front suspension redesign

[68rustang]

awhile back there was a discussion about optimizing the front end geometry of our early cars. There was some talk about shortening and lengthening control arms to get better results. Does anyone remember this thread? If so do you have it linked? If not, any input?

Thanks,
68Rustang

 

[Lswhat]

what about the shelby relocation for better geometry. it moves the upper about an inch cant remember up or down but its in the back of tony branda catalog.

 

[rbohm]

you relocate the upper arm pivot point down one inch. as for the upper arms, use the global west upper arms as they have revised geometry that really helps the cornering power of the early cars.

 

[68rustang]

you relocate the upper arm pivot point down one inch. as for the upper arms, use the global west upper arms as they have revised geometry that really helps the cornering power of the early cars.

I have already done the shelby drop

what I am looking for is the revised geometry. what did they revise? I have more time than money, and a whole machine shop at my disposal.

I remeber a discussion on here about lengthening the lower arm and shortening the upper, or vise versa, or one and the other? I dunno something like that. I could measure the suspension myself but do not have access to the car right now and probably will not until spring.

 

[dolfan87]

Most places (i.e. Total control, and Global West) will send you their upper arms with instructions on lowering the arm from the stock location. They also have shortened the upper arm, but I don't know by how much yet, as my TCP arms are due in any day now.

I will let you know how much they shortened it from the stock arm when they come in.

87

 

[Edbert]

Yes, GW and TCP shorten the UCAs. Once you move it down an inch on the inner mount it puts too much stress on the upper ball joint. So if you also shorten the UCA the ball joint retains the optimum geometry to compensate for lowering the inner pivot mount of the UCA.

Does that make sense?

 

[68rustang]

I thought the ball joint angle was only an issue if you dropped the lower control arm more than the standard 1 inch.

 

[rbohm]

as i recall global west shortened the upper arm about an inch, and they changed the angle of the ball joint mounting surface by 15 degrees to account for the lowering of the pivot point.