Vintage Mustang Forums banner

41 - 60 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
Would it really have been more expensive to use an A-arm for the lower suspension compared to the strut, given the issues with the strut? Or for a cheap passenger car like the Falcon it wasn't an issue? Obviously the Mustang wasn't expected to be a sporty as it ended up being.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,474 Posts
Would it really have been more expensive to use an A-arm for the lower suspension compared to the strut, given the issues with the strut? Or for a cheap passenger car like the Falcon it wasn't an issue? Obviously the Mustang wasn't expected to be a sporty as it ended up being.

Yes, it would have been much more expensive. By the late 1950s unitized body design was considered modern high tech. Every piece of a car body was stamped out of cheap steel and spot welded or bolted together. The original price of most unibody compact cars was under $2000. A full-frame, sub-frame and highly detailed welding processes were out of the question at the price point. Ford had many competitors in the compact class and Ford was late to the game. There were Ramblers and Studebakers using the sprung UCA design years before 1960. Tens of millions of cars were built using this basic design. It wasn't considered an issue because it was cheap, reliable, easily serviced and safe. The basic MacPherson strut design used today falls into this same category. There were compact cars available with nice suspensions similar to what it under your Mustang in 1965. Corvette, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Ferrari to name a few..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
There were compact cars available with nice suspensions similar to what it under your Mustang in 1965. Corvette, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Ferrari to name a few..
I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think any of the cars you listed here used a LCA and a strut rod like the Mustang. All of the cars you talk about have double A-arms. And heck, they all also had IRS in 65. But they did cost many multiples more than the Mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 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.
So I know we are debating the same thing, the disagreement comes from what Westmus said in that the ball joint of the lca does not move back and forth relative to the neutral centerline of the lca.
  • I agree with you that the strut rod and lca are bolted together and that the angle between the 2 parts is constant. The strut rod at the frame connection has an infinite amount of axis because it tries to emulate a ball joint. Hence it really is a pivot point with multiple degrees of freedom. Where the angle comes into play has to do with the axis everyone is using. The horizontal component (red line on the picture) of the strut rod has an axis collinear with the lca pivot axis (which agrees with your point). This horizontal component also is the same length as the distance between the lca axis and the strut rod bolted connection. This horizontal component will follow the vertical arc of the ball joint motion.
  • However, the vertical component (blue line on the picture) of the strut rod has an axis perpendicular to the lca axis. This is the axis that causes the lca ball joint to move back and forth as denoted in the photo bikefreak600 and eludes to because the vertical component moves in an arc. To minimize this movement, the strut rod bushing needs to be compliant. That's the reason for my last statement, the rubber bushing of the strut rod "tries" to compensate for the distance change between the bolted connection of the strut rod at the lca and the bolted connection at the frame as the strut rod moves in an arc similar to the lca.
The problem with the poly bushings is that the shape does movement in line with the axis . You can use delrin monoball bushings without that problem.
  • The problem ironically with the rubber strut rod bushing is that the compliance is what makes the design bad because when you take into account the acceleration and braking forces the compression of the bushing is increased thereby changing the length between the bolted connections. And the problem with poly is that there really is no compliance in it. The monoball (I believe Open Tracker sells it) as you mentioned would be better for all the forces involved as the length change is minimized. I will see if I can find the video showing this. I believe Shaun at SoT posted one showing the difference between stock and his strut rod.
In theory, what makes the CPP mini subframe better is that it eliminates the back and forth motion of the lca ball joint because it eliminates the vertical component (blue line in picture) that induces the back and forth movement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,474 Posts
I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think any of the cars you listed here used a LCA and a strut rod like the Mustang. All of the cars you talk about have double A-arms. And heck, they all also had IRS in 65. But they did cost many multiples more than the Mustang.
I was talking about the Mustang picture in his post, assuming it was his.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Just a last try. The problem with the lines on that pic is that it's only looking at the movement as 2D. The strut are not moving straight up/down, but are moving in an arc following the LCA.This together with the strut mounted in a angle with a pivot point on axis with the LCA pivot point, means the green line are also very close to straight up/down. If it really was working like in that pic then the LCA/strut would get into a crazy bind and something would very quickly break when the car was driven.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
684 Posts
Alfa Romeo have been using a strut suspension set up similar to the vintage Mustang, pretty much until they went FWD. The suspension is upside-down compaired to the Mustangs for more space under the hood. But it's still a suspension using strut arms and those cars are known for being well handling and fun to drive fast on curvy roads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
Just a last try. The problem with the lines on that pic is that it's only looking at the movement as 2D. The strut are not moving straight up/down, but are moving in an arc following the LCA.This together with the strut mounted in a angle with a pivot point on axis with the LCA pivot point, means the green line are also very close to straight up/down. If it really was working like in that pic then the LCA/strut would get into a crazy bind and something would very quickly break when the car was driven.
it does work like shown in the pic. and NO it does not get into a bind, because the LCA bushing allows the spindle side of the LCA to move laterally forward and rearward enough to follow the arch of the strut. this is the entire problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
I don't get it. For a few dollars less you could have Oprentrackers roller LCA's and Delrin monoball strut rod bushings and maintain an axis between the LCA and frame that this kit doesn't. Not to mention the big chunk of heavy steel this kit requires.



747668
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,474 Posts
There was an extensive discussion on the CPP mini subframe on Stangnet in 2008. Someone associated with CPP participated in the discussion; Thoughts on the new CPP front suspension?. An article on SuperChevy claims it is only 2 pounds heavier on a Nova "after removing the heavy factory strut rods and bulky strut rod mounts"; Nova/ChevyII Subframe Install. The CPP website and documentation there is awful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
There was an extensive discussion on the CPP mini subframe on Stangnet in 2008. Someone associated with CPP participated in the discussion; Thoughts on the new CPP front suspension?. An article on SuperChevy claims it is only 2 pounds heavier on a Nova "after removing the heavy factory strut rods and bulky strut rod mounts"; Nova/ChevyII Subframe Install. The CPP website and documentation there is awful.
We are not talking about Nova's here! The Mustang LCA's and strut rods may well be significantly lighter than what is offered with the Chevy tack on front end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
I don't get it. For a few dollars less you could have Oprentrackers roller LCA's and Delrin monoball strut rod bushings and maintain an axis between the LCA and frame that this kit doesn't. Not to mention the big chunk of heavy steel this kit requires.



View attachment 747668
so you are trying to bash a product that you clearly know NOTHING about. thats great lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
so you are trying to bash a product that you clearly know NOTHING about. thats great lol.
I have some knowledge of the Mustang suspension. This is a forum were people give opinions and my opinion having replaced my entire front suspension with upgraded parts in the last couple of years for autocross is that I don't see the advantage of this product. It's an opinion. I will admit I could have been kinder in my response to the repeated Nova references. I'm sorry if I offended you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
im not offended by anything, i have wrote many of the advantages over the stock setup. yes the stock struts and strut brackets are heavy, the same weight as the front lower bracket in that picture. which btw stiffens up the front frame and lower rad support, being a flat plate also serves as a wind damn keeping air from coming up into the engine bay, and is a awesome jacking point lol. the available added camber and caster adjustment range is something you can only dream of achieving with the stock stuff lol. if you measure how much the spindle moves around with the stock setup it is a joke to consider it a performance platform lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
I don't get it. For a few dollars less you could have Oprentrackers roller LCA's and Delrin monoball strut rod bushings and maintain an axis between the LCA and frame that this kit doesn't. Not to mention the big chunk of heavy steel this kit requires.



View attachment 747668
In theory, not necessarily my opinion, what makes the CPP mini subframe better is that it eliminates the back and forth motion of the lca ball joint. Even with the monoball and roller LCA, the ball joint will still move in an arc that goes front to back/back to front because of the strut rod. But the monoball and roller LCA does tighten up the front end and make handling more predictable from personal experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
In theory, not necessarily my opinion, what makes the CPP mini subframe better is that it eliminates the back and forth motion of the lca ball joint. Even with the monoball and roller LCA, the ball joint will still move in an arc that goes front to back/back to front because of the strut rod. But the monoball and roller LCA does tighten up the front end and make handling more predictable from personal experience.
exactly ! after installing the cpp your caster and camber curve are consistent. i have done it and measured it.... its all in my build thread. people can knock it all they want but seeing it in person it is a badass setup for the money. tig welded arms as well, they are nice. i also love the LCA uses a moog screw in ball joint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,453 Posts
In theory, not necessarily my opinion, what makes the CPP mini subframe better is that it eliminates the back and forth motion of the lca ball joint. Even with the monoball and roller LCA, the ball joint will still move in an arc that goes front to back/back to front because of the strut rod. But the monoball and roller LCA does tighten up the front end and make handling more predictable from personal experience.
I totally get the fact that the geometry might be improved some on a street car but at the cost of added weight at the worst possible spot. I use a system from a forum sponsor that can work well on the street and even better on the track. To 90% of the folks that frequent this forum my solution is either overkill for their needs or financially prohibitive. I guess I just can't wrap my head around that big slab of steel vs the alternative that I mentioned on a street car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts
I totally get the fact that the geometry might be improved some on a street car but at the cost of added weight at the worst possible spot. I use a system from a forum sponsor that can work well on the street and even better on the track. To 90% of the folks that frequent this forum my solution is either overkill for their needs or financially prohibitive. I guess I just can't wrap my head around that big slab of steel vs the alternative that I mentioned on a street car.
you ignore the fact that the lower crossmember weighs nearly the same as both factory struts & strut frame brackets lol
 
41 - 60 of 63 Posts
Top