Thoughts on the new CPP front suspension?

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by bnickel, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. Good Afternoon Guys,

    Reading though your forum site I figured we would chime in and would be happy to answer any questions you might have with our Subframe kits. Currently we have the 64-66 kit done. We are however going to make one for the 67-up also.

    We are looking to test fit one of these 67-up kit on a RUNNING/Drivable car. If anyone with a 67-68-69-70?? is in the So-cal Area (close to anaheim) send me an email. I would like to talk to you about your car and the possibility of using it for test fitting. could be a great hook up for someone.


    Also feel free to check out the nova site for an install articale and to get a better idea on how this system works.

    Here is a link to a Nova forum on the Nova kit. These are very similar to the Fords.

  2. what can you tell us abouy the geometry changes and how they affect the drivability of the car? stuff like caster gain/loss, camber gain/loss, bumpsteer, etc.

    also, the ad you guys have says you have options like drop spindles, brake kits, etc. do you have those available yet or they also a future offering? if they are available do you have any pics you can post?

    do you have any pics of the mustang kit installed also?
  3. ok, one more question. does CPP have plans to produce a rear suspension kit for the early mustangs as well? if so what type will it be. thanks
  4. Whats the cost on a complete front suspension kit. Also, whats the weight comparison between the two? (I have a 65)
  5. Too bad I'm in Northern CA; I'd be all over your offer. At that price though I can't wait for the release.
  6. CCP tech,
    Thank you for posting! And also, thanks moderators for allowing his posts!
    Is your system more biased to the average street cruiser, corner carver, or drag strip? If you are biased more towards the street cruiser/drag racer, then there is no need to answer my questions below.
    I am interested in the suspension geometry. It sounds like you've made changes in most of the take off points. What was your overall goal? How does this relate to things like spring and damping ratio, instant center, roll center, anti-dive, turning radius, bump steer, etc. How does this system control LCA bind under heavy braking and cornering loads? In the attached article it mentions the ability to reduce turning radius. I'm interested in how this is accomplished while running larger tires at the same time.
    Where are you picking up the additional two inches of ground clearance?
    I take it your bushings are not of the nylon reinforced plastic? I still can't remember the correct name, but they were used a lot on European cars.
    Any thoughts to a coil over system attached at the LCA?
    Again, thanks for posting.
  7. The problem with the strut rod original setup is the cars alignment specs can change dramaticly while being driven. It can go from being setup on an alignment rack to spec to a considerable change while being used. The movement of the suspension AKA stut rod bind and other bad tendencies of a strut rod car all come into effect on a stock OE suspension.

    With the use of our system the geometry change under load (driving) does not change and takes the major wandering feel out of the car while driving. These situations in the above paragraph have not been noticed at all in testing and with the positive feedback we have received by MANY 62-67 nova owners.

    To answer your question on the lower a-arm the demension is the same as stock but is no longer a stamped steel a-frame that bends and relies on the strut rod to help keep it from moving. The CPP lower setup allows the use of a full lower tubluar a-frame design that in turn elliminates the strut rod all together.

    With our upper a-arms we shorten the arm by 1/4 inch for a more improved camber gain. This also allows a broader range now to fine tune your alignment specs that were never achievable before!

    Classic Performance
  8. Hoping to hear a little more technical analysis. How much caster change is there with a stock system? How does CCP geometry not change when the suspension moves? Did CCP have a design engineer who reviewed the stock Mustang geometry and then designed and tested this new package? Maybe (s)he could bring some technical information to this discussion?
    Basically it's pretty close, money wise, between upgrading to a CCP front end or going with boxed stock arms with heim joints, and a good set of struts. The stock geometry is pretty darned good once you reduce the bind and flex. And has a history of racing to support it.
    Simply saying you have less bind because there is no strut rod is not necessarily an accurate statement, and does not shed any light into the design engineering behind what may be a competent suspension package.
    We have asked some pretty specific questions above, and CCP has a great oportunity to share their knowledge here.
    What some of us are seeing is the proliferation of "wanna-be" suspension companies. People who jump in from other venues because of the large amounts of money being spent to upgrade and modify these cars. They prey upon the lack of knowledge from the average home builder, with unsubstantiated claims and no technical information to support their marketing hype.
    We would like to see some actual technical analysis as is provided by companies with a history in the Mustang world, such as Grigg's, Maximum Motorsports, Maier Racing, Chassis Works, ORP, etc.
  9. Your first question, caster change; Caster is the angle measured from a line that goes from the upper ball joint pivot center to the lower ball joint pivot center, and a vertical line. Any time the rake of the car changes (or the incline of the road), caster changes. As the front suspension moves caster changes because of the anti-dive in the front suspension design. How much caster is in the stock system, depends on the car rake, and how many shims in the upper arm, and your ride height. The CPP arms are 1/4 inch shorter. This lets you add 1/4 inch more shims to adjust you caster. The lower arm also has a slotted mount that lets you adjust caster again. Regardless of how much caster was in your car to start, the CPP kit will allows to run more or less caster. One of the key features is being able to adjust to your liking. If you cut a small slot in the lower pivot similar to the slot the factory made in the 1967 and later cars, you increase the range of adjustability yet again.

    Your second question, how does it move; We recognize that many people have relocated the upper arm pivot lower in the chassis and sometimes they moved them a bit backward too. This is usually done in an effort to have a different camber curve and more caster. We addressed the extra caster already. The shorter arms will also give a slightly better camber curve, but does not change the bump steer as much.

    Your third question, did CPP review the stock suspension and then design and test the new package; Yes and no. We looked at the stock suspension, but not very close. The suspension will not behave the same on the alignment rack as it does when the car is being driven. The wheel alignment is not critical until the car is at the limits of its traction. As the car approaches its limits, the O.E. suspension has a very large amount of bend, twist, give, and flex. This is known as compliance. For example, when you apply the brakes to near lock up, the front dives, (losing caster), the rear raises (losing caster), and the bushings and arm flex (losing caster). The CPP bushings and arms have virtually no flex. This limits the loss of caster, and all of the compliance in the OE suspension swamp out much or all the feed back and contribute to a wandering feeling in the front suspension.

    The kit is priced to be pretty close to the same price as rebuilding/upgrading you stock suspension. After you do the upgrades to the OE suspension, you still have less ground clearance, you have hiem joints that are known to be noisy and have no cushioning effect in a hard impact, rubber or urethane bushings that have a lot more movement and flex, and a boxed arm that you get to make boxed again when the ball joint wears. The CPP kit uses a replaceable Mopar ball joint that is the same used on mustang II spindles. It has a 1 piece crossmember that strengthens the chassis. It has more ground clearance. It uses a bushing that does not squeak, and never needs to be greased. The bushings can be replaced if they wear. And you have an increased range of wheel alignment adjustability.

    Just about any suspension will work well. 1 of the biggest problems with OE suspensions is compliance. This is why so many people make parts like camber braces, and other types of chassis reinforcement products. As stated earlier, the only time the wheel alignment is critical is when the car as at its limits of traction, you can take a car with less than favorable camber gain and simply start with enough initial camber that the camber is ideal when the car is at its limits. Suspension design becomes more critical when the car has down force that changes the ride height. As you stated, the Mustang was raced successfully against many other manufactures with different suspensions, yet they all were closely matched, with each maker taking victories throughout the years.

    Essentially the biggest benefit is how much easier it is to drive the car. Whether you are pushing the car to its limits, or just cruising, the difference is instantly noticed.

    These benefits could not have been realized with the binding action of the strut rod. A rod end upgrade will end the bind, but still leave much of the compliance. This compliance is the single biggest problem with the OE suspension. This kit will alone not turn your car into 1.5G cornering machine, but this is a giant leap, and makes the car much more consistent when carving the corners, or tearing up a drag strip.

    Danny Nix

    800-522-5004 #124
  10. Adjusting the caster by moving the front pivot of the LCA inward puts it at an angle (compared to the car's centerline). Doesn't this put the bushings in a bind? I'm asking this, because I was reading a discussion the other day regarding bushing material for Fox/SN95 Mustang lower control arms. Bind due to slight misalignment of the mounting holes in the frame were mentioned as a critical factor and the reason why many aftermarket arms use heim joints (or some other sperical solution), rather than Delrin or similar materials that don't allow much deflection.

    To give an idea: adding 1 deg of caster requires shifting the LBJ 0.2" forward, so (judging from the pictures of the CPP lower arm), the front pivot of the arm also moves 0.2" inward. I can imagine that keeping the rear bolt tight, loosening the front bolt and trying the push the arm 0,2" inward would be difficult, due to the tight clearance on the bushings?
  11. Adjusting the caster will put some pressure on the bushings. However, it is not bound up too tightly. There is enough give in the factory sheet metal pivot to allow the very small angle change. Many new cars and trucks adjust this way. The bushing we use is not quite like delrin. It has the ability to flex and return to shape similar to a urethane bushing, except it takes much more force to make the bushing flex. I will give you an example of the bushings strength: I needed a bushing for a coil over shock in the new Toyota Tundra. The best urethanes from all the big urethane bushing makers failed. They would last up to 1 week before complete failure. The coil over had 4,100 ponds of force on the bushing when the truck was parked, and more whet it was hitting bumps and carrying loads. All the urethanes had enough flex that you could easily see the bushing distort as soon as the truck came off the lift. The CPP bushing material showed no signs of flexing or being distorted. And unlike delrin, nylon, and the other hard materials we tested, it never squeaked, and had no measurable wear after 90 days testing. However, with the bushings in a vise or press, you can squeeze it into a badly distorted shape, and when you take the pressure off the bushing it returns to its original shape. All of the hard bushings cracked and split under the same side by side testing.

    I hope this helps you to better understand the bushings.
  12. Wouldn't it be nice to be so filthy-stinking-rich that we could all just go buy a new 500 hp Ferrari and not need to worry about all this?

    I know...that would't be near as much fun.

    You do have a very good point there.
  13. Any news on when/if these will be released for sale?
  14. i believe they are ready foe sale they are just so new they don't have them on the website yet. best bet is to call them and see.

    EDIT: i guess that would be an expensive call from Oz huh? i got some literature from them the other day but it's the same stuff that's already been posted so i'm not gonna bother to scan and post it. i'm going to have to go out of town for a few days for my grandfather's funeral but i'll try to remember to call them for you when i get back and check availability.
  15. Man my neighbor was telling me about this kit. I shoulda jumped on it when it was offered.He works for CPP :(

  16. maybe you could find out from him if the kit is available yet then?

    the brochure i got stated the lower kit would be $399 and the upper arms would be another $309, so for around $700 which is close to the cost of replacing the upper and lower arms, strut rods and bushings you could have this kit, heck it's even less than an adjustable strut rod kit and similar tubular UCA's. pretty good deal IMO, now if they'll just come out with a kit for the 67-up cars i'll be all over it. at least the lower kit anyway, i have some other ideas for the rest of the front end.
  17. I talked to them at SEMA and saw the Nova kit, which looked really nice. I believe they told me that the 64-66 kits are available now and that they have completed 67-up kits fully tested and currently going into production.
  18. sweet, what did you think of the kit? was it built pretty well? it's kinda hard to tell in the pics we have.
  19. It looked to me to be very well built -- I wouldn't hesitate to drive it hard. I'd still like to put their lower setup together with an RRS strut kit.
  20. With a replaceable lower joint, that ought to be feasable. Was kinda thinking the same thing. But what about the camber gains to be had with a double a-arm ? Wouldn't that be better than the RRS stuff and no upper arm.