Front suspension idea

[R.O.B.]

Ok, this is my idea.
1. Start with a good coil spring, around 620lbs, 1" drop
2. Go with an upper control arm that will allow a 1" drop, and still use the spring perch, like this:

3. Use a roller spring perch.
4. Use an SN95 spindle, with an adapter like this:

5. Use SN95 aftermarket tubular lower control arms, with a custom k-member, to allow proper geometry.
6. Use SN95 rack & pinion (or other if suggested).

With this setup, the suspension geometry should be near ideal, or at least far better than stock, and an improvment over struts. This will also allow the use of Cobra brakes or better, allow the use of stock type coil springs, so the aftermarket is a plenty to custom tune the suspension. This will also give R&P steering. And this should come in at a decent price too.

Please provide your opinion.

 

[rc4mike]

fatman has a new kit for 70's coming out after Christmas that is similar to what you are asking. They are using late model rack, spindles, brakes, struts, etc with a new crossmember and new lower control arms. They have a slighly different kit available now....but the new kit looks better. I am waiting to ge tthe new version.

Mike

 

[R.O.B.]

Another thought, use adjustable upper control arms, since the lowers will be aftermarket SN95's, and modify a SN95 k-member to fit. With the modified k-member, you know the control arms will be in the proper location, and it will be already set up for the R&P.

The idea would be to do something like the Griggs:

yet not pay almost $1000.00. Most of the SN95 ones run around $400.00.

 

[stonecoldtx]

SN95 Spindle Adapter

Where exactly did you find that spindle adapter?

Who makes it?

Is it designed to bolt to the upper control arms on a classic Mustang?

Details, man--details!

 

[R.O.B.]

That spindle adapter is sold by factory five. https://factoryfiveparts.com/product.php?productid=16281&cat=255&page=1 , its ment for Cobra kit cars to use a SN95 spindle, while still using upper on lower control arms. Its just what I'm thinking, because properly mounted control arms will out perform a strut style suspension.

 

[10secgoal]

AJE makes a kit pretty damn close to what you are talking about. You can get a SN-95 spindle as an upgrade if you want, and uses a fox or pinto rack. Or a drop rack, lots of different options.BUT, it is a strut stlye.

 

[R.O.B.]

I've looked into the AJE kit, its what got me thinking of the k-member idea in the first place. Its just they are expensive (I'm on a married with kids budget), and I really want to keep the upper and lower control arm setup. Overall, better handeling, if setup correctly. In order to have the strut setup handle as well, you need super stiff springs and sway bar to help keep the roll control down, which will give you positive camber, when in fact, you want negative camber.

 

[R.O.B.]

10secgoal, please provide more info on the AJE Racing k-member. While looking at their website, I only see the complete kit, yet I saw your other thread, and it would be perfect.

Do they make a k-member to fit fox or SN95 style a-arms, or custom? Do they sell the k-member by itself? Please let me know, this really has my interest.

Edit: I guess I should clarify these 2 posts a little. Orginally, I thought AJE did a strange form of a k-member, at least that's what it looks like on their website. But looking at 10secgoal's lates project, that k-member looks great. Now, if they only make it to work with fox or SN95 a-arms, and sell it at a good price, and I don't have to buy the whole kit, I'm in business.

 

[66fastback]

R.O.B. You sound like you are thinking very much like myself. I know that the overall dimensions of the cars are pretty close, and you could take a late model k-member and cut off the engine support and it would probably be pretty easy to adapt into the old car. This would provide a much stiffer support, built for the rack and pinion and allow the use of modern production brakes (cheap and easy to find).

I have two kids and am only making a little money on the side.....so time and $$$ are at a premium around here. The only difference was I was considering using a different upper arm and making an upper mount and converting to coil-overs. Mounting the coil over on the lower arm instead of the upper. Keep up this train of thought......I think it can be very useful.

Then again, what I know about suspension design could fill a lug nut.

 

[R.O.B.]

Then again, what I know about suspension design could fill a lug nut.

Dude, thanks for the laugh. But seriously, thanks for the encouragement!

Rob

 

[R.O.B.]

I have discovered an error, but have 2 solutions:
In my orginal post, the upper control arm doesn't have any adjustment. If going with the k-member, and SN95 lower a-arms, they don't have adjustments either.

Well, one solution is to change the upper control arm to one like TCP's, just prefer something cheaper then thier $650.00.


Another idea is to take the spindle adapter, and oblong the upper attaching holes, as to provide adjustment for camber that way. I don't know if this is how the Fox and SN95 mustangs do it now, but I've seen it on my Trans AM, the struts have the upper hole oblonged to adjust the alignment.

 

[bnickel]

i think the new GTO's use a rear steer spindle and are camber adjustable like the RRS spindles, in fact they look almost identical to the RRS struts IIRC. of course then you would have to find a rear steer rack to work but lot's of folks have used the GM J-car rack and pinion and made them work with little effort, just like what Steeroids, Randalls and Unisteer use for their rack kits, though the Randalls and Unisteer racks are modified to place the steering arms behind the rack instead of in front of it like Speed Direct and the Stock rack use. addittionally the RRS rack is at least based on (if not used as is) the J-car rack design or at least the euro/ozzie version which would be the holden/opel rack.

i'm really liking the idea of using a late model strut with a ball joint adapter and am extremely curious to see what comes of it. i do suspect that it still won't be optimum though and i'm pessimistic that it will be the huge improvement over a stock spindle that everyone hopes it will be. i honestly think that a custom drop spindle with altered geometry is the only way to fix the early cars spindle issues, however i am hopeful that someone will prove this way of thinking wrong.

 

[R.O.B.]

bnickel,
Thanks for the info about the R&P's, you gave me new info to go searching on.

As for the spindles, I don't know about "optimum" geometry, but it's got to be fairly descent to work for this setup. And with the use of SN95 spindles, the aftermarket is available with dropped spindles if necessary to use.

 

[ga289stocker]

I'll have to do mine one of these days, as for now i like it nice and loose.. I'm just into straight perfomance now but I'll for sure keep this in mind for later..

 

[R.O.B.]

Well, we haven't heard back from 10secgoal, so I just shot an e-mail over to AJE Racing to inquire about selling just a K-member to fit my 67, and if it can be made to accept SN95 lower control arms.

 

[R.O.B.]

I just discovered a problem. The front track on my '67 is 58", and on a SN95, its 1534mm, or 60.39". There may still be a way to use a custom k-member, but modifying a SN95 will cause the lower arms to be 2" to long (1" on each side).

Could it be possible to use a FOX k-member design? I can't find any info on the track width for FOX bodys. Anyone know this spec?

 

[R.O.B.]

I just found this note on Jeg's website talking about AJE control arms:

Note: Installing 1979-93 A-arms on an SN-95 chassis (1994-Up) can pull the wheels in 1'' and requires more camber adjustment than a factory setup can provide.

This would be exactly what we need, SN95 K-member, with FOX control arms. I wonder what whould happen if we used the FOX K-member and control arms?

 

[R.O.B.]

More food for thought. Since my Mustang has a 108" wheelbase, and the SN95's have a 101.3" wheelbase, using the SN95 spindles will throw off the ackerman angle wont it? Assuming the factory did the proper angle in both cases. The FOX body Mustang has 100.4" wheelbase, yet other FOX body's have 104", like the T-Bird's.

Anyone have thoughts on this? Are there any longer FOX body's?

 

[hipo_p51]

total control products

hey there, who is using this bolt on coil-over set from tcp on there 65/6 car? would like a review (hopefully) before i decide on buying them.

 

[bnickel]

More food for thought. Since my Mustang has a 108" wheelbase, and the SN95's have a 101.3" wheelbase, using the SN95 spindles will throw off the ackerman angle wont it? Assuming the factory did the proper angle in both cases. The FOX body Mustang has 100.4" wheelbase, yet other FOX body's have 104", like the T-Bird's.

Anyone have thoughts on this? Are there any longer FOX body's?

wheelbase doesn't really have any effect on the ackermann angle and if it does have any at all it's minimal. what you really need to be concerned with is track width not wheelbase.