Jump to content

blackford

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by blackford

  1. That's cool.  I did a heim join upgrade to the strut rods a few years back.  Is there an additional advantage to having the strut rod integrated into the lower control arm?

     

    It's an evolution of design.  There are vintage and modern vehicles that have the two parts integrated into one part and that is where the inspiration came from.  Weight is one advantage.  It is lighter than the two separate parts which means better response time for the suspension.  For a street car that is not typically an issue but for a track car it can be important.  Cost is another advantage.  One part can be designed and built which reduces cost.  Things can be optimized when you combine them together also

  2. I looked at measuring it again, there are a lot of compound angles and I don't think I could get you anything accurate unless it involved a whole mess of measurements.

     

    I do think I could plasma cut out enough of it that it could go fedex ground and still be an accurate template.  If you want I can get it cut out in a few weeks, you cover shipping.

     

    Did this ever make any progress?   I might see if I can start cracking on one for my car in the not so distant future.

     

    I haven't done any more with it.  It would require some more measurements before I could make one.  I have been busy launching a new product...Integrated Strut Arms which consolidated lower control arms with strut rods in one unit.  I've got them on sale for 65-66 Mustang and 62-65 Falcon/Comet.  I'm working on a version that will fit later mustangs, mavericks, comets, fairlanes, torinos, etc and hope to have it on sale soon.  The link to the 65-66 version is here:

     

    Integrated Strut Arms

  3. I built a prototype "Strut Arm" a while back as some of you may know. Got around to building a second prototype Strut Arm and installed the prototypes on the '65. Here is a link to a write up with pics. So far they have worked out very well.

     

    I know its a '65 and not a '71-'73, but when I get these into production, I'll be working on the design for later models that will fit '71-'73.

     

    Combined LCA and Strut Rod units- road test success

  4. I got asked by a customer about roller spring perches of which I had to respond that I don't currently make them. His gripe about existing roller perches is that they make the car sit up higher in the front. Cobra Automotive makes a nice set of bushed spring perches using oil impregnated bronze bushings that probably don't increase ride height...it's a nice clean design, but they go for $339. :-/

     

    So...i've come up with a design that won't change the ride height. I'm using COM-12 3/4" Teflon lined spherical bearings with chrome moly bearing cups and a 3/4" shaft...probably 4130 chrome moly. The spherical bearings are load rated for at least 20,000 lbs each or 10x the load that the roller bearings are rated for and they are PTFE lined for self-lubrication.

     

    Here are some pics of a prototype that I hacked up to show what they look like. Still have some work to do on these and some testing. I haven't settled on a price yet, but they will be competitive with the roller spring perches out there now, but much higher load rating and no change in ride height.

    1149414669_springperchtop.thumb.jpg.6a2b1da057274e6977f09600203fd430.jpg

    1066442804_springperchside.thumb.jpg.b1c72d1c03d082c7877471f39ac5be83.jpg

  5. I'm still very interested in getting this done by Tracy at Pacific Thunder Performance.

     

    Something along the lines of this. Looks like a good cross between stock and resto-mod. Tracy is offering us some good products for our 123 Mustangs. Hope we can all somehow help him pull off this one.

     

    Tracy?

     

     

    6pryq0.jpg

    noty4n.jpg

     

    I went to the Fabulous Fords Forever show in April and I got some measurements from an accommodating owner. It's not going to be a symmetrical piece as you guys probably know. The drivers side mounting holes on the firewall are further back than the passenger side and the two holes on that side are not inline either. I'll post a dimensional diagram later and hopefully someone can verify my measurements.

  6. Just to throw in a thought. I would ask PTP what material they would use to fabricate the parts. Regular hot rolled or cold rolled steel has a min. yield of about 25,000. You can double and triple that strength by using the right raw materials. Chrome molly tube and plate would double the strength. Or HSLA Hight Strength Low Alloy welds better than chrome molly and does not require the welds to be annealed to prevent cracks.

    When you stiffen up the chassis you for sure will need the suspension to do a better job since you have less body flex the ride could get pretty rough. An example is the Dodge Viper rides like a wagon. With my height I cannot ride in one without turning my head sideways keeps hitting the roof.

     

    Hot roll and cold roll is stronger than that. Hot roll A36 has 36,000 psi yield strength and cold roll 1018 has 54,000 psi yield strength. These are minimums and they tend to be stronger than minimum requirements. DOM tube has 72,000 psi minimum yield strength but I was looking at one of the Material Test Data Sheets for some DOM tube I bought and the batch had yield strength in the 90,000 psi range...::thumb:: This brace can be made to be very strong with these materials.

     

    Chrome moly 4130 is a little weaker than DOM in its normalized state. I've talked to the old timer welders at the industrial supply store I go to and they say to use ERS70-2 wire and heat the 4130 chrome moly tube to take the chill out if it before welding. I have not used chrome moly for anything yet...haven't needed to. 4340 is strong but more difficult to weld and requires pre-heat, post-heat, etc.

  7. That's quite a good design and should sell. Only question I have is how do you grease the front turnbuckle? It will be exposed to the elements, road grime and dirt which would cause it to wear prematurely..Just a thought.

     

    The rod end is a self lubricating teflon lined rod end. The turnbuckle is greased with silver anti-sieze compound when it is assembled. The hardware from the turnbuckle forward is essentially the same hardware that is used in our adjustable strut rods.

     

    Years ago, I had TCP adjustable strut rods on my personal car and I remember them seizing up on me after less than a year. I am always sure to use anti-sieze on threaded joints from that experience.

  8. The following link goes to a blog post I made on our website today. I've finally completed a prototype of combined LCA and strut rod. I'm struggling with the name so if you have suggestions i'd like to hear about it. It's been about 9 months since I first thought about this product. I vacillated back and forth with the design, but this one looks like a winner. There a still a few things to work out, but it's close. I'm hoping that we go into production in July. The blog is about the 65/66 Mustang version, but there will be a version that will fit later Mustangs as well.

     

    There are similar products out there but my price will not be anywhere as high...probably in the $475 per pair range. If you try to buy aftermarket strut rods and LCAs separately, you'll pay more...even for our stuff and I try to keep our prices reasonable let alone other vendors who are higher.

     

    I'd like to hear your feedback!

     

    PTP Engineering Link New Product Blog Post

  9. Pacific Thunder Performance Engineering now offers Adjustable Lower Control Arms for your 1970-1977 Maverick or Comet. We have taken new Moog LCAs and replaced the small end with a teflon lined self-lubricating high strength rod end. We also boxed the bottom of the LCA for added strength. Please visit the link below for more information. Thanks

     

    PTP Engineering - 1970-1977 Adjustable Lower Control Arms


    OK...ignore the 1970-1977 Maverick/Comet comments and insert 1971 to 1973 Mustang...


    1971-1973 Mustang Adjustable Lower Control Arms

     

    Pacific Thunder Performance Engineering now offers Adjustable Lower Control Arms for your 1970-1977 Maverick or Comet. We have taken new Moog LCAs and replaced the small end with a teflon lined self-lubricating high strength rod end. We also boxed the bottom of the LCA for added strength. Please visit the link below for more information. Thanks

     

    PTP Engineering - 1970-1977 Adjustable Lower Control Arms


    OK...ignore the 1970-1977 Maverick/Comet comments and insert 1971 to 1973 Mustang...

  10. Can they sell it with the flanges not drilled? Then each individual will drill the holes where needed.

     

    1971 M-code Mach 1

     

    Yes they can and you have a good idea. All we need to get this going is get a car to Anaheim California for one afternoon.

     

     

    I promise i'll give it back when i'm done...:whistling:

     

    But really, I remember when I put a one piece export brace on a 65 FB...had to use a jack to spread out the shock towers about 3/16" to get it to fit.

     

    Franks problem with the MPG unit is that it has movable rod ends at all 3 corners so there can be shock tower and body flex.

     

    One piece export/monte carlo bar that fits all will be a challenge. You would have a few diff ways to go (these are just brainstorming ideas...i'll just throw them out there):

     

    Drill holes oversize and use grade 8 hardware to install it and rely on clamping force to hold the bar in place. 5/16 UNF bolts have over 5000 lbs of clamping force and 3 at each shock tower would be pretty solid. But, you can overdrill so much before it gets sloppy.

     

    Make the V to the shock towers solid and the cross bar adjustable. If the V is solid and rigid, the heim joints on the cross bar are only going to see tensile or compression loads so there shouldn't be any movement of the shock towers even if some of the linkage (the cross bar) has more degrees of freedom.

     

    Use solid rod ends like these, and have each of the 3 legs be adjustable. Once the unit is adjusted, torque the rod end bolts to hold it all in place and to make it rigid. A 1/2" grade 8 bolt has over 10,000 lbs of clamping force when torqued to spec.

     

    RE-RD.JPG

     

     

    I like the solid rod end idea actually...it allows for a lot of adjustment. You could probably "fix" the MPG unit by replacing the existing rod ends with solid ones if the existing hardware is strong enough to provide good clamping force.

     

    One of the biggest challenges is to get the dimensions correct. Not only is there the distance from the shock towers to the firewall, but the shock towers are at a lower plane and it looks like they angle in a bit. You almost need to make up some plates for all 3 corners, install them on a golden car and then weld in some braces to connect them all together and then remove the part from the car and use it to build a jig.

  11. We have reasonably priced complete adjustable strut rods and new for 2016 we have DIY adjustable strut rod kits for those who want a cost effective DIY kit where you can modify you old strut rods and we supply everything else. Complete instructions are provided. We are replenishing stock and will have more of these for sale later this month.

     

    The LCA brackets for the complete strut rods look a little different now than the pic on the website. We have the LCA brackets precision laser cut now.

     

    Adjustable Strut Rods and DIY Kits

  12. I could make you a new set of strut rod brackets that have the steering stop further out to stop that problem. How much gap between the stop and the spindle when you crank it all the way right and left? Not the best solution, but you could grind down the nose of those GW uppers without compromising them but then you'd have to re-powder coat them or paint the exposed metal. There isn't a lot that needs to be removed. Looks like the tubes are open at the end in one pic but not open in the other pic. The nose of the uppers don't look like they follow the contour of the ball joint plate...aftermarket uppers should have the nose of the uppers angle back more than that. If and when I get around to it, i'll design some uppers that won't have that problem.

  13. Here is a pic of them installed on a 65/66 mustang. Basically the same for 71-73 except the adjusting tube is longer and the LCA bracket is different.

     

    65-66 Adjustable Strut Rod Installed

     

    I've not heard anyone who has solid mount strut rods complain about road vibration. Those who bring up the concern are usually those who don't have them yet. Bumps in the road are probably felt more, but control is much better under driving and braking conditions. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Let me put it another way...i've not heard of someone who put them on subsequently take them off because of vibration/harshness concerns. I've had them on my 65 mustang for over 10 years and it's something that really never crossed my mind until someone brought it up. The car rides smooth and bumps in the road don't bother me except in the rear because of stiff 4.5 leaf springs that cause the back to take bumps harder than the front. Over time they've relaxed a bit...thankfully. 620 lb front coil springs would probably do more to increase road harshness in the front than solid strut rods.

     

    Can you please share a picture of the strut rod installed? I am curious on how it looks.

  14. I have GT springs that are supposed to have a bit more rate than stock springs. I've met guys with 620 lb springs in the front of their 65/66 and I remember one in particular who said he made a mistake because he thought that they were way too stiff for street use. Bumps were jarring.

     

    Hello blackford,

     

    Do you have the 620 lb. front coils? Since you mentioned this, I went back to Eaton Detroit Springs and looked up 1973 Ford Mustang Hardtop with 302 with A/C. I see that I can get a coil spring, -1 inch 355 lb spring rate with A/C improved handling.

     

    a1sbag.jpg

     

    This should be better than the 620 lb spring. The goal is to lower the front end. I may go to the - 1.5 inch model.

     

    Thanks,

     

    mustang7173 :thankyouyellow:

     

     

    I've not heard anyone who has solid mount strut rods complain about road vibration. Those who bring up the concern are usually those who don't have them yet. Bumps in the road are probably felt more, but control is much better under driving and braking conditions. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Let me put it another way...i've not heard of someone who put them on subsequently take them off because of vibration/harshness concerns. I've had them on my 65 mustang for over 10 years and it's something that really never crossed my mind until someone brought it up. The car rides smooth and bumps in the road don't bother me except in the rear because of stiff 4.5 leaf springs that cause the back to take bumps harder than the front. Over time they've relaxed a bit...thankfully. 620 lb front coil springs would probably do more to increase road harshness in the front than solid strut rods.

     

    All,

     

    Holly Smokes Batman. Watch at the beginning of the road trip and watch the lower control arm just flex like crazy. After watching this video, unless you driving your mustang to the grocery store and back, stock replacement Lower control arms are no good for performance driving.

     

    As blackford stated, the two point lower control arm would be the idea suspension setup. I cannot wait to see what he comes up with!

     

    mustang7173


    Hello blackford,

     

    Nice stuff that you have there! One question! Since the strut rods are solid mounts, should we expect a certain amount off road noise and vibration through the front end?

     

    I remember having stiff strut rod bushings and minor road imperfections would vibrate through the front end and dash area. Is this the trade off for better road performance handling.

     

    Thanks

     

    mustang7173 :bravo:

     

  15. I'll have to take a pic and post it when I get home

     

    I've not heard anyone who has solid mount strut rods complain about road vibration. Those who bring up the concern are usually those who don't have them yet. Bumps in the road are probably felt more, but control is much better under driving and braking conditions. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Let me put it another way...i've not heard of someone who put them on subsequently take them off because of vibration/harshness concerns. I've had them on my 65 mustang for over 10 years and it's something that really never crossed my mind until someone brought it up. The car rides smooth and bumps in the road don't bother me except in the rear because of stiff 4.5 leaf springs that cause the back to take bumps harder than the front. Over time they've relaxed a bit...thankfully. 620 lb front coil springs would probably do more to increase road harshness in the front than solid strut rods.

     

    Can you please share a picture of the strut rod installed? I am curious on how it looks.

  16. I've not heard anyone who has solid mount strut rods complain about road vibration. Those who bring up the concern are usually those who don't have them yet. Bumps in the road are probably felt more, but control is much better under driving and braking conditions. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Let me put it another way...i've not heard of someone who put them on subsequently take them off because of vibration/harshness concerns. I've had them on my 65 mustang for over 10 years and it's something that really never crossed my mind until someone brought it up. The car rides smooth and bumps in the road don't bother me except in the rear because of stiff 4.5 leaf springs that cause the back to take bumps harder than the front. Over time they've relaxed a bit...thankfully. 620 lb front coil springs would probably do more to increase road harshness in the front than solid strut rods.

     

    All,

     

    Holly Smokes Batman. Watch at the beginning of the road trip and watch the lower control arm just flex like crazy. After watching this video, unless you driving your mustang to the grocery store and back, stock replacement Lower control arms are no good for performance driving.

     

    As blackford stated, the two point lower control arm would be the idea suspension setup. I cannot wait to see what he comes up with!

     

    mustang7173


    Hello blackford,

     

    Nice stuff that you have there! One question! Since the strut rods are solid mounts, should we expect a certain amount off road noise and vibration through the front end?

     

    I remember having stiff strut rod bushings and minor road imperfections would vibrate through the front end and dash area. Is this the trade off for better road performance handling.

     

    Thanks

     

    mustang7173 :bravo:

     

    Wondering if anyone out there has tried these rods?

    http://www.pacificthunderperformance.com/collections/1971-1973-mustang

     

    I just found out about this site from my website visit referral data...glad I found it! Thanks for showing interest.

     

    I own Pacific Thunder Performance Engineering. I recently redesigned the strut rods because I get the brackets laser cut now so they look a little different than the pic on the website. I also sell on Ebay as ptpengineeringinc.

     

    I have been cleaned out again so it's about time to replenish stock again. I bought a new MIG welder so now I have two so I can have a 2nd welder help with production to keep up with demand. I plan to replenish stock in a week or two.

     

    I have been on several mustang websites since around 2000 as blkfrd or blackford. I currently have a 65 FB mustang that I restomodded back in 2004, but I build parts for all vintage Mustangs, Comets, Mavericks, Australian Falcons, Cougars, and whatever else comes along. I just finished building a set of custom strut rods for a customer with a 61 Falcon. They were very similar to 65/66 Mustang strut rods but the LCA mounting holes were closer together and the bracket had to be shortened for the steering stop. The frame mount hole where the old rubber bushings went was smaller too.

     

    I'm also working on some new LCAs that have a dual pivot point instead of the single mounting point. Working on the 65/66 Mustang version of it right now and later mustang version afterwards. Hope to start building these soon.

  17. Wondering if anyone out there has tried these rods?

    http://www.pacificthunderperformance.com/collections/1971-1973-mustang

     

    I just found out about this site from my website visit referral data...glad I found it! Thanks for showing interest.

     

    I own Pacific Thunder Performance Engineering. I recently redesigned the strut rods because I get the brackets laser cut now so they look a little different than the pic on the website. I also sell on Ebay as ptpengineeringinc.

     

    I have been cleaned out again so it's about time to replenish stock again. I bought a new MIG welder so now I have two so I can have a 2nd welder help with production to keep up with demand. I plan to replenish stock in a week or two.

     

    I have been on several mustang websites since around 2000 as blkfrd or blackford. I currently have a 65 FB mustang that I restomodded back in 2004, but I build parts for all vintage Mustangs, Comets, Mavericks, Australian Falcons, Cougars, and whatever else comes along. I just finished building a set of custom strut rods for a customer with a 61 Falcon. They were very similar to 65/66 Mustang strut rods but the LCA mounting holes were closer together and the bracket had to be shortened for the steering stop. The frame mount hole where the old rubber bushings went was smaller too.

     

    I'm also working on some new LCAs that have a dual pivot point instead of the single mounting point. Working on the 65/66 Mustang version of it right now and later mustang version afterwards. Hope to start building these soon.

×
×
  • Create New...