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

[tony-muscle]

Hello,

I have a 71 mach 1 that has been undergoing a total overhaul of the powertrain and suspension and I recently took it on a test drive for the first time. I did the complete front end coilover varishock conversion along with the power rack and pinion steering, and the leaf spring and panhard rod plus sway bar rear suspension. All total control products hardware. I went with the 500 pound coil springs as the man at tcp suggested. 100% street driven. Big block 429 c6 auto.

My impressions of the end results going from factory ford suspension and steering to total control gear is this;

Factory: stiff and rubbery all at the same time, worst of both worlds. Hated it. Very dissapointing.

TCP upgraded gear: solidly controlled, not harsh, not bouncy, just right. Feel the road but not the bumps.

With varishocks on softest setting. Might try a little stiffer but not much. I preffer stiff springs and relaxed shocks on the street. Incredible improvement, very very pleased.

The steering is much improved also. Gone is the Lincoln / thunderbird

excessively easy one finger steering. Not a numb and over driven

Or over sensitive feel. I was afraid it would be twitchy , but it was not.

I really really like the change. The softer steering is what you might want on a personal luxury type car because it adds to the smooth and easy gliding feel of those cars. It feels out of place on a mustang.

The TCP rack is a better and I would say also a safer steering box. You are simply more in control as you drive.

Rear suspension: The car feels much more under control and planted.

Handles power well when nailing the throttle. Love it. No bounce and not rough.

Is it as good as a modern muscle car like a new mustang or Challenger?

No I would not say that.

Is it better than factory? Yes In a huge way. No question about it.

No comparison. It is superior in every way, there is no draw back or trade off

Except that it is no longer original. To me, if the factory suspension is very poor

And therefore not of any value. I have zero qualms about modifying it because I

Hated how it drove before. I say this about a factory 429 ram air car. Some people

would never consider modifying a cat of this value but it was so

flawed from the factory that it was an easy decision.

I also removed the original iron 429 motor and replaced it with

An all aluminum big block. I am sure the weight savings made

An improvement as well and contributed to the overall dynamic

improvement. I reckon it weighs around what a 351 clevland weighs.

I changed it all at once and the net effect was dramatically improved.

Before it felt like a heavy car but now it does not have that sense of mass

When you are moving along curvy roads.

I just wanted to add that I experienced no vibration or any harshness

I was expecting it to beat me up a little but I'd does not with the softer setting.

I was happily surprised that it really felt like the goldilocks just right feel I was hoping for.

I hope this helps anyone considering this upgrade.

I have no experience with any other companies products

For these years mustangs so I can not compare them.

I can say that I am extremely satisfied with the TCP parts

And of course the way that they were installed is critical.

I did use global west subframe connectors which look

Very nicely made.

Sounds that you did a lot of work. Can you post pictures? I especially would like to see the rack and pinion mod. How is the installation of the rack?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[tony-muscle]

I am bringing back this thread to see if anyone has updates and real use feedback on their upgraded front suspension. TCP or SOT?

 

[Canted 393]

I run this kit along with roller perches http://www.streetortrack.com/Street-or-Track-Tubular-Front-End-System-pr-24480.html

Best roller perches i have tried https://www.ebay.com/itm/65-73-Mustang-Roller-Bearing-Spring-Perches/254289466444?hash=item3b34d5544c:g:YhgAAOSw14xWJad4

I run these springs https://www.summitracing.com/search/product-line/global-west-suspension-coil-springs/year/1970/make/ford/model/mustang/part-type/lowering-springs?fr=part-type&SortBy=Default&SortOrder=Default

I adjust height with these https://www.summitracing.com/search/brand/global-west-suspension/year/1970/make/ford/model/mustang/part-type/coil-spring-spacers?N=part-type%3Acoil-spring-spacers&SortBy=Default&SortOrder=Ascending

I end up with a firm ride but not harsh, this what i do, there a ton of choices out there good luck.

 

[tony-muscle]

I run this kit along with roller perches http://www.streetortrack.com/Street-or-Track-Tubular-Front-End-System-pr-24480.html

Best roller perches i have tried https://www.ebay.com/itm/65-73-Mustang-Roller-Bearing-Spring-Perches/254289466444?hash=item3b34d5544c:g:YhgAAOSw14xWJad4

I run these springs https://www.summitracing.com/search/product-line/global-west-suspension-coil-springs/year/1970/make/ford/model/mustang/part-type/lowering-springs?fr=part-type&SortBy=Default&SortOrder=Default

I adjust height with these https://www.summitracing.com/search/brand/global-west-suspension/year/1970/make/ford/model/mustang/part-type/coil-spring-spacers?N=part-type%3Acoil-spring-spacers&SortBy=Default&SortOrder=Ascending

I end up with a firm ride but not harsh, this what i do, there a ton of choices out there good luck.

Thank you. I have looked at the option of separate components but at the end of the day you end up paying about the same than just buying the whole Coilover conversion.

 

[Canted 393]

The only thing about most coil over kits is the weight gets carried by the lower control arm , here is another kit that some people like well. https://www.freakride.com/product/all-front-coil-over-conversion-systems/

 

[tony-muscle]

The only thing about most coil over kits is the weight gets carried by the lower control arm , here is another kit that some people like well. https://www.freakride.com/product/all-front-coil-over-conversion-systems/

Is it a bad thing to carry the weight by the LCA? What are the pros and cons?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Canted 393]

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 havent talked to anybody with the coilover kit on their car so its just my 1st opinion on it.

 

[jowens1126]

that looks pretty slick.  Very similar to one of the TCP setups.

 

[tony-muscle]

Yes TCP has a similar setup where the spring attaches to the UCA. It would be nice to hear from someone that has used any of these. 

 

[tony-muscle]

Here is another option with the coil over on the UCA from Maier. I use their rear leaf springs and they are amazing. They are more expensive but they may be worth it.

https://mikemaierinc.com/product/mustang/mod1-front-suspension-package/

EDIT PS: that page has some very good videos explaining the whole technology.

 

[Bentworker]

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.  Seems very firm - ride is a lot like my Fiesta ST.  Probably will soften up a bit when I put the missing bits of the car back on.

If you want more options for an upper control arm style front coil over both Mike Maier Inc and Maier Racing have offerings.  Whatever you end up choosing I'd suggest you get one with asymmetrical UCA's swept towards the rear of the car so that you can get some positive caster out of the deal  (The Mike Maier UCA's are asymmetrical).  I ended up with the Hotchkis LCA's because they have a really awesome sealed spherical joint.  That being said they are a little bulky, the single tube from the LCA mount transitions to two tubes in short order.  I had to clearance things a bit to make the Hotchkis arms work at full compression on the drivers side.  It isn't a problem you would have with the TCP, Opentracker, Street or Track or Mike Maier LCA's, as they have a narrow profile.  I really dig the TCP style strut rod, it is sealed, and the pivot point is further forward than the other style of strut rods where a Heim joint mount is bolted in place.  The longer the strut rod is the less it is going to alter caster as the suspension travels. 

I chose my combo with the idea being that I wanted as few Heim joints as possible for the street.  I ended up with the TCP strut rod setup, Hotchkis LCA's and an older version of what Mike Maier is now selling for the UCA / coilover setup.  The only traditional Heim joints I have are on the ends of the JRI coil over shocks.  The UCA's I have don't have as much built in offset towards the rear as the new ones from Mike do.

I don't know what to think about the UCA vs LCA coil over argument.  Personally I don't know if it really matters one way or the other.  I chose and UCA style coil over setup  because I like the security of the car not hanging on one nut and a ball joint under tension.  With the UCA style coil over kits the weight is trying to push the upper tapered ball joint further into the spindle, and is using the same end of the spindle as was originally engineered to carry the weight.  All that being said I have never heard of someone breaking the lower ear off a spindle or any sort of catastrophic failure from using a LCA style coil over kit.

Maybe give me another year or two and I'll have plates back on my car and will be able to provide some real feedback on how the combo actually works.

 

[Canted 393]

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

 

[tony-muscle]

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

 

[Don C]

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.

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.

 

[EdM]

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.

 

[tony-muscle]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Don C]

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.

 

[tony-muscle]

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.

 

[Tyson Blair]

I am sorry to take 5 years to reply Don lol,
I really have no idea but that is an excellent question. If I had to guess it was the deteriorated stuff so not a fair comparison to true stock condition.

 

[mustang7173]

Good Day,

Wow, It is hard to believe it was August 2014 when I asked about real world experiences for the 1971 -1973 front suspension upgrades. Lots of good information from the thread here.

Here is what I have. The TCP strut rods rub slightly up against my sway bar. It is a little annoying. I did have the 1 1/8 inch sway-bar and swapped out to the 1.0 to reduce the bump and rub.



One of my main questions was, "What is the ride like and is there any harsh feedback?" One feedback that stuck out for me was the one from Qcode351mach,

Real world feed back..I took my 72 out the other day for a short test hop even though I'm still waiting to get on the alignment rack..Smooth as silk..very little road noise through the strut rod into the cross-member if any..I think this whole idea that the aftermarket strut rods will produce more noise is a bunch of poppycock that came from users of polyurethane strut mount bushings. If you think about what the strut rod does & a stock strut rod the rubber bushings are what provide the ability of the stock rod to move up & down they aren't there to provide noise reduction, That's your hinge point..In a matched system most of your road noise is going through the spindle into the control arms..the lower REAR cross-member..shock tower..very little is left for the strut rod. I will post up some video take you guys for a ride in the next few weeks so you can see for yourself.

I am stating to believe the harshness was not coming from the TCP strut and LCA, but from the tires that I have mounted. They are the BF Goodrich G-Force Comp-2 A/S 245/45ZR17.

https://tireauthority.com/reviews/bfgoodrich-g-force-comp-2-a-s-plus-tire-review/
http://www.tuneruniversity.com/blog...rt-iii-wheel-diameters-effect-on-performance/
I am looking into maybe swapping out the TCP equipment and going back with Boxed CK8123 Moog's and stock strut rods with good bushings. The other alternative would be to find different tires.

Thanks -

 

[rcadd1ct]

Good Day,

Wow, It is hard to believe it was August 2014 when I asked about real world experiences for the 1971 -1973 front suspension upgrades. Lots of good information from the thread here.

Here is what I have. The TCP strut rods rub slightly up against my sway bar. It is a little annoying. I did have the 1 1/8 inch sway-bar and swapped out to the 1.0 to reduce the bump and rub.

View attachment 83934View attachment 83935

One of my main questions was, "What is the ride like and is there any harsh feedback?" One feedback that stuck out for me was the one from Qcode351mach,

Real world feed back..I took my 72 out the other day for a short test hop even though I'm still waiting to get on the alignment rack..Smooth as silk..very little road noise through the strut rod into the cross-member if any..I think this whole idea that the aftermarket strut rods will produce more noise is a bunch of poppycock that came from users of polyurethane strut mount bushings. If you think about what the strut rod does & a stock strut rod the rubber bushings are what provide the ability of the stock rod to move up & down they aren't there to provide noise reduction, That's your hinge point..In a matched system most of your road noise is going through the spindle into the control arms..the lower REAR cross-member..shock tower..very little is left for the strut rod. I will post up some video take you guys for a ride in the next few weeks so you can see for yourself.

I am stating to believe the harshness was not coming from the TCP strut and LCA, but from the tires that I have mounted. They are the BF Goodrich G-Force Comp-2 A/S 245/45ZR17.

https://tireauthority.com/reviews/bfgoodrich-g-force-comp-2-a-s-plus-tire-review/
http://www.tuneruniversity.com/blog...rt-iii-wheel-diameters-effect-on-performance/
I am looking into maybe swapping out the TCP equipment and going back with Boxed CK8123 Moog's and stock strut rods with good bushings. The other alternative would be to find different tires.

Thanks -

I have the Scott Drake 1 1/8” anti roll bar and the Opentracker racing heim strut rods. They do not interfere with each other.

Other parts I pieced together

Opentracker roller perches, reinforced roller LCAs and their eccentric eliminators.

Global West negative roll +3 degree UCA and coil covers

KYB shocks

Future changes roller idler, quick ratio steering box and Viking shocks or Aldan coil overs

I only have 800 or so miles on it, but so far no complaints

245/60R14 BFGs. So some harshness is absorbed there