Vintage Mustang Forums banner

21 - 40 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
i have done that. a coil over mounted on the lower arm of this kit. was very simple to do. i talked with the engineer at cpp about doing this and he gave me all the info i needed to make sure it would be safe. way improved shock motion ratio ( which greatly improves shock effectiveness) also needs less spring rate to do the same job.
i haveit all in my build thread with lots of details on the specs this kit allows. i initially wanted to cut off the bushings and weld in threaded bungs and rod ends, but the bushings are much nicer than i anticipated i decided to keep them lol
It's good to hear at least 1 opinion from someone who has the kit installed. My intention was to read the opinions of those who actually run this kit. My intention was not to ryle up the keyboard police. Have you put many miles on this setup? I noticed your build thread is ongoing. I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts if you've driven on the unmodified CPP setup. Or, anyone else who has.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
no i
It's good to hear at least 1 opinion from someone who has the kit installed. My intention was to read the opinions of those who actually run this kit. My intention was not to ryle up the keyboard police. Have you put many miles on this setup? I noticed your build thread is ongoing. I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts if you've driven on the unmodified CPP setup. Or, anyone else who has.
No i have not driven on it. but have compared the stock geometry to the cpp and other aftermarket designs. i have compared the spindle arch from full droop to compession ( how much caster change is produced) this is by far the best improvement over the stock design. the cpp lower arm is extremely consistant. the allowance of caster & camber adjustment is far greater than you would ever need on street driving. also note the upper control arms are 1/2'' shorter than the stock arms allowing for more camber if you want to get radical. on my car it had -5 degress without any shims on the upper arms. the adjustment on the lower arm for caster is pretty small only allows for a few degree change ( this is why there is no binding). you use shims on the upper arm like you would the stock arm, and you have a little extra adjustment available in the lower arm. with any aftermarket setup that uses rod ends this is also a non issue, but some people dis favor using rod ends for street use. if so this is the perfect kit for those people.

will also add the quality of this kit is there. much nicer than you would expect for the price. it was a much better option for me vs. fabricating my own suspension.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Any time you can replace a strut rod with a real control arm its a good thing. Strut rods travel in an arc which is bad no matter how you sugar coat it. I remember the old films(as in roll of film) showing how they move and the issues inherit to the design back when I went to school to be a tech.
But you should look at the CCP lower arm and compair it to the stock Ford design, because the CCP lower arm connects at the very same axis on the car as the stock LCA/strut. Meaning the CCP won't make any change in how the lower ball joint moves from stock, when the suspension moves up/down. Anyone that says different probably don't understand basic geometry.
Have anyone ever wundered why Ford choose to use a more complicated LCA/strut design instead ot just a simple and cheap A-arm, like the one from the CCP kit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
But you should look at the CCP lower arm and compair it to the stock Ford design, because the CCP lower arm connects at the very same axis on the car as the stock LCA/strut. Meaning the CCP won't make any change in how the lower ball joint moves from stock, when the suspension moves up/down. Anyone that says different probably don't understand basic geometry.
Have anyone ever wundered why Ford choose to use a more complicated LCA/strut design instead ot just a simple and cheap A-arm, like the one from the CCP kit?

Uh no it does not follow the same movement as the stock geometry. The stock strut rod travels in an arc in fact an arc in two planes. The one we are primarily interested in is the one seen from the side of the car. This arc causes the lower ball joint to move rearward as the suspension compresses and forward as it extends. Roughly from where it is ride height. At the time back then they didn't care if it changed the geometry the car just had to last a year and get out of warranty and after 3 years and getting close to 75K you were buying a new car anyway.

That LCA in the CCP kit only allows the ball joint to travel in a straight line up and down (in the side view of the car) with no change in caster. Basic geometry at work.

Ford used the strut rod as it was the cheap suspension to do at the time which also allowed for sloppy assembly of the car to be compensated for.

I prefer a fixed LCA and then do all your adjustments on the upper arm. Having adjustments on both tends to complicate a number of things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Uh no it does not follow the same movement as the stock geometry.
Yes it does.Try to look under your car and look at were the center of the strut bushing is in relation to the LCA bushing....same as the CCP arm. If that strut arm was placed so it actually was moving in two arcs it would need to bend the LCA, for the suspension to be able to move up/down. The Ford engineers were much smarter than some people seems to believe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
Yes it does.Try to look under your car and look at were the center of the strut bushing is in relation to the LCA bushing....same as the CCP arm. If that strut arm was placed so it actually was moving in two arcs it would need to bend the LCA, for the suspension to be able to move up/down. The Ford engineers were much smarter than some people seems to believe.

No it does not. If you look at the placement of the pivot points The CPP lower arm is like any other arm with both bushings inline of each other. The ford strut rod moves the control arm in an arc when it goes up and down. The LCA bushing allows this flex which is why there is only one bushing and why that bushing is extraordinarily short for an LCA bushing. The longer you make that strut rod the less the arc is and the less it will move the lower ball joint forward and rearward through it's travel but you can't stop a strut rod from doing it because it will always travel in an arc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
The ford strut rod moves the control arm in an arc when it goes up and down.
Yes in moves in an arc in/out together with the lower ball joint. The lower ball joint doesn't move forward/back because Ford placed the axis of the strut bushing and LCA bushing inline with the car, just as the CCP arm do. Remember the stock strut bushing works like a ball joint. The stock LCA would have to bend when the suspension moves up/down if that axis wasn't inline with the car. There may be cars with strut arms made differently, but the Ford engineers was actually smarter than you seems to think. 🙂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
744 Posts
I wish I could find the old 35 mm film that shows it clearly that the lower ball joint moves in an arc forward to rear as well as left to right in its travel. It's plain as day if you look at the side view of the suspension. We learned all this stuff back in tech school when they actually teached how suspensions work and what the issues are with each style instead of today which is just how to fix it.
And you just proved my point the strut rod acts as a ball joint it travels in an arc and the LCA bushing flexes to allow the curve of the movement. This is a commonly known characteristic of strut rod suspensions. The movement isn't a huge amount and as such the (short) rubber LCA bushing flexes.

Strut rod front ends were cheap and allowed lots of make up for misalignment at the factory of the chassis there was no use of unicorn farts in the design of it. Just cheap to make and fit the production line tolerances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
The LCA and strut rod are bolted together and move as a single piece. You can draw the axis through the LCA and strut pivots. The benefit of the CPP piece is that the tubular design is stiffer and the rubber bushings are replaced.

I am not a very good artist but,,,

747181
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
I wish I could find the old 35 mm film that shows it clearly that ......
If you understand basic geometry then try look at this pic. The arc of the strut follow the arc of the LCA because the axis of their pivot points are inline the the car.

1965-ford-mustang.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
But you should look at the CCP lower arm and compair it to the stock Ford design, because the CCP lower arm connects at the very same axis on the car as the stock LCA/strut. Meaning the CCP won't make any change in how the lower ball joint moves from stock, when the suspension moves up/down. Anyone that says different probably don't understand basic geometry.
Have anyone ever wundered why Ford choose to use a more complicated LCA/strut design instead ot just a simple and cheap A-arm, like the one from the CCP kit?
Yes it does.Try to look under your car and look at were the center of the strut bushing is in relation to the LCA bushing....same as the CCP arm. If that strut arm was placed so it actually was moving in two arcs it would need to bend the LCA, for the suspension to be able to move up/down. The Ford engineers were much smarter than some people seems to believe.
you are 100% wrong. the strut is on a different axis, even further worse the strut travels in a different direction of the LCA. the strut pulls the LCA forward as it travels drastically changing the caster. i have measured them both.

the LCA arc travels 90 degrees from the frame rail.
the Strut rod arc travels 45 degree from the frame rail.

it is very simple to understand. at ride height the spindle is centered where it belongs.
at full droop, the spindle get pulls forward drastically
at full compression the spindle gets pulled forward drastically.
too make matters worse the strut rod does not like to leave its natural position, resisting the LCA from moving because they are fighting eacjh. it actually twisting both bushing toward each other
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
I see some people are so stuck in the word strut and the mounting angle of that strut bushing that they don't see how this design actually works, I'm sure there's a little move, but that's because the rubber strut bushing do not work perfectly as a ball joint, not because of the mounting angle of the strut arm. But I give up... 🙂
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
That was fun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
the LCA travels up and down on the red line. the strut follows the green line, the further the strut pivots up and down the more it pullsaway from the spindle. since they are connected the lca has no choice but to be pulled forward. this is why the caster and camber changes. the more suspension travel the worse it gets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
for the spindle to stay on its linear line, the strut would have to become longer as the suspension compresses and rebounds. dont believe me? unbolt your lca & strut and cycle the strut as far as you can and see what it does lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
320 Posts
Well...here’s another thing to consider on stock suspension upper control arms.

As both arms move upward:

LH upper arm moves forward (reducing caster)
RH upper arm moves rearward( adding caster)

Then opposite occurs when they both move downward.

Inherent to the threaded upper control arm shafts.

😁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
for the spindle to stay on its linear line, the strut would have to become longer as the suspension compresses and rebounds. dont believe me? unbolt your lca & strut and cycle the strut as far as you can and see what it does lol
It will move differently if you unbolt them. Wer'e talkng about how they move when the parts are bolted together.

Look at any door with 2 hinges.
Draw a line from the bottom hinge parallel to the floor to the outside edge of the door. (This represents the LCA).
Draw another line from the top hinge to the first line at the outside edge of the door. This represents the strut rod (you should have a right triangle).
Swing the door. None of the lines are changing in length.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Just my $.02. I'm bulletizing to hopefully not confuse anyone especially myself. Lol.
  • The pivot "axis" for both the strut rod and lower control arm are not collinear. They are perpendicular to their respective part.
  • However the strut rod pivots essentially around a point, not an axis. More degrees of freedom (like a ball joint). This point is collinear/coincident to the lower control arm axis.
  • The strut rod needs to be broken down into vectors around the strut rod pivot point.
  • Using Westmus picture, the red horizontal line is actually what follows the lca control arm sweep. It's pivot axis is collinear with the lca. (DonP, Westmus, etc argument)
  • However the vertical blue line is what causes the forward/rearward (caster change) movement of the lca as it's pivot axis is perpendicular to the lca axis. So yes angle matters because it will dictate how much caster change will occur. (bikefreak600, elcam84, etc argument)
  • The comparison of door hinges was used, but this is not an apples to apples comparison because as I mentioned the strut rod pivots on a point (more degrees of freedom) not an axis.
  • The strut rod bushing is rubber to compensate for the change in length of the blue line so that the strut rod can "try" to move in the same arc as lca. It's why it's not recommended to use poly bushing at this point. If you do, you should be using a bearing on the lca mounting point like the ones offered from Open Tracker before you start ripping things up.
    747304
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
The LCA and Strut rod are bolted together with two bolts. The angle between the two pieces does not change. Bolted together they are essentially one piece. They have to move around the same access. The rubber bushings allow for some wandering of that axis, but it still a single axis.

The problem with the poly bushings is that the shape does (not allow) movement in line with the axis . You can use delrin monoball bushings without that problem.

Edit: Added words in parenthesis. NOT is pretty critical to the thought.
 
21 - 40 of 63 Posts
Top