Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > Classic Mustangs (Tech)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search


Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-12-2012, 09:55 AM   #11
Bosko
1st Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Vehicle: 1971 Mach 1
Location: Texas
Posts: 60
Default

I just put the Street & Track strut rods on my 1971. I have not had it on the road yet, so no guidance on how they perform. Like Buckeye above, I made lots of changes at once, so I will not have any idea how the individual mods work.

A question to the OP - I see you cross drilled your frame rail to mount the hiem joint, instead of using the factory mount location. I thought about doing this on mine, since it would make it easier to create my own strut rod design and install it. I did not go down that path because I was worried about the structural loads in the frame. Instead of the loads reacting through the plate and across the entire depth of the frame, they will now be concentrated around the hole. i do not know if that is really an issue, but it seems that you would want to at least weld in a reinforcing plate to thicken the sides of the frame rails to better distribute the loads. Do you have any concerns about deformation of the frame rail or cracks forming as a result of changing the mounting location and method?

This is not meant as a criticism, I'm just looking for some education. :-)
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
Bosko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 06:59 PM   #12
clittleton07
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: MD
Posts: 14
Default

The strut rod does clear everything. I do not know anything about retreating the chromolly after welding; the local raceshop I went to, to source the materials, said they just tig it and there is no extra prep. Where i drilled the hole for the front heim was doubled walled frame rail so there is plenty of strength there I dont think there will be any chance of a stress crack forming. The car still rides great, not harsh at all. I am by no means an expert on mustang suspension but this mod does work great for my car. Thanks for the feedback guys.
Chris
clittleton07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 06:35 AM   #13
Old Mustanger
3rd Gear Member
 
Old Mustanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Vehicle: 1997 SVT Cobra
Location: IL
Posts: 615
Daniel Merrill
Default

The problem is that the Lower Control Arm on these Mustangs is pretty weak. It is stiffened significantly by the 2 attachment points of the Strut Bar and by the Strut Bar itself.

If you had kept a similar attachment method on the LCA I am sure that you would be golden. But your design adds another pivot point an inch or so above the LCA, this significantly weakens the LCA.

I am pretty certain that under hard braking and especially when braking and hitting bumps at the same time that the LCA will twist on it's axis and fail. Iv'e had one of these suspensions fail at speed and I rolled the car, I don't recommend it.

Remove the rear heim joint & replace it with a 2-bolt attachment plane and you will be stiffer & stronger than stock.
__________________
Owned 32 Mustangs & Counting.

Fondest memories: 1969 428CJ, it was stolen 60 days after complete rebuild.....
Worst memory: 1965 Notch back, rolled end over end, 2 days after rebuild, fractured Strut-bar..... Lesson learned: ALWAYS upgrade the front suspension of an early Mustang!
Worst mustang: 1974 4-cyl auto (it was cheap, I was broke...).
Favorite body style 1965/66 Fastback.
Present stable: 1997 SVT Cobra, 50k miles, Paciffic Green w/ tan leather & lots of goodies.
Old Mustanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 03:33 PM   #14
clittleton07
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: MD
Posts: 14
Default

The mounts are bolted in the stock strut rod location. I actually reused the existing holes and bolts for my mount. I more or less copied my design from a 67 mustang that has been high 7s in the quarter. The only difference is that I bolted my mount and he welded his directly to the LCA. This works fine for him and it has so far worked fine for me. Thanks again for the feed back though sir.
Chris
clittleton07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 10:59 AM   #15
groho
4th Gear Member
 
groho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,096
Default

Chris, those welds looked amazing! Old stanger mentions the LCA as a weak point. Wouldn't it make sense to strengthen the LCA by boxing it with a plate across the bottom. It's common to box frames and parts to build strength, so why not the LCA?
groho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 03:16 PM   #16
clittleton07
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: MD
Posts: 14
Default

I may box the LCAs in. I just have to make sure that I leave enough room to get to the nuts on the bottom of the bolts holding on the stut rod mount.
clittleton07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 06:55 PM   #17
OCHOHILL
2nd Gear Member
 
OCHOHILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Vehicle: 66 coupe
Location: az
Posts: 459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clittleton07 View Post
The mounts are bolted in the stock strut rod location. I actually reused the existing holes and bolts for my mount. I more or less copied my design from a 67 mustang that has been high 7s in the quarter. The only difference is that I bolted my mount and he welded his directly to the LCA. This works fine for him and it has so far worked fine for me. Thanks again for the feed back though sir.
Chris
More less copied??? What was the other design and how does yours differ?

Going fast isn't the problem, it's when you step on the brakes that is the problem. When the brakes are applied the lower ball joint is forced to the rear of the vehicle. Your rear strut mount allows that to rotate about the length of the arm. It will bind the inner joint until it fails from the twist and moving rearward. It is not a question of if but when. If you changed your design to include a heim at the inner LCA, what happens? Your LCA is on 3 pivot points and nothing is solid.

I thought I was pretty smart when I came up with this on my own(see link), only to find that Cobra Automotive came up with it some time before. If I didn't care about you or those around you I wouldn't say a thing. Don't take offense to the advice.

http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/mo...trut-rods.html

This has been on the car since the date posted and thus far tolerates abuse from my 17 yr old (wilwood discs on front, with 235 tires)
__________________
The search function is a tool. Use it. It will save you time and money.
OCHOHILL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2012, 11:46 PM   #18
clittleton07
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: MD
Posts: 14
Default

The only difference between mine and the one I mentioned that I copied were that his brackets were welded on and mine are bolted on. I dont see this causing extra stress on the arm. The strut rod is just intended to keep the LCA from moving foward and backwards. I can see what your saying but I do believe its irrelevant. This design has proved itself in a car that will see much worse than mine ever will. Thank you for the feedback though.
Chris
clittleton07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2012, 12:16 AM   #19
JMD
6th Gear Member
 
JMD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Vehicle: 39 Ford
Location: AR
Posts: 5,468
Default

I opened this post a while back looked it over and then closed it. I opened it back up tonight wanting to see what the "naysayers" might be mentioning about this mod.

Well funny thing is, I kind of agree with the naysayers. The design WILL cause the LCA to twist more than stock, because the strut will no longer add torsional stability to prevent the LCA from twisting, furthermore this is going to be made worse because the bolt on mount raises the mount point as to put more leverage into the twist that the strut will induce.

In short, the stock design lends support to the LCA, this design will also induce twist.

I think the basic idea is good, the workmanship is great, but the fundamental change in structure is a little too scary for me to take the risk without updating the LCA.

The question is whether this induced twist is beyond the functional limits of the LCA.
__________________
Building cars is EASY, building cars right is a mite bit harder.

JMD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2012, 11:32 AM   #20
OCHOHILL
2nd Gear Member
 
OCHOHILL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Vehicle: 66 coupe
Location: az
Posts: 459
Default

Many don't realize the LCA and strut rod bolted together make a rudimentary 'A' arm.

I am not saying this is OK but in theory, if you lined up(made linear) the 3 points (inner joint, outer ball joint and the rear strut heim) you could use a double heimed strut rod since the stress is in braking and would put the rod in tension without inducing twist.

With any luck Mr. Peterson may add to the thread, although I haven't seen him post here in a while.
__________________
The search function is a tool. Use it. It will save you time and money.
OCHOHILL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2012, 11:32 AM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
1965, 1968, 66, 67, 69, adjustable, brackets, from, heim, made, mounting, mustang, rod, rods, strut

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:56 PM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.


This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup