Hoping to hear a little more technical analysis. How much caster change is there with a stock system? How does CCP geometry not change when the
suspension moves? Did CCP have a design engineer who reviewed the stock Mustang geometry and then designed and tested this new package? Maybe (s)he could bring some technical information to this discussion?
Basically it's pretty close, money wise, between upgrading to a CCP front end or going with boxed stock arms with heim joints, and a good set of struts. The stock geometry is pretty darned good once you reduce the bind and flex. And has a history of racing to support it.
Simply saying you have less bind because there is no strut rod is not necessarily an accurate statement, and does not shed any light into the design engineering behind what may be a competent
suspension package.
We have asked some pretty specific questions above, and CCP has a great oportunity to share their knowledge here.
What some of us are seeing is the proliferation of "wanna-be"
suspension companies. People who jump in from other venues because of the large amounts of money being spent to upgrade and modify these cars. They prey upon the lack of knowledge from the average home builder, with unsubstantiated claims and no technical information to support their marketing hype.
We would like to see some actual technical analysis as is provided by companies with a history in the Mustang world, such as Grigg's, Maximum Motorsports, Maier Racing, Chassis Works, ORP, etc.
Your first question, caster change; Caster is the angle measured from a line that goes from the upper ball joint pivot center to the lower ball joint pivot center, and a vertical line. Any time the rake of the car changes (or the incline of the road), caster changes. As the front
suspension moves caster changes because of the anti-dive in the front
suspension design. How much caster is in the stock system, depends on the car rake, and how many shims in the upper arm, and your ride height. The CPP arms are 1/4 inch shorter. This lets you add 1/4 inch more shims to adjust you caster. The lower arm also has a slotted mount that lets you adjust caster again. Regardless of how much caster was in your car to start, the CPP kit will allows to run more or less caster. One of the key features is being able to adjust to your liking. If you cut a small slot in the lower pivot similar to the slot the factory made in the 1967 and later cars, you increase the range of adjustability yet again.
Your second question, how does it move; We recognize that many people have relocated the upper arm pivot lower in the chassis and sometimes they moved them a bit backward too. This is usually done in an effort to have a different camber curve and more caster. We addressed the extra caster already. The shorter arms will also give a slightly better camber curve, but does not change the bump steer as much.
Your third question, did CPP review the stock
suspension and then design and test the new package; Yes and no. We looked at the stock
suspension, but not very close. The
suspension will not behave the same on the alignment rack as it does when the car is being driven. The wheel alignment is not critical until the car is at the limits of its traction. As the car approaches its limits, the O.E.
suspension has a very large amount of bend, twist, give, and flex. This is known as compliance. For example, when you apply the brakes to near lock up, the front dives, (losing caster), the rear raises (losing caster), and the bushings and arm flex (losing caster). The CPP bushings and arms have virtually no flex. This limits the loss of caster, and all of the compliance in the OE
suspension swamp out much or all the feed back and contribute to a wandering feeling in the front
suspension.
The kit is priced to be pretty close to the same price as rebuilding/upgrading you stock
suspension. After you do the upgrades to the OE
suspension, you still have less ground clearance, you have hiem joints that are known to be noisy and have no cushioning effect in a hard impact, rubber or urethane bushings that have a lot more movement and flex, and a boxed arm that you get to make boxed again when the ball joint wears. The CPP kit uses a replaceable Mopar ball joint that is the same used on mustang II spindles. It has a 1 piece crossmember that strengthens the chassis. It has more ground clearance. It uses a bushing that does not squeak, and never needs to be greased. The bushings can be replaced if they wear. And you have an increased range of wheel alignment adjustability.
Just about any
suspension will work well. 1 of the biggest problems with OE suspensions is compliance. This is why so many people make parts like camber braces, and other types of chassis reinforcement products. As stated earlier, the only time the wheel alignment is critical is when the car as at its limits of traction, you can take a car with less than favorable camber gain and simply start with enough initial camber that the camber is ideal when the car is at its limits.
Suspension design becomes more critical when the car has down force that changes the ride height. As you stated, the Mustang was raced successfully against many other manufactures with different suspensions, yet they all were closely matched, with each maker taking victories throughout the years.
Essentially the biggest benefit is how much easier it is to drive the car. Whether you are pushing the car to its limits, or just cruising, the difference is instantly noticed.
These benefits could not have been realized with the binding action of the strut rod. A rod end upgrade will end the bind, but still leave much of the compliance. This compliance is the single biggest problem with the OE
suspension. This kit will alone not turn your car into 1.5G cornering machine, but this is a giant leap, and makes the car much more consistent when carving the corners, or tearing up a drag strip.
Danny Nix
CPP
800-522-5004 #124
