Satchel rear coilover

[mcode]

Look at the new Max G front end

Everyone look at this excellent front end replacement from Max G-http://hdr.autoremarketers.com/presenter/Portal/Page.aspx?Id=104557

This has got to to be the best engineered front system i have seen. It is selling for $4995. excellent price for an new front frame and better front geometry than even Tcp.

I have purchased the max g rear and i can tell you it is one of the best engineered and easiest modification i have done on my car.
This front system looks easy too as it uses many of the front stock bolt holes and it actually increases the strength of the stock mustang front end.

Anyways i just wish i didn't purchase and install the tcp coilovers and rack and pinion. As this in my opinion is a superior system.

If i had to do it over again i would have purchased this kit instead. I just love the thought of chromoley steel to help an 40 plus year old car for rigidity and strength.

 

[mcode]

i did not do the link correctly so here goes

Max-G Mustang/Ford Suspension



looks way cool!!!!!

 

[Rusty67]

One thing I'll say about that front end system is that it will definately make the front end more ridgid. I like the way it adds strength to the shock towers. Does it come with the custom oil pan ?

The CPP system I've got on my front end is a MUCH cheaper way to go if you don't want R&P and you still get upper and lower A-arms with some front end reenforcement.

 

[other_shoe]

I agree there's a lot to like.

The price is what it is. I can't afford it (especially not along with the divorce attorney's fees that would come with it), but you seem to get a lot with it. For example, it's not that much more than TCP's manual rack, front coil-over, and adjustable strut rod plus a good sway-bar. It does seem like you're committing to a brake upgrade that will tack on additional cost, but I get the impression from the forum that a lot of folks are making that upgrade at roughly the same time as they embark on the front end overhaul.

It may be the angle on the pictures, but it looks like you lose some ground clearance.

 

[bnickel]

i like the fact that's pretty much a bolt in system but that's about it. not only do you lose a lot of ground clearance but it looks like your adding a couple hundred pounds of unnecessary weight.

i really liked the look of the new Air Ride Tech front end stuff until i saw the lower ball joint mount, but still the basic design looks pretty good. i may try to make something like this for the cougar but with a much stronger lower ball joint mounting flange.

Ford Mustang 67-70 Shockwaves Front w/ Upper and Lower StrongArms: Air Ride Technologies - Ridetech.com

 

[mtbdoc]

ADDING weight? I sincerely doubt it. This alloy steel is MUCH lighter than the mild steel that all of the other folks are using, and there should be a lot of the stock weight that ISN'T there. The rigidity will be markedly improved. And ground clearance? This is between the wheels, so it will rise as the wheels go over speed bumps, etc. This is VERY different from center-car stuff like exhaust that will hang just as low but WON'T move up when rolling over a bump.

Cost? Seems comparable to TCP or Morris when you add it all up, and much better materials. The geometry itself will have to be explored, but given the rep that they have with their previous offerings, I suspect it will be as good or better than what is out there.

All in all, I am TREMENDOUSLY excited about the products that these folks have brought to the table. Although I am really trying to get the 'vert finished, this suspension package has 2+2 written all over it.

 

[bnickel]

ADDING weight? I sincerely doubt it. This alloy steel is MUCH lighter than the mild steel that all of the other folks are using, and there should be a lot of the stock weight that ISN'T there. The rigidity will be markedly improved. And ground clearance? This is between the wheels, so it will rise as the wheels go over speed bumps, etc. This is VERY different from center-car stuff like exhaust that will hang just as low but WON'T move up when rolling over a bump.

Cost? Seems comparable to TCP or Morris when you add it all up, and much better materials. The geometry itself will have to be explored, but given the rep that they have with their previous offerings, I suspect it will be as good or better than what is out there.

All in all, I am TREMENDOUSLY excited about the products that these folks have brought to the table. Although I am really trying to get the 'vert finished, this suspension package has 2+2 written all over it.

how can it not add weight? there is a mile of tubing there and what stock parts is it really replacing? the steering gear and the sheetmetal control arms is about all and i'd venture the difference in weight between what is replaced and the new stuff is only a few pounds.

as for the ground clearance not everything in the road is a speed bump, there are lot's of things that could easily catch down there. i learned from experience with my old mustang II that some things, like manholes, can and will cause your car to "run aground". i've bottomed and cracked the oil pan on my old 70 cougar over a small dip at 45 mph so the ground clearance is a big issue for me as i'm sure it is for a lot of other people as well. maybe you have perfect roads where you live but they aren't even close here and i can tell you they are 100% better here than they are in Oklahoma and New Mexico.


price is huge too, i'll have less than just the front end cost invested in TCP rack and pinion, TCP G-Bar and whatever front suspension i end up running, which may or may not use quite a few TCP and/or Opentracker pieces. granted i got my TCP rack used on ebay for less than $250 with shipping and i need to invest another $500 for the install kit since all i got was the rack but there are deals out there like that....I got one, so there's no reason someone else couldn't get one as well

 

[mtbdoc]

Uh...yeah...used parts...ebay...

...whatever!




Look, I have no problem with someone defending their purchase. It is normal human nature to want to believe you have done the right thing. God knows I have done MANY stupid things in my life, and CERTAINLY with car purchases. I contracted w/ a vendor for $10k for a motor combo that was behind schedule and NEVER met our agreement (hint: I'll be glad to tell EVERYONE to stay away from this guy...just ask).

That said, HDR - MaxG is producing something FAR superior to what we've seen on early Mustangs...basically forever (alright, excepting Griggs...but you want to talk pricing...). Their design, materials, and fabrication just are a cut (or two) above anything I've seen. And what you are supporting just isn't there IMHO.

Sigh......sorry you are feeling so threatened about your purchase. Glad you are happy. Just don't try to convince others to follow your path. Unless I'm mistaken, you have NO driving time and objective measurements to even back up how well this is working out.

These are CLASSICS...and I really don't like halfway solutions for a TRUE "handling" suspension. That is why I've thought of selling this car and doing something different. At this point, I am FAR less likely to sell the 2+2 and am looking forward to moving forward.

Hope yours works out ,

 

[Rusty67]

I'm about to take this thread even more off topic....

Have you seen the CCP kit ?

Disc Brake, Steering and Suspension Products for classic Chevy and Ford cars and trucks

Coil overs aren't the geatest thing since sliced bread. The main advantages I see with coil over setups is the adjustable ride height. This doesn't even come with all coil-overs, its an extra that costs more. The other nice thing is the ability to use a softer spring to get the same result which makes the ride more comfortable on a street car.

The interesting thing about that is that one of the reasons for the high spring rate in the classic Mustangs is that the front suspension kind of sucked.... at least the lower arm design. By converting to a lower A-arm you can use a somewhat softer spring rate and get better results and ride comfort.

The kit you are touting to be the best thing since sliced bread may not be as great as you think. The ground clearance did look concerning to me. It also adds quite a bit of material up front and I'd like a total wieght on the entire kit before I made a judgment as to if it was lighter then stock or not. Also, I'm not a huge fan of coil-overs myself but if thats what you want then I suppose that is a good way to get it.

I did like some of the ideas of the kit in terms of reenforcement. The kit definately isn't a huge knock off of everything else that is out there but the lower A-arm setup really does remind me quite a bit of the CCP kit that I have on my car.

 

[mtbdoc]

Rusty,

It is interesting as I do seem to be souding like a major supporter of the HDR stuff. What really got me interested is the rear truly being a SUPERB design...and having spent a lot of time looking at all of their products and talking with them, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt on the Mustang front setup.

Getting rid of the strut rod and going to an A-arm is a definite improvement. I also agree w/ you about coilovers not being magical in and of themselves. When I started doing the suspension on my GTO, I really didn't see any advantage to going to the add'l cost of the coilovers that Pedders produces for the Holdens (which is what a Pontiac GTO actually is).

I have looked at the CPP stuff and it appears to be a very cost effective approach that deals w/ several issues in these cars...and I could see myself going in a direction more like that for a more 'cost-conscious' build. My hesitancy in doing anything for this car yet reflects the continued development that has been going on.

Unfortunately, products come out which are touted as being great but turn out not to be. For example, as time has passed there has been a LOT of negative stuff about certain RRS products that has surfaced. To me, that casts doubt over ALL of their stuff. OTOH Griggs has a great rep, so I would be likely to have more trust in any of their offerings. It seems that EvM makes some nice stuff, increasing my confidence in them.

HDR: I am a fan of the Cobra Daytona cars. Their 1st & 2nd Gen Camaro/Firebird offerings are superb. The Satchell link is an outstanding rear suspension design and their use of chromoly tubing (and obvious quality of construction). Chromoly can be very light and thin-walled compared to mild steel of comparable strength. You might be shocked at how light a piece of tubing can be. But it is EXPENSIVE stuff to work with. Their approach to adding stiffness to the Mustang unibody makes great sense (and structurally is a work of art compared to any other Mustang product I've seen). SO: in looking at their front suspension design and fabrication I give them the benefit of the doubt that they haven't made a TURD for this one system after having done so much else so well.

I hope that clarifies my support of this without first-hand knowledge. In talking with them, they are a bit closed-mouth about some of the design parameters at this point. I have been told that they will be giving more info such as camber characteristics, roll center, and all of the other stuff that I try to digest over on C-C.com

Okay, enough from me. I will sign off awaiting info from others. BNickel I didn't intend to come off as antagonistic as I did in my last post. Please accept my apology. Let's see what TECH emerges on this particular product (and others as well).

 

[Rusty67]

Maybe we should start another thread to discuss the front suspension setup ? We would provably get more people looking at it and more input.

 

[bnickel]

i hust want to say one thing about buying used parts and that is that used parts are the very essence of hot rodding. no i haven't installed the rack yet because i haven't bought the install kit, the TCP rack is without a doubt the Top Dog of rack and pinion conversion in the classic mustang world so i have no doubts that it will perform as intended. i have checked it out and functionally it's just fine as well as cosmetically, no flaws anywhere.

as far as the rest of the front suspension i have not yet decided what i will be running, but rest assured it will be worlds better than just stock, it won't however have asmany compromises as i can see in the HDR setup. i'm sure on the race track that the HDR setup will excel and probably conquer all comers, i don't doubt that at all but for a street car i just see way too many things that are going against it for me to consider running it, that's all.

 

[69gmachine]

Coil overs aren't the geatest thing since sliced bread. The main advantages I see with coil over setups is the adjustable ride height. This doesn't even come with all coil-overs, its an extra that costs more. The other nice thing is the ability to use a softer spring to get the same result which makes the ride more comfortable on a street car.

Since installing my coil over front suspension, I've found that the grass is greener, the sun shines brighter, the earth spins a bit faster, and the birds sing sweeter. I'm pretty sure it's much more of a watershed event than the introduction of sliced bread.

Seriously, adding a cradle under the car doesn't look like a good plan to me, but it's hard to tell how low it really hangs from the pictures. My car is lowered 1 3/4" so I try to keep everything tucked up as high as I can. Also, the front steer r&p makes this a more complicated conversion. My design goal was to make the car that I have fun to drive, and stay as stock as possible. I think I've succeeded on both counts. It was never meant to compete with a full blown race effort, but I haven't come close to finding it's limit on the track yet.

Trailering my car everywhere isn't very fun to me. Driving it everywhere is. Speaking of which, I think I'll go for a spin

 

[bnickel]

Since installing my coil over front suspension, I've found that the grass is greener, the sun shines brighter, the earth spins a bit faster, and the birds sing sweeter. I'm pretty sure it's much more of a watershed event than the introduction of sliced bread.

Seriously, adding a cradle under the car doesn't look like a good plan to me, but it's hard to tell how low it really hangs from the pictures. My car is lowered 1 3/4" so I try to keep everything tucked up as high as I can. Also, the front steer r&p makes this a more complicated conversion. My design goal was to make the car that I have fun to drive, and stay as stock as possible. I think I've succeeded on both counts. It was never meant to compete with a full blown race effort, but I haven't come close to finding it's limit on the track yet.

Trailering my car everywhere isn't very fun to me. Driving it everywhere is. Speaking of which, I think I'll go for a spin

well considering that the cradle mounts under the stock LCA mount and hangs down quite a bit i'd say there is a loss of ground clearance of at least 2" maybe more like 3" because those tubes look fairly substantial.

like i said, on a smooth race track i'm sure this an amazing system but i wouldn't put on a street anywhere with "real world" obstacles like potholes or dips or manhole covers and god help you if you bump a curb with it......