Strut Rod pivot

[CochinoFilipino]

We have a nice assortment of adjustable strut-rods to choose from, and now even full LCAs. These take the slop out of the system by replacing the rubber bushings with a spherical type bushing.

But some use a clevis bracket and move the pivot point back & out. This requires using a shorter length rod. TCP or using Maier spherical bushing kit allow you maintain the stock pivot location.

Would this relocation of the pivot point and use of a shorter rod make a meaningful diference? On the street? On the track?

 

[bnickel]

probably won't make much of a difference on the street though it could contribut some to bump steer, but the better pivot will likely make more of a difference eliminating it than the moved pivot would add, on the track this could make more of a difference if you're pushing the car to it's limits.

that said i'd prefer the TCP (maier only makes theirs for 65-66) on my car even for the street. i'm also seriously considering the CPP kit with the full LCA (or rather A-arm) when they start making them for the 67-up cars. BTW, GW also has a kit now that make the LCA moer of a true A-arm now as well but again it's only for the 65-66 cars. here's a link in case you haven't seen it.

http://globalwest.net/1964-66 Mustang Front coilover kit.htm

and the CPP kit, this is actually for the very similar Nova kit as they don't have these on their website yet.

http://www.classicperform.com/NewProducts/2006/NewFiles/NovaSubFrame.htm



edit: BTW, i have CPP sending me some info on the kit, hopefully i'll get it soon. i'll be sure to get it scanned and post whatever i get from them.

 

[CochinoFilipino]

I saw your GW link in the other thread. It's what got me thinking about the pivot point. It looks like it will move the pivot point just like the typical adjustable strut-rods do.

As I understand it, the CPP unit maintains the stock location by removing the stock mounting bracket and replacing it the crossmember. ($929 for the full kit looks like a deal.)

I don't see how a solid single piece design can be much better than the two piece design (basically two pieces bolted together and acting as one). I wouldn't be surprised if TCP came out with their own one piece lower A-arm though.

 

[bnickel]

probably not much of a difference except there is less binding going on, even the rod end strut rods can bind, albeit they'd have to be at the very ends of their travel.