Hot Rods +++++Z-ing a hot rod frame+++++

Does anyone else think that Z-ing the front of a hot rod frame, should be done near the front crossmember, and not near the firewall? Z-ing at the firewall leaves the frame rail along side the engine up high, and Z-ing it near the front crossmember lowers the frame rail next to the engine and makes everything look lower. If you want to lower a hot rod, why not visually lower the frame rail too? The high frame rail has a conflicted look.
-Just my 2 cents worth

 

Belly dragging rat rod, sounds like..

Old mild-channeled builds that were done well, give the illusion of a very low car, yet there is a ton of road clearance even under the mid chassis and mid body.

The modern rat look won't have decent clearance on anything. Even the oil pan.

.

 

Very different looks, reasons, desired results, and obstacles. Done right I like them both, done wrong they are equally atrocious.

 

what, you mean like this??... Naw, never heard of it...

 

The example above looks nice but is real mild, I don't know that I've ever seen a Z'd frame fenderless car that I liked the looks of. It's unnecessary.

There's one car I know of that has every other detail right on the money, but the heavily Z'd frame makes it look like the rails are coming out of the middle of the firewall.

 

heres a little hint...most things that work well done with restraint, look like shit taken to excess.

 

Lets just say the engine needs to maintain a nominal 4" oil Pan clearance and were going to go about as low as we can until stuff just looks off.

Z At crossmember
Dropping the 4" frame rail down around the engine starts to look fugly when the top of the oil Pan and rail starts peeping out over top of the frame rails. Putting any more real estate than necessary between the frame rail and exhaust ports visually throws stuff off big time. The steering can get wonky because the mounting points for boxes, pitman arms is moving down while the actual steering parts aren't.

The other way.. z at firewall
Raising the frame rails too much In relation to the engine ,,,,, ok actually it's more like lowering the engine into the frame as much as you can because by getting the body low the more of the engine and Trans comes thru the floor eating cabin space right ?

By going too far like this lines get thrown off and it looses the flow. It's pretty easy to hide a few inches in the firewall and you've got the look of a frame depth channel and still haven't moved your ass closer to the headliner the way a channel job does. Going too far and the illusion is lost and the thing looks broken.

 

The Spencer is so mild of a Z, that it simply can't be compared to what is being done today. These days it seems everything is overdone and "in your face" attitude. Many of those belly draggers could not use one notorious local road in my town, due to the very tall speed bumps...even at almost a dead stop, as there is no clearance.

Seems like the modern double Z frames have only one goal, and that is having the mid body "laying frame" or whatever hip speak is used.

 

Amen !



There's a lot of tricks here to get things lower. Every one is not over done and some needed to be worked around.
Spring behind is good for most of the few inches .
The z at the cross member doesn't appear to be but a portion of the frame rail height. The raised steering arm and the cowl steering work/function harmoniously with the changed configurations. He actually raised the engine mounts to compensate for the frame being lower



Sets just right if you ask me and a far cry from what we see happening today.

 

this is one of my favorite photos of all time, and is in a folder on my computer where I keep things I use as reference for my coupester...
What I particularly like about "the Spencer Z" is that it is hidden behind the front wheel, and therefore virtually invisible. I would bet that most people probably wouldn't even "see" it if they were looking right at it, especially when you realize its tucked even with the hood line, and there are no frame horns. Beautiful...

 

There's some close up pics directly of it on here. Taken at a museum by a member. It's really hard to see it in those pictures.

I think a lot of guys want to get all of that ride height change in just one modification.

 

The key to a good mod is to make it work without it being obvious and overdone. It needs to blend in with the car and look like it was originally designed that way. No offense, but I've never seen that pulled off with a Z'd frame.

 

Uh, see post #4 and #9? Or did you not notice it was Zed?

 

I would consider those subtle kickups. They are nicely blended in and are not drastic redirections in the frame that throw off the entire look of the car. Those are tastefully executed and add to the look of the car, not take away from it.

 

Its Zed. Subtly Zed, but then see post #6

 

I'm right there with you on that one. We're on the same page. I was just stating that you want to have to look at it for a moment to notice the mods, not pick it out from across the parking lot.

 

The biggest thing with a zed frame is when the tire goes flat the road can't grab the under side and throw the car. It's all in the eye of the beholder I've seen cars I wouldn't even ride in and others that were well done and good looking. I like the look of the z by the fire wall were you can't see much of it. Just my 2 bits.

 

and that's the name of the game...

 

I went with sweeps on a Model A frame to avoid the hard Z look. Not sure how it would work on a 32+ frame.

 

I've z'd a bunch of A style frames right behind the firewall it gives a channed look without sacrifice of floor room, big trans tunnel sucks though

 

I did a couple of deuce roadsters a few years ago and I kicked the rear up 3 inches I did the Z similar to the Spencer car at the front not by the firewall. It wouldn't have looked right on a deuce frame. I ran the spring over the axle with a dropped axle and not behind. Cars had a nice stance. The rear kick up required raising the wheel wells 2 inches.

 

I see what you did there George

 

If one is not Z'd at the firewall I prefer it to be swept rather then Z'd. I think that when you Z one you really want to hide what you have done as much as possible. The idea is to do things without them being obvious and let everyone either wonder or investigate.

Just my $.02 doesn't make it gospel just what I think.

 

The sweep looks good, I don't think I'd consder that a Z. That could be overdone too, but the above example looks good.

Black roadster looks good in the pic too although it's blurry. From what I can see, I would have assumed it was frame-height channeled.

 

That is the glory of sweeping one you still loose ride height but it is a more subtle approach. It looks a lot less shade tree when done properly.

 

2 words.......Bleed Sweep

 

That is no doubt where the idea originally came from. I got nothing against a Z'd frame and done well it is more then doable but there is just something all sleek and racy about a well done sweep.

 

I most confess I like the Doane Spencer front Z as much as I like the bishop/tardel styled kick up, or rear z.

I bet that those two things together, t spring on the rear and reversed springs front and back and a 2 inch drop dago axle would give the perfect stance for a A framed rod, regardless of it being spring over or spring behind.