Has anyone checked out AJE's new front end?

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

  1. Yeh, I HEARD of them. trouble was they were over priced, hard to come by and most of the dealers didn't want to mess with them. Then, after the 1970 season when Ford quit racing all the parts counters were told to deny the availability of them. In 1974 when I needed a gasket kit and calibration kit for my Inline-4's I had to call Jack Roush to get the part numbers, price and he then told me the parts guy WOULD say they were no longer available. Jack said I should give the guy HIS name and number when he tried that ploy because he had just taken delivery on the very same parts. You should have seen the look on the parts guys face at Palmetto Ford in Charleston when that went down. PRICELESS!
    And one other thing...if you want 520 hp in a small block fuelie Ford you need to talk to Jack and he will sell one to you for $23,000.00. But if you want 585 hp in a small block Chevy you can buy a 427, Titaninum rod/valve LS-7 for $16,000.00. And it will meet EPA.
  2. This thread is already spiraling out of control, but just for the record:

    * Rod/stroke ratio got a lot of attention in the '70's and '80's but today the consensus is that it's less important than the other things a high ratio interferes with, e.g., longer stroke (= bigger cubes) and a proper compression height.

    * The 283 had a 3" stroke but the 302 Z/28 crank was a new forging that had not previously appeared in any 283 and did not appear in any other SBC.

    * The '67 and '68 Z/28 302's used 2-bolt blocks.

    Conclusion: very little, if anything, of what you wrote supports your opinion that the 302/290 was superior to the 327/365.

    * A stock Z/28 302 made about 330 gross hp @ 6500. If you built a Boss 302 that could rev past 8000, it would be making at least 400 hp. At what level does "real horsepower" begin?

    * The Boss piston problem was a supplier problem. It was fixed. It is ancient history. Sorry you were on the wrong end of the deal.

    * One man's "firm belief" is just another man's bench racing/wishful thinking. Jim Hall, the Chaparral guy who is recognized as an innovator without peer in his era, ran the Chevy "factory" effort in '70 and won nothing. What could Penske possibly have done that Jim Hall did not do? Have you gone through the schedule, race by race, and found choices made by Jim Hall, where Roger Penske would have done something else, and where that something else would have made a difference? Penske/Donahue did OK with the Javelin in '70, but that was with factory support, an area in which Jim Hall's Chevy effort came up short in comparison to every other make.

    And why are we arguing what-ifs about a 37-year-old racing season anyway?

    * The Boss 302 heads worked "properly" enough with 302 cubes (38 ci/cylinder) pulling on them to win the '70 Trans Am season title, did pretty well in '69 and '71, and won their share of Super Stock events as well. Furthermore, what V8 head wouldn't work "properly-er" on a 400 ci engine than on a 302?

    * Shelby American's production car lineup, 1962 to 1970, consisted of Cobras, GT350's, and GT500's. Very few BB Cobras had 428 PI's in them. The 428 PI was the engine in the standard '67 GT500 and the non-KR '68 GT500. SA's marketing strategy was to price them within a few hundred of the same-year GT350. That would not have been possible with a 427. The choice was about money, not availability.

    * Shelby beat Ferrari in endurance racing with the 289 Cobra Daytona coupe. 289 and 427 Cobras consistently beat Ferrari in SCCA sports car racing. USRRC sports prototypes were almost all powered by Detroit V8's. In endurance racing from 1965 until the Porsche 917 took over in 1970, the Ford GT beat the Ferrari P3's and P4's consistently, including all those Le Mans victories. Ferrari was a non-factor in Can Am. Ferrari was non-existent in drag racing, land speed racing, and hill climbs, all of which relied on Detroit V8's. Your statement is insane.
  3. You just made my point..what good is the 'best' engine in the world if you can't get parts for it. And you dare to mention drag racing....owned by Chevrolet. Check the records. Most stock classes and damn near ALL the old modified-eliminator (gas-class).

    Ford has been famous for leaving the high performance buyer out in the cold. When Dale Earnhardt left Bud Moore and went to RCR he said:

    "I've put-up with Ford and put-up with Ford and I won't do it anymore."

  4. dude, please do us all a really big favor and go hang out on the chevy forums, this is a ford forum. or are you not allowed on any of them any more?
  5. For real. At least when you were being a douche about suspension it could be considered somewhat "on topic".
  6. You know, you can look at all of MiketheBike posts and he always tends to go prochevy in them. Never has anything constructve to say, always badmouthing any thread he gets into. Not sure if he really has a Ford, but I can't really see if he does, why he bought it.
  7. Compare apples to apples. Hell, I'll build you a 302 that will make more than that dry sump race motor chevy, and do it for even less, including the entire fuel system. It'll pass smog no problem. I'll keep it a real 302 just to make the chevy guys feel even better about that full race motor stuffed in a street car.
    Just take the babble somewhere else. Your not going to sway anybodies opinion here. Your just attempting to look down at people and it just ain't gonna fly. :ban:
  8. oh my!!!

    My simple question about the CPP set up has started an all out war!!!

    What to do? LOL.

    There are lots of smart car people on this thread from the technical questions and answers I have read.

    But I am not getting the direct feed back I was looking for.

    In regards to the CPP set up that eliminates the strut rods.

    Is this a good thing or bad thing? Can I mess up the car with not having strut rods somehow? Will this set up take care of the bad handling my car has. (Along with some roller spring perches and new shocks and springs of course)

    I just want to understand the impact of not having strut rods with this set up.

    I want to use my car allot more than I do now, and be able to drive nice and spirited when the time comes. By looking at this set up it seems to me that it is built solid.

    Here we go again. Be nice this time people!!

    And thanks
  9. I did actually respond to your strut rod questions with my opinions a little ways back and some discussion followed until mikethebike blew the thread apart again. Look back and then let us know if you have more questions.

  10. I went back to read the post. sounds like you think the car would do ok with the CPP set up. maybe just ride a bit harsher on bumps? do to not having any bushing to asorbe some road shock.

    Mr. Reenmachine.....Would a set of roller springs from opentracker take care of that harshness? (if that is even a word!!) lol if used on this set up by CPP?

    i would love the rrsp set up. but way to expensive for me. that is why this CPP set up with upper and lower arms interests me so much.
  11. Let's keep the thread on track or somebody isn't going to be playing in the sandbox much longer.

  12. Pete, i went back and re-read your reply as well and it seemed that you were talking more about the AJE setup than the CPP setup with the lower A-arm vs the stock control arm/strut rod arrangement. maybe i missed it but i also would like to know your opinion of the CPP setup.

    it seems to me that by using the CPP system with the lower A-arm you'd actually get a smoother ride and slightly better handling than the stock mustang system since it still uses bushings but changes the load on the front of the control arm from stock and you have much better triangulation of the lower arm vs the stock system.

    i for one and extremely interested in this kit for my 69 cougar and will proably end up buying it eventually anyway.
  13. To refresh everyone's recollection, here is the basic CPP kit:


    Looking at this hardware, it appears that the first step, after removal of the OE lower control arm and the strut rod, is to cut off the brackets for the front ends of the strut rods. Then you flip the big C-shaped subframe upside down and bolt it onto the frame rails and across the radiator support. The purpose of the subframe is to supply a mounting point for the forward leg of the new tubular lower control arm. It also appears that the rear of the new tubular LCA will use the OE LCA's mounting point.

    When you think about it, the configuration of the OE LCA/strut rod assembly is similar to the CPP A-frame LCA. The difference is that the OE assembly mounts the forward leg to the frame with giant rubber pads on either side of the mounting bracket, captured between washers, while the forward CPP kit uses a pivot bolt inside a rubber (or polyurethane?) bushing. Also, the OE A-frame puts the two pivot points a lot further apart.

    So how would these difference affect ride harshness? I think that's just guesswork. The CPP setup is typical of all production unequal length control arm setups using A-frame LCA's. Production cars today generally ride pretty smooth. So it's safe to conclude that there is nothing in the CPP setup that would necessarily result in a harsh ride. Many other factors contribute to harshness: tire aspect ratio, shock absorbers, spring rate, and chassis stiffness being the main factors. Depending on the durometer rating of the bushings, I would expect the CPP setup to ride smoother than the common rod end (aka Heim joint) strut rods that many of us are using up front.

    I would also expect, that if you went with the CPP upper control arms, which appear to use the same kind of rubber or poly of bushings as their LCA's do, that you would get a smoother ride than with the OE steel-on-steel bushings, or the Global West "del-alum" (a delrin bushing inside an aluminum bushing) or the Total Control Products rod end setups.

    The Opentracker rollerized spring perches are kind of mysterious to me. Here is my understanding, which may or may not be correct: the OE setup uses a pivot inside a rubber bushing. This pivot binds in the bushing, i.e., it does not want the spring perch to rotate in response to UCA movement. This hampers the ability of the spring/shock assembly to compress freely. In other words, you hit a small bump and nothing happens, other than the tire sidewalls flexing -- the suspension itself does not move. That is the very definition of ride harshness.

    The Opentracker rollerized spring perch eliminates the pivot binding part of this process. These perches rotate very readily. So the suspension can move that much, right away -- enough to rotate the perch to keep it square to the spring/shock assembly and to convey all the bump energy directly to the spring/shock assembly, rather than to the binding of spring perch bushing.

    The other mysterious quality of the rollerized spring perch is its effect on steering effort. Everybody who installs a set comments on this. I think this has to do with the camber change that occurs when you steer the front wheels. That camber change puts a compression force on the suspension. Again, with the OE spring perch, the first obstacle to that compression is the binding of the spring perch's pivot and its bushing. You have to overcome that binding with your own arm strength. But with the rollerized spring perch, that binding doesn't happen. The spring perch rotates freely in response to the camber change.

    So there you go, a nice long web message post written by an amateur hobbyist who may or may not know wtf he's talking about.

    Attached Files:

  14. Thanks. This is the feed back i am looking for on the strut rods.

    I really do appreciate it.

    quick question. I want to drop the Upper control arms by 1" when i update the suspension. I should still be able to do this with these arms that come with this kit?

    Also the ad says that the arms are: "preassembled on new billet chromolly......."

    Is this quality stuff? better than stock metal?

    thanks again
  15. If I am correct, that the CPP LCA uses the stock LCA mounting point for the rear leg of its A-frame, then I would expect that the LCA ball joint will be in exactly the same spot as the stock one. That means the CPP kit will have no effect on your ability to lower the mounting points for the UCA.

    As far as the UCA drop, I would go 1.5", not 1". You should not do this with a stock UCA, though, because the ball joint might bind and break. You will need to use a tubular UCA, like the Global West or TCP, or a Maier Racing or Opentracker modified OE UCA.

    Chrome and molybdenum are additives used to alloy the iron when making steel. I believe they make it stronger, which allows thinner parts.

    "Billet" refers to a block of metal that is carved into the desired shape, as opposed to castings and fabricated tube assemblies. Billet is preferred to castings because it gives a uniform grain structure. With CNC machines, billet is also preferred because you can make a small run of parts faster and cheaper than with castings and forgings. The availability of CNC machinery is probably the reason for so much billet stuff being on the market today.

    You could make parts out of a billet of chrome-moly steel, just as you could make parts out of a billet of any alloy. But looking at the CPP kit, I can't guess what parts they're referring to. The subframe and its brackets look like welded sheet metal. The LCA's look like tubular steel, bent and welded with a piece of sheet metal for the ball joint pad. I really can't guess where they are using any parts carved from billet.

    Note: the body and the lid of the master cylinder on my '65 Mustang are cast polished aluminum. But the manufacturer -- Scott Drake -- marketed this assembly as "billet." It's not billet, but I guess the marketing department thinks that "billet" is a synonym for "shiny."
  16. the control arm shaft is what's made of billet chrome-moly which is good. one thing about your post is that you recommended lowering the UCA 1.5" instead of 1" that would be just fine if the new UCA has a correct ball joint angle like the GW UCA but we don't yet know if the CPP UCA has this corrected ball joint angle, if it doesn't then the 1" drop would still be the limit.

    personally, i was going to use the standard CPP kit with only the lower A-arm conversion parts and an Opentracker roller UCA and roller spring perch. just because i like John's parts, i have a set of his roller perches on my GT at the moment and i'll definitely be using another set on the cougar.

    one more thing i'd like to add is that the way CPP talks about the bushing material they use leads me to believe they are using a Delrin bushing which is the same material that GW uses in their Del-Alum bushings but GW also uses an aluminum sleeve with their bushings, i don't think CPP uses the aluminum sleeve.
  17. Not without cats and various other peripherals (EEC, etc.) will an LS-7 crate "meet EPA."

    And if, by chance, you were posting to a Ford forum you might also want to mention the World Products 460 ci Windsor crate engine, complete from pan to carb and rated at 600 hp, $12,200 at Summit, or the 427, 440, and 460 ci McKeown Motorsport Clevor crate engines, using CHI Cleveland-style heads on a World Products Windsor block, and rated at 675, 700, or 725 hp, $14,000 at MME.

    Oh wait, this is a Ford forum.

    I may be wrong, but I don't think you can find a 725 hp NA pump gas SBC for $14,000.
  18. ya know there is too much good info in this thread to get it locked so let's just try to ignore the guy and continue with the thread. i think i will also start a new thread on the CPP suspension as well.