• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

another coilover by Bryce

  • Thread starter Thread starter 5280/4
  • Start date Start date Dec 27, 2009
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 27, 2009
#1
  • Dec 27, 2009
  • #1
This has been my project this week. I designed and fabbed a Bolt in coilover system. Yes i designed it for drag but a different spring selection and the shelby drop could make the car very capabable in the corners as well.

here are some pics.

































 

Federico Garza

Member
Jun 12, 2009
37
1
9
Dec 27, 2009
#2
  • Dec 27, 2009
  • #2
Nice!!!!!
 

SlammedGT

Active Member
Oct 15, 2004
581
9
29
Peotone, IL.
Dec 27, 2009
#3
  • Dec 27, 2009
  • #3
looks great
 

Dutch65mustang

New Member
Dec 26, 2009
45
0
0
The Netherlands
Dec 27, 2009
#4
  • Dec 27, 2009
  • #4
Great work ! Thinking of building my own coiloverconversion also !

Nice stang btw !
 

shoguun

New Member
Jul 28, 2009
184
0
0
Dec 28, 2009
#5
  • Dec 28, 2009
  • #5
your not throwing your suspension on your dads car
 
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 28, 2009
#6
  • Dec 28, 2009
  • #6
shoguun said:
your not throwing your suspension on your dads car
Click to expand...

i am keeping the suspension on my falcon. This is a new design that i built for my dads mustang.



Posted via Mobile Device
 
6

65ebd65

New Member
Dec 26, 2009
16
0
0
Dec 28, 2009
#7
  • Dec 28, 2009
  • #7
Unreal, you are making it look to easy!
Props looks great! Love the mustang too.
 
J

jbuening

Member
Apr 28, 2005
399
0
17
Dec 28, 2009
#8
  • Dec 28, 2009
  • #8
Any part numbers on the stuff you didn't have to fab?
 

Tanus

New Member
Dec 11, 2009
847
1
0
A to the Z
Dec 28, 2009
#9
  • Dec 28, 2009
  • #9
homemade parts FTW!
 

88gt

Founding Member
Aug 2, 1999
794
0
0
Drillers cabin
Dec 28, 2009
#10
  • Dec 28, 2009
  • #10
Great design, I have a question for you about the lower mounting plate you used. Understanding that the "u" bracket that is bolted to the flat bar, is there a concern about it deflecting under load? Would a machined bar like the one for the top mount resist deflection better?

Not knocking the design, great stuff..just something I see and am curious about.

Keep up the good work!!
 
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 29, 2009
#11
  • Dec 29, 2009
  • #11
jbuening said:
Any part numbers on the stuff you didn't have to fab?
Click to expand...

the only thing i did not fab are the special order afco shocks. They dont even have a part number for what i ordered. They are closely related to the T2 double adjustable 4" stroke length. And the 225 lb springs are an afco part number 10" long.

everything else i made, fasteners are off the shelf.
 
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 29, 2009
#12
  • Dec 29, 2009
  • #12
88gt said:
Great design, I have a question for you about the lower mounting plate you used. Understanding that the "u" bracket that is bolted to the flat bar, is there a concern about it deflecting under load? Would a machined bar like the one for the top mount resist deflection better?

Not knocking the design, great stuff..just something I see and am curious about.

Keep up the good work!!
Click to expand...


The summary first then the explanation. There is no concern about deflection under load. The 'T'-bar design is comparable in overall strength.

Okay, lecture is in session students please take your seats. HAHA. just playing around.

The main thing you want to focus on when taking about bending is the unsuported distance and the cross sectional area. Also the moment of inertia plays a heavy roll as well.

To explain the MOI, picture bending a flat piece of steel 1/8" thick and 2" wide. It is easy to bend it so that the bend is across the 2" width. because you are only bending the 1/8" thick part.

The cross sectional are is the area of the part if you took a vertical cut at the highest load.

The T-bar has more unsupproted distance. Since the force is directly in the center of the bar. My design with the U-bracket brings the forces closer to the A-arm attach points. Therefore, less bending moment. Also since my lower plate is wider than the t-bar I have more cross sectional area. The T-bar would have been a 5/8" diameter bar that is flattened at the ends. Mine is a 2" wide steel bar with a 1/4" thickness. there is no concern about deflection or fatigue.

My design also make the shock mounting points adjustable. I was able to fine tune the amount of droop I wanted, and i was able to dial in where the shock bottoms out compared to the stock bump stop bottoming out. Since this is a drag car i was most concerned about the droop of this suspension and the spring rate chosen. However it will also be a light use street car and needs to have the ride height adjustable.

The other advantage is my design weighs 8lbs less per side. The biggest saving was my spring only weighs 3lbs.
 
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 29, 2009
#13
  • Dec 29, 2009
  • #13
Thanks for the support and props everyone.

more pics with the dSLR i bought my wife for christmas.


















 

88gt

Founding Member
Aug 2, 1999
794
0
0
Drillers cabin
Dec 29, 2009
#14
  • Dec 29, 2009
  • #14
Thanks for the explanation...that dang "cross-section" stuff, for some reason, gives me the most grief.....
.
Great stuff!!
 
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 29, 2009
#15
  • Dec 29, 2009
  • #15
88gt said:
Thanks for the explanation...that dang "cross-section" stuff, for some reason, gives me the most grief.....
.
Great stuff!!
Click to expand...

HAHA, thanks man.
 
6

65ebd65

New Member
Dec 26, 2009
16
0
0
Dec 30, 2009
#16
  • Dec 30, 2009
  • #16
Seems like you got the tech, So I am going to ask what might be a stupid question. I have never been a fan of cutting the springs without compensating at the shock tower caps.
I have no tech for this, just something that seems common sense to me.
I am assuming it was mounted on 2 different cars, judging by the picture's.
Under one of the shock tower caps you show a bracket that is for the export brace bar on another it's gone.
Is that going to make a difference?
 
6

65ebd65

New Member
Dec 26, 2009
16
0
0
Dec 30, 2009
#17
  • Dec 30, 2009
  • #17
I hate to tell you guys this. Since you mention the Shelby drop and it seems like, its almost an automatic thing to do on the 65-66 mustang.
Those of you that have done it on the 65-66 are only doing a partial mod.
67 mustang and above it was done by the factory. Somewhere along the line, someone omitted a very important part of the Shelby drop, for the 65 and 66 mustang. I bet even most of the 65-66 Shelby owners can not tell you what it is.
Any guesses?
 
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 30, 2009
#18
  • Dec 30, 2009
  • #18
65ebd65 said:
Seems like you got the tech, So I am going to ask what might be a stupid question. I have never been a fan of cutting the springs without compensating at the shock tower caps.
I have no tech for this, just something that seems common sense to me.
I am assuming it was mounted on 2 different cars, judging by the picture's.
Under one of the shock tower caps you show a bracket that is for the export brace bar on another it's gone.
Is that going to make a difference?
Click to expand...


The only reason to raise your shock towers after lowering your car is to have the shock mid range at ride height. But the shock will not bottom out before the stock bump stop when you lower the car. So you could drive the car with just cut springs and not adjusting the shock tower mount.

This was the same 65 mustang. The pictures were taken at different stages of mock up. And it would not make a difference. without the strut brace bracket I can take out the spacers i used betwwen the shock and the upper shock mount. this was to space the shock down. This gave me more droop.
 
5

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
Dec 30, 2009
#19
  • Dec 30, 2009
  • #19
65ebd65 said:
I hate to tell you guys this. Since you mention the Shelby drop and it seems like, its almost an automatic thing to do on the 65-66 mustang.
Those of you that have done it on the 65-66 are only doing a partial mod.
67 mustang and above it was done by the factory. Somewhere along the line, someone omitted a very important part of the Shelby drop, for the 65 and 66 mustang. I bet even most of the 65-66 Shelby owners can not tell you what it is.
Any guesses?
Click to expand...

Are you reffering to moving the UCA back 1/8"?
 
6

65ebd65

New Member
Dec 26, 2009
16
0
0
Dec 30, 2009
#20
  • Dec 30, 2009
  • #20
No, We knew of this mod (Shelby drop) back in the 60's.
The reason no one done it, on the 65-66 mustang is because along with the Lowered (1 in.) front upper A-arms, they added special lengthened pitman and idler arms on the 65-66 Shelby's that were not available for the 65-66 mustang's.
Back then just finding a affordable, larger 1-in. front sway bar was a pain and had to be taken out of a junk yard wrecked car.
Today it's easy with the internet.
Okay, I guess I will be the first to bite. The question on everyone's mind, naturally is going to be are you going to offer this for sale and how affordable will it be?
The design looks great, and its obvious that you know what you are doing. Judging by the mustang, the quality of the works speaks for itself.
I should get a hefty discount, seeing we are in a recession and all and it being I that was the first to ask. Everyone else can line up behind me at a hefty mark-up.
Anyone that complains, you can charge them double.
Should work out pocketbook wise in the end.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
For Sale MASTER LISTING: Abandoned '66 Mustang Restomod Part-Out (Wilwood, Ididit, Quick Performance, Mishimoto)
  • JasonB66
  • Jul 23, 2026
  • Suspension
Replies
0
Views
90
Suspension Jul 23, 2026
JasonB66
J
Cobra Brake Conversion - Spare Wheel/Tire Search
  • AeroCoupe
  • Aug 2, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
84
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Yesterday at 10:48 PM
Shakerhood
R
What's it Worth? 1997 Cobra, a ton of mods and restoration
  • riored97snake
  • Jun 18, 2026
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
2
Views
199
What is it Worth?!?!? Jun 21, 2026
riored97snake
R
0
V6 to V8 Swap info
  • 02_2v_Curtis
  • Jan 11, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
766
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jan 11, 2026
02_2v_Curtis
0
Drivetrain 83’ Glx convertible C5 Trans help!
  • JacksonJared2113
  • Dec 25, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
2
Views
401
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 26, 2025
JacksonJared2113
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?