with the mere passage of time, things are automatically 'better' when in fact there's no correlation between the 2.

The Al-Fin drums are not used now for a variety of reasons. The finned aluminum drums with cast iron liners were expensive to build and they were heavy- both disadvantages to modern concerns of cost & handling (adds unsprung weight to the car).
Drums also have a stigma of being 'inferior' due to all the other inferior drums in the past. Buick's were over-engineered to be the best and they were, but 95% of the other drums weren't. Image is a prime motivator, thusly: drums = bad. Undoubtedly a GM push towards discs along with increasing interchangability also contributed, as Buick dropped the drums for '71- before the concerns I mentioned above were brought into play.

Braking distances are, or course, a combination of weight, traction and swept area. The 138' test result I had were done by Mechanix Illustrated on a '60 Invicta 4-dr hardtop. 138' is a bit less that other finned drum results, I will admit. mid-'60s Buicks tend to hover in the 160' area in 2 test I have on hand.

The comparisons of Buick drums to discs:
Car Life~
'67 Wildcat coupe, Al-Fin drums: "# of stops from 80 before 20% loss in deacceleration rate: 6"
'68 Riviera coupe, front discs: "# of stops from 80 before 20% loss in deacceleration rate: 2"

Looks like the drums disapate heat better than the discs.

It may be that MODERN discs are an imporvement over the Al-Fin drums, but the late '60s-70s discs didn't demostrate that. My personal car has Kevlar-impregnated shoes and wide radials- I have not a single concern that when it's back on the road it will better a like-year big Buick with discs.

[Scarebird]

No, steel lined aluminum or not, drums are still much cheaper to make than disc. Automakers would not go to disc unless there is a significant qualitive improvement over drum, and in the front there is. Rears are another story. My 2003 Sierra WT1500 has 4 wheel disc, and in 2006 GM went back to drum rear for cost reasons (almost $80/vehicle, I found this out in a chat with a GM powertrain engineer at SEMA).

The full size Buick drums are impressive, but all of my customers who wrote back after installing the disc report better stoppage, especially in the wet. I have a few old cars myself, and newer does always mean better- but in this case it is an improvement.

[WQ59B]

I would be very surprised if casting a large finned aluminum drum, heating it, then interferance-fitting a steel liner in would be cheaper than simply machining a solid steel slug into a rotor.
No doubt a steel drum is cheaper than a disc, but there's a lot more labor in a Al-Fin drum than any other.
Personally, I've driven both extensively and find rotors to not be nearly as durable (primarily via warping) as drums. That hassle & expensive does not endear me to discs at all. Never had any complaints about drum performance, either. Just my 2 cents.

[58buickspecial]

I cant believe there is a agument about whats better discs or drum......What cools faster better, and doesnt start to fade after a couple of tough stops. I have 2 cars with drums on all 4 corners. try stopping an a hurry, id have to dam near stand on the pedal (yes power brakes). Since I converted the dodge over, no prob, no fade, and now 4000lbs can be stopped. The 58 buick will be switched over asap.

Oh ya, when was the last time you walked into a dealership and said "I want the optional drum brakes please."

[WQ59B]

>>"What cools faster better, and doesnt start to fade after a couple of tough stops."<<

Buick 12-inch finned aluminum drums.