reenmachine
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
That is the funniest ***** I have seen in a while.people who get sand in their urethra
That is the funniest ***** I have seen in a while.people who get sand in their urethra
honestly, i think it looks unnecessary, and i agree with the above poster(s) who said a good strut rod would take care of things. i'd prefer to either go full open tracker with the the spherical bearing LCA with heim jointed strut rod OR just go with a full bolt in coilover kit (tcp/RM/UP etc.)
I don't like that it's a bolt in kit; that's kinda scary. Just the idea of it geting loose.
Nobody seems to have any trouble with bolt-in sub-frame assemblys on production cars. They've been around for decades. And the last time I looked ALL the suspension parts that move are bolted in.
Besides, if you really are concerned about it coming loose you can always weld it after you install it.
both!!! with the suspension at full compression the lower ball joint actually moves forward i think, at full drop it moves it backward. i can't remember for sure but it does go both ways and add hard braking into the mix and it changes yet again.
the strut rod changes length as it goes through the arc (relative to the control arm), the bushing also compresses again changing the length and the stock upper control arm moves fore and aft on it's screw-in metal bushings so again more caster changes. all of these changes also effect the camber and the toe as well.
The stock LCA+strut rod is really a two piece A arm. After all, it's bolted together, so the strut rod doesn't work like a radius rod or something, and it doesn't pull the LCA forward (or backward). After all, that would require that the angle between the LCA and strut rod changes, and that is not possible.
So, in theory, neither the stock setup nor the CPP A arm change caster during suspension travel. In practice, the stock setup does reduce caster somewhat do the compressibility from the strut rod bushings, but that is a flex issue, not a geometry issue. Replacing the bushing with a heim joint or Maier Delrin bushing reduces it to near zero.
exactly. you could also double nut the bolts, and use a proper lock nutas the second nut.
the cpp kit has the advantage of having a "0" caster curve, and a far more stable lower control arm mounting. that said, with the right parts the stock strut rod style suspension has few enough drawbacks, and the caster change in cornering is not a problem.
as for the bushing material, urethane is a solid, long lasting material whose only real problem is the lack of flexability
Very good point. Can you look at something like a Carrerra GT-3 to see what happens with it? THAT might be a telling bit of info. Apparently caster gain coulb be a good thing.Helmantel is correct.
I've been playing with Performance Trends Suspension Analyzer software lately to to evaluate modifications to the MII suspension. One of the examples included with the software is a 68 Mustang.
With all this talk about the caster change on a stock suspension I decided to investigate the 68 Mustang geometry. According to this example there is a total of 0.02* of caster change across 4" of vertical suspension travel. That is +/-2" from resting height. At +/- 3" it increases to 0.036*. These are insignificant changes. Of course this doesn't take into consideration deflection of the bushings.
A top view of the geometry explains the reason for essentially no caster change. The strut mounts to a point that is in line with the axis on which the lower arm pivots. This axis is in turn inline with the chassis. Picture a triangle and make the axis of rotation one side. Rotating the triangle on this axis has no effect on the length or orientation of the other two sides. Therefore the strut arm and LCA swing in exactly the same arc. To verify this I went to my garage where I have a 67 with no suspension and looked at the attachment points. Sure enough, if you look through the strut mounting hole you can see directly through the LCA bolt hole.
However, is no camber gain a good thing? Another example in the software is a 2001 Corvette. I think we all agree this car has very good handling characteristics. With +/- 3" suspension travel the Corvette caster changes from 6.5* to 11.5*. That's a very significant gain of 5*.
That's an interesting one to wrap the mind around. Caster is what brings the wheels back "on center" after turning and increased positive caster improves high-speed stability since it makes the car track straighter with less driver input. I noticed a huge difference at 90 mph in the blue '68 fastback after going from less than 2 degress to over 4 degrees of positive caster. So, perhaps the caster increase during suspension compression aids stability under very heavy braking? Perhaps it helps tracking when a large hit is encountered at speed?However, is no camber gain a good thing? Another example in the software is a 2001 Corvette. I think we all agree this car has very good handling characteristics. With +/- 3" suspension travel the Corvette caster changes from 6.5* to 11.5*. That's a very significant gain of 5*.
A top view of the geometry explains the reason for essentially no caster change. The strut mounts to a point that is in line with the axis on which the lower arm pivots. This axis is in turn inline with the chassis. Picture a triangle and make the axis of rotation one side. Rotating the triangle on this axis has no effect on the length or orientation of the other two sides. Therefore the strut arm and LCA swing in exactly the same arc.
However, is no camber gain a good thing? Another example in the software is a 2001 Corvette. I think we all agree this car has very good handling characteristics. With +/- 3" suspension travel the Corvette caster changes from 6.5* to 11.5*. That's a very significant gain of 5*.
the strut rod on vintage fords does move in an arc, but the strut rod is long enough that the arc is insignificant. as to caster gain, as long as it is in the right direction there is no problem with caster gain as it does help stabilize the steering geometry. it is when you lose caster that there is a problem. as i have said before though, the stock mustang front suspension is a good overall design, and with a little tweaking here and there, it becomes better. on vintage cars though the real gains in handling is going to be from the rear suspension.
bnickle, check out the air ride rear suspension for the 67-70 mustangs. i believe it will fit the cougar without a problem, and it is rather stout.