Jump to content

Total Control & Street or Track & Global West Strut Rod & Lower Control Arms


Recommended Posts

Here are some interesting videos on stock strut rods vs adjustable rods, wow cant believe how much movement they have. 

 

 

Edited by Canted 393
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know a lot of kits are geared that way and it does lower the center of gravity but the mount for the lca is way lighter metal than your shock towers. The freakride kit gives the best of both worlds.

I still have not driven my car more than a couple miles- so I cannot offer any solid advise on how it actually drives.  Horsing around sub 40 mph sans doors, hood and trunk it seems to be a hoot.  See

In answer to the question about springs mounted on lower control arms and if anyone has any thoughts about them. When springs are mounted on upper control arms the socket and ball take all of the

Those are great videos. I saw them some time ago and that motivated me to upgrade my strut rod couple years ago.

20160929_171923_edit2_small.jpg

 

1971 M-Code Mach 1 w/Ram Air, 408 stroker, 285/291 0.558" roller cam, Blue Thunder intake, TKO600, Hooker headers with electric cut-offs, FiTech EFI w/ RobBMC PowerSurge pump

Strange center section with Truetrac, 3.5 gear and 31 spline axles, 4-wheel disc brakes

Link to post
Share on other sites

In answer to the question about springs mounted on lower control arms and if anyone has any thoughts about them.

When springs are mounted on upper control arms the socket and ball take all of the weight of the car, as shown in this diagram. To show how it actually works the image should be inverted to show the spindle pushing the ball stud up into the socket. This illustrates how much surface area and strength is devoted to supporting the car on the upper ball joint.

spacer.png

On the other hand, when the spring is attached to the lower control arm and the lower control arm supports the weight of the car the ball stud is trying to pull through the hole in the housing body, and only a relatively small surface area is devoted to the supporting of the car, as shown in this illustration. As you can see, only the sloped/curved sides of the ball and socket are supporting the car and the lower control arm is trying to pull the socket off the ball stud while the spindle is trying to pull the ball stud out of the socket.

spacer.png

 

Edited by Don C
added
  • Like 1

 

 

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”

--Albert Einstein

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I have ~2000 miles on my SoT coil over system and am thoroughly pleased with it. I went with the street valved shocks, 4 1/2 leaf mid-eyes from Shaun, Bilsteins in the rear and a 12.7:1 conversion on my steering box (Power Steering Services). The cars rides and handles extremely well with zero harshness in any way.

ebRFMXG.jpg

Edited by EdM
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2020 at 4:36 PM, Don C said:

In answer to the question about springs mounted on lower control arms and if anyone has any thoughts about them.

When springs are mounted on upper control arms the socket and ball take all of the weight of the car, as shown in this diagram. To show how it actually works the image should be inverted to show the spindle pushing the ball stud up into the socket. This illustrates how much surface area and strength is devoted to supporting the car on the upper ball joint.

spacer.png

On the other hand, when the spring is attached to the lower control arm and the lower control arm supports the weight of the car the ball stud is trying to pull through the hole in the housing body, and only a relatively small surface area is devoted to the supporting of the car, as shown in this illustration. As you can see, only the sloped/curved sides of the ball and socket are supporting the car and the lower control arm is trying to pull the socket off the ball stud while the spindle is trying to pull the ball stud out of the socket.

spacer.png

 

Don, this is true but I have to "assume" that the lower ball joint can be designed to withstand these loads. This is a very common suspension setup with sports cars so I can only assume that TCP and SOT have taken this into consideration and chose a ball joint that can handle it.

20160929_171923_edit2_small.jpg

 

1971 M-Code Mach 1 w/Ram Air, 408 stroker, 285/291 0.558" roller cam, Blue Thunder intake, TKO600, Hooker headers with electric cut-offs, FiTech EFI w/ RobBMC PowerSurge pump

Strange center section with Truetrac, 3.5 gear and 31 spline axles, 4-wheel disc brakes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they can be designed to support the weight and the materials specified that have the strength and wear characteristics. However, that is too many assumptions for me, especially having the parts constructed out of the correct materials. Too many products are specified correctly but never have any follow-up testing performed to verify the quality of materials or workmanship. That is why one of the favorite phrases on this forum is "new does not mean good". I have seen the aftermath of failed lower ball joints (most likely due to lack of maintenance-lubrication) on older cars that had springs on lower control arms. 

The other problem that I see is the misapplication of parts. For instance, the lower ball joints for our cars work fine, but may not be acceptable for use as the lower ball joint on a spring-on-lower control arm suspension. I have a lot of problems with many of the aftermarket suspension systems that are being sold for big dollars.

Mustang II front suspensions work well and were designed correctly for a light-weight car. However, you see people buying an old used one and modifying it for other use on a larger vehicle with a much heavier engine. Another popular one was using a Plymouth Volare front end on '50s pickups. Disasters waiting to happen (in my opinion).

A front suspension based on a Crown Victoria front end makes a much better candidate for our cars.

Could our front suspensions be designed better, and handle better? Of course they could. However, if I ever modify my front suspension it will be something that I, or someone I know and trust, design and build, the only way that I know it will be done correctly. As I have mentioned in other posts, I like the looks of the 2015 and later Mustang's front suspensions, and would probably base my suspension on them. At my age, I like to dream a lot, though. After 3/4 of a century my mind still works, but it gets harder and harder to get my body to follow along.

 

 

“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.”

--Albert Einstein

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don C said:

Yes, they can be designed to support the weight and the materials specified that have the strength and wear characteristics. However, that is too many assumptions for me, especially having the parts constructed out of the correct materials. Too many products are specified correctly but never have any follow-up testing performed to verify the quality of materials or workmanship. That is why one of the favorite phrases on this forum is "new does not mean good". I have seen the aftermath of failed lower ball joints (most likely due to lack of maintenance-lubrication) on older cars that had springs on lower control arms. 

The other problem that I see is the misapplication of parts. For instance, the lower ball joints for our cars work fine, but may not be acceptable for use as the lower ball joint on a spring-on-lower control arm suspension. I have a lot of problems with many of the aftermarket suspension systems that are being sold for big dollars.

Mustang II front suspensions work well and were designed correctly for a light-weight car. However, you see people buying an old used one and modifying it for other use on a larger vehicle with a much heavier engine. Another popular one was using a Plymouth Volare front end on '50s pickups. Disasters waiting to happen (in my opinion).

A front suspension based on a Crown Victoria front end makes a much better candidate for our cars.

Could our front suspensions be designed better, and handle better? Of course they could. However, if I ever modify my front suspension it will be something that I, or someone I know and trust, design and build, the only way that I know it will be done correctly. As I have mentioned in other posts, I like the looks of the 2015 and later Mustang's front suspensions, and would probably base my suspension on them. At my age, I like to dream a lot, though. After 3/4 of a century my mind still works, but it gets harder and harder to get my body to follow along.

Great point Don. That's why I like to brainstorm in this forum. It is great to hear all the different points of view.

20160929_171923_edit2_small.jpg

 

1971 M-Code Mach 1 w/Ram Air, 408 stroker, 285/291 0.558" roller cam, Blue Thunder intake, TKO600, Hooker headers with electric cut-offs, FiTech EFI w/ RobBMC PowerSurge pump

Strange center section with Truetrac, 3.5 gear and 31 spline axles, 4-wheel disc brakes

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...