65-66 CUSTOM MADE FRONT COILOVER SETUP IN PROGRESS

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by ARPM, Jul 26, 2008.

  1. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    After evaluating a few of the Coilovers setups available in the market for my 65 Vert I decided to choose Ron Morris new "ETI setup". The reasons were that all I needed was Height control and the adjustability of the shock. There is no need of changing the control arms cuz it works with the OEM ones and I had the struts already moded for adjustability so looks like it was perfect.

    The only problem was that they were not available for immediate delivery and I needed them for my car club annual fair the next coming weekend. By looking at the design he uses QA1 PromaStar CoilOvers with custom made plates for the shock tower and a moded "T" bar from QA1 for the bottom of the shock eliminating completely the spring perch. The top of the shock uses the QA1 "Stud" conversion so it looked like an easy setup to replicate. I had already made custom Upper Control Arms that give me a world of adjustability and my struts also adjust way behind factory settings.

    After contacting QA1 for the needed shock and Coil Spring they came up with 2 parts numbers for me based on the "Ride Height" (the distance between the center line of the top shock mount and the bottom mount),the weight of the Front Axle and the kind of ride I wanted (Street or Track). The specs for that was:

    1) Front axle weight- 1,820 lbs
    2) Ride height= 9"-9 1/2"
    3)Street setup

    The part numbers they gave me will allow a total extended length of 11.125" and a compress length of 8.625" with the coils at 450 pounds. This will allow a total suspension travel of 2.500". Now, with setup I have now my total suspension travel is 4.125" using stock v8 Coil springs that some people claim to be 380# and others 400-450#.

    My worries are that I will not have enough travel for normal use after all in a roads there are sumps that will make your car extend beyond that travel and the punishment the shock will have once extended to that length. I checked the measures a few times and no change. The original shock absorber has 15" extended and 9 1/2" compressed.

    Here are a few pic's of my Custom made UCA that closely matches the stock one in length and height with adjustability added. I need some opinions on if is recommended or not to keep this setup.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    #1
  2. tweet66

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2001
    Messages:
    588
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Pennsauken, NJ
    I would think if it's a street driven car you'd want to keep as much suspension travel as you currently have. What about a longer shock setup to go to the lower control arm, similar to TCP's? You'd end up with a better motion ratio and it'd handle the bumps better. I'm interested in your upper arms:hail2: What did you use for the shaft? I like the adjustable caster setup by loosening the bolts. Looks sweet.
     
    #2
  3. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    these guys have a very similar setup to the Ron Morris kit but it uses a different style of spring. 2.5" is nowhere near enough suspension travel, many early stang race cars have the suspension limited to around 4" which is still too little for a street car in most cases. check these guys out

    CPA--products
     
    #3
  4. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    That mod along with the adjustable struts allowed me to change the wheelbase to 107". This was needed because the front flares once installed were hitting the tire. The body kit I got from mustang depot was installed correctly but the thickness of the fiberglass along with 235-45 x17x8 tires left me no other choice.

    It worked out pretty well cuz I also have the lower control arm fitted with the vari-camber setup allowing tons of adjustability, a very stable 1/4 mile car and awesome cornering. The total height I have now is achieved using an aluminum metal spacer I got from Mustangs unlimited last may. I had the global west poly 1" spacer before but notice that it was compressed more that 1/2" and got all distorted. After all my 65 weights 1,820 lbs in the front. I also changed the shaft screws to come from the inside with the nut outside, it was a pain in the *ss to setup a wrench inside due to header clearence.


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    #4
  5. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    Thanks for the info. I had looked into CPA products before. They use progressive rate springs and the have a longer shock by using the 71-73 mustang style shock mount at the top. The only problem I foresee is that the 71-73 style mounting is a little weak to support all that weight and suspension movement and also the use of the slotted carriage bolt mounts at the shock tower are a bit weak without some kind of reinforcement at the bottom and top of the shock tower. I was thinking of coming up with something similar but heavy gauge steel and some reinforcement just like Ron's setup something like this below. The only problem is finding a shock that will allow 14"-15" extended and 9"-9 1/2" compressed.
    [​IMG]
     
    #5
  6. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    actually if you take another look at the CPA kit you'll notice that the springs they use are wider at the top of the shock tower so they essentially mount just like a standard coil spring at the top so they don't need any additional support at the tower. esentially what they are doing is eliminating the spring perch and giving you the ability to adust ride height and corner weight. this is basically a "hybrid coil-over" setup. i personally think it's a pretty nice system for what it is, especially if you are forced to use a more stock style spring/shock system for whatever reason, particulary racing class rules. it may not the ultimate coilover conversion for an early stang but it's pretty darn good, IMO.
     
    #6
  7. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    DAMMED!, I didn't look quite good at their setup but it looks like the perfect one for my needs. I will call QA1 cuz i beleive their product line has the same coils and shocks to replicate that setup from CPA. I found one Complete setup for under $2,000 from AutoFabRaceCars for 67-70 stangs that looks pretty good. They even provide a nice glue on mat to hide the top plate at the shock tower. To bad they don't have the same setup for 64-66. See Pic below.

    [​IMG]
     
    #7
  8. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    oh man, i really like that setup, especially the upper mount for the coilover. i'd been having a hard time trying to figure out how i was going to biuld a similar mount for the custom coilover setup i'd been planning on building using mostly Opentracker roller parts and now i know how to do it.....:nice:
     
    #8
  9. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    well my buddy Lino just replied to a PM i sent him a while back and it seems we now have a new player in the bolt on coilover that will use stock UCA's...TCP has now joined the fray on this one as well and it seems they have undercut the competition in price as well. :nice:

    thanks Lino :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice: :nice:

    Total Control Products


    well that throws another wrench in my plans for my front suspension....too many choices now, but price wise i think the TCP setup goes into first place, plus they have different "hats" to allow for different lowered heights as opposed to the other kits on the market, plus, and you'll appreciate this a lot ARPM they have a full 6" of travel which the others don't seem to have.
     
    #9
  10. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    OH MAN!!! Just a tiny bit late. At 1:30pm today i ordered the 2 QA1 Shocks single adjustable DR4955P, the 2 QA1 coil springs10GBF550 , the 2 bottom "T" Bars HAL-BAR500K , the 2 Top "T" bars HAL-BAR350K , QA1 Spanner Wrench and Thrust Bearing Kit 7888-110 for the coil over and DHL Next Day. With that setup no machining is needed and it's totaly bolt on using the factory top shock bracket. Cost... $618.20 and that includes $125.00 shipping charge to Puerto Rico. Forgot to mention, suspension travel is 4.125". I will inform results after i install them tomorrow night. By the way I was told today that Mustangs Unlimited will be carring the "Ron Morris Setup" for $775.99.bnickel here is 2 photos of those brackets in case you don't have them.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    #10
  11. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    yep, i saw those pics. not too sure i'll need to worry about it now, but i'd still like to do some Opentracker stuff up front, maybe with the TCP bolt on coilover, though. then again i may just buy the TCP varishock coilover from their regular kit and use it with some brackets like these.....i'm gonna fry my brain thinking this front end up. i do know i'll be using a TCP rack and TCP G-Bar rear suspension though, already made up my mind on the G-Bar and the rack (minus install kit) is waiting in storage already
     
    #11
  12. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    I get you!, I was going to buy the global west complete tubular coilover setup but had the wheel flairs hitting the tire at 108" wheelbase, so I decided to offset the UCA and the LCA to change the wheelbase to 107" then the coilovers was all I needed. I had seen global west coilovers on a 66 here and didn't like the LCA bind at the bearing when the wheel base was changed to 107", that's why I made my UPC and offseted them along with the LCA 1/2" to the rear. If i wanted to use the global west tubular I had to trash a $5,000 paint job and probably buy 2 new wheel flairs. So I took the "Easy way Out"
     
    #12
  13. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    DHL delivered today all but the 5" "T" bar, I ordered it from JEGS cuz AutoFab didn't have it but Jegs failed to ship it yesterday. It will be delivered tomorrow.

    Just to test I machined the old shaft from the original perches to 3/4" and everything looks good. The top "T" bar it's perfect at 3.500". The total extended length is 14" and the coils are 10"@550#. Preliminary adjustments showed that with the coil adjusted barely loose the car seats about 1/2" below the top of the wheel. Adjusting it about 1/2 the shock thread the car seats 1 3/4" above the wheel.

    The 550# spring it's a bit stiff for a street ride but not as much as the 620 I have on the other 66 GT. I am thinking of getting 450 or 500 to soften the ride. The 550's I may save them for the 66 GT. I will shoot some pics tomorrow after everything is in place.

    [​IMG]
     
    #13
  14. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    Here are a few pcs

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    #14
  15. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    wow, that's awesome!!!!!! very cool. let me know how how she drives, very interested in this one.
     
    #15
  16. ARPM

    ARPM Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    PUERTO RICO
    It's amazing the way she drives!, I live up in the country, we have maybe 60-75 curves before i reach my property entrance and at least 10 of those curves are either 90 degrees or close to it. I was able to keep 35-40 mph without any body roll. I adjusted the shocks to the 9th position to achieve an aceptable compression and rebound rate. The best part is that everything was done for about $504.00 + Shipping ($125.00 to PR next day) including the bearings and spanner wrenches. I have also the option of using dual adjustable shocks.

    Here is a bootom view:

    [​IMG]
     
    #16
  17. ron67fb

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    1,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    SF Bay area, CA
    Those little tabs are scary, considering they're holding up the weight of the car. Was there a reason they needed to be bent rather than a straight piece?

    As for the rod ends, instead of explaining I'd suggest you read this.
    Formula Student Germany: Pat's Column - Rod Ends in Bending
     
    #17
  18. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas


    oh man here we go again. i know and i'm sure everyone else does too that rod ends weren't designed to be used in bending however, show me a failure of a TCP, Griggs, Ron Morris, or any of numerous of manufacturers control arm or other suspension piece. i have yet to see one personally and it's been argued on CC.com both ways.

    i'm not particularly a fan of rod ends for street use anyway but even so i still haven't seen a failure of one used in bending where a rod end of substantial girth was employed. i also don't tend to believe in hype. while i'm sure there may have been some failures it's probably something like 1 in a thousand or more and even then probably still due to a rod end that was too small for the given application
     
    #18
  19. bnickel

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas


    very nice indeed, i like that setup and especially the price!!!!!!
     
    #19
  20. ron67fb

    Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    Messages:
    1,118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    SF Bay area, CA
    I wouldn't be so quick assuming everyone knows what you know. Apparently not "everyone else" does when stuff like this keeps showing up. Old TCP yes, the new coilover mounts on the lower control arm with the force close to the balljoint, where it should be. No rod ends are in bending. Griggs and Ron Morris designs are the same. As for the old TCP design and similar ones, show me a car driven on the street and track regularly that have these suspension systems. So far I've only seen them in magazines, in-progress show-off threads, car shows, and manufacturer mock-ups. The link I provided showed you a failure, and that's a sub-500lb car. Besides, I wasn't arguing either method, just showing some info. Or should he plead ignorance in the event that those threads pop out of the arms? He asked for opinions, I'm giving them.

    For someone being so concerned about ground clearance due to potholes, real-world road conditions and the like I don't see why you'd approve of those dinky coil over tabs holding up the car. They should go all the way across and have a hole to clear the coilover like the ball joint plate, or at the least should be straight and stout. Look at the old TCP design, that section is as thick as the arms. The ball joint plate welded in shear is not something to be ignored, either.
     
    #20

Share This Page