Has anyone checked out AJE's new front end?

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by okibono, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. Exsqueeze me, but if I had to choose between an '08 3-series BMW and a 4th gen Crapmaro, I think I could bite the bullet and live with those awful Mac struts. Anyone car to bankroll me?

    In fact, '08 Saturn vs Crapmaro, even that one is hard to say. Just how nice a Crapmaro are we talkin about?
  2. wow, some folks are funny.

    for those who care about options, there are some new ones out there like the AJE kit.

    for those who want to write mini articles for Road and Track, please continue somewhere else.
  3. I think Mike needs to go over to corner-carvers.com. JMO....
  4. strut rods.

    Hello again.

    Is there anyone in this forum who can comment about the strut rod questions I had typed earlier?

    This CPP kit eliminates the strut rods? What are the advantages and dis-advantages to this?


    And thanks
  5. The strut rod creates a hug binding problem in the front suspension. Unless you spend 400 bucks for the jointed type.
  6. And if you do you'll have a noticeably harsher ride. This is what I see as the paradox of the strut rod -- it's not the best way to create a stable lower control arm, but it also takes the edge off the ride. The bushings both resist smooth suspension movement and introduce inconsistency into the movement, neither of which are great things. However, those same bushings also provide nice ride quality. A suspension system such as the TCP kit, with solid upper and lower control arm mounts and solid strut rod mounts, moves through its range of motion very smoothly with no binding, but you feel every cigarette butt you drive over on the road.

    As usual, the middle ground is a good compromise in my experience. I was very impressed with the front suspension on the blue '68 fastback I built, which consisted of RRS struts, Maier LCAs with polyurethane bushings, and stock strut rods with polyurethane bushings. The car handles like it's on rails, but the ride quality is very nice as well. This is my actual first-hand experience, not forum spray. Is there potential suspension bind at the extremes of travel? Perhaps. Is there some compliance to the system in undesired directions due to the strut rod bushings? Perhaps. In the real world though, the car has amazing road manners and I wouldn't change a single thing. I'm not saying that this is the only way to get those results -- far from it. It's just one way that I have found to work.

    I like the looks of the CPP setup. It gets rid of the strut rods and their inherent problems, but still rides on bushings to take the edge off. I'd put a set of RRS struts on top of them and go!
  7. Really ?! I would have guessed the complete opposite. I made a set of roler perches and noticed the ride difference and was way impressed (thanx Jon). I'da thought by freeing up another, would have more of the same...something to think about the.
  8. Well, both can be true! There are different things that contribute to ride quality. Freeing up all of the pivots and "rollerizing" everything will allow the suspension to respond instantly to bumps in the road, so less energy is transmitted through to the car, hence a better ride in one respect. However, the high-frequency small stuff has nothing to damp it out so vibration is transmitted right through to the chassis and on to your fillings.

    Even that is a gross oversimplification. Automakers have whole departments devoted to NVH (Noise, Vibration, and Harshness) engineering.
  9. i think in the case of the roller perches, which BTW is very similar to Ford's original design, they allow the spring and shock to travel without binding at all thereby reducing any resonant frequency vibration, remember springs are inherently sensitive to resonant frequencies. ford originally used a bronze bushing on the early Falcon spring perches but later changed to the rubber bushing, presumably for cost and maintenance concerns but not necessarily for NVH, though i guess it's possible. this may or may not hold true for other area of the suspension as well, my car has the roller perches and poly sway bar links and frame bushings but the rest is all stock rubber bushings.
  10. I'd say that when they are loosing the front end in the corner that they MIGHT be very close to the limits of either the car or their ability. Either way my 95 Z/28 was pulling them or closing down on them.
    And I never said the late model Mustang sucked...I said a Z/28 from 93-2002 was better in the corners. And to support my belief that the 'Z' had a better suspension..
    someone here PLEASE tell me why Ford went to the same rear suspension design on the new Mustang that Chevy started using on the 'Z' in 1982?? PLEASE, tell me Ford started using the 3-link with a torque arm because it was not as good as the triangulated 4-link that required a quad-shock to work. PLEASE..someone here tell me that.
    And not as a joke. I'm waiting.

    Attached Files:

  11. what torque arm? the 05-up Stang doesn't have a torque arm, it's a 3 link with a panhard bar. again your misinformation only shows your own ignorance to the subject at hand

  12. Oh! so it doesn't have a torque arm? I read somewhere that it did. You know what that means? Do you? It means that the NEW Mustang rear suspension still is not as good as the 1982 Camaro rear suspension. Isn't that saying a lot for Ford. 20 + years after the Camaro introduced the 3-link/torque arm rear suspension and Ford still left off a MAJOR component. Makes me want to NOT buy one.
    And the trianglulated-4 link, both with and without a Panhard bar was a GM idea back in the late 40's and early 50's. As was timed, mechanical fuel injection in an American car.. the 57 Vette and electronic fuel injection in the 59 Star-Chief. And the first production turbo-charged car in the Olds f-85, and the first all aluminum v-8 in an American production car with the Olds around 1962...which became the engine of choice for Land-Rover for 40+ years. Don't forget the first twin-cam, 4-valve, electronic fuel injection engine in an American production car with the Cosworth-Vega in 1976. How about the first American normally asperated engine to produce 1 hp per cubic inch in 1957? But my ignorance of the subject preceeds me.
    I stand corrected.
    My apologies to the kiddies.
  13. OK, I concede that everything you say is accurate and every conclusion you've ever drawn about suspension is correct. There -- is that what you were looking for? Will you go away now?

    Really, nothing constructive or educational can come of a discussion where one party pushes their point of view with blind religious fervor and a constantly condescending and combative tone. If you care to enter the discussion with some reasonable points presented in a constructive way, then welcome. If you insist on trolling and baiting and jamming your opinion own everyone's throat, then STFU and leave.


  14. you read somewhere that it did? like you read somewhere about everything you are quoting? the torque arm suspension used on the camaro is not all that either, they bind horribly and have since day one, GM was not able to fix the binding problem in subsequent iterations of the car and ultimately cancelled the camaro entirely. the body structure was so weak that even brand new camaros had more squeaks and rattles than my 69 mustang, i know i owned a 95 formula 'bird with the LT-1, we bought it used with less than 30k on the clock and when we traded it in it had less than 50K and the trans and rearend were in shot and the torque arm made horrible noises from the first day we got it.

    sorry, but your tirades have no effect on me and i could care less what your opinion is on ANYTHING, so......:Zip2:
  15. The camaro sucks donkey balls

    Thats why they stopped making it AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....along with the trans am (lmao which is the same damn car with a face lift...... (even bigger laugh-----> AHAHAHAHAHAHA )

    And lets not forget the camaro handles no better then any mustang, lets not forget the IRS stangs ;) (cobras and such)

    And if for some reason im wrong..... i "read it somewhere"

  16. there is also a kit from another called CPA suspensions it's a little bit cheaper and one of the guys on the 1969stang.com website has installed one of them, though the car isn't on the road yet, he said the quality of their kit is awesome, here's a link to their site.


    EDIT; BTW, they also sell Opentracker stuff as well and for the falcon guys on the board they will soon have ORP stuff for the falcon as well.
  17. The SBC was almost the SBF, Ford wouldn't buy the design, so they went to Chevrolet, read that somewhere..... maybe in a book by a guy with the last name of Yunick. Last I looked, the SBC looks a lot like a SBF.
  18. I don't want to sound argumentative, but I have articulated front struts ($150 worth of swaged tubes, rod ends, frame brackets, threaded clevis, spacers, washers and bolts) that I wouldn't say was "noticeably" harsher. Before I designed my front coil over suspension I had the typical 600 lb lowering coil springs, stock spring perches, KYB gas shocks, and rubber strut rod bushings. I felt that was a much harsher ride than what I have now. The coil over design has significantly lower rate springs (400 lbs) with double adjustable shocks, and IMO handles so much better there is just no comparison. There were two other significant changes made at the same time that played a large part in the improved handling: power R&P steering and 17" wheels.

    When I get my engine and tranny sorted out I would love to compete in a "shootout" with all the big name suspension developers such as TCP, RRS, and Air Ride (and throw in some MII cars like Heidt's). I would need a real driver as this would be a test of my car's ability not mine (I suck as a driver... still a newbie on the track).

    Now the wheels are turning: rent a track on the East coast, registered and inspected street 'stangs 65-73, full interior (I have working AC and a stereo), maybe wheel/tire size limit?
  19. Ed Cole was the chief design engineer on the 265 SBC. He worked for Chevrolet. Not some independant firm. He later became president of GM He died in a plane crash in May, 1977.
    In 1952 his engineering team was given the task of building a v-8 engine for Chevy. The rest is history. That you apparently don't know much about.