Vintage Mustang Forums banner
1 - 20 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
1965 Coupe C-Code
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,273 Posts
I bought a set for another car and they turn very easily and smoothly, have a grease zerk on the bottom, they came pre-lubed with a note to only use lithium-based grease, were made in Australia. Not bad for street driven pieces on a budget and the Street or Track or Open Tracker versions are a little more expensive but may be a better bet for the abuse of a track life.
I absolutely recommend these or the above mentioned pieces to replace the aging, stiff and ride-fighting rubber ones. When you take the old ones off, you'll see why.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,705 Posts
I put them on my 68 a couple of years ago and have had no issues. I got to drive on the track at Road Atlanta this spring. Not racing mind you, but fast enough in the turns to be pleasantly surprised at how well it handled. Not regrets for me. When I get around to replacing the entire front end on my 67 I plan to install them there too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swooshdave

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
22,134 Posts
I have bearing types simply because I like making stuff like that and made my own. Should I not want to do that or buy bearing ones, these would be the ones I'd get. The fact they have a grease fitting sells me. That and how everybody says they pivot smooth and easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
No comparison between those and roller bearing style. I'm sure greased they rotate better than what is currently on your car, but I'd be more curious what material is used to build them. Is it still rubber style with steel insert or brass?
 

·
Registered
1965 Coupe C-Code
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
No comparison between those and roller bearing style. I'm sure greased they rotate better than what is currently on your car, but I'd be more curious what material is used to build them. Is it still rubber style with steel insert or brass?
Based on experience of them side by side or just what you read on the internet?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,892 Posts
I had them briefly before I went to the SoT coil over’s and they worked well. I sold them to a forum member.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
Based on experience of them side by side or just what you read on the internet?
Just based on the build and design between the two. The zero fitting is a plus compared to the originals, but I would bet the roller bearing style pivots better than the elastomer ones over the lifetime of the parts. It's basically preference and cost, $62.00 vs $199. Just my opinion 🤷.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,892 Posts
Just based on the build and design between the two. The zero fitting is a plus compared to the originals, but I would bet the roller bearing style pivots better than the elastomer ones over the lifetime of the parts. It's basically preference and cost, $62.00 vs $199. Just my opinion 🤷.
Yes, the roller bearings are better than the elastomer ones. The SoT coil overs I run are better than both those but are limited by the original mounting points, so the Roadster Shop frame with the Corvette suspension is the best way to go! In my experience the elastomer saddles are much better than the rubber ones for a cruiser at a good price if for no other reason than they make it 100 times easier to install the coil spring.;)
 

·
Dimples
Joined
·
6,530 Posts
No comparison between those and roller bearing style. I'm sure greased they rotate better than what is currently on your car, but I'd be more curious what material is used to build them. Is it still rubber style with steel insert or brass?
You seem to be speaking very authoritatively, but having experience with both, I can tell you ease of rotation is such that if you held the two types in your hand blindfolded, you couldn’t tell the difference.

You may be onto something as far as longevity goes, but these new kind have only been out for a handful of years. Maybe 5?

I haven’t heard any reports of premature wear or failure so far.
 

·
Registered
65 GT 4 speed/69 SCJ 4 speed
Joined
·
1,811 Posts
I put a set of these on my car, 6 years ago, and did not like the way the car
Automotive tire Gas Electronic device Auto part Cable

handled. Front end/steering was to loose. Put about 1000 miles on them before putting the stock version back on. Much prefer the tight/positive response of the stock version. Do think the zerk fittings are a good idea. Brian
 

·
Dimples
Joined
·
6,530 Posts
I put a set of these on my car, 6 years ago, and did not like the way the car View attachment 818683
handled. Front end/steering was to loose. Put about 1000 miles on them before putting the stock version back on. Much prefer the tight/positive response of the stock version. Do think the zerk fittings are a good idea. Brian
Does not compute. The stock part sucks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,273 Posts
I like the elastomer ones so far. The car is so much smoother going over the speed bumps at both my kids' schools and in front of our usual grocery store, the subtle changes in the streets and the man hole covers that can't be avoided -- it's a noticeable difference in the ability of the front suspension to work through the spring as the wheel moves over an object and the shock controls the response better, kind of like having a heavy duty truck and with just enough weight in the bed to make the springs work rather than being at the top of the arc and transferring all the energy into the chassis. I'm not going to call it cutting corners, getting the elastomer ones versus the bearing ones, because I have driven a car with 25 year old, 55 year old and new rubber ones and then the elastomer ones and they are defintely worth the expense over the stock type rubber ones. I don't think the roller bearing or solid bronze ones can ride any better than the elastomer ones, I think they may just last longer because of the material, especially if they were used on a track. My cars won't ever be used on a track and I can justify buying these 2 or 3 times IF they were to ever wear out for the price of the roller bearing ones. Good compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlakeTX

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
22,134 Posts
Front end/steering was to loose. Put about 1000 miles on them before putting the stock version back on. Much prefer the tight/positive response of the stock version.
I agree with Blake here. These things do not add up for me. None of the perch styles would contribute to me feeling a front end was too "loose". That's not what they do. It may well be that we have very different ideas of what a loose front end is but I still don't quite get how it can be better with stock style perches unless their binding is acting as a bandaid for something pretty wrong with another suspension part.
 

·
Registered
1967 Coupe, C Code, Raven Black, Red Interior
Joined
·
9 Posts
Would anyone mind posting a picture of these installed on their car? I’m trying to see these in my head, but I’m new to suspension parts and can’t quite figure these out.
 

·
Registered
65 GT 4 speed/69 SCJ 4 speed
Joined
·
1,811 Posts
The Scott Drake CD4Z-3388-HP installed. I installed a right angle zerk as the Drake installed straight zerk was useless. Nov. 2015 Brian
Automotive lighting Automotive tire Hood Motor vehicle Rim
Automotive tire Tire Motor vehicle Automotive lighting Tread
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,705 Posts
Motor vehicle Hood Automotive tire Bumper Automotive design

Best one I have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu

·
Registered
1965 Coupe C-Code
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Still the coolest spring perches are the Open Tracker double perches so that the shock bottoms rotate too. Although it would probably be easier to have the shock’s lower mounts rotate instead.
 
1 - 20 of 66 Posts
Top