So who needs TCP?

slackr · Jun 3, 2004

Red Barchetta said:
I know you said you still have some fabricating to due, but I have a question:

Any particular reason why you chose to mount the top of the shock the way you did? I've never seen anyone use such a setup. My concern would be that since those tabs will be supporting the front of the car, after some use, those tabs may start to show some fatigue near the welds, especially without any type of gusseting. Your thoughts?

i have a similar concern... it looks as thought the mounting point would put quite a twisting force on the wall of the shock tower, no?

bnickel · Jun 3, 2004

if you were build the coilover mount bracket so that it tied into the UCA mounting points as well, that would distribute the load more evenly, and then add some gussets to the tabs and maybe even add a piece that wraps around the top of the mount, better yet instead of the tabs with the added stuff make a one piece wrap around mount with sides triangulating down towards the UCA, at least as far down as you can go without interfering with UCA at fulll compression.

BTW man, i think you are on to some good stuff here. i have a pic of a similar style coilover setup that looks like it would work pretty good too, from the pic it looks like it picks up on the frame rail.

skywalker · Jun 3, 2004

slackr said:
i have a similar concern... it looks as thought the mounting point would put quite a twisting force on the wall of the shock tower, no?

We have some similar issues on helicopters (hueys and cobras) and the engineers at bell used solid clevises bolted into a tube. They are then welded so that the bolts don't move. The clevises which are not welded together hold much better. Especially with the unbeleivable levels of torque tha ta helicopter can put on them. So what would make sense is a single piece clevis whic could be bolten in the middle to the frame and then possibly on two outside flanges to the frame (in fact I'd recommend it for strength.) A single piece bracket like that would be alot stronger than that welded one. You could get the CNC shop to make it also.

slackr · Jun 3, 2004

would it be possible to run some sort of brace from the existing upper shock mount (at the bolt where the shock actually mounts) up to the point at the top of the shock tower where the spring or shock typically mounts? that way the load could be distributed to a part of the tower that was originally designed to take the load and the horizontal part of the mount could enhance the load bearing AND laterally locate the upper shock mount to a point where that upper arm does have full travel capabilities (i assume that is why it is where it is anyway) without causing undue torque stress on the lower part of the tower or the mount point of that shock...
sound feasible?

dolfan87 · Jun 3, 2004

You guys will like what we have fabbed up. Like I had said in that previous post, the fabrication was not complete. There are in fact gussets that follow the triangle design of the shock tower. It runs from the top of the control arm shaft, to the upper mounting tabs.

It looks trick, and it allows the shock to evenly distribute the load across 4 grade 8 bolts.

The reason why we didn't just do what TCP did, is because we were trying new things. The design of both the upper and lower arms for production will be slightly different, and if this upper shock mount doesn't pan out in testing, we will probably just go to the TCP style of upper mount.

I appreciate your guys' input, and it's interesting that we all had kind of the same idea about the gussets. In fact we just finished tack welding them tonight.

Powdercoating can be in any color you want. I have already discussed it with my local shop, and they are on board at a discounted rate.

One thing you guys could help me with is this: We are looking for a screw in ball joint that would replace the bolt in style upper joint. I am flat wore out from working my regular job, then heading to the shop to work on this stuff...plus making phone calls, ect ect.

If anyone has any idea of a screw in joint that will work with our spindles, please let me know.

87

mustang70 · Jun 3, 2004

You may not want me to see your car when I get there. You may not get me out of the garage.

bnickel · Jun 3, 2004

check out www.afco.com for the chrysler style screw in ball joints, if i remember right the upper and lower ball joints for the stangs have the same taper as as the chrysler lower joint, they also have the swaged steel tubes for the strut rods and pretty good prices for the rod ends as well

69PaleHorse · Jun 4, 2004

The tubular LCA's I have on my car use the Chrysler screw in ball joints as well.

dolfan87 · Jun 4, 2004

bnickel said:
check out www.afco.com for the chrysler style screw in ball joints, if i remember right the upper and lower ball joints for the stangs have the same taper as as the chrysler lower joint, they also have the swaged steel tubes for the strut rods and pretty good prices for the rod ends as well

Thank you. That just made things a lot easier, and the uppers will be a much cooler design now.

87

Opentracker · Jun 4, 2004

You don't want to use the AFCO 20034 ball joint as a upper. It has a spring in it like the lower stock ball joints and will compress with a load on it unseating the ball joint. I tried it and it doesn't work with the spring on the upper arm. With the spring on the lower arm it would be OK. Nice work. I don't want anyone to make the same mistake I did and get into trouble.

John

(edit - spelling)

streetgrande69 · Jun 4, 2004

http://www.pro-touring.com/featured...d_67_Mustang/dean_westmoreland_67_mustang.htm

you could drop this guy a line and try to see if he'll respone and give you some insight on his set-up. i tried and no responce.

Opentracker · Jun 6, 2004

The plate on the end of ball joints I have is pressed in. They are made to be used under tension. I have seen some NASCAR screw in ball joints that didn't have a spring in them but they are only used under tension too and have a taper that is bigger than the Mustang taper. A spindel from a T-bird or some other large Ford has to be used. I would not want a pressed in plate holding up the car. It looks cool but it's not safe in my opinion.

John

streetgrande69 · Jun 6, 2004

John, thanks for the in-sight.It does look cool, but that doesnt seem to be the case after we know the truth. We take your opinion pretty seriously, i do anyway. thanks!!

bnickel · Jun 6, 2004

thanks for pointing that out john, i would have hated to see graham get into trouble with that, good call. sorry graham i only thought i was helping

bnickel · Jun 6, 2004

actually www.afcoracing.com does have a screw in upper with the same taper as the chrysler lower being as it is an actual upper ball joint i would guess that it doesn't have a spring in it part # 20034 for the upper and 20035 for the lower and here is a link

http://www.secureperformanceorder.c...yID=8&ClassID=89&SubclassID=430&ProductID=706

Opentracker · Jun 6, 2004

The 20034 is the ball joint I use in my lower arms with the 20043 sleeve. Remember that all of the cars we are talking about have the spring on the lower arm from the factory except ours. All race cars that have a suspension similar to ours have the spring on the lower arm. The Moog heavy duty ball joint for a Mustang is the only one I have found that works for the upper on a car with the coil spring on the upper arm.

If you want to look at it some more, the lower ball joint on a car with the coil spring on the upper arm should'nt have a spring in it either. The sway bar can unseat the lower ball joint with enouph body roll. I plan on using a upper ball joint on the lower arm on my '65 Ranchero track/street car project.

John

bnickel · Jun 6, 2004

hey john in this particular app, the upper won't have the spring attached to it anyway, so that ball joint "should" work fine right, since the spring will actually be on the lower control arm, just asking not trying to argue or anything, you know way more about suspensions than i'll probably ever know.

dolfan87 · Jun 6, 2004

Good info guys. We are still doing research into parts, and availability of services.

Right now we are nearly done with my set-up, and the next pictures I post will be of the completed system powdercoated, and installed.

This whole ball joint discussion is a good one, but bnickle is correct, the coil over is mounted to the lower arm, and the screw-ins (in theory) should work.

Anyway, more info and pics to come in the next week.

87

dolfan87 · Jun 6, 2004

I have another question for you guys.

What do you feel is a fair price for this complete set-up? TCP charged $2200.00, so what do you consider a reasonable amount.

Complete system includes:

Upper control arms
Lower control arms
Koni coil over shocks with QA1 springs
Strut Rods
All mounting hardware (grade 8 fine thread)
Detailed instructions

We have pretty much figured what it is going to cost us to make them, and then what we feel they should be sold for to make it worthwhile. I just want to see how far apart your thoughts are from ours.

87

sportsroof69 · Jun 6, 2004

Hey dolfan, do the lowers have a ball joint angle that is compatible with a lowered upper like for a neg. wedge setup?

So who needs TCP?

slackr

New Member

bnickel

Attachments

skywalker

Member

slackr

New Member

dolfan87

mustang70

bnickel

69PaleHorse

Member

dolfan87

Opentracker

streetgrande69

Opentracker

streetgrande69

bnickel

bnickel

Opentracker

bnickel

dolfan87

dolfan87

sportsroof69

Similar threads

So who needs TCP?

New Member

Attachments

Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency