Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi

Currently running gw upper and lower c-arms in my 67, but looking more toward their coilover kit, mainly for the ease of ride-height adjustability.

So after seeing that their new kit for the 64-66 differs mainly in lower c-arm design compared to the 67-70 kit, I wonder what the difference is all about?
Is the one piece design of the 64-66 better then the traditonal looking two piece of the 67-70?

thing is if I buy their kit for my 67 and they, maybe a year later or whatever, deciede to make a revamp of it similar to the 64-66... basically then I end up with a older version that may be not so good and not so trick looking..

anyone now the difference between these kits (other than that they're made for different years) and, what's more important, if gw's planning a revamp for the 67-70?

Thanks!

these are the best pics i could find, there are more on globalwest.net
64-66:


67-70:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,866 Posts
Interesting questions.
I doubt they're coming out with anything "re-
vamped". Doug's pretty slow to market with his
stuff. That's the way he's always been.... most
of the stuff he does goes through lengthy trial
periods out on select customer cars.
I saw these coil-over setups about 8 months ago,
before they were released and he's got one on
his personal 65/66 notchback. I'll see him in about
2 weeks at the SEMA show in Las Vegas- maybe
he'll have some word, but there's been no
talk so far of any updating that I'm aware of.
BTW, the camber curve being used in the coil
over setup is the same as what was generated by
the old Negative Roll setup, so with the CO,
mainly what you're getting is ease of ride height
adjustment, more compliant springs, greater range
of suspension travel.... and a higher price tag.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1994
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,392 Posts
I have no knowledge of the redesigned system GW is offering, but as far as the previous coilover system is concerned the geometry is exactly the same as the GW negative roll system which just replaces the oem UCA with their UCA and keeps the UCA spring perch and stock spring location. The main (if not only) benefit to their 1st coilover system compared the negative roll UCA was the improvement in the wheel sprung rate by transfering the weight of the car to the longer lower arm and greatly improving the leverage the spring had to the wheel to control suspension travel. The affect of this improved leverage is theoretically you could reduce the spring rate for better ride quality without sacrificing handling ability or get a firmer spring to improve handling without the penalty of too harsh a ride. While I have no doubt it makes a noticable difference on a track car, considering both systems used the same geometry I don't think the difference is big enough for a street car to justify the cost of the coilover if you already have the negative roll system. That may have something to do with why they revised the coilover system. Maybe they changed the geometry so that the new coilover would represent an improvement to justify the difference in cost, but that's just speculation on my part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
yeah I'm very pleased with my gw arms that's on the car now. handles fine. but with 620 coils dropped 2" it's not the smoothest ride. and its a bit on the low side. so with coilovers it would be nice to just set the height that easy.

if you get the chance to talk to the man, let me know here afterwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I know the geometry stays the same as the set up I run now. but if that is the case for a 64-66 car too, would be interesting to know.

also see that the earlier cars with CO uses a different swaybar mounting that looks cool.

..and I would only gain the actual coilover shocks, yeah.. is it worth it? for me, I think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,866 Posts
Rickmaan -
There is NO coilover re-design that I am aware
of at GW. Doing an immediate change like that
would definitely "buck the trend" of Global's
method of operation.
I've known the owner since 1986, I own the
second Negative Roll car they ever built and
I talk to Doug several times a year..... I'm
pretty sure I've got the inside track on this.
Like I said, I'll be talking with him at SEMA-
his booth is under 50 yds away from my company's
this year.
I'll post anything that I hear on the coil-over
subject......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
There is a new kit and it is different than the 67- kit, my kit came in today. I have the GW west negative roll setup currently, i'll sell it to recoup some cash..... Their new coil over setup was a lot of money but here are my reasons I am switching. I might have saved a little money going with the TCP setup but GW has added some features that work for me:

1. ride height adjustability, TCP and GW. i am sick up cutting coils, i want to be able to try different springs without cutting coils and/or having to realign the car.
2. swaybar clearance, GW only. my bar hits and it is already clearanced as much as possible, their new mounting point eliminates this problem.
3. GW only, +3 castor is built into the upper arm. This will allow me to set up my car with more negative camber. right now I max out at -.8 with +1.5 caster. I want more caster but to do this I have to give up even more camber. This problem will be eliminated completely.
4. TCP and GW, General ride quality improvements of a coil over setup with 300lb/in spring vs my current 500lb/in setup.

Max
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
totally agree with that.
guess what, I did send an e-mail to global west asking about this, and i actually got a response. have never gotten that from them before.

but, It may be the shortest e-mail I've ever gotten, their reply to my question was a short "yes most likely".. so I guess I have to wait for it then..
e-mailed them back about when this will be due, see if they'll reply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
maxoverclock said:
it uses the same geometry and same GW negative roll UCA lowered mounting points. the installation instructions are on the webpage...

http://www.globalwest.net/1964-66 Mustang Front coilover suspension instructions.htm

max
so what you're saying is that the new coilover kit uses the exactly same geometry as the old negative roll kit?
even with the newly designed one-piece lca/strut?
did I understand correct?

or did you mean that the 67-up coilover is the same as the negative roll kit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
the new 65-66 coil over kit uses the same UCA mounting holes as the regular negative roll control arms. dropped about 1 5/8" straight down from what i remember.

but, now the upper arms are now not symmetrical, they have caster built into them so you get +3 caster from the get-go

also strut rods are no longer length adjustable the only adjustment is to eliminate bind.

max
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
oh ok, so struts dont adjust on those..
yeah it's a sweet looking kit, guess I'll wait for gw to make it for my car then..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,866 Posts
Just talked to Doug yesterday at the SEMA show.
The revamp is on the 65/66 coilover setup. It
now involves a lower control arm that previously
was not being marketed.....I think another post
essentially said this earlier.
The 67-up setup IS THE SAME as when that kit
originally hit the market.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1994
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
ok, thanks for posting that!
so no modification to the 67- kit then?
wonder why, but surely like I said i wouldnt be suprised if about a year after I laid out the $3000 and bought mine, a modified version shows.

I really want coilovers, and i really dont want tcp or rmp coilovers.

this sucks cause when you finally(!)have money to spend then theres gotta be something else preventing you from buyin aint it? :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,830 Posts
If you get caught up waiting for the "newest, latest, & greatest", you will NEVER buy... :eek:
There will ALWAYS be something "newer, later, & greater" come along after you do buy. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
S281SC said:
If you get caught up waiting for the "newest, latest, & greatest", you will NEVER buy... :eek:
There will ALWAYS be something "newer, later, & greater" come along after you do buy. ;)
yeah you got a point there..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
i am glad i waited on the coil overs. i like the gw kit the best...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
maxoverclock said:
i am glad i waited on the coil overs. i like the gw kit the best...
yeah gw's stuff at least look more thougher and more well built than the other manufacturers.

I've also been lookin at griggs stuff, expensive it is but i wonder how the griggs GR350 front setup compares to the GW coilover kit..?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
i think the griggs is much better but requires a lot of fabrication on the front end. i'll be installing the gw kit next month. i'll take pics and post them....max
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,866 Posts
When you deal with strength of materials, etc.
OR anything with liability, overkill is always
the order of the day.
Frequently when manufacturers re-release or re-
vamp designs, it was because of failure. (A sad
but true reality of life that seldom makes its
way to the public)
The old adage- "better safe than sorry" comes to
mind......
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top