To date I've found three sources of adjustable strut rods for my '65. TCP, Global West and Delta Bay. All of these feature tight positional control (no give) that is fine for racing on flat surfaces but not so good on pot-holed streets. My choice so far is to modify a set of '67's to fit my '65. Are there others?
65/66 Strut Rods
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
1966 'A' code GT fastback. Ivy Green Metallic. 327ci. Not terribly stock anymore.
Joined
·
11,715 Posts
Why do you want adjustable strut rods?
The TCP rods are not supposed to be used for alignment. The idea is to "adjust" them until you have the LCAs perpendicular to the frame and then use the UCAs for all of the adjustment.
If the alignment shop tries to use the LCAs to adjust caster the rest of the alignment will be a mess. This is what they tried to do when they did mine the first time.
The TCP rods are not supposed to be used for alignment. The idea is to "adjust" them until you have the LCAs perpendicular to the frame and then use the UCAs for all of the adjustment.
If the alignment shop tries to use the LCAs to adjust caster the rest of the alignment will be a mess. This is what they tried to do when they did mine the first time.
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
I have a set of the TCPs and intend to use them to adjust caster. I refuse to use that crude shim system that these cars came with. Kent (for whom I have great respect) and I discussed this prior to my purchasing them, and he recomended against doing so - but CJ Pony, where I purchased them, advertises them as being useful for that purpose.
I am also using the Pro Motorsports eccentric camber adjustment system. Again, the objective is the elimination of shims for alignment purposes. I realize that I'm doing a little pioneering here and hope it will work out well. I also understand that the experiment could fail, and if that occurs, I will be stuck with upper arm shimming after a lot of trouble and expense.
Regarding street suitability - the TCP rods have Kevlar ends, which are not going to be compliant like the factory rubber. No doubt the rods will transfer more "shock" thru the wheel and will take some getting used to over irregular road surfaces. But I'm thinking it won't be a huge problem, since one thing the adjustable rods are intended to do is to preserve suspension geometry and reduce binding under load. How bad can that be?
I don't doubt Kent when he says his alignment tech had difficulty getting it set up right, but a guy in my car club, who works as an alignment and brake tech, says he's done early stang alignments with both systems (the rods and the old shims), and much prefers the adjustable rod conversions on early cars. He is the one who recomended the eccentric camber plates, too.
Not having installed these things yet, I am only able to go on the information provided by CJ and this alignment guy. I am hopeful it will work as intended, but we shall see...
I am also using the Pro Motorsports eccentric camber adjustment system. Again, the objective is the elimination of shims for alignment purposes. I realize that I'm doing a little pioneering here and hope it will work out well. I also understand that the experiment could fail, and if that occurs, I will be stuck with upper arm shimming after a lot of trouble and expense.
Regarding street suitability - the TCP rods have Kevlar ends, which are not going to be compliant like the factory rubber. No doubt the rods will transfer more "shock" thru the wheel and will take some getting used to over irregular road surfaces. But I'm thinking it won't be a huge problem, since one thing the adjustable rods are intended to do is to preserve suspension geometry and reduce binding under load. How bad can that be?
I don't doubt Kent when he says his alignment tech had difficulty getting it set up right, but a guy in my car club, who works as an alignment and brake tech, says he's done early stang alignments with both systems (the rods and the old shims), and much prefers the adjustable rod conversions on early cars. He is the one who recomended the eccentric camber plates, too.
Not having installed these things yet, I am only able to go on the information provided by CJ and this alignment guy. I am hopeful it will work as intended, but we shall see...
I have adjustable strut rods from Cobra Automotive, the ride isn't any more jarring then it was before. I live in the San Francisco Bay area, the streets are awful. The rods from
Cobra use heim joints on the pivot area. I was concerned
about the ride also, I really can't tell the difference. The handling is alot better though!!
Cobra use heim joints on the pivot area. I was concerned
about the ride also, I really can't tell the difference. The handling is alot better though!!
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Bill - Do you use your strut rods to set the caster on your car? Obviously, your car is used for open track (vintage racing maybe?) events and I know that quick field alignment changess are critical to going fast when track conditions change.
I'm hoping to be able to get 2 1/2 - 3 degrees positive caster on my car without resorting to a wad of those nasty shims. I have already done the Shelby drop, which I'd guess is good for at least 1 degree.
I know that Kent strongly believes that the only proper attitude for the lower arms is perfectly perpindicular to the frame (and has firsthand experience to back that up) - but some people I've talked to have no problem with moving the arm forward in order to get more caster and in fact, was the method Ford used begining in 67.
When I think about all the movement the arms probably undergo with plain old rubber bushings in the arms and rods, I cannot imagine that positively locating them with adjustable rods and stiff arm bushings could do anything but help - even if they are not perfectly perpindicular.
I'm not trying to start any kind of debate here - just looking for as much information as possible.
What is your opinion?
I'm hoping to be able to get 2 1/2 - 3 degrees positive caster on my car without resorting to a wad of those nasty shims. I have already done the Shelby drop, which I'd guess is good for at least 1 degree.
I know that Kent strongly believes that the only proper attitude for the lower arms is perfectly perpindicular to the frame (and has firsthand experience to back that up) - but some people I've talked to have no problem with moving the arm forward in order to get more caster and in fact, was the method Ford used begining in 67.
When I think about all the movement the arms probably undergo with plain old rubber bushings in the arms and rods, I cannot imagine that positively locating them with adjustable rods and stiff arm bushings could do anything but help - even if they are not perfectly perpindicular.
I'm not trying to start any kind of debate here - just looking for as much information as possible.
What is your opinion?
I think you have covered the bases. If not bound by class rules against spherical joints, most go with the adjustable SR (Delta Bay has a great price on their's BTW).
Some vintage classes, or guys that just want to stay era correct modify 1967 strut rods.
According to those that do it (I haven't), this
allows using the strut rods for caster adjustment, leaving the upper control arms shims for camber adjustment only.
Jeff
Some vintage classes, or guys that just want to stay era correct modify 1967 strut rods.
According to those that do it (I haven't), this
allows using the strut rods for caster adjustment, leaving the upper control arms shims for camber adjustment only.
Jeff
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Join the discussion
