Global West vs Control Freak Suspension

[stang-69]

Hi
I´m the process of bying new UCA`s for my -69 fastback, the old UCA`s are done and useless so instead of bying new stock I want to upgrade the front.
My choice is between Global West and Control Freak. I know that there are others on the market, but I have very good experience with NPD (fast and correct), and since I live on the other side of the "big water" I´m not in the mood of trying to find a second supplier.
So my question is, which one to buy, does anybody have some experience with those UCA`s

 

[DK832]

Approx 20k miles on Global West and no problems. Sees track action 4-6 times a year (Knutstorp, Sturup etc.). Box your lower control arms too and you're good to go.

 

[red65]

I've had the Global West control arms on my '65 for about three years. It sees 6-8 track days a year, and they've performed well. Manufacturing quality is visibly quite good - no complaints. The only caveat is that they seem to leave a bit less clearance for a 17x8" front rim (rim hits the control arm) than perhaps some other control arm options. Not a big deal (I went with 17x7 fronts), but worth keeping in mind.

 

[4MuscleMachines]

About four years ago I purchased control freak. My installer had issues with fitment of the arms so I sold them off and purchased GW. No problems. I suppose CF has already addressed this issue. I have had GW on three Mustangs and no problems whatsoever.

 

[bnickel]

I've had the Global West control arms on my '65 for about three years. It sees 6-8 track days a year, and they've performed well. Manufacturing quality is visibly quite good - no complaints. The only caveat is that they seem to leave a bit less clearance for a 17x8" front rim (rim hits the control arm) than perhaps some other control arm options. Not a big deal (I went with 17x7 fronts), but worth keeping in mind.

i wonder if that's particular to the 65-66? i have 17x8's on the front of my 69 with stock arms and have no issues whatsoever and the GW pieces are supposed to give you more room for larger wheels than the stock ones. what backspacing were you using with those 17x8's if you don't mind me asking, i'm wonder if the backspacing was just to deep or something

 

[stang-69]

Thank´s

Thank you all for the answers, it has made my day.
I´m ordering GW UCA´s by monday

 

[red65]

i wonder if that's particular to the 65-66? i have 17x8's on the front of my 69 with stock arms and have no issues whatsoever and the GW pieces are supposed to give you more room for larger wheels than the stock ones. what backspacing were you using with those 17x8's if you don't mind me asking, i'm wonder if the backspacing was just to deep or something

bnickel -- I originally attempted to mount 17x8 TTII with 4.75" backspacing, mainly because those measurements seem to work for most 65-6 with the Shelby drop. It wasn't just interfering a little - like just brushing - but a lot (I never bothered to estimate how much, but it wasn't at all close to fitting). I wound up using those wheels on the back, where they fit fine, and used 17x7 with 4" BS on the front. I was still able to get 235 rubber all around.

- Andy

 

[DK832]

I saw a bit of rubbing on the control arm with 17x8 and 4.5" BS too. Only when turning as tight as it went (parking etc), never while driving. Current 18x8.25 are NP.

 

[SNAKEPILOT]

GW uses Del-a-lum bushings, CF uses poly.

 

[bnickel]

bnickel -- I originally attempted to mount 17x8 TTII with 4.75" backspacing, mainly because those measurements seem to work for most 65-6 with the Shelby drop. It wasn't just interfering a little - like just brushing - but a lot (I never bothered to estimate how much, but it wasn't at all close to fitting). I wound up using those wheels on the back, where they fit fine, and used 17x7 with 4" BS on the front. I was still able to get 235 rubber all around.

- Andy

i think mine are also 4.75" BS. i'll have to check but i'm pretty sure that's what they are.

 

[Jester67]

GW for me was the better choice.