It seems that in most of the old photo’s I‘ve seen of speedsters that the chassis is relatively level. Outside a few cars with a dropped axle, rarely do I notice a car with negative rake (the front end is lower than the back end).

Why is that? Is simply the preferred style and look of the period or is there a mechanical reason?

On my speedster, I currently have installed Laurel front end brackets which lowered the front several inches but I have not lowered the back by an equal amount. Will I get into some sort of trouble leaving it that way? My biggest concern with having the front end lower than the back end is that perhaps either the water or the oil would end up someplace it shouldn’t be or, somewhat related, won’t be where it should be.

Water won't be a problem. Depending on how steep the angle, you will hold some more oil in the front of the pan and in the forward dippers, which shouldn't be a problem. You will however reduce your caster angle of the front axle causing handling issues unless you have a provision for caster angle adjustment in your wishbone or radius arm mounting. Too little positive caster on a T will make it squirrelly, even dangerous to drive.

Why would you want the back 4-5 inches higher than the front?

Andy

Andy,

1) So I don't have to cut the frame at the rear to use the lowering brackets I bought from Bill B. (One less thing I can do wrong! )

and

2) Because I found a body that I like I but I don't think it will work with the back end of the frame modified.

Really just trying to figure out the body plans for this speedster. In my mind, I have changed plans about five times in the past year.

I would say photos of old speedsters show the frame level.
I have always built my speedsters with the same drop front and rear.
As Jeff posted above, there will be handling problems if something isn’t done to get the caster angle back to normal.
When you consider the weight of the engine it also stands to reason that the front spring will sag more than the rear after many years.
Also consider this; the rear is more difficult to lower after a couple of inches than the front without cutting the frame.

http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/822076/851091.html?1522133308

You can see Chris and Carston Becker's Nuthin special has a rake to it, also you can see how low my speedster sits. Hopefully the link works(not computer savy here).

Go to nwvs.org and look through the speedster pictures. I don't know what body you're going to use but just about anything works with the kick up. My Mercury has the kicked up crewmember instead of the other mercury frame brackets. Just needed the ears cut off the crossmember.

Andy

A stock T chassis is slightly higher on the back end than it is in the front end. So that is normal. Whether you call that rake positive or negative depends upon the people you grew up around. The engine was also expected to work going uphill and downhill, so an inch or two more or less either way should not be a problem.
Generally, I think speedsters (and most cars) look better with the front just a bit lower than the back.
That is my opinion.

Brian,
Besides what has already been mentioned, I do not think you will have any other major problems leaving the back higher, however, If you did want to lower the back there are also other options besides Bill's brackets that may work better for you and the body you choose. As previously mentioned, cutting off the ends of the rear yoke and using a drop bracket may allow everything to fit into for example, a boat tail body, without modifying the actual body. People have also made their own rear yoke with a higher center for the spring to sit in which can easily give you about a 3 inch drop. There was one of these yokes for sale at the Bakersfeild swap meet.The eyes in the rear spring can also be reversed to give a slight drop. I have seen many rear springs that have been heated and bent to lower the car although this method will likely effect you ride. Removing a few leafs out of the rear will also lower the back and is sometime just fine with the lightened weight of a speedster, but other times can affect the ride quality. With the ingenuity of the people on this forum I'm sure there are many other options also. If you are ok with the car as it sits than that is all that matters, but if you wish to lower the back I'm sure there is an option that will work for your body. If you find an option you like, but are not confident with creating it or lack the necessary tools I would encourage you to seek help from other local Model T enthusiast. From my experience Model T people are usually willing to help out a fellow model T enthusiast.

When I did my speedster I did not want to modify things much so I used a reverse eye spring leaf in the rear and '27 front spindles. That gave me a little lower frame all around and a slight rake. I like the stance and do not notice any difference in handling.

You can achieve some rake with just your choice in tires.

I agree that even a vintage speedster looks good with the front end just a bit lower.

Carston and my speedster pickup Nuthin' Special has a nice rake to it as Tim has said. Tim been helping on it for awhile now. Front end is lowered about 8" with a z'd plate up front and a home brewed reversed eye spring lowers the back half with split wishbones front and rea as well as panhard bar.

By the way we did just over 40 mph in Nuthin' Special with no ill effects.

The biggest problem with having the front end a lot lower than the rear end is that it takes weight off the rear and moves it to the front as the car's center of gravity, (CG), moves forward. Less rear weight means less traction. On a modern dirt track midget the front is actually a little higher to keep the weight around 45%-55% front to back. In general on a T speedster moving the front axle ahead of the cross-member and lowering moves the CG to the rear but just lowering the front axle moves the CG forward. For a street driven car it is best to keep the weight around 50%-50% if possible.

You also don't want the torque tube down in the front. Your rear end oil will wind up on the ground under the U joint.

In the old days an auto with the rear higher was known as a "Dago Rake" The rear of a powerful auto tends to lower when the engine is "riveded up". Autos with a dago rake were common at rallies in the 1950s.

My speedster has some rake to it. I think it sort of makes the car look like it's going fast even while it's just sitting there. I haven't noticed any steering or cooling issues, and she leaks oil whether she's level or not, haha

While I can only see positives to having the front lower than the rear by a few inches (Oil and fuel flow) if you find it to be excessive, I have toyed with the idea of making a very low rear spring, but have not had this done as spring shops no longer appear to exist.

One thing my grandpa did was to turn the backing plates upside down and then use a fabricated "U" to attach the spring and to the lowered spring perch. He learned this the hard way as he first turned the complete rear end assembly upside down. When he mashed down on the forward (clutch) pedal, much to his suprise, his speedster shot backwards into my great grandpa's brand new La Salle. HA!

Just found out from my dad that lowering the chassis as described above, lowered the stripped down "speedster" allowing it to pass below the hitching rail in front of my great grandpa's blacksmith shop. The things that you learn by keeping your ears open and listen to your elders