Print Page | Close Window

Mega Modding Braking, Suspension & Steering

Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: Suspension, Steering, Brakes & Wheels
Forum Description: What makes it stop, turn, and smooths the ride
URL: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53345
Printed Date: Mar/28/2024 at 11:07am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Mega Modding Braking, Suspension & Steering
Posted By: 304-dude
Subject: Mega Modding Braking, Suspension & Steering
Date Posted: Aug/26/2013 at 7:44am
Mega modding a 71 Javelin: Steering, Braking, and Suspension

Some are familiar with my original thread http://theamcforum.com/forum/65-wide-track-javelin-build_topic50429.html" rel="nofollow - 65" Wide Track Javelin Build , and found it interesting along with a bit of confusion. Not that they lack understanding, just a lot of information that got mixed or changed along the way. This thread is a mostly straight forward compilation of my ever progressing setup.

My changes to the front suspension & steering will leave few parts 100% OEM. Though, will have a fairly factory appearance.

The lower ball joints, beefed up upper control arms & strut rods, and springs are kept within oem fit and function, which can be replaced with parts made for the model and year of the car.

Though the suspension hump, sway bar setup, lower control arm, upper ball joints, spring saddle (Perch), and the strut rod have modifications that either change dimensions or their original operation, or look stock by hidden features.

Here is my vector chart of my finalized mods for maximized wheel and tire fitment.

Top vector chart is my own planed setup, with GM truck tall ball joint welded on top of the UCA, with .200" ~ .250" spacer. Note this option has much better numbers all the way around for best performance, while keeping camber curve minimal.



http://vsusp.com/?tool=2d#0.8%26project_name%3AAMC%20-%20Mustang%20IFS%26trim%7Bbody_roll_angle%3A0%7Cfront.left_bump%3A0%7Crear.left_bump%3A0%7Cfront.right_bump%3A0%7Crear.right_bump%3A0%7D%26front%7Bframe.susp_type%3A0%7Cframe.bottom_y%3A13416%7Cframe.center_to_upper_mount_x%3A43508%7Cframe.bottom_to_upper_mount_y%3A35518%7Cframe.center_to_lower_mount_x%3A33187%7Cframe.bottom_to_lower_mount_y%3A10160%7Ccontrol_arms.upper_length%3A23622%7Ccontrol_arms.lower_length%3A38735%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_x%3A17360%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_x%3A13525%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_y%3A13487%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_y%3A13069%7Cknuckles.hub_to_strut_axis%3A14000%7Cknuckles.strut_incl%3A8000%7Csteering.active%3A0%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_x%3A8255%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_y%3A8255%7Cwheels.offset%3A3936%7Cwheels.diameter%3A1800%7Cwheels.diameter_expl%3A35000%7Ctires.size_convention%3A0%7Ctires.section_width%3A28500%7Ctires.aspect_ratio%3A4000%7Ctires.diameter_expl%3A50000%7Ctires.width_expl%3A7620%7Ctires.compression%3A254%7D%26rear%7Bframe.susp_type%3A0%7Cframe.bottom_y%3A9200%7Cframe.center_to_upper_mount_x%3A28500%7Cframe.bottom_to_upper_mount_y%3A24000%7Cframe.center_to_lower_mount_x%3A17000%7Cframe.bottom_to_lower_mount_y%3A0%7Ccontrol_arms.upper_length%3A24800%7Ccontrol_arms.lower_length%3A37500%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_x%3A15000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_x%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_y%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_y%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_strut_axis%3A14000%7Cknuckles.strut_incl%3A8000%7Csteering.active%3A0%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_x%3A8255%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_y%3A8255%7Cwheels.offset%3A4000%7Cwheels.diameter%3A1500%7Cwheels.diameter_expl%3A35000%7Ctires.size_convention%3A0%7Ctires.section_width%3A19500%7Ctires.aspect_ratio%3A4500%7Ctires.diameter_expl%3A50000%7Ctires.width_expl%3A7620%7Ctires.compression%3A0%7D%26pref%7Bdiag1.px_per_mm%3A200%7Cdiag1.front_or_rear%3Afront%7Ctab.active%3A0%7Cunits%3A0%7Cshow.f%3A1%7Cshow.ca%3A1%7Cshow.k%3A1%7Cshow.st%3A1%7Cshow.stl%3A1%7Cshow.w%3A1%7Cshow.t%3A1%7Cshow.rc%3A0%7Cshow.rcl%3A0%7Cshow.ic%3A0%7Cshow.icl%3A0%7Cshow.fvsa%3A0%7Cshow.tl%3A1%7Cshow.kpil%3A0%7Credraw_during_drag%3A1%7Cchart.x_axis_center%3A0%7Cchart.x_axis_window%3A5%7Cchart.x_axis_num_steps%3A20%7Cchart.x_axis_field%3Atrim.body_roll_angle%7Cchart.y_axis_fields%3A%5BFR%5D.general.roll_center.x%2C%5BFR%5D.general.roll_center.y%2C%5BFR%5D.tires.left_camber%2C%5BFR%5D.tires.right_camber%7D" rel="nofollow - Vsuspension data

After time, my plans morphed into a custom hybrid Mustang II type based on an AMC suspension, just by customizing things to work together with wide wheels and tires, and maximizing drop effect to 4".

The modified AMC lower arm is just shy in length of the Mustang II lower arm. It was purely by coincidence. You can use stock length lower arms, but your limiting the sweet spot (Minimum camber gain) within a shorter range of travel, and limiting wheel / tire clearance.

Here is a screen shot of my design on vsusp.com











Though AMC upper arm mounting height is perfect for keeping stock length upper and lower arms, when the control arms are properly spaced between the Mustang II spindle. Unfortunately for other Mustang II suspensions types, most all keep OEM Ford upper arm height and distance (ratio) from LCA, which limits suspension compression to about 1", thus the max drop on most Mustang II suspensions is limited to 3", in conjunction with a 2" dropped spindle.

If there is incomplete information in a section, it is because I have yet to acquire a specific part, or decided on an option. Once I have completed the pending sub project, the missing information will be added to the appropriate section.

Each section will cover what was done, along with a bit of theory.

Sections:

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post784444.html#784444" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Had to explain why some noticed my pedals in various images.
GM brake pedal has the same ratio and length as AMC brake pedal.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post479672.html#479672" rel="nofollow - *Completed*

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post642537.html#642537" rel="nofollow - *Mostly Completed*
Simple lightweight mods to make them robust under extremes.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post609971.html#609971" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Easy peasy fit and function is not what it seems.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post644049.html#644049" rel="nofollow -
What can you do, if your slamming an AMC stock suspension.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post478838.html#478838" rel="nofollow - *Completed*

Works with both Mustang II and stock spindles

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post478853.html#478853" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Works with both Mustang II or when using stock spindles with Pacer steering arms.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post478859.html#478859" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
An inexpensive steering shaft for using a rack & pinion setup

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post806761.html#806761" rel="nofollow - *Mostly Completed*
My customised installation of a Ford Hydroboost. Direct bolt in with minor mods. BONUS: Added a link to an optional C-III power steering pump install, for a modernised OEM style serpentine belt setup.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post808060.html#808060" rel="nofollow - *Half Completed*
What I'm doing to fill in them blasted 18" wheels.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post646441.html#646441" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Expanding the gap between the pads for thicker rotors, and some wee tweaks.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post778301.html#778301" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Stuff you can do to increase performance from your power steering. BONUS: Making SN95 rack tie rods as good as, or if not better than a modern GT500 tie rod. (Something Ford took 5 years to figure out after my quiet idea)

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post478869.html#478869" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
A simple option with standard steering columns 

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post478885.html#478885" rel="nofollow - *Half Completed*
Works with both MII or stock spindles

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post479160.html#479160" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Works with both Mustang II or stock spindles

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post518453.html#518453" rel="nofollow - *Mostly Completed*
Optional - Works with both stock or a modded suspension

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post609395.html#609395" rel="nofollow - *Mostly Completed*
Optional - Works with both stock or a modded suspension

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post789352.html#789352" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Optional - Works with both Ford and AMC strut rods (requires 2 piece bushings)

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post479248.html#479248" rel="nofollow - *Completed*
Optional - If unable to obtain Pacer steering arms. (Requires customised brake installation)

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post513495.html#513495" rel="nofollow - *Partially Completed*
My unique option for modern big wheels and tires

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post778533.html#778533" rel="nofollow - Setting up for track (Tie rods & Camber)

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post642454.html#642454" rel="nofollow -



Replies:
Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/26/2013 at 8:06am
Modding spring perches



This is basically from an early 2000 mod that I found online, so I am making the legend live on, though nobody now these days seems to be running such a mod.

Here is a vector graph on why it works so well on stock AMC suspensions. Note, that the limit of travel is only for track perposes, but can be done on the streets. Just you will find some camber gain above the travel limit.s




Update: I decided to scrap my 1/3" upper ball joint spacers that I created for the stock suspension. The spacers were to use proper angles with Mustang II spindles. Using stock ball joints in conjuction, may allow the suspension go into lock up of the steering, when in the extreme upper positions, like in heavy cornering or going over large bumps.

I will be modding my upper Mustang spindle arms to allow GM truck upper ball joints to make a proper swap with the Mustang II spindles. They are the equivalent of Corvette C5 ball joints, but have better mounting and have built In spacing for the shorter distance between upper and lower arms of the spindles.

You wonder what is the point? Well, there are a few factors. Cost of rebuilding, spring options, and the most important... lowering the suspension to be stiffer during body roll. By making the lower arms more flat (parallel to the road), G forces act more against the body than the suspension. Thus less body roll.

Some have used lowering plates to lower the car, but the suspension still remains as it was. I will cover 3 options that will lower the suspension without need of lowering plates, and they all come from changing the spring perch.

NOTE: The first two options below may require some rolling the perch bottom edges outward, on both sides below the convolution pad, which is smooth along the radius. Once done the perch will have a wee more room at the ball joint at tight angles. The oposite side has a pronounced stop indentation for the coil end to seat. It does not need any rolling of the bottom edges, but you may need to remove 1/2" from your aftermarket spring coiled end (a wee nub) to seat. It will not effect height or spring rate.

Below shows the lower edge roll out of the ball joint facing part of the perch at the open area of the control arm. Do not confuse the opposite end as it does not require the rolled edge, and will be mounted wrong if facing the ball joint.




Cheap mod #1 (2" drop)

Use existing springs and graft AMC spring perch ends to Ford perches. This is only cost effective if you have a cutting wheel and know how to weld. You will need to heat the AMC spring perch to remove the center pin for use with the modified Ford perches.

Cheap mod #2 (2" drop)

Same as above but replacing your old OEM springs with new replacements.
I used HD 70 Hornet springs for this setup.


Cheap mod #3 (Custom drop)

Heat up the AMC perches to remove the pins, and use them in 71 to 74 Mustang / Torino perches and replace OEM springs with aftermarket Ford springs. The amount of drop depends on spring rate linear or progressive.

The picture below is to give an idea of how close the tire is to the trough. It is about .660" closer, as I haven't added the required ball joint spacers for the Mustang II spindle, to even out the spindle height difference, and possible seizure of the spindle's turning ability by its clearance. So, the tire is roughly .750" closer to the trough than it should be with all else being stock. Spring is set at 9.5" compression height. Assuming a stock AMC upright, with spindle attached, should be in the ball park of 2-1/4" from the bottom trough with 14" standard rim tires.



All the above mods have poly bushings as a cost effective option. Since the suspension is lowered, a small modification to the sway bar links will need to be done. Shortening by swapping out a shorter long bolt, and cutting the sleeve to allow the sway bar arms to be parallel with the frame while the car is stationary, also the new suspension must be settled before doing so.


Here is an additional mod to relocate the perch inward if needed for adding about 1/2" tire clearance. I did notice I will need to spread out the bottom below the rear seat, like I did with the front, to add more pivot clearance. Also will need to adjust the sides at the back half, as they pinch in on the poly bushings slightly. Once I adjust the spacing, I will place Teflon washers between the poly bushing ends to keep squeaks at bay.








-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/26/2013 at 8:59am
Installing a Ford updated SN95 rack and pinion steering
(2.5 turns lock to lock)




This info has been updated to the best rack and pinion Ford created for the SN95 body Mustang, which brings the best steering performance you can have on your car.

Cardone part number 22-2000

Gosh only if I waited longer I could have installed one. But have no fear... I included an easy mod to make steering slop go away like the Cobra rack above if using earlier Ford racks.

One option which I had a link at one time, to have a custom torsion bar made for replacing the stock one, which I show in my Modding Ford Power Steering section.

The other main difference in the late Cobra R rack is the valving and spring setup, to make it feel stiffer like manual steering.

Many Cobra R guys prefer to use a solid u joint coupler instead of a rubber biscuit coupler. I did a check with load, and found it too loose for competition. So I removed the rubber biscuit by drilling out the crimped ends of the retaining pins that hold it to the body. Then I bolted the two ends together as one. If I thought it out earlier, I would have just used a longer steering shaft section to weld to the rack input coupler that is made for custom shaft installs.

OK, I did not make a template to recreate my custom brackets and rework of the drivers side motor mount.

Some have posted in other threads on this forum about using 3" x 2" steel pipe as it is an easier option than to do all the work involved. Also, if using AMC spindles, you must upgrade to Pacer steering arms, or customize with cut steel tubing for proper length and placement.

You need a new or rebuilt 1998 to 2004 Mustang GT rack (It comes with inner tie rods already installed) and corresponding outer tie rod ends. They are long enough to make proper alignment.

I decided to make brackets, and just laid the cross member flat and C-clamped a few aluminum plates to make up 2" of space needed for the brackets. I obtained an 8" cut of 4" x 4" steel pipe. It did well for creating mounting brackets, as there will be extra material to hold in place when cutting, and if by chance you should error in cutting.

From there you can measure how far each 2" segment to the bracket will need to be for clearance. Example: Butting against an eccentric tab, or angling a mounting wall up about 45 degrees on the driver's side. I also made sure I had enough width and height on each bracket for rack mounting adjustment about 4" x 3" mounting pad worked well.

Use the measurements to cut out a card board representation of the bracket. and carefully aligned it between the rack and cross member. This way you can see what needs to be trimmed or added before cutting the steel pipe. Believe it or not, I had measured and cut out my brackets in a few hours.

I knew it would be difficult to cut a perfect piece for fitment, so I purposefully cut all lengths about 1/8" longer and ground down areas for a close fit. Having extra material helps as the cross member is bowed at the mounting face.

The key to the brackets is to make sure their mounting face is parallel flat if possible. Using a solid aluminum mounting kit, will correct any non-linearity. It is a must as perfect alignment can only be done with a proper jig setup during welding.

Once they are welded in place, you can align the racks tie rods to be the same distance from the cross member's ends. Then using a marker though the bushing hole, marked the point of where to drill for mounting.

Critical Information:

Align the tie rods parallel with the lower arm with steering straight, and strut rod with at least 1.25" of open thread at the lock nut end. Once everything is mounted in place, adjust the strut rod til only 2 threads are protruding from the lock nut. It will give proper loaded Ackermann angle and added caster for proper steering, once tie rod alignment is done.

When mounting the rack, be sure that the inner tie rod pivot is the same distance and height from the center of the eccentric bolt, as is the steering arm mounting hole is to the lower mounting hole of the spindle's mounting to the lower ball joint. It is critical that they match to keep minimal bump steer.

Most likely you will need to obtain a tie rod spacer adapter kit for Mustang rack installs. It may be a bit longer than needed, so cutting some of the straight bar between coupling ends will be needed, before welding the two couplers together. Once the adapter spacer has been shortened, it will allow proper bump steer on a simple rack install using original tie rods for the rack unit... Unless you prefer to mega mod, and do the truck tie rod mod that I have done.

Here is a link... https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Inner-Tie-Rod-Extention-Kit-Speedway-Mustang-II-Manual-Rack,8066.html" rel="nofollow - https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Inner-Tie-Rod-Extention-Kit-Speedway-Mustang-II-Manual-Rack,8066.html

The image shows two couplers connected, and gives the impression only one is supplied.




Below is some extra pictures to show placement and orientation. Notice that I notched the bottom of each arm to allow the bracket to fit in the lip of the cross member.





Here is a shot of the hydraulic lines for the rack. Had to make a couple of wee bend additions to clear or point a wee better. The sway bar is dropped on the passenger side, so it looks like there is not enough clearance.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/26/2013 at 9:23am
Modding the 2001 Mustang GT Steering shaft



I used a 2001 Mustang GT steering shaft assembly, a basic Ebay item that runs about $20.00 as my steering shaft.

I ended up cutting off sections to be swapped around for final fitment.

The rubber seal and bearing fits well within the 71 on up steering column bracket that mounts to the firewall. Just put a little grease round the ball edges and press in with your fingers. It will stay in place as it is pressed between the firewall and the bracket. Notice the welds to show which segments were swapped.

Note, I will be removing the rubber biscuit from the steering coupler and making it solid for more precise and positive steering. Though road feel will be more noticable.





The pictures below show both the rubber biscuit coupler and solid shaft mod, by taking out the rubber biscuit and bolting the two sections together.





-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/26/2013 at 9:43am
Shortening a 68 AMX key-less steering column



Above is a mock up of parts that were cut and reassembled to show my first shortening attempt. You may make out the cuts along the integral mesh crush collar. Actually the mesh crush collar is all you need to remove on the outer tube. Just cut where the mesh starts on each end.

As for the inner tube, you will need to remove a segment slightly shorter than equal length. As when you cut the inner tube the bottom segment should slide into the upper segment. You can make alignment marks before cutting so you have no issues with proper look. As for the shaft just cut off above the shaft where it is pined into a small diameter pipe.

Once you have the column parts welded you can assemble and cut off what protrudes from the round clamp that holds the internal spring at the end. The Mustang GT shaft segment fits nicely into the pipe of the steering column, it should be welded to the column as it will couple right to the Mustang shaft at the firewall.








-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/26/2013 at 10:17am
Modernising factory suspension's castor



After looking at the upper ball joint location compared to the lower ball joint I found that the static castor angle is negative. It seems to be inherent to the design AMC had chosen since 70. To me it seems that they took some Ford information about changing the angle for the upper control arm but did not adjust pre 70 trunnion design at the fender locations. Seems like they just cut out and replaced the hump leaving old geometry intact.

Even though the static geometry is negative, the angle at the upper ball joint is very much positive. As the upper arm is tilted with the front bushing higher than the rear. Which allows the upper ball joint to wear at the sides during operation. If the ball joint location was moved 1" inboard towards the fire wall, the wear would be top side, and least prone to show wear as movement with suspension travel would be in line.

The picture below has been modified to reflect the change in upper control arm location. Note that in both pictures maximum adjustment has been done to the strut bar. Also note the change between the ball joints from upper and lower pictures. The bottom picture has a true static positive castor, so no need to adjust the strut bar to maximum to get +1 castor at best and cause binding. Once neutral adjustment has been set to 14.25" at the strut mount, the lower ball joint pivot should be a whisker forward allowing for 2 to 5 degrees positive caster.



By modification of the suspension hump and changing it's mounting location. A number of hidden features make such a modification worth while, and they are...

○ Positive caster is static by default

○ Spring leans away from tire (Gives a wee more clearance for wider treads)

○ More room for higher flow custom header designs

○ Widening track (a longer lower arm must be used)

○ Zero bump steer with SN95 rack and pinion steering


I completed moving one hinge. To remove the stud bracket at the wheel well, all you
have to do is drill out the 6 spot welds along where the hinge bracket mounts. Cleaning with a wire wheel helps make them noticeable.

I need to have a 1 inch tab welded to the end of the mounting flange the hood bolts onto. This will offset the -1" towards the firewall.

Cut the seem section at the cowl and fire wall. I will still need to modify the lower cowl from under the rubber seal down to the fire wall. Using the contour that dips, I will deepen the dip to allow for hinge clearance when closed.



Drill holes for shifting of the studs locations.





Here is the space created for shifting the upper suspension hump.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/27/2013 at 8:52am
Beefing up camber

If you look carefully at my picture in the section about installing a SN95 updated rack and pinion. You will see that the eccentric tabs on the cross member have been strengthened with reinforcing welds along the back side of each tab. This will keep stress cracks and round outs from forming. Even if you have less than 70K original miles, at least one tab of the 8 in all will have some cracking and some round out. Making sure all tabs keep the eccentric steady and secure before doing the reinforcing welds is important. The picture should speak for itself. I am sorry I did not take a picture of the hair line crack that was fixed during the process. Using a wire wheel on a hand drill will allow proper cleaning, so you are able to visually inspect.

Also, you can cut 1/8" steel section to fit between the tabs for a stronger hold, and then drilled for a preset lower arm distance. I will be going that route to replace my eccentrics.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 73hornut
Date Posted: Aug/27/2013 at 9:21am
What about repositioning  the ball joint 90* in the upper control arm?

-------------
71 Javelin
74 Gremlin
79 Spirit AMX
Rogue Valley Rumblers
Like Us on FB
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1602825606650796" rel="nofollow - https://www.facebook.com/groups/1602825606650796


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/27/2013 at 9:41am
You can try with modding a CF suspension, but you are loading up the inner side of the upper arm. There is a reason for centering the ball joint.

I did not want to make this mod a comparison to any after market bolt on. As far as I know none correct AMC geometry without changing upper control arm mounting. One thing, you can use a CF suspension as an addition to my mod, as I am allowing AMC suspension components to function without any modding. All the trickery is done on the body.

Unfortunately, this is an option for those who want to modify a daily driver or customized AMC. So very few will try to incorporate such a change to their runners, as it would require a bit of body work and paint.

If you take notice, most of my mods are fairly clean looking. Not quite stock, easy for AMC'rs to identify yet difficult on everyone else to know any better.




Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/27/2013 at 2:16pm
Installing Mustang II spindles



Believe it or not, there is not much to do to make the Ford spindles work. Though there are two different routes for the type of spindles used. 7°, which is more stockish when swapped, and have 10° KPI (requires extensive modding), which I am covering as I go. I recommend the 7° spindle, since the upper ball joint is the main mod, outside of reaming the spindle's ball joint stud holes for bigger stud fitment.


To make Mustang II 10° spindles function better than lowered perch stock or 7° variants... further mods are required. You need to look at my suspension hump mod in this thread, found here... http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post513495.html#513495" rel="nofollow -
Critical Information

Due to the differences with spindle height, when the suspension extends up into 3/4 full compression, seizure of the upper end of the Mustang II spindle at the edge of the upper arm. You will need to use a .330" spacer between the factory ball joint or an early 70 to 67 GMC C2500 truck upper ball joint, K680.

For stock suspension humps (no mods), to get close to factory control arm height at the spindle, a GM truck upper ball joint must be used.

You can go heavy duty with a late 70 on up to 95 GMC C2500 truck upper ball joint K6122. To use it you must ream the upper arm mounting hole as well for fitment, as it has the same 10° taper and diameter as the AMC lower ball joint. Also you must weld in the original mounting holes on the upper control arm and drill out 4 new holes to mount the GM bolt pattern for mounting.

For myself, I will be modding my suspension humps, due to lengthened lower arms for 10° KPI spindles. I will be using the K6122 ball joint, and after some deep thought, I will modify the upper arm to allow the ball joint to mount from under, instead of from on top, shown in my pictures. Please refer to my UCA on steroids section, as it shows how what mods are needed to install the ball joint from under the UCA.

Note: Due to slight design changes between 67 to 2005, there are 3 differences between how your ball joint may mount with GM types.

Some have updated tooling to make a larger radius foot print for newer trucks. This made the ball joint upper and lower shells protrude enough for a 5th mounting hole dead center at the front.

So even if you obtain the correct part number, depending on the manufacturer and if it is old or new stock, the part may not fit without upper arm modification to the front mounting radius of the down turned lip. It requires cutting, reshaping and welding... See my UCA on steriods section. I suggest doing the mod, as you never know which ball joint fitment you may get with previous 96 ball joints.

My upper ball joint of choice for installation is the K6122, When mounted on the top of the UCA, the taller spacing with shallow pin depth is not an issue, as it gives 10.50" spacing. Loosing .10" from my set measurements, won't be an issue unless, you are trying break auto cross records. Ha!

Since I am installing under the UCA, for my application, I will ream the upper oversized slightly, to drop deeper on the stud for maximum seat depth, which will shorten the distance by .250". When mounted under the upper arm, the distance between the upper and lower ball joints (measured at the top face of the arms) should be around 10.6".

Seems like all the truck ball joints have a standard stud depth, so even having different heights, the thread length on the stud is the major change between them, outside of the ball size and lengths of fasteners given.

As an option, I looked at GM mounting is done and found all upper arms have the ball joint mount on top of the arm, unlike AMC placement, from under the arm. AMC has a slightly smaller diameter hole, but can be enlarged with a grinding stone and drill. Thus no need to modify the arm to allow the newer ball joint foot print. Just manage mounting holes accordingly.





To throw a spanner into the works, manufacturers may taper the pin near the ball. Or add angle by degree offsetting the mounting plate to the ball. Plus, less robust units have a plug plate, that zerk fitting is placed.

So out of the bazillions of part number equivalent ball joints only a hand full will be perfect in fitting my strict requirements. Some are NOS old stock and some are new with different part numbers for 86 to 05 trucks.

If going with 96 to 05 GMC C2500 truck ball joint - K6292, you don't need the 5th hole for mounting, as it may exist on the ball joint, so that particular difference is mute.

The ball joints for the later years are metric at the ball stud. About 1/32" bigger than 9/16". My 71 to 95 fits the metric change over, so being slightly larger than 9/16" it will fit slightly higher in the steering knuckle hole. Very insignificant, IMO.

You will need 1 metric sized lock washer and thick flat washer to cinch up the gap between the longer stud threads, on the GMC ball joints.

As an option, I decided to use a modded 2002 Ford E150 Van rotor. I cut off the rotor from the back side of the hub. It is the most stout hub you would ever want and can be machined at the back to lighten if weight is a concern. Here is a picture with the rotor and spacer installed.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: amxdreamer
Date Posted: Aug/27/2013 at 2:28pm
Lots of work! thanks for posting up your progress.

-------------
Tony
Vancouver, BC
1970 AMX
1972 Badassador
AMO#10333


Posted By: Mean Matador 72
Date Posted: Aug/27/2013 at 5:44pm
More power to you!!!!Coming out very nice and performance should be outstanding.

-------------
72MATADOR 401/727, 74 Matador Coupe 360/727


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/28/2013 at 7:44am
Thanks guys!

I'll be adding more to my sections as time goes on.

Also will be adding a Specifications section as well.

Just things are winding down. I send out materials to be welded, so until I have most everything ready, further progress will be on hold.

I still need to have my adapters for the heavy duty tie rods welded, the hood hinges need welded extensions, my camber extensions for the lower arms need cut for welding up, need $150.00 worth of custom spherical bearings ordered, and my hardened steering quick disconnect sleeve needs tapered to fit GM steering shaft.

To me that is not much compared to what has been done in the past few months. I guess it is the feeling of near completion that makes my anticipation seems more like a lack of patience with not having it done by now.


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/29/2013 at 7:42am
Spring Compressor DIY



OK, many here and just about everywhere else that has automotive discussions, have had DIY spring compressor topics.

Mine on the other hand is a bit different and whimsical but very effective.

Many do not know that when they look at their suspension, most all the spring compressor parts are looking right back at them.

If you have drum brakes, and don't mind upgrading to disks, then you won't mind following me along.

Here is what you need:

One hub with front bearing and tabbed washer.
Your old shock
3 lug nuts
21" section of 1/2" threaded rod.
1 thick washer that fits the 1/2" rod to cover the wheel bearing's tabbed washer.

An option that I am using, is a heavy flanged nut, instead of using the thick washer along with the bearing's tabbed washer.


Now here is what you need to do:

Remove all the studs from your hub
Cut a 1/3 wedge from your hub's flange having one lug nut hole on the uncut side at the 12 O-clock position.
Install the bearing and washer back on to the hub
Install a lug nut to the threaded bar with rounded end pointing up. Adjust it to have 4 to 5 inches of rod protruding.
Slide the threaded rod into the hub and bearing assembly.
Drill the weld from the bottom of your front shock mounting flange with a 1/2" drill bit.
Install another lug nut on the other end of the threaded rod, with the round end first.
Install the old shocks mounting flange and the remaining lug nut with the rounded end up and tighten to hold the mounting flange in place.

How to use the odd thing:

With the front lifted
Remove shock if not already removed and shock tower
Place the hub over the top of the shock hump, aligning the top wheel stud hole to fit over the stud. The remaining 2 studs should be along the cut sides of the wheel hub.
Install the shock mounting flange to the spring perch
Tighten the lug nut until you notice tension
Remove the spring perch mount fasteners to the upper control arm and let the control arm assembly drop.
Make sure there is no binding for the perch and spring, and loosen the top lug nut from the threaded rod.
Once the tension becomes loose you can remove the spring perch from the old shock mounting flange.
Your spring is free to remove.

Reverse the steps to install.


Now I wonder how many peeps are scratching their heads and thinking... "Gosh I threw away my good spring compressor!" Excuse me, drum spindles and old shocks during a brake upgrade. HA!



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Nov/03/2013 at 11:23am
Adding a backbone and ribcage

Note: This is a straight forward visualization of concept. Once I start, the information may need to be edited, as I will probably find some issues to work around as I go.

There is hidden body rigidity hiding in your car... Just open the hood, inside is the foundation to strengthening the engine compartment's weak box structure since the conception of the automobile.

Super bikes and sophisticated race cars have used 4D structural integrity for some time, just we never looked at it in detail to truly understand how well it works with so very little.

Your engine is just a big lump of metal taking up space and creating a lot of force against your car's suspension structure during performance driving. To you as long as it performs well in producing power, that is all that matters.

Adding braces, shock tower struts, and what not, all help relieving body twist. But for the most part their function operates in 2D structural integrity. Some use a modified approach that spreads out the forces within a 3D structure. Even with the best 3D structure improvements, it still relies on how well the box is made.

Reinventing the box:

You can add a back bone to support and strengthen your car's body. Your engine is the best candidate, for such a limited space. To utilize it, it must be well anchored. Since it takes up a sizable space, use of light weight short length struts will be a greater benefit than longer and heavier designs.

All you have to do is think of your engine as the foundation to your bodies rigidity. It is already is quasi-part of the sub-frame, why not make it be the supporting wall of the exoskeleton of the car's body. To do so, one must use solid motor mounts first and foremost.

After some looking into how my steering shaft is routed, I decided to make upper corner engine brackets. Their location is actually better to allow a 45 degree angle to the corner of the firewall near the cowl. Though master cylinder relocation will need some thought. As I will try to make all my angles 45 degrees, as it is a sweet spot to strengthen all types of movement. Also I will be including the two corner head bolts to assist in mounting the custom corner brackets, that also mount to the side of the head's accessory mounting holes. The engine brace will incorporate the upper control arm's inner (closest to firewall) strut, to make a single V-rib unit. Both sides will be that way.

As for completion, another custom bracket will be needed. The top half will bolt to the center section of the intake, and bolt over the center header / exhaust manifold flange, using existing intake and header bolts.

I could weld a strut bracket to the shock tower mount, but I'm opting into making a bracket cup to mount over the hump. It will be mounted using the upper control arm's bolts and the shock tower's fasteners. This will keep the whole area secured, and stabilized with the V-rib and strut assemblies to the engine block.


I will be modifying the suspension's strut brackets as well, to allow mounting of struts to the back of the engine at it's midway point along the bell housing. Bolting on steel plates along the bell housing should work fairly well. Depending on header design, changing to dual 2" collectors to feed 3" collector, will allow clearance for strut pass through.

Having all 4 engine struts work together will keep body flex and twist down to a minimum. As they are at key locations for best rigidity.   

It seems to be a bit of fabrication to make such a thing work. Though I am sure that, as I get further along, things may need some tweaking. Though, it will be less work than fabricating and adding frame connectors, and a sub frame to strengthen the body structure.

Well that is my plan, call it what you will, I am sticking to it.

Pictures will be added as I go... for right now being on hold, the suspension is yet to be completed.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/22/2014 at 9:36am
Modding Suspension Humps



Below are pictures of the humps I will be modifying. Notice some holes from a past engine swap, which will be filled when welding is done.







Below is the frame section to show how far from the welds I chose to cut. Notice the hole pictured at the right of where the hump would be installed. It is a bit high to be a weep hole but it is there.



I will first adjust the UCA location by bending to open up the top angle, at the shock tower mounting pad, wider by 6°, so that the bottom section of the hump will protrude beyond the cut spot welded mating flanges, so that the UCA location holes are pulled in 1".


I change my plan as I started cutting on the passenger side hump. I think it would be best to cut the top around the shock tower mounting pad and do a full 10° bend before making a stair step bend of -6° to place the UCA at +1", out from stock location.

My first attempt with bending the angles wider to shift the UCA location outward from stock. Note the first picture below... the spother weld section has part of the inner fender protruding away from the cut hump flange. It is another reason why, I am careful not to cut the long flange strips to be bent, and set a side. I will cut for now, and do the final bending, just before I send it out for welding.

Notice the cut mounting flange now touches the UCA reinforcement plate, before it was located at the top edge (a bit high in contrast due to freshly cut steel).





I ground a wee channel so to bend the angel out easierror, since I don't have a pan brake or large vise to keep from distorting the flange during bending. A reinforcement weld along the channel at the bend area will be done.



Here is my option to cut around the shock tower mounting pad... the black ink trace is where I will cut in a pie shape being narrow near the bend. I originally traced for cutting the top for segmentation. Looking at doing a V cut to hide the stair step when cleaned up, is my choice for now.







Here is my vector chart of the changes to the suspension hump design. It is based on a 25° shock and spring tilt, for more engine bay clearances and allows a better scrub radius with wide rims and tires, and yet very compact. I will describe further as I get around to cutting and mounting the segments for welding to be done.

Note, I did not put a vector in for top offset since the spring back plate is now used in the vector chart. There will be a custom spacer plate added to fill the offset opening, since the humps will be cut in two, an inch or two, above the UCA mounting hole locations.

Note... since my suspension is custom, it allows shortening the suspension humps. This cannot be done on OEM suspension geometry and stock upper arm components.

Started on some upper hump customization. I had cut off the top (spring cup section) and removed the upper area to section and graft back on to the lower section. I cut out a small V section to allow slotted fitment to assist in the grafting of the contours of the two cut sections.

Here is what I am starting with.



I will cut slots to assist with slotted fitment to deepen the amount ofor shortening needed before final welding. Once the two are finish welded, I will trim off more from the top, and add the spring cup top.

I may be able to angle the 20° slant without doing anything to the bottom section. If that can be done, I will modify my vector chart for those who may want to try modding theirs for engine bay clearance needs.

Here is fitment after slotting... I am able to get a secure 10° angled fit, but I will be contemplating what I will do further. Since my vector chart on hump modding is just for distances, as for actual cutting and fitment, it's go as you feel what works best.



Just wIth the slotted fit, I now have 10.5" and 10" distances from UCA mounting holes to shock tower mounting face at the top.


I had an idea to try the lower section mod, using a similar tactic. A wee more complex, but it does allow for a possible seamless graft once finished.

The photos are with early fitmet, since I did not have time to work out closer fitment and angles. Rather do small steps than to go too far.

Should have had the top tack welded, as I noticed some bending going on, when trying to secure and bend the bottom cut edgespot and corners.

The bottom, section had a contoured crease already, so I just amplified the contours to allow more angle. I assume I have it pretty close to spot on. Once I get more time, I will start smoothing out the seam areas for better fitment, and measure out things, before moving any further with cuts and bends.







After some minor adjustments with fitting snuggly, I added a few sheet metal screws to secure the bottom sections. The top fit snug enough to stay in place.

The top photo is to show the compound angles and the last 3 are to show close fit to the rounded cut ends. Once the assembly is tack welded, I will remove the flared corners to the bottom section, near each screw.

The second photo is pretty much how short the thing is, and with a pretty accurate 8.5" & 8.0" distances to UCA mounting holes, along with its over all look. After welding, I will trim away some excess near the top for final work to blend the top.











-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Feb/10/2014 at 7:12am
Upgrading sway bar

Since realizing the benefit of Penske / Donohue's relocation of the front sway bar, I had been contemplating the best way to mount a stock or aftermarket sway bar. I noticed one particular issue, that may be too small to make a fuss about... The upper control arm's ball joint not only swings up and away from from its vertical axis. If you look carefully, the control arm's mounting location points are offset, thus allows for a bind with mounting a sway bar to the upper control arm.

The easiest way to correct it properly is to offset by lengthening the sway bar arm just passed center of the ball joint. This way you can use a longer link within the short space. So when the upper arm swings away the link will become more vertical in allowing the distance to lengthen without pulling on the arm and bind. The distance of the link is determined by measuring the offset between both mounting holes for the upper control arm and dividing by 2, then add it to the distance me assured between the mounting pivots at the bracket and sway bar. The bracket can be mounted or welded directly under the control arm where it is centered with the spring perch mounting location.

After looking at a few tie rod ends, the GM tie rods seem best for what I want. They are big balled and thick shafted, yet small enough diameter to use ball joint covers to seal. I picked up two inner rack and pinion tie rods for 2008 XLR - MOOG-EV343 11.92" length 0.593" shaft diameter M14-1.5 end thread M18-1.5 male to the rack, and a couple of M18-1.5 hardened flanged nuts.

Below is the makings of a custom sway bar link, made from inner tie rods and heavy duty axle nuts.  I shortened the rods to 4 inches, and will have the flange nuts welded on a pipe segments for mounting and reinforcement on the bottom of my spring perches.  Once mounted I will measure and trim down the length for welding a 3" long 3/8"-24 bolt to mount the sway bar with existing hardware and bushings like stock.

In the images below, I have utilised a cut segment of axle tubing to be welded to the bottom end of the spring perch. Notice the flanged nut is grounded down to be welded in place for mounting the modified tie rod.







The pictures below have the tie rod segment and flanged axle nut firmly wedged into place for fitment gauging... This is with stock arm and sway bar locations. I offset the tie rod segment to be 1 inch from center, as centering it with a stock setup will make the link too skewed for the sway bar.




Note: The lower picture shows how far the stud is from the sway bar mounting hole. With a stock setup there is no good way to install this type of mod without removing  the ends from the sway bar back enough to thread a link end to allow shortening for the tie rod to fit without binding the sway bar's bushings. Also, some may notice the long fasteners to the upper ball joint. I have them in place for my 1/3" thick spacer for the ball joint if needed when everything is setup. The spacer was to keep the Mustang II spindles from rubbing the upper control arm at full extension (lift) with stock spring perches. Though a simple block installed in the upper arm pocket against the frame will keep the travel from going to far down. It would be a problem if a wheel should leave the ground, as it would lock the steering until the suspension has recovered.



Here are the finished links to move the swaybar to the upper control arm. Note, to fine tune the amount of angle at the link end, for maximizing suspension reaction without bind... you can shim with stacked bushing washers as shown at the top bushing, or use a nut/spacer to adjust.



Here is a finished spring perch, ready for weld clean up and repaint, before poly bushings and hold down pin are installed.



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: uncljohn
Date Posted: May/02/2014 at 7:07pm
71 Javelin spring tower mounted in middle 60's Ambassador:





-------------
70 390 5spd Donohue
74 Hornet In restoration
76 Hornet, 5.7L Mercury Marine Power
80 Fuel Injected I6 Spirit
74 232 I-6, 4bbl, 270HL Isky Cam


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/02/2014 at 7:16pm
Yeah, I saw that or something like it a month or so after I mentioned relocating for castor. I don't think I had pictures up when I first made the comment.

I will eventually get to having the modded humps done... Halfway there with cutting, then will have them welded for trimming. I won't cut the excess until welded, as it is going to be the measuring point to placing the mounting holes 1" closer to the body.

I got a bit behind because of winter, and a few odds and ends at home.

I guess you can convert any mid 60's to 70's suspension if you are willing to do some work.



Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/30/2015 at 12:56am
UCA on steroids

Since many of my mods are updated versions from other peoples mods that I found over time, along with a few ideas that are strictly my own... this one is an accumulation of mods already done by others, all in one nice package.

For starters, a GM truck ball joint (k6024 or k6122) will out perform the AMC upper ball joint, as the AMC has horizontal and vertical play, while GM does not.

Below is proper installation of the GM ball joint k6024 (K6122 shown) for stock spindle may need some reaming of the upper ball joint tapered hole, or with using a 7° KPI Mustang II spindle (for stock arm lengths and placement). Depending on spindles used, you may need to adjust pin taper depth to allow proper spacing between the arms. You want 10.5" measured between the top face of the arms, with the ball joint mounted on top of the arm.

For my 10° Mustang II spindle, I am using a heavy duty ball joint (k6122) that has no tapered pin, as most have a taper for a higher angled articulation. There are some physical traits that make it noticeably larger and different. The casing is slightly beefier than most others with the large bolt patern. Currently I have changed up on my ball joint placement. Since I wanted to utilize a deeper pin depth and move the ball joint under the arm, like AMC, I will be modding the arm further with grafting a GM truck style ball joint plate to the AMC arm. Once done it should be as strong as a custom tubular steel arm, since the plate is a component used in some custom arms.





Due to top mounted installation, clearance for Ford spring saddle must be done by some modification to the lower spring pad sections of the saddle.

I flared out the stamped steel material to clear the ball joint body and its fasteners.





There may be need to modify the rear sections in a similar manner as my modified humps my not allow enough tilt for perch angle when spring is compressed during bump travel.

Here is the mod that I am doing to the UCA, since I am setting up my upper ball joint depth to maximum taper depth, it will put the distance between the arms at 10.25" when measuring from the top of the upper ball joint flange to the LCA.



Since I prefer to mount the upper ball joint on the bottom, like AMC... some extra modding needs to be done, and will raise the distance to 10.6" for my maximum of 4.25" drop mods. See images below.

Cutting off the end is required for fitting K6122 and like ball joints





You will nend to cut out the curved wall behind the ball joint for clearance.



To finish the mod, you will need to order large truck GM upper ball joint plates and cut to fit over the top of the AMC arm. Once mounted using fasteners, welding an overlapped seam along the top and bottom mating edges will reinforce and keep the plate in proper alignment to finish off.



Will add the images of the final fitment of the modded plate once done.

Since I am going to try maximizing my mods... I will attempt to make the suspension humps angle at 25°. To see what I will be doing to them, please refer to my modding suspension humps section.

Because of my extreme drop and custom arm angles, I must mod the upper arms to allow a bigger pivot with my 1/2" offset spring perches. To mod, you can cut out the reinforced hole for the saddle to fit inside, and offset it back far enough to allow clearance. Note the picture below... it shows the area I created to work with. I also kept the reinforcing drop off intact. As it seems through initial checking, that I can obtain enough clearance for a 25° pivot with the spring.





Here are the cut sections I removed... the two small sections are for the GM truck ball joint plate graft. I will use them for reinforcement and finishing if needed.



I also will be using a Prothane (1-1207) upper and lower control arm bushing kit in conjuction to my light weight control strengthening arm mods. Many don't do a fully boxed radius, with an extra reinforcing ring for the other side. Below are my additional structural improvements done up with templates before cutting and welding in place.

Here is more images of the UCA mod for my suspension mod, also with GM ball joint plate for my truck ball joint for fitment under the arm, like AMC.







Note, the perch pivot is beyond the 15 degrees limit, so when viewing the images, you will see the sway bar mod seat being blocked by unfinished pocket wall to the UCA.

The offset cut out will be offset seem welded at the back, to allow clearance for pivot with Mustang spring perch. The picture has the perch pinching the cut section into place for picture taking.

I will use a section removed from the cut piece I removed at the back to allow offset, to close up the gap at the back. Oncenter every thing is tack wended into place, I will fill in missing areas with left over cut sections, and have double sided welding done to fill any gaps.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: Wrambler
Date Posted: Jan/30/2015 at 12:46pm
Both my sons have expressed an interest in welding, yet neither will take advantage of what I have.
The best way to learn is to take a tech class. Most areas have adult learning in this.

You get the advice of someone who can weld, learn the basics, burn up their gases and metals etc; Lots of practice time; IMHO it is the best way to start out.


EDIT: I noticed going back to the beginning, your steering shaft ujoints are not in phase. This will often cause binding of the shaft as it has to flex to achieve rotation. When in phase the crosses line up.


-------------
Wrambler
69 AMC Rambler
4.0L, 5 speed
2015 Grand Cherokee Limited
2019 Chrysler 300


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/31/2015 at 7:12pm
Originally posted by Wrambler Wrambler wrote:

Both my sons have expressed an interest in welding, yet neither will take advantage of what I have.
The best way to learn is to take a tech class. Most areas have adult learning in this.

You get the advice of someone who can weld, learn the basics, burn up their gases and metals etc; Lots of practice time; IMHO it is the best way to start out.


EDIT: I noticed going back to the beginning, your steering shaft ujoints are not in phase. This will often cause binding of the shaft as it has to flex to achieve rotation. When in phase the crosses line up.


Yeah, that will be my only option if I am to do any welding in my future... Just my problem was I had no idea that I would find an interest in welding. Actually, I don't but it would be handy have learned at this moment of time.

Maybe you can nudge one of them into taking the time with you and learn. Its free for the most part, and even if it is not car related, they may find it worth while to have had something that was passed on from you.

I was just too young, but remembered 2nd cousins and their dad working on a weekend racer when visiting time to time. I could not handle being in the garage too long as it hurt my ears hearing the clang of steal hit the cement, let alone the air hammer and impact gun.

I was only there to pester them, from having a fascination with seeing a race car, even if  it was home grown.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: Jan/31/2015 at 9:51pm
comment deleted with apology to 304dude for having to negotiate polite answer


-------------
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jan/31/2015 at 11:02pm
Poly Bushing Madness

What fits many not fit proper or function as intended


We all know poly bushing installs have their ups and downs, and a lot of opinions to go with it.

The simplist poly bushing install for fit and function, is for the sway bar. Though, because factory bushings are based upon rubber, anything firmer, or provides tight clearances when compontents are fitted, will effect oem feel, and most all function.

So, there will be consequences in any poly bushing install, whether you mix or match. Just because one person has not been effected great enough to complain or even notice, does not mean there is going to be no issues. Thus, I will not give my own opinions to my past experiences, as this section is on identification and possible resolution of major issues with poly when expecting their usage to function well enough for oem replacement.

Since no one outside of me, has given mod tips on poly bushings, to relieve their inherent non conforming function (my strut rod mod section), I will add further, with more poly mods as I go.

For starters, the LCA bushings seem too large in width, to fit smoothly within the cross member pocket for its camber adjustment. Nothing is said about it, in its instructions, nor any word from users of the poly bushings.

From what I have seen in dry loose fit, without the adjuster bolt to hold the arm in place, the bushing fits way too snug (wedged), if not very tight against the inner walls of the cross member. Since there is no room or provisions to use proper washers with the 70 on up LCA poly bushings, you have direct contact against unlubricated poly. Well, if you lube the sides of the bushings, it will rub clean away during installation of the arm, or soon after, when driven.

Here are untouched poly bushings, as fitted (Before Modding) notice the longer than oem steel sleeve is not protruding from the poly. OEM sleeves are a bit smaller and allow some movement to pivot with camber adjustment, which IMO, cannot be done with untouched poly bushings.









I used teflon washers to combat squeaks on the strut rod bushings, but after looking at how OEM washers will keep things proper from poly rub against the cross member inner walls, there will not be any reason to for both upper and lower arm bushings.

It looks like trimming will be needed firstly, as the metal sleeve is some what buried within the poly structure.

Here are the modded poly bushings for better fitment.









To get it right, some testing with how the washers will stack after trimming both the bushing and its steel sleeve, and fitment inside the cross member pocket. The steel sleeves are just too long to fit washers between the walls of the cross member.

Did a wee dry test after the mods, without adding washers. The install was a wee more tighter than installing with OEM rubber bushings. But with a little nudging with a rubber mallet to align the adjuster bolt with the slotted holes. The arm moved like stock and did not squeak from side loading on the poly bushing faces. Most of all the squeaking was just by having a bit too much meat on the bushing faces to allow travel. Meaning, it wanted the bushing to compress against the crossmember, and not allow for pivot. Pretty much making the bushing more solid fit than needed, thus the harshness of restricting travel, when the bush wants to stay fixed against the walls of the cross member.

Adding the oem washers will allow for better side loading stability and allow pivot along the bushing face without grabbling or trying to maintain a fixed seat.

Because of the LCA bushing being a bit difficult with proper fit, I assume the same fix will be necessary for the UCA poly bushing kit.

After letting my subconscious figure it out over night, I decided to drop using the supplied thrust bushing, since there is no reason to use it. There is no side loading on the lower arm pivot, when using poly strut rods. The thrust bushing is a band aid for rubber bushed strut rods.

After getting the trimming done, about 1/8" removed, and drilling the ends of each steel sleeve over sized to fit the oem washers, for pressing in to place, I checked and found no reason to use Teflon washers. There is no side loading of any naked poly against the cross member's inner walls.

Here are some images of what was done... the smaller end washers will be pressed in after the assembly is installed to the arm. They are partially fitted into their holes to stay in place temporarily.



I used a uni-bit to oversize the end holes. Notice the step pattern. Since my bit was a wee smaller than needed, I had to wobble the bit side to side, just enough to make the bit feel slightly loose in the hole.



The poly should never rub or spin in the arms pivot point in rotation. Why allow for it to happen by allowing poly to touch areas of friction and greasing up areas that should not allow for movement. The poly bush should stay stationary inside the bush cup and steel sleeve, just like its rubber counter part.

I decided to use the 4 extra sway bar link bushing washers that were from my Addco sway bar, which were not used. I oversized the holes for reperposing as replacement upper arm washers. They are a wee smaller than the larger end washers, and a wee bigger than the smaller end washers, but are nicely cupped and thick enough to serve for long term use.

They do not have centering dowels, but once they are mounted in place, they will stay nicely seated with proper adhesive. The nice thing is that you don't need to drill out the sleeve hole to a larger diameter, just trim a bit off one end of the steel sleeve and both sides of the poly bushing.

Right now I chose my trusty 3M gasket and rubber seal adhesive. It seems to stick well enough to the poly. Here is the largest side with the adhesive in place. Once cured, I will remove the residue from the washer's face.



Once I am done, the modded bushing should look fairly similar to oem. Well at least, not like what the kit has offered as an OEM replacement solution.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/11/2015 at 8:34am
OK,  I have gone way way back on a plan... Only because I am moving the upper control arm position. I have done an old Trans Am trick to lengthen the lower control arm a wee over 1.120 inches. Believe me I did not want to do it, but it will hopefully eleminate the need for the wheel spacer on each wheel. So, more is less on this part of the mod. Right now my lower arm is out at the shop, so until next week, I should able to post a picture.

As it stands, the extended arm is done after the first row of bolt holes after the sway bar mounting hole. This way the location for sway bar and strut rod stay in their OEM locations. There will be some added reinforcement since the ball joint no longer strengthens the strut rod.

Now as for the blasted rack inner tie rod... You all may know my dislike for the stock 89 to 2002 Mustang tie rod, due to its week design. There are only a few but slightly better that will fit. The best bolt on is the EV318. Fits Lincoln Continintal, though it probably still uses a small ball and weak sprung nylon cup, just like the Mustang and other Fords of the late 80s up to 2002, EV127.

My choice to use an 2006 Expedition tie rod and modify it will have to be for now. As I already have the parts and only if they don't weld properly, the Crown Vic tie rods will be ordered.

Outside of the EV318 being a huge rod diameter, the Expedition tie rod's ball and socket is a monster. To me it is worth the try to weld it.





-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: nickleone
Date Posted: Jun/11/2015 at 12:24pm
The strut rod going to the rear may be great engineering.
But on my 2 Pro Rally AMCs (a 401 73 Gremlin and a 390V8 AWD SX/4)
I found the strut rods bend. I believe if they were like the Ford set up I would not have had to replace them.
Or beat them with a 10 pound sledge like I did at more than one service
out in the field to get the alignment somewhat close to stock.

Nick

-------------
nick
401 71 Gremlin pro rally car sold
390 V8 SX/4 pro rally car sold
1962 Classic SW T5 4 wheel disc brakes


Posted By: uncljohn
Date Posted: Jun/11/2015 at 4:18pm
I guess I would hardly call the strut rod "Great" engineering. To me it looked like a relatively cheap way to manufacture an independent front suspension and have it more or less work reliably through the warranty period with little or no maintenance.
However it does force the lower control arm to go through a monky motion arc causing the lower control arm to stress and fatigue break as the bushings wear and are neglected.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

-------------
70 390 5spd Donohue
74 Hornet In restoration
76 Hornet, 5.7L Mercury Marine Power
80 Fuel Injected I6 Spirit
74 232 I-6, 4bbl, 270HL Isky Cam


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/11/2015 at 5:04pm
Well, I never explained my strut rod tweak. Nobody has bothered making the pivot true without shortening or lengthening.

If there was some special engineering AMC engineers were able to do without monetary limits or time constraints, what they did for what was available, was to at least have proper angles and pivot locations. My tweak is to isolate the wonky movement with strengthening the pivot to be semi isolated. Until I get the lower arm and tie rod installed and properly adjusted, I will start working on my fairly brilliant strut rod mod to make it be the back bone, not an Achilles heel.

I appreciate your concern as many do so much around the stock suspension and are forgiving or just an aware of the strut rods limitations.

When I am done I could hit the strut rod with a 15lbs sludge hammer and the only movement I'll get is its proper arc of the lower arms actiion.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/11/2015 at 6:09pm
Nickleone, looking at what has been offered as suspension mods here and through Trans Am... I seem to be doing things different. Mostly in so much being incorporated.

Maybe what I have done at this point in explanation should be laid out in direct details.

My spring perch is over 1-1/2" shorter so all suspension components are settled at least that much in drop. Very different than adding drop plates.

The upper control arm will be moved via suspension hump relocation. It will push the upper arm out 1 inch, over the frame, not inside.

The longer lower arm to match the upper arm will keep the suspension  arc close to stock. With a lower and flatter arm profile the forces on the suspension will be more lateral than ever before. So, I expect to some degree the strut rod will not need to bend to heed to g forces. As the angle of forces being exerted will be more centered down the rod toward the pivot, instead of pushing movement away from the pivot, in which will cause flex and distortion, and eventally fatuge. 




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: uncljohn
Date Posted: Jun/11/2015 at 6:11pm
I've not seen it done with and AMC strut rod suspension, but I have seen it done with a Ford (Pinto or Mustang II) which has a similar suspension but using the strut rod in opposite position, by bending the strut rod so that the lower control arm movement was correct when bumps were hit.
However my preference is a lower "A" frame be fabricated that will allow caster/camber adjustments.
                                                                                                                                                                                            

-------------
70 390 5spd Donohue
74 Hornet In restoration
76 Hornet, 5.7L Mercury Marine Power
80 Fuel Injected I6 Spirit
74 232 I-6, 4bbl, 270HL Isky Cam


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/12/2015 at 1:39pm
Originally posted by uncljohn uncljohn wrote:

I've not seen it done with and AMC strut rod suspension, but I have seen it done with a Ford (Pinto or Mustang II) which has a similar suspension but using the strut rod in opposite position, by bending the strut rod so that the lower control arm movement was correct when bumps were hit.
However my preference is a lower "A" frame be fabricated that will allow caster/camber adjustments.
                                                                                                                                                                                            

Yeah, something like a CF suspension... Though my build was planned to be built to look factory, or less packaged so to speak.

I got my parts back pronto... Will post pix soon.

The tie rods fit perfectly for true parallelizm... Ball center is offset from lower arm pivot towards the spindles steering arm very very close to the distance between the spindle's lower pivot point center and steering arm at the tie rod mounting hole's center.

Lower arm needs some clean up at the welds but looks straight along with ball joint and strut rod mounting holes perfectly aligned.

My only issue is I gave up a perfectly good lower arm to be sacrificed. Now I will rebuild what was removed and graft from scratch to make my scrapped lower arm complete again.

Now I am at a point of being anxious to get the suspension humps done, as for the most part redoing the whole front end did not seem so complicated and a beyatch to perform.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/13/2015 at 6:00am
Modding the steering and suspension components

Here are my photos of the modded parts... The welds are rough and unfinished for fitment testing and will be cleaned up after some reinforcement has been completed.

Basically I cut off the original Mustang GT tie rod mounting ends and welded them to the bigger and more robust truck tie rods once I cut off the threaded stud ends. Since the truck tie rods are all steel inside, they hold up to heat, unlike the nylon bushed Mustang tie rods.

The lower control arms were extended out, and required a donor to add extension. Notice the extra strut rod mounting holes. They are equally spaced.

For more info, check out my specs page below this entry.








-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/14/2015 at 5:51am
Specifications - Under construction

Stock steering replacement options:

2000 to 2004 Mustang GT Rack & Pinion and steering shaft

Tie rods: Note - Inner tie rod ends may need 2.000" shortened. May need threads extended down further on the shaft.

EV318 (2002 Lincoln Contintal)
13.050" Length   0.704" Rod thickness M16-1.5R Adjuster end 15/16" x20R Female Rack end

Can use stock Mustang billows supplied with rack or upgrade to 2002 Lincoln Contintal billows

ES3495 (2002 Crown Victoria)
4.200" Length   M16-1.5L Bent Male Adjuster end    0.581" - 0.650" 1/2"-20L - tapered stud

ES2900S (1998 Tracker) Adjuster sleeve
3.500" Length    M16-1.5L     M16-1.5R

Modded steering options:

2003 - 2004 Mustang Cobra R Rack & Pinion and a perfomance solid u joint steering shaft.

Maximum Motorsports solid bushing Mustang rack installation kit

Tie rods: Note - Inner tie rod ends may need shortened. Has plenty of extra thread down the shaft.

EV456 (2006 Expedition 2WD)
12.150" Length   0.656" Rod Thickness   M16-1.5R - Adjuster end. M16-1.5R Male - Rack end
Note: Must remove the threaded stud and replace by welding the cut off 15/16" female end from a Mustang inner tie rod.

Must use 2006 Expedition billows, as Mustang billows are too skinny. Will need to cut Mustang billows large end to use as a donut to fit the Expedition billows over the smaller diameter rack end.

ES3495 (2002 Crown Victoria)
4.200" Length   M16-1.5L   Bent male adjuster end    0.5810" - 0.650" 1/2"-20L - tapered stud

ES2900S (1998 Tracker) Adjuster sleeve
3.500" Length    M16-1.5L     M16-1.5R

2005 F150 / Expedition / Navigator inner tie rod dust boots

Suspension Components:

Front shock for modded 2.5" compressed suspension - Modded mount

OEM Spec
KYB Excel-G 344469 (2000 Nissan Frontier) Same weight as Javelin
KYB Excel-G 344261 (2000 VW Euro Van) 1,200 lbs heavier
KYB Excel-G 343158 (1973 Road Runner)

Front shock for modded 2.5" compressed suspension - Stock mount

Drop in OEM performance type
KYB Autoadjust KG5404 (71/73 Mustang)

OEM type
KYB Excel-G 344040 (1999 Blazer)

HD Mono Tube
KYB MonoMax 565046 (1999 Blazer)


Modded sway bar installation, and relocation. Shortened XLR inner tie rods and modified shaft to fit sway bar bushings and hardware.

MOOG EV343 11.92" length 0.593" rod diameter M14-1.5 end thread M18-1.5 male mounting thread. With 3" 3/8"-24 bolt to mount sway bar, bushings and beveled compression washers.

10° KPI Mustang II forged spindles - Bottom mounting hole needs taper increase for AMC lower ball joint. Use 10 degree tapered reamer.

7° KPI spindles require no reaming on the upper ball joint stud hole, since stock upper ball joints will fit properly. Just you must use the dropped spring perch mod to even out arm angles, since the spindle upright is .680" shorter than stock upright. Else use a GM ball joint, which will allow untouched stock suspension, with Mustang II 7° KPI spindles.

For upper standard ball joint use 67 to early 70 GMC C2500 - Moog K680 and modify bolt hole locations on the UCA to mount.

For heavy duty use late 70 to 95 GMC C2500 upper ball joint - Moog K6122, and use the 10° reamer on the upper arm holes of the spindles. Same mods used for standard size GMC ball joint are required on the UCA to mount.

For a full modded setup 10° spindles only... a different ball joint is required, unless you want to slightly ream the upper tapered hole, on the spindle, oversized for 1/2" deeper to use a K6122 ball joint.

The required ball joint for 10° KPI Mustang II spindles is for the C20 and like trucks, k6122 for general selection.

I modified 71 to 73 Mustang / Torino spring perches to use AMC springs, and installed poly bushings as to easily swap out Ford spacing pivot pin with AMC. Use Ford Mustang springs if left untouched. This will drop suspension up to 2.50" and compress the suspension angles to allow more stable cornering.

Extended the lower arm and upper arm about 1.5"... required for 10° KPI spindles.

Measurements:

Mustang II spindle mounting arm distance is around 0.700" shorter than stock. It will bring the lower control arm up a tad higher. Which will ruin roll angle stability, without using a GM truck ball joint.

To compensate either use a spacer with stock ball joint or use a 67 to early 71 GMC C2500 truck upper ball joint. Though lowering with spring height will cause wild camber addition when UCA angle goes above 10° on bump.

For a proper suspension alignment, the upper tapered mounting hole, must be reamed enough to seat the GM ball joint, deep enough to make the gap between the tops of both control arms near the center of the ball joint. You will need to use an extra, thick nut between the castle nut, to take up the gap on such a long stud.

I found that K6122 or K6292 upper ball joint is super duty, made for late 71 to 95 or 96 to 2005 GMC C2500 trucks. It has the same mounting stud taper as the lower ball joint. Spindle up rights must be reamed with a 10 degree tapered reamer on the top mounting hole for the K6122 or K6292 ball joint.

Lower control arm distance (Stock) 14.000" ball joint center to bushing center.

Lower control arm distance (Modded) 15.250" ball joint center to bushing center using GM truck or van ball joint.

Assembled tie rod length (Stock) 14.00" from both pivot end centers.

Assembled tie rod length (Modded) <=16.000" from both pivot end centers. Woodward recommended rack toe out of .500" has been added for Akerman angle and greater stability. Though Mustang II spindles have the required .500" offset steering arm outside of the ball joint for Akerman angle. So, I will probably end up adjusting down the tie rods around .125" for a total length of =< 15.325" for a wee bit of toe out.

Strut rod length (Stock) 14.250" from inner mounting bolt on LCA to mounting bracket pivot hole.

Strut rod length 14.250" from inner mounting bolt on LCA to mounting bracket pivot hole using stock mounting location, with modified suspension hump, should bring a distance around to 1.200" (Close to Woodward's recommended back set rack distance) of positive offset between the steering arm to the rack center, to set a proper loaded Ackerman angle, without having to place the rack deep against the crossmember, while using the 5" Mustang II steering arms length. It will also will place static caster in around +3°, set between 7° to 10°
.

Distance from eccentric bolt's center to inner tie rod pivot ball center 1.000". Only my modded tie rod concept will correct bump steer.

Distance from spindle steering arm's pivot center to lower ball joint center .50"

Modded UCA offset from stock location, 1" back towards fire wall, 1" out towards wheel. Allows use of a longer LCA, brings castor up to modern wheel and tire specs, and also allows for more clearance for custom headers.

With all above setup, I should have 3.00" of travel from rest point, which will have about a 2.00" of drop from stock, with very little camber gain. (.0626" push out with lower arm, and .0917" push out with upper arm (.021" max with canceling out), on total swing. Lower arm swing will be within the -4.3° at rest to 5° at top range.

Notes: Everything is matched to fit with the 2015 Mustang GT wheels. Will work for street, and recreational track use, with KPI of 2.70". For race 0 mm up to 10 mm offset with wheels being limited to 9" max, to bring in KPI around 1.00" to 1.50"



http://vsusp.com/?tool=2d#0.8%26project_name%3AAMC%20-%20Mustang%20IFS%26trim%7Bbody_roll_angle%3A0%7Cfront.left_bump%3A0%7Crear.left_bump%3A0%7Cfront.right_bump%3A0%7Crear.right_bump%3A0%7D%26front%7Bframe.susp_type%3A0%7Cframe.bottom_y%3A13716%7Cframe.center_to_upper_mount_x%3A43445%7Cframe.bottom_to_upper_mount_y%3A34975%7Cframe.center_to_lower_mount_x%3A32776%7Cframe.bottom_to_lower_mount_y%3A10160%7Ccontrol_arms.upper_length%3A23622%7Ccontrol_arms.lower_length%3A38735%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_x%3A17048%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_x%3A13516%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_y%3A13166%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_y%3A12654%7Cknuckles.hub_to_strut_axis%3A14000%7Cknuckles.strut_incl%3A8000%7Csteering.active%3A0%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_x%3A8255%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_y%3A8255%7Cwheels.offset%3A3936%7Cwheels.diameter%3A1800%7Cwheels.diameter_expl%3A35000%7Ctires.size_convention%3A0%7Ctires.section_width%3A28500%7Ctires.aspect_ratio%3A4000%7Ctires.diameter_expl%3A50000%7Ctires.width_expl%3A7620%7Ctires.compression%3A254%7D%26rear%7Bframe.susp_type%3A0%7Cframe.bottom_y%3A9200%7Cframe.center_to_upper_mount_x%3A28500%7Cframe.bottom_to_upper_mount_y%3A24000%7Cframe.center_to_lower_mount_x%3A17000%7Cframe.bottom_to_lower_mount_y%3A0%7Ccontrol_arms.upper_length%3A24800%7Ccontrol_arms.lower_length%3A37500%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_x%3A15000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_x%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_y%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_y%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_strut_axis%3A14000%7Cknuckles.strut_incl%3A8000%7Csteering.active%3A0%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_x%3A8255%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_y%3A8255%7Cwheels.offset%3A4000%7Cwheels.diameter%3A1500%7Cwheels.diameter_expl%3A35000%7Ctires.size_convention%3A0%7Ctires.section_width%3A19500%7Ctires.aspect_ratio%3A4500%7Ctires.diameter_expl%3A50000%7Ctires.width_expl%3A7620%7Ctires.compression%3A0%7D%26pref%7Bdiag1.px_per_mm%3A250%7Cdiag1.front_or_rear%3Afront%7Ctab.active%3A0%7Cunits%3A0%7Cshow.f%3A1%7Cshow.ca%3A1%7Cshow.k%3A1%7Cshow.st%3A1%7Cshow.stl%3A1%7Cshow.w%3A1%7Cshow.t%3A1%7Cshow.rc%3A0%7Cshow.rcl%3A0%7Cshow.ic%3A0%7Cshow.icl%3A0%7Cshow.fvsa%3A0%7Cshow.tl%3A1%7Cshow.kpil%3A0%7Credraw_during_drag%3A1%7Cchart.x_axis_center%3A0%7Cchart.x_axis_window%3A5%7Cchart.x_axis_num_steps%3A20%7Cchart.x_axis_field%3Atrim.body_roll_angle%7Cchart.y_axis_fields%3A%5BFR%5D.general.roll_center.x%2C%5BFR%5D.general.roll_center.y%2C%5BFR%5D.tires.left_camber%2C%5BFR%5D.tires.right_camber%7D" rel="nofollow - vsuspension - best setup

My screen shots of my design are on vsusp.com, under this link.

http://vsusp.com/?tool=2d#0.8%26project_name%3AAMC%20-%20Mustang%20IFS%26trim%7Bbody_roll_angle%3A0%7Cfront.left_bump%3A0%7Crear.left_bump%3A0%7Cfront.right_bump%3A0%7Crear.right_bump%3A0%7D%26front%7Bframe.susp_type%3A0%7Cframe.bottom_y%3A13616%7Cframe.center_to_upper_mount_x%3A43445%7Cframe.bottom_to_upper_mount_y%3A34540%7Cframe.center_to_lower_mount_x%3A32633%7Cframe.bottom_to_lower_mount_y%3A10160%7Ccontrol_arms.upper_length%3A23622%7Ccontrol_arms.lower_length%3A38735%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_x%3A16897%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_x%3A13516%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_y%3A13166%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_y%3A12378%7Cknuckles.hub_to_strut_axis%3A14000%7Cknuckles.strut_incl%3A8000%7Csteering.active%3A0%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_x%3A8255%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_y%3A8255%7Cwheels.offset%3A3936%7Cwheels.diameter%3A1800%7Cwheels.diameter_expl%3A35000%7Ctires.size_convention%3A0%7Ctires.section_width%3A28500%7Ctires.aspect_ratio%3A4000%7Ctires.diameter_expl%3A50000%7Ctires.width_expl%3A7620%7Ctires.compression%3A254%7D%26rear%7Bframe.susp_type%3A0%7Cframe.bottom_y%3A9200%7Cframe.center_to_upper_mount_x%3A28500%7Cframe.bottom_to_upper_mount_y%3A24000%7Cframe.center_to_lower_mount_x%3A17000%7Cframe.bottom_to_lower_mount_y%3A0%7Ccontrol_arms.upper_length%3A24800%7Ccontrol_arms.lower_length%3A37500%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_x%3A15000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_x%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_lower_y%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_upper_y%3A13000%7Cknuckles.hub_to_strut_axis%3A14000%7Cknuckles.strut_incl%3A8000%7Csteering.active%3A0%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_x%3A8255%7Csteering.hub_to_outer_tie_rod_y%3A8255%7Cwheels.offset%3A4000%7Cwheels.diameter%3A1500%7Cwheels.diameter_expl%3A35000%7Ctires.size_convention%3A0%7Ctires.section_width%3A19500%7Ctires.aspect_ratio%3A4500%7Ctires.diameter_expl%3A50000%7Ctires.width_expl%3A7620%7Ctires.compression%3A0%7D%26pref%7Bdiag1.px_per_mm%3A250%7Cdiag1.front_or_rear%3Afront%7Ctab.active%3A0%7Cunits%3A0%7Cshow.f%3A1%7Cshow.ca%3A1%7Cshow.k%3A1%7Cshow.st%3A1%7Cshow.stl%3A1%7Cshow.w%3A1%7Cshow.t%3A1%7Cshow.rc%3A0%7Cshow.rcl%3A0%7Cshow.ic%3A0%7Cshow.icl%3A0%7Cshow.fvsa%3A0%7Cshow.tl%3A1%7Cshow.kpil%3A0%7Credraw_during_drag%3A1%7Cchart.x_axis_center%3A0%7Cchart.x_axis_window%3A5%7Cchart.x_axis_num_steps%3A20%7Cchart.x_axis_field%3Atrim.body_roll_angle%7Cchart.y_axis_fields%3A%5BFR%5D.general.roll_center.x%2C%5BFR%5D.general.roll_center.y%2C%5BFR%5D.tires.left_camber%2C%5BFR%5D.tires.right_camber%7D" rel="nofollow - Custom Modified Mustang II / AMC Suspension











-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/14/2015 at 1:24pm
LCA & UCA lightweight micro boxing tweaks


OK, many have their own take on reinforcements, such as boxing the arms, adding reinforcing plate along the side wall of the bushing, or replacing with custom tubular units. This is my take on tweaking the arms and wee bit to make them robust under extremes.

Until I find my mock cut out sectioms to be welded in place for the upper control arm, this tweak is on the lower arm bushing end, as shown while in place. My main concern is with road salt, sinice this is intended for daily driven use, the bushing shell will be fully protected along with the arm end being reinforced at its weakest section.

Firstly, I will be using scrap pipe sections to make a reinforcement around the outer radius of the bushing shell. It will be welded just below the curved edge, and follow along to seal the very end section, shown in the two pictures below.





Since there will be one more reinforcement, for preventing wall fold over from twist and pinch, the open area under the reinforcement will not need any further work done to fully seal off around the bushing shell. There is the final addition to complete the tweak and fully seal and reinforce the end of the LCA.




Here are the cut tubing and plate sections already fitted, ready for welding.





Because the lower ball joint, and the pre 73 steering stop, along with the strut rod make the front of the arm super strong, no additional mods are required, unless you are not using properly lengthed strut rods and/or rubber strut rod bushings for extreme use. Then a boxed arm will be required.

Since I eliminated a lot of LCA twist with oem components, and counter effects with poly bushings, only the end of the control arm requires some additional reinforcement.

As for the UCA, it two has some needs for its bushing ends to be reinforced. Mainly because it takes a lot of abuse when things are stiffened up.

Here are some UCA tweaks, still in the works, but they may left and right universal. Since the police versions only do one side, which makes them L and R only.



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/18/2015 at 10:22am
Well, I am not sure but my android browsers are having trouble with my links on the top entry to my thread.  Sometimes the links take me right to where they should go and other times somewhere in the middle of the page of replys.

If anyone has issues with the links... Just refresh the screen or go back and click on the link again. It seems to work, when the links act up, as it is random.

I spent a bit of time redoing my links, just to make sure they are linked properly.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/19/2015 at 6:40pm
Here are some pix of my setup on a mock up without suspension hump mod, so there is some negative camber.

My spring is compressed to be about the distance under vehicle weight  with all 4 wheels on the ground.














-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/21/2015 at 9:48am
" Only because I am moving the upper control arm position. I have done an old Trans Am trick to lengthen the lower control arm a wee over 1.120 inches."

So if I wanted yo use Mustang II spindles with a rack and pinion and didn't do any of the other suspension  mods (especially not moving the upper arm), the lower arms wouldn't require lengthening, correct?


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/21/2015 at 10:59am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

" Only because I am moving the upper control arm position. I have done an old Trans Am trick to lengthen the lower control arm a wee over 1.120 inches."

So if I wanted yo use Mustang II spindles with a rack and pinion and didn't do any of the other suspension  mods (especially not moving the upper arm), the lower arms wouldn't require lengthening, correct?

OK, I figured some would think moving and lengthening was all because I wanted to use a Mustang GT rack. To be honest it was the racks weak tie rods that made me look for other options. In finding a stout tie rod combo to fit SAE taper at the steering arm gave very few options, that required welding to fit the rack.

As for the rack, it is probably the best fit for AMC lower arm spacing. As it is about 1/4" off from being perfect. Since the only other option I found that comes close to my modded rod sturdiness would be the options listed in the Specs section near the top.

As for your question no lengthening or moving things to install Mustang II spindles. The only issue is the need to ream the lower ball joint mounting hole for the larger taper. Everything else is a cake walk. 

Since I found good parts to replace Mustang and Thunderbird components, the only issue is the need for threading the inner tie rod once it is shortened. I am not sure if it has as much thread as my modded 2006 Expedition tie rod. Cutting 1.25" off the Expedition tie rod threaded end is the the max for both full adjustment with lower arm and least amount of threads up the rod. With the direct fit 13" tie rod I would think it would need at least 1" of added threads once 2 inches have been cut.

I am sorry that I could not make my instructions easier to follow, as I never intended to install a Mustang rack with stock spindles. I gave both instructions as to allow others to use what I find useful with what they have. I would have completed this long ago if I had been satisfied with the Thunderbird Mustang tie rod combos. They fit without mods but it is like the children's book Give a Mouse a Cookie... I find one thing at troubles me, and as I fix I find another... My suspension hump mod was a mix of issues. One being for modern wheels and tires, the other to add more competitive negative camber. The stock lower arm lost some negative camber when I compressed the suspension by using a Mustang / Torino spring perch. So moving the upper arm location and lengthening the lower arm will assist only for the type of lowering I chose and tires.





-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/21/2015 at 12:25pm
So, a 2.5" drop is not enough... What to do now?

Okay, after thinking about some info that I added to my OEM vs Dropped spring saddle, I thought about what if...

In my mind would like to drop down to 3 inches, but the limit of a suspension drop with a spring perch, is safely set at 2.5". If one could drop to 3" or 4, they will end up bottoming out at the lower arm or tire against the trough.

Any who... the option can go down to a 2" drop, on stock suspensions, with dropping plates on the spindles. The nice thing about dropping plates, are that they will not remove any head room for suspension travel.

To drop down to the max, one could dial in the suspension drop with a mid height or short spring perch around 1" to 1.75", and finish the lowering with dropping plates.

Fortunately for me, I can swap out my Mustang II spindles with lowered spindle, which will lower 2" more, and will need some changes done to correct for too much drop. That part will be figured out when that time comes for making the dropped spindle swap decision.

This all depends on how the existing mods look over all, and how much room I have to play with. Just an open idea for now...

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/30/2015 at 6:25pm
I updated my sway bar modding page... It can be located via 1st post index, or skimming through page 2.

Due to the cost of procurement of new items for sway bar mounting, I have consumed my limit until funds appear from what lint I can sell on eBay. Hehehehe!

Most of the cost what I'll need to do will be in the machining and welding. Cutting, forming the steel material can done with what I have available, not much but enough to anchor to the bottom of my spring perches.

Seems like it took forever to get my rack setup completed with the modded tie rods. This should not take as long... Crosses fingers.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/01/2015 at 9:18pm
Modding 13-14 S197 GT Calipers for S550 14" Rotors


Why not include 08-12 calipers? Well, there is one difference... The mounting bolt head diameter is increased on the very late run of S197 calipers (Same used on Ford trucks).

Also these calipers can't be thought of like the SN95 PBR calipers, even if the design looks similar. SN95 PBR calipers used a older style (early 38mm and later 40mm) Phenolic / Aluminum compsite piston which can be replaced with a piston from a Girling model 60 (skewed 40mm & 45mm dual piston caliper), a 40mm steel piston, as with big PBR using a 45mm piston. The S197 calipers will need replacement 42mm stainless steel pistons to survive track day events.

Since Ford and aftermarket gave up on upgrades for stock GT calipers, I turned to Euro (Ford / Volvo / BMW) ATE calipers which have the same 43mm bore and depth as S197 calipers. Looks easy enough, as BMWs are a dime o dozen here. Look for Centric 146.42008, they fit 2006 330i, X3, 135 series rear calipers. They will fit just fine at 42mm diameter x 48mm length.

Correction... for a more perfect fit, 2005 Volvo C70, XC70, S70 and S80 rear caliper pistons will work best (Centric 146.42009 or Carlson 7986) They are of 42mm diameter x 49mm tall, and can be shaved at the top rim to fit slightly thicker pads than OEM.

Don't be fooled by parts sellers, there is a good chance you will be given a BMW style unit, and may even have stated for both Volvo and BMW, as they are closely compatible. Thus the price being lower. The main difference is the boot will be tucked in more with BMW units, and when shaving them to fit thicker pads, the depth will be too deep in the hole causing difficutly with dust boot installation and heat degregation from the boot being pressed against the pad, until pad wear allows extra gap.

Both pistons can use stock seals and dust boots.

If you really want bigger brakes, use Cobra R or late model F150 fronts, they look similar but are much bigger (42mm, 45mm and 48mm) than the S197 dual caliper design. Though being the biggest, the F150 calipers are even more limited as for performance brake pads from off the shelf.

After obtaining a set of PFC Z-Rated pads, SKU# 1081.10, I had to remove the stainless steel shim on the backing plates to allow for more clearance for the thicker Mustang S550 14" rotor. It is a mandortory thing, with many aftermarket performance pads that have thicker backing plates and pad materials. These Z-rated pads have 18mm thick pad material, while others can be anywhere from 15mm to 17mm.

Here is a quick comparison of the OEM Phenolic and Volvo 42mm rear piston.

Notice the Volvo piston has plenty of thickness above the dust boot sealing groove, for scalloping around the rim and shaving the top down another 1mm to 1.5mm



The thickness of the piston walls are very thick. IMO no need for it, but if tracking the extra heat sinking of the thicker piston will come in handy.



The bottom of the Volvo piston is made with a single channel, from the brake line orifice, to be used in a single piston caliper. While the Ford OEM piston has 3 channels to allow fluid to make its way to the orifice of the secondary piston smoother and quickly.



After some serious thoughts while rebuilding the calipers, no need to machine the lip for an extra mm or two for wider pads. I found 3 issues with original setup to make thicker pads and rotors difficult.

So, by just installing the Volvo pistons and reversing the squeaker tabs, allows enough gap for any pad and rotor combo without any machining.

One, is the squeaker / slider clips. Installing them 180 degrees in the pad retaining bracket's grooves, will allow considerable clearance for pads and rotors.

Two, is the OEM piston. They get sticky in the cylinder and are a wee taller than the Volvo piston.

Lastly, the pad bracket has raised faces for the clips. If going with a 1.5" thick after market racing rotor, machining 1mm on the outer pad side, will allow fitment up to a 1.5" thick rotor

With my needs met by the Volvo piston, I will only need to scallop the piston rim face, to allow air circulation through each piston to limit heat transfer build up.

Basically the mod will be a poor mans Cobra R caliper at 1/2 the cost. 2 rebuild kits, 4 steel pistons and a set of low milage 2014 GT calipers will set you back about $120.00

The only required machining mod, is the scalloping of the piston rims is to help minimise heat transfer from surface contact, and relieve heat build up that is usually trapped within the cup. There will be about 50% less surface contact at the pad backing plate and the piston.

Plus, the Z rated pads also are made like all of the other racing pads PFC makes. Multi layered for noise reduction and a reduction in heat transfer over stock pads. They are the best (street / track day) pad on the market, even though newer ceramics are flooding the market.

This combo should be perfect for any street setup to take on the track every once and a while, with out need to change pads in between. In fact some have reported more than three track days on the same pads, while being used on the streets.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/02/2015 at 8:37am
I had a PM come in with questions since my updated info was posted... I realize that i have lots of info that may have aquired small changes to details and may confuse some.  Please feel free to raise question, if any do find issues big or small, and I will try to answer as best I can.

Here is my answer back in my PM reply...

The rack and pinion tie rod ends are from a 2008 XLR by Cadillac, and the axle nut is from a tractor supply shop. I will axle the nut welded to a cut section of pipe to be welded to the underside of the Mustang spring perch for reinforcement. The flanged nut has been grinded at the hex end to allow better hold with welding, the axle nut's flange side will act as a mounting face for the tie rod to seat, just like it would on a rack. Thus the tie rod can be removed and replaced when needed.

After weighing the cost of machining the tie rod, I figured the most cost effective way was to use proper sized bolts for the threaded end for the sway bar's mounting, and have them welded to the cut end of the tie rod. Some members here have the means to machine for themselves, and may opt to do that.

As for lack of cushioning... These rack tie rods at fairly stiff... No Ford tie rod I have worked with is as stiff with the ball action. The modded tie rods I have installed on the rack are almost as stiff but a bit more heavy duty in construction. Since this type has no nylon bushing and the cup is thick, the angle I will use will keep most of the shock of up swing travel in the cup where wear will not be a big problem.

Since I am keeping the factory style sway arm mounting at the arm ends, some cushioning will be in effect. In fact I can keep the poly bushings a wee looser than normal, as only two are used in each custom link and will allow for some angle when needed.

I thought this out the best I could, as if to install a shortened version of a factory link setup, would be very short and a wee complicated in having a bushing and nut at the mounting bracket to eat up needed length. I gave it my best shot with the strongest tie rod for its size.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/03/2015 at 2:43pm
A quick wee update... Will be using 3" long 3/8"-24 hex head bolts and will cut the XLR tie rods at top of the grooved ring, pictured in the sway bar section.  Seems  as if that ring was properly located. Hehehehehehe!  I cut them a wee longer on purpose just to see how it would look without having to wait for the welding to be done.

As for the change in lenth for the 3/8 bolts... I measured the bushings compressed, before I removed the hardware. 

Will have a picture of the sway bar bushings installed with the bolt mounted with the tthreads up to show how the mounting angles between modded tie rod and sway bar hardware when I make alignment before I cut.

Note: the angle of the sway bar will need to droop a little, so about a 6-1/2" length from center of ball on the tie rod to top of sway bar bushing washer will be about right.  As the upper suspension pulls up and away, the sway bar cannot pull away when being lifted by the link. So, in having the sway bar level or pointing up will cause binding with the upper control arm as it pivots.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/12/2017 at 9:36am
Modding Ford Power Steering

These mods are to place assist in low RPM use, with a 6.2500" underdriven pulley. As the Cobra R uses one in stock form. Many say the 00 Cobra R is the stiffest feel, and is hard to turn when at idle and below 1000 RPM. I will have to mod my pump's pulley with a Dodge pulley, as many Dodge trucks have about 6" diameter pulleys.

Any 2001 Mustang GT to pre 2003 Mustang Cobra rebuilt rack and pinion can use this mod.

Since my rack and pinion is already installed, pictures of my parts will have to be done later when I am able to remove it for some disassembly.

I just may endup using my existing rack as a core exchange for the Cardone 22-2000 rack. As prices are becoming reasonable.

The mods are very simple, no pictures are needed, just an explanation of what is to be done and how to remove the part.

To make the rack responsive to abrupt turns under demanding loads while using a 6.2500" underdrive pulley (Cobra R spec).

1a) Disassemble steering shaft coupler joint to remove rubber flex bushing to make it solid, and reassemble. Drilling rivets and to replace with fasteners will need to be done.



1b) Drive out the retaining pin (Number 25) from the steering input shaft of the rack.

2b) carefully shake and rattle out the torsion bar (Number 1) from the shaft and spool assembly. Everything else should stay in place as long as the circlip is in place (Number 24).



Once the torsion bar is removed. You can do a few different options.

1) Replace with a larger T-bar, there are some services who provide custom T-bars.

2) Obtain a used one from a wrecker. 0.2450" is the largest and may be found in a 2003 to 2004 Mach 1.


Part two... optional, as I am the only one using a Ford C-III power steering pump. This mod will work on all C-III pumps, as the internals are the same... outside of the restrictor.

This mod works for adding more volume for hydraulic brake assist, while increasing low RPM steering linearity (Makes 6" underdrive pulley feel less so at low RPM use).

1) Remove restrictor by removing the cap plug at the opposite end of the pressure line port.

2) Remove spring, and pressure spool valve.

3) If you have a 4 cyl pump, no mod is necessary as the spring is short to begin with. For v8 cut the spring to remove 2mm of its original height, by cutting one coil and sand the cut end flat, which is to be fitted to the pressure cap nut. If more boost is needed, a washer can be used to shim.

4) Drive out the restrictor using a 1/4" drive 5/16" socket and extension. Making sure the socket is just large enough to allow the tube end to fit inside.

5) Drill out the restrictor hole to 0.1250"

6) Increase one bleed radius to 2.5mm

Additional mods to keep a highly stable steering under extremes

Using modified heavy duty inner tie rods, listed in my specifications section will remove any flexing stock Mustang or Crown Vic tie rod may provide in heavy turns. Unfortunately the Mustang rack has no billows that fit such large tie rods. Though using the proper fit billows for the heavy duty tie rods only requires modification to the original Mustang billows as a step down coupler to the larger diameter billows for the modified tie rods.

Here are pictures of the mod.





I used 3M rubber adhesive and gasket maker to join the two together. To make a proper seal, I put a good bead in the inside diameter along the grooves for fitment on a rack end, and slipped in the cut off end while twisting. This made a fairly good fit and allowed for a good seal. Then I placed another bead along the mating edge along the lip for the retaining band. To make sure the seal was through and through I cupped my hand with the billows compressed and pulled to make suction, only to pull the bead in a wee bit, as the bead will shrink and conform to the shape of the area it adheres to.




Replace factory pump pulley with a 6.2500" underdrive pulley.



Since there is no direct fit 6.2500" pulley to bolt on, there are options, by modifying a 2000 Caravan V6 pulley (6.2500" @ 25% underdrive) or use an almost mod free VW pulley which is made of aluminum.

I will see about modding the VW pulley shown in the above picture, to fit the flange on my pump as to complete my Cobra R pump pressure and flow mod.

As an alternative the Ford part YL843A733BA is for an unknown to me, engine and year. I assume v6, but is just under 6 inches in diameter.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/13/2017 at 1:12am
That torsion bar is a spring steel shaft designed to flex. I wouldn't weld it -- don't know how the heat will affect the bar steel. I understand the idea is to take the torsion/flex OUT of it, and welding should surely destroy the springiness, but it could adversely affect the metal and make it weaker. Have a solid steel shaft made or replace with a stiffer one.

I found mention of Ford racks with stiffer (larger diameter) t-rods, but could find no replacement or custom t-rod suppliers.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/13/2017 at 7:13am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

That torsion bar is a spring steel shaft designed to flex. I wouldn't weld it -- don't know how the heat will affect the bar steel. I understand the idea is to take the torsion/flex OUT of it, and welding should surely destroy the springiness, but it could adversely affect the metal and make it weaker. Have a solid steel shaft made or replace with a stiffer one.

I found mention of Ford racks with stiffer (larger diameter) t-rods, but could find no replacement or custom t-rod suppliers.


Hi farna, ok about welding... I will remove that option. As for obtaining a T-bar, I had a link, and it is buried in a mess of history, which I am not sure on the date. I will search further on it. For the life of me, searching on the Internet, the forum link is not popping up as easy as I found it. Like ran into it more than once without difficulty.

Also I found some conflicting info on T-bar size, now the max is 0.2300 direct from cardon, while GT size is 0.2150. Many say you only get about 15% stiffer feel and is only better if you need to replace your rack or you get it dirt cheap.

Though I did update my rack install info to show obtaining cardon 22-2000 racks are the best option to obtain a 2003 / 2004 Cobra R rack at a fair price.

May have to change the title to Updated SN95 rack install. Would say Cobra R, but I installed a GT rack, and would be stating incorrectly.

I a starting to think for the money of obtaining a T-bar, it would be best served elsewhere. Like a constant pressure regulator, or 6" underdrive pulley, which I will add to the mods list.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/14/2017 at 5:43am
I have done some updates and clean ups... have a feeling more Is to be done. Though mostly noticable on my index on the beginning page of this thread. For now, whatever info you may be holding onto about Ford rack and pinion and the power steering mod, must be refreshed by going over those sections once more, even though they may look untouched, there is a mix of updates that cover my mods.

For now, until I actually place the wording completed on my topic, assume changes at any time, after all I expect some once I am able to road test everything. The info is to be taken as am good starting point, and refinement may be needed depending on how accurate I am with drawing board design

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/14/2017 at 6:37am
Hybrid customized rear suspension

My mods are to work together more than to be singled out as a bunch of indepandant mods acting on their own. My front suspension mod is the exact same way. Until you look at how each Item works with the other then you can see the draw backs of most custom designs. Very few have each suspension component truly work together in form and function, with maximum simplicity for setup.

To have a dialed in mode active suspension, without computer controls or electronic toggle modes, I figured out a system using various tech to work together without fighting against each other in function, to meet both needs of track and strip. So far I am the only one to bring this to the table... and because it is untested, some work will need to be done once on the road.

Here is the run down.

Sliding rear shackles

A simple contraption to allow leaf springs to kick out in a true and secure channel. Plus you get no leaf spring back-end twist under extreme lateral loads, shown below.



Quad shock system



This was first seen by me back in the late 80s or early 90. On the SC Thunderbird. It consisted of two extra shocks mounted as torque links. AMC Torque links and rear sway bars, both have one draw back, as their swing radius does not match the wheel's travel on the leaf spring's slightly eliptical arc.

The shocks are to allow for the path to change under prolonged axle movement. When used with the above, the long end of the leaf springs will slide back while the lateral shocks will stabilise the axle from moving back as promptly. The two forces act like one to pull the axle vertical when springs are compressed by force.

The front section of the leaf spring acts more like a torque link, by the fact there is enough free action to the back to allow pivot to kick out not bind and wrap forward at one or both sides.

Widening spring perch distance

Since I am using a Ford truck axle, I am widening frame sections as part of the frame connector strategy. Will help with keeping the rear corners planted with 65" wide track.

Centered Torque Link

I may incorporate a tork link to allow better distribution of torque when launching and low to high RPM down shifts. I have a Ford 9 Inch pinion snubber, when mounted at the 6 o clock position and modified as a pivot for the tork link to be jointed at the tranny cross member. May use dual angle iron with diamond bracing to keep it light weight and serve as a drive shaft catcher instead of loops.

70 T/A Hotchkis Watts Link rear anti-roll setup

Well this just looks crazy cool, but has one feature that I like and will do the job. Will not limit like the Torque links and Pannard Bar, and does not need much to adjust on the track. Since I have done most everything Ford, might as well add that to the mix.

It's primary function is to remove lateral forces against the suspension without adding bind or negative forces in operation. Simple and the most effective way to do so.



So to sum up how things function, the front half (short side of the leaf spring acts as a mini torque link, with the help of a lateral shock to control forward shifting of the axle. By using the lateral shock at the rear, the wrapping forces are split, instead of being placed on to one local area. The sliding rear shackles will keep bind and wrap minimal, thus give a good even squat at take offs. The 70 Ford T/A Watts link anti roll setup will carry as primary lateral control, allowing the leaf springs to react properly to road conditions under heavy turning.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/17/2017 at 2:47pm
I realized I missed including my Ford power steering mods in my index, and found some torsion bar info that should have been deleted, and corrected. Also added the Mustang steering shaft's rubber biscuit removal for solid feel and positive turning engagement. One other update, is my thought of including a center torque link later on, to assist in torque distribution, under demands.

I am sure there are other wee errors and updates needing done. Eventually I will get there.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: May/20/2017 at 12:00pm
comment deleted so my friend 304dude can work on his thread, his way


-------------
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/


Posted By: amcenthusiast
Date Posted: May/20/2017 at 12:04pm
same thing


-------------
443 XRV8 Gremlin YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=2DmFOKRuzUc
XRV8 Race Parts website: http://amcramblermarlin.1colony.com/


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/20/2017 at 12:44pm
Hi, I know what you and many purists are thinking... But my vision at the time, way back in 2004 to make it a daily driven toy. Thus upgrading to more modern and track worthy performance. Since I live in the Midwest, there are plenty of areas to go to, and require driving to get to them. Though I will mis Laguna Secca, as I grew up around there. Maybe some day I may drive as far to give it a try.

We both want to see how far one can go on a budget and still make it worth while. As we both know the strengths and weaknesses around our builds even though there is the difference of engine and body. I said this many of times, this car could have been easily restored as a unique Javelin, but not so fun to drive as I personally would like. Maybe I should have traded up with someone who wanted at least a 90% stock to start with restore. But for the year of searching, for a car to modify, few were in my area, that I could obtain. I made my plan early and stuck with it. Even though after time, many cars that are unique have been parted out or modified as well.

One thing I never tell anyone, that they must do as I do to make it right. If it were not for the 55 chevy guys modding them cars for street meets and runs, them original cars would not have such status. Both modified and restored, the car no matter which make, goes noticed and in some ways can't live wi out the other.

I don't expect others to understand why, just this was part of what I have always done in some way with things. Since I can remember at age of 3 trying to modify my electric car to go faster. That did not go well as, parents thought I had ruined my car. Never got a chance to work on it again once they found it, with me working away at the motor and gear box. Ha!

Don't know why parents find it so hard to reason with kids. If one can take something apart without breaking it, then quite possibly they could put it back together.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: Lyle
Date Posted: May/20/2017 at 9:32pm
Purists, are mostly in their own world. Recently went to a historical club inspection and the "purists" were talking about their cars, MP3 players hidden behind the dash, custom suspension components that judges would never even notice, hidden ignition systems, electric power steering (never seen that one), swapped parts from different years as they were better or parts available. All were making their cars the way they wanted so they could drive them and still enjoy them.
A "purest" after this experience, is someone who drives a classic car and a "historian" is another class all together.
Just my thoughts. 


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/21/2017 at 4:48am
Originally posted by Lyle Lyle wrote:

Purists, are mostly in their own world. Recently went to a historical club inspection and the "purists" were talking about their cars, MP3 players hidden behind the dash, custom suspension components that judges would never even notice, hidden ignition systems, electric power steering (never seen that one), swapped parts from different years as they were better or parts available. All were making their cars the way they wanted so they could drive them and still enjoy them.
A "purest" after this experience, is someone who drives a classic car and a "historian" is another class all together.
Just my thoughts. 


If it were not for the historians here, nobody would keep me in check. Hehehehehehehehehe! Well I tend to buck the purists as you call them. As I like low tech over high tech. Not that one or the other is better. Low tech when done properly is just as so cool IMO, when in a world of technical marvel, and sometimes can be better, in overal looks and function when things go wrong. So being my purist self, i feel more comfortable with the mechanicals being a direct link to what is going on with the car, not the electronic feedback.

In fact the newer the car the less I feel in control, even though I may have better brakes, suspension, and steering. There is so much that takes away from a pure driving experience. Manual cars are less and less produced, unless you buy a sports car. Not that I can drive a stick, it is just to show how much is being automatic or assisted.

Gosh I have gone off on a tangent I never intended. Well there is always some underlying thoughts to decisions that make up the full equation. And yes, I admit there is nothing like driving a pure stock AMC, as it can bring back a memory or open up a new appreciation, or just down right scare you if a few generations younger.

One thing I try to make a point on, is my suspension mods work at making each component do its job without effecting the other. Thus so much change outside the box. Yes the AMC suspension works well for daily driving and some fun spirited driving in between, but beyond that requires a bit of change.

I love a factory clean look while keeping replacment costs, and the availabilty of replacent to easier on me in the long run,even though I am not using factory parts. Sure it has a wow factor, but bling is not my intention. Just sharing bits to allow others to use or find interesting, beyond the every day or what has been known to be done.

I could have been done long ago with this, as I started on just doing the rack and pinion upgrade and MKII spindles. From there I noticed more about the pitfalls a stock suspension has in performance. Like give a mouse a cookie, never ending cycle of one thing leads to another. I truly never planed, just put myself in a pit, and dug at the obstacles in my path.

Right now things look a bit of a mess, mostly because I don't mind modding, fitting and testing before the body and engine are clean and done, ready for assembly. So it may be hard for some to see past the mess, to understand my vision.

The odd thing that may make negative judgment about this topic, is that it can be considered a Frankinrambler topic. As it has hardly anything to do with a stock AMC suspension and steering, and way too much Ford going on. Ha!

Well I never intended to pull anyone's nose hairs, just add to the pot of what others have shared.



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: shootist
Date Posted: May/21/2017 at 8:52am
For anyone out there that has negative comments to say about modifying a car to improve it and make it their own. Perhaps you should think about enjoying the parts that you have available as a result of us modders/rodders. I can certainly appreciate the keep it stock and as original as possible for a museum piece or pure show car because it is really cool to see it as it was produced and makes for a very nice modern reference of what it was. But without the tinkers in the game the money dries up and so does the hobby. I find it strange that many of the purest crowd are so stick in the butt uptight and scoff at the hot rodding, modifying crowd when we do just the opposite and can appreciate their cars. Maybe I am missing something and there are some modders/rodders that have done just the same to the all original purest crowd. But either way....... be it purest or tinkerer.....

These are our cars! Get over it.

Excellent job on the mods 304-dude.


-------------


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/21/2017 at 10:09am
I never expected such a comment from amcenthusiast!  There is nothing "mis-engineered" with the Gen 1 V-8 either...but he has gone to great lengths to improve it (and done a remarkable job!).

Anyway... I'm not one for replacing things just because you can either, though I'm guilty of it myself. That's why I put a rack and pinion in my 63 Classic, just to see how hard it would be and if there was a great improvement. It was a lot of work, and I'd have the same improvement by using a quick ratio Saginaw PS box (I used a power rack). I had adapted a late model Saginaw box already. There is a bit of weight advantage with the R&P, but not enough to make it worth all the required work. As long as you have room for the PS box, it's much easier to use a QR version for better steering.

I don't like the "put a Mustang II suspension in it" crowd who do so just because it's "the thing to do".  There is no real advantage even over the older AMC trunnion suspension. So you don't have ball joints... big deal! The trunnion doesn't take more than about 3 degrees of caster (positive or negative), but that's the only limitation. You might pay a bit more for better brake options, but not nearly as much as replacing the suspension with a Mustang II! Now if you need side to side room for an engine swap the MII will work well enough, and you can get rid of the spring towers, but it's still a lot of work for a suspension system that is no better (and in some ways worse) than the original AMC suspension. If you're going to make an engineering change, do it for an improvement or because it's necessary (space requirements, maybe even parts availability... if replacement parts exceed cost of changing... hasn't done that yet!).


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/21/2017 at 10:27am
Thank you, as for some being negative or bent by modders actions with their cars... not so long ago I found a few AMC cars more readily available, most could be modded as they were already modded to begin with, or so far gone, it did not matter as long as they got it back on the road. For myself, I thought about how much work I wanted to do, and stuck to a plan. For many modders, they want to have a running car, just as much as a restorer. Low milage the better on the later. Now jump to today. My car would still be skipped by restorers and modders by it being so far gone but a great parts car. It takes more love and time to restore, and now the cost to do so becomes more of a financial burden. Unfortunately I have also seen better cars being parted out and scrapped since my work began, and feel disheartening as much as the restoration purists. We cannot save all the 6 cyl Javelins nor Hornet wagons, yet hope our voices make a difference in some way. Sometimes it is the passion that makes the words harsh, sometimes the lack of being listened to brings on aggravation.

Sometimes even I will look at a partially customised car and say to myself gee that would be excellent restored. But then I look at my car and say can't wait to get my mods done and running.

By the way... I like your modded ride, even though it is not restored. It still brings the days of seeing modified classics, mixed in with factory stock cars driven daily back when I was in high school. Though no pre 74 AMC ever parked in our lots. What it all comes down to is appreciation by the owner. To keep it as it once was off the assembly line or to daily drive it or make it their own weekend warrior.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: shootist
Date Posted: May/21/2017 at 12:21pm
Think about all the companies out there that make parts for people to customize the look and/or performance of a vehicle. None of them would exist without passionate people wanting to tweak their rides. This is no different than way back when. Hooker, Moon, Comp, Edelbrock, Crane, Isky, Lunati, Holley, Hughes, TCI, Sealed Power, Perfect Circle, Cloyes, Wiseco, Diamond, JRE, etc. etc. Just imagine a world without any of them and what it would mean to our hobby.

As long as you love what you have done that is all that should matter and hopefully others have enough kindness to not be a douche. The only acceptable WTF response would be one that is an obvious rig job which has an adverse effect on function where the stock configuration would outperform.




-------------


Posted By: jpnjim
Date Posted: May/22/2017 at 5:28pm
Originally posted by 304-dude 304-dude wrote:


In fact the newer the car the less I feel in control, even though I may have better brakes, suspension, and steering. There is so much that takes away from a pure driving experience. Manual cars are less and less produced, unless you buy a sports car. Not that I can drive a stick, it is just to show how much is being automatic or assisted.

There's a few left,
my daily driver is a dirt cheap pocket rocket (Fiesta ST),
easily the most balanced, nimble and connected car I've ever had.

On the latest rebuild of my own 71' I hope to sprinkle a little of that balance and nimble-ness into the "old car" by dropping the suspension a bit and running 17"s.
Even the plain Jane Ford Focus I had before the ST would out handle a stock Javelin, 
so I think the AMC can use a little help to back up its power and sporty looks.

I won't get too radical with it, but I follow your, and other Javelin suspension mod threads with great interest. Smile


-------------
71 P-code 4spd Javelin/AMX
some Jeeps and some Fords


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/23/2017 at 10:41am
Originally posted by jpnjim jpnjim wrote:


Originally posted by 304-dude 304-dude wrote:


In fact the newer the car the less I feel in control, even though I may have better brakes, suspension, and steering. There is so much that takes away from a pure driving experience. Manual cars are less and less produced, unless you buy a sports car. Not that I can drive a stick, it is just to show how much is being automatic or assisted.


There's a few left,
my daily driver is a dirt cheap pocket rocket (Fiesta ST),
easily the most balanced, nimble and connected car I've ever had.

On the latest rebuild of my own 71' I hope to sprinkle a little of that balance and nimble-ness into the "old car" by dropping the suspension a bit and running 17"s.
Even the plain Jane Ford Focus I had before the ST would out handle a stock Javelin, 
so I think the AMC can use a little help to back up its power and sporty looks.

I won't get too radical with it, but I follow your, and other Javelin suspension mod threads with great interest. Smile


Hi, well once you are in a smaller car, track setups are easier to do, mainly because of weight, and width to length ratio.

I chose to widen as it seems easy enough to do to make my track width help for such a long wheelbase.

Just adjusting the suspension to ride 2 inches lower helps a lot. The big thing is relocation of sway bar. It actually fights against the action of the strut rod. One thing wants to go one way and the other wants to go another. Thus the main reason for the TA Javelin having it relocated.

After a lot of thought into how to setup my rear. The Watts link is probably the second easiest to install, and the best in lateral control.

Even though Donohue played the Watts link setup down in comparison to the Pannard Bar, his reasoning was true for the day. Now with better tires, the Pannard Bar helps but is not as affective as the Watts link. The TA Javelin had to use Goodyear tires, Firestone proved it's track abilities well, and Donohue wanted them on his car. The tires back then we're not good enough to test deeper into handling. They quickly ran Into a brick wall, and we're able to live with it.

All the other radical mods are options to improve overall function. Just so happens that i chose the Mustang spindles and Mustang GT rack to start with, and worked out further options from there.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: shootist
Date Posted: May/23/2017 at 3:03pm
So how does the triangulated 4-link stack up to the watts link?


-------------


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/23/2017 at 4:26pm
Originally posted by shootist shootist wrote:

So how does the triangulated 4-link stack up to the watts link?


Hi, well that is not a good idea... because of the angled 4 link system binding will happen as it gets side loaded.

Technically a straight 3 link with a watts will work. Yep, most suspension setups do need some help in lateral support.

I was thinking of doing a truck arm suspension. Just too heavy, and needs a lot of work to the frame. If I had a good tube frame to use as a base point. That would be my option. But I want to keep my uni body for the most part intact.

Here is a pretty good link describing each rear suspension setup, good and bad. I borrowed some pix from it to show my options in rear mods.

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/rear-suspension-guide/" rel="nofollow - http://www.hotrod.com/articles/rear-suspension-guide/

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: shootist
Date Posted: May/27/2017 at 11:38am
Thank for the article it was helpful. It would seem that the weak area of the 4-link that they are referring to was more of the older stock style four links although they do mention that the race style of four link which uses Heim joints does not suffer nearly as much as the older stock with rubber bushings type. I was more interested in knowing if you have had an active comparison in driving the two different styles and if there was noticeable difference. There is of course the spend vs. return on investment. A watts link could be more costly to install and more difficult to dial in but would that benefit be significantly realized for the weekend racer? That is what I am not sure of. I am used to straight line go fast events and the dynamics of suspension setup are different.



-------------


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/27/2017 at 7:48pm
IMO the 4 link is more work with stock frame and needs dialed in for type of driving. A Watts link is cheap to make on your own. Easy to install and does not require much to setup for particular use. You can use softer springs and vary ride height without having to modify the installation mounting.

It is the most versatile addition to stabilising a rear suspension.

As for 4 link differences in ride quality and handling. Each car has its own differences in the way it handles, to be subjective on such facts requires the same car setup to be both ways with a 4 link. Obviously one has an advantage over the other in some aspects while the other can be more advantageous over the other, in other aspects.

I could dump big money in a 4 link, but with all things done in comparison, the Watts link will provide the best lateral control and allow for other stability options to function unaffected by the Watts link's operation.

I don't know why some say a Watts link is that hard to setup. Now the same article stated a torsion bar suspension is the tricky one to setup.

Basic geometry and knowing the link's required length to meet at axle's mounting points, the full travel of the suspension, along with set load height. My springs will be with a set load by cables, so when lifted the wheels will not drop more than an inch to match my front preloaded springs.

I may build like I am track ready, but it is multi purpose build. If I go full race, it makes daily driving not so fun on Illinois roads. Being set to ride differently than most AMC cars using a minimal approach is and always will be in my intentions.

I am sure one can do just about any setup and be happy, as the setup needs to be done for their needs, with their car. All my suspension mods are to work with at least 75% of the existing design. Some change by relocation, but for the most part, minor replacements or additions within how the original system functions.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: May/28/2017 at 11:48am
A Watt's link can be difficult to mount. You need a pivot point on the rear axle, as close to the center as practical so the two arms are close to the same length. That mounting pivot point and (room for it) is the only hard part. A well done Panhard rod work just as well for most, with only a little side to side movement, and much easier to fab and install.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/28/2017 at 3:24pm
There are two types... frame mounted is best and is used for track.

Trucks and DIY guys mount on the back of the axle or some fabbed mount on Ford pinion by use of a plate. All of which are weak and will allow flex or twist to some degree.

Here are some pix of truck setups, which I find inadequate for my use... many have short rods or are not parallel on the axle plane.





I chose to use a frame mount construction and incorporate it into the rear roll cage for added strength and ridgitity.

Pannard rod is not good enough for my use. Both track, street and strip. As i want no lateral movement what so ever to allow springs to work as springs, So I am able to use a softer rate spring setup for the rear.

I see no issue for my wide track truck rear. Which gives the longest and identical length rod configuration.

Once I get my frame set for the additional width and slider box for rear shackle elimination. I will start on my frame mounted Watts link measurements and set ride hieght to make for adjustment of the Watts link pivot location.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: May/30/2017 at 4:50pm
After some searching... I found a nice option to use on my v8 Mountaineer power steering pump flange. It cost me $10 and was easy peasy to remove from any VW with one. Yep it is a VW pulley. Ha!

There is one catch, it is not a perfect fit. Though the easiest to mod and fit without much trouble.

The center hole diameter is about 1 mm over bore to the Ford diameter. The bolt pattern is about 1 mm farther apart on the 3 bolt point pattern.

With a little filing to lightly elongate each of the 3 mounting holes will allow proper fitment. To make sure the pulley is centered, a thin wrap of aluminum can should keep things in place as I bolt it down.

This mod will allow for a 25% underdrive that will do just fine for a close Cobra pulley equivalent, without further mods or high priced originals.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/01/2017 at 3:01am
Updated my Modding Ford Power Steering section, which can be found on my index and will directly place you at the page when clicked.

The updated info starts midway down all the way to the end.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/27/2017 at 6:20am
Installing 69 GM Camaro and Nova clutch pedal assemby

I know this does not fit Into my thread, but some have noticed my clutch pedal assembly in earlier suspension and steering images. So I added this for reference because a few other requests for more info has come up.

This was started long ago when I was frequenting theamxperience.com. I had some interest by a few on it, but never got around to fully implement the pedal assembly, once I was able to setup the mounting. As long a I got the brake pedal connected the rest would need to be adjusted for the customisation.

Note, the 69 GM Camaro and Nova clutch assembly is held by a clip at the end of the shaft, not by the bolt to hold the collar of the AMC pedal assembly. Shown by unpainted outline.

I am using a nylon washer from an AMC electric washer pump kit. Had it as an extra. I shifted the clutch so it is as far left as possible, for my needs. If you want the arm closer to stock, move the nylon washer so it is on the brake side.





Since I am aligning the arms to best serve my needs, everything is fitted before a final change is made. That critical change requires grinding the welds to the brake foot and shifting the foot over 1 Inch to the center before welding into place. It places the brake pad near stock location for foot clearance to the gas pedal.



Because I am not cutting anything to align the brake arm to properly locate with the master cylinder apply rod. The clutch pin to apply rod will mount facing the brake and may need extending, by using a 1/2" longer thread hardened shoulder bolt with same shoulder length as stock. A nut and washer will be installed to allow the extending out from the clutch arm. The remaining threaded end is to be mounted as normal using a nut.





Though the bolt that holds the OEM brake assembly collar and brake switch is not installed, when pictured. I did install the switch to check that the arm does align to the switch pin perfectly. Any other brake pedal alignment, outside of what I have posted, for personal reasons, will require modification to the brake switch mounting to allow it to function.





To see how I shifted the pedals with a minor relocation of the brake pedal pad and trimming the brake side bushing nearly flush to the mounting frame, see my notes further down.

This was going to be my setup, shown further down. As you can see it places the brake foot closer without welding. It's pedal placement I find more suitable for my tastes. Some may like wider spaces between the pedals.

Also the clutch pivot pin is left as OEM equivalent. The draw back is metal on metal contact with outer diameter of brake and frame, as the brake arm pivot end is the same diameter as the hole. Though you will need to use a longer threaded pin, as explained earlier to allow connection to the apply rod for the brake. So the only good part of this is no cutting or welding is required.



With two bushings and how they are mounted can allow for various alignment strategies. Depending on ones needs, the options are not as closed as one may think. Just make the best option to allow less modification. For my case it may be more modification than most would want.

As for brake rod, it has two locations and places the pedal about stock height. Though for my body, the lower hole cannot be used. It is possible other bodies can use the lower hole.

Since I am replacing with a dual Ford Hydroboost units, I can use a custom rod sizes to lower the pedals a wee bit more to my taste.

The bronze bushings are not available locally anymore. The 5/8" ID x 7/8" OD x 3/4" will have to be ordered online. The odd thing is that the new bushing's fitment is way too snug, so be aware some bushings are not properly clearanced, like my old stock pieces.

Alignment Notes

If wanting the least amount of modification, and don't mind it being a bit dirty. My bottom image of pedal alignment with how the bushings are placed, can work with a welded extension pad on the brake arm to actuate the brake switch, and a longer pivot (shoulder bolt) for the brake actuating rod.

Brakes:

Because of brake arm offset, from bends and the pedal foot placement, the foot must be moved 1" to the center, by cutting the back welds and rewelding, for proper fit and function.

As long as the flanges on both bushings, are mounted from the inside of the frame, the brake arm will be properly centered for the brake switch, and the top hole will function with proper geometry, though user preference may require adjusted of the brake apply rod for pedal hieght.

Clutch:

Since this is not a factory setup It's function is limited to aftermarket hydraulic clutch components.

Here is what I am working on now for a hydraulic clutch master cylinder setup.

Since the GM master cylinder has a standard horizontal 3.4" bolt center for mounting, and being angled, finding one with a remote reservoir is needed. Mostly because of clearances and adjusting the angled mounting face, by rotation.

I am able to mount near a 45 degree rotation to the right, what is about the 10 o'clock position when facing it at the front of the engine. The upper mounting hole will share the mounting location for the steering column bracket to the firewall, used in 70 on up large bodies. The lower mounting hole will be down next to the firewall seem for body and frame.

A new hole will need to be drilled into the clutch pedal. Its location will be further down from the existing holes, about 1/4" above the start of the angled bend, used to offset the pedal away from the brake pedal.

The nice thing so far is no major mods, as if 70 GM clutch pedal and 95 hydraulic clutch master cylinder setups are practically bolt in and go.

Here is the specs on my GM clutch master cylinder.

95 Corsica/Beretta V6
USA/Canada made aluminum body, rebuildable



3.4" horizontal flange with 15 degree tilt
7/8" bore
5.5" to 7.25" adjustable rod
1.5" stroke (maybe even deeper) 2" bottomed
3/8" O-ringed line fitting with roll pin hold down

To make it work with clearances I chose to clock it's mounting position and fit in alignment with my GM clutch pedal location. Below is a template of the clutch master cylinder's foot print.



Note that the original un-punched clutch hole is offset about a 1.4" distance around 45 degrees below the new 1.4" clutch master cylinder hole, shown . The built in tilt angle and clocking will compensate for the odd offset, and keep proper clearances without need of spacers, rod lever, or brackets.

For manual clutch, you may be able to modify and use a 69 to 72 Camaro / Nova clutch linkage kit, which has Z arm and other components for an almost complete setup, depending on your skill level and transmission being used.

Or, if like me in mixing parts, you may be able to use a direct rod setup to function with an existing AMC clutch assembly. Seems AMC has some sort of canterlever setup on the pedal arm. GM cleans things up with a direct rod out the firewall. Though you need to know your AMC clutch setups and look Into 69 to 72 Camaro / Nova setups to see how things go in relation.

If using factory clutch location at the firewall, simple trimming of the clutch side bushing until rod placement fits without an angled bind through the fire wall seal. Assuming 1/2" to 9/16" roughly. I am guessing, as as I have no clutch to verify against how the clutch arm is in relation.

Also the pedal foot must be removed like the brake, to the far right and reinforced with a wedge of metal along the arm and foot, like the brake arm's existing feature.

Tweaking for a cleaner look:

Once the above is set, to make a cleaner look at the brake bushing end, you can trim the bushing to protrude 1/16" to 1/8" and have the clutch mounting shaft shortened and machined for the retaining clip.

My setup shown below, is to orient the brake pedal pad in proper location, for accelerator and clutch pedal clearance. All without modifing the clutch pad location (described earlier), or off-setting the pedal arm (already aligned to brake apply rod). All that's needed, is to trim the bushing so the clutch pedal arm can be offset further away and create necessary space for optional bracketry, and pedal pad placement.



Here is the shifted brake pedal location (located left in the image). Will temporarily set with JB Weld to keep alignment when welding.



Here is my setup partially installed but properly functioning as intended. Yes, It barely fits as if I knew what I was doing from the get go. HA!







If going for a sharper look, you will end up moving the pedals closer, so be careful as you may depress both pedals unknowingly. One option is to raise the clutch position so it is more obvious to feel in its location. Both bushings may be of equal depth after all the adjustments have been done. Plus no need for my nylon washer to take up the extra length of the shaft.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 5:54am
It's a bronze bushing, so a small round file or sandpaper drum on a Dremel or drill will loosen it up instead of splitting. What year range Camaro/Firebird pedals are you using?


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 6:28am
Hi farna, i am simplifying my mod further. Well to me it is simpler just to use the two bushings without modding bushings or cutting the brake pedal to align.

I had been jumping back and fourth with what I need and the needs of others who want more of a stock fit. Thus the complications of sorting my measurements and what needs to be done for stock fitment with rods and hole location.

I figured I can align the brake pedal and work on the clutch section independently for my needs. So it is less complicated for most installs.

The only big thing is removing the brake foot and welding it 1 Inch towards center. Needed for foot clearance for gas pedal and keeps the bushings as is.

I am in the middle of redoing my post and will have It updated soon. I think i still have time to delete it and repost with new info, so whoever has been watching will be forced the new info as it is posted as the latest ed date, not as past posting.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 7:40am
Ok, I updated the original post on the GM pedals. I will have to look up the year... I know they are for Camaro and other like bodied cars.

They are 69 Camaro and Nova pedals. Geezo, the price on them have risen, I guess the $30 dollar purchase I got on ebay from a private seller did me some good. He did not need them, and were un used. Just had to get the pads and trim separately. I think $50 was total cost at the time.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: RTTComanche17
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 11:57am
Originally posted by 304-dude 304-dude wrote:

The bronze bushings are not available locally anymore. The 5/8" ID x 7/8" OD x 3/4" will have to be ordered online. The odd thing is that the new bushing's fitment is way too snug, so be aware some bushings are not properly clearanced, like my old stock pieces.

You may know this, but just a note for everyone if you are buying bushings: Most bushings are listed at their nominal diameters like you listed above, but check the actual part specs and drawings if they have them. Generally there will be a few choices per nominal size. Meaning if you are looking for a 5/8" ID, they should carry them as a press fit -0.001" (0.624" ID) or as a clearance fit +0.001" (0.626" ID), depending on application. The same goes for the OD, and you can generally get varying degrees of press fit or clearance fit (+/- 0.0005 to +/- 0.003 or so) depending on application.

This may be the source of your fitment issues. But as said before, a bit of file or sandpaper work should do it if you don't want to try different bushings.




-------------
1967 Rambler American #1 - junkyard rescue parts car
1967 Rambler American #2 - project car, but it runs!...for now...


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/28/2017 at 12:07pm
Originally posted by RTTComanche17 RTTComanche17 wrote:



Originally posted by 304-dude 304-dude wrote:

The bronze bushings are not available locally anymore. The 5/8" ID x 7/8" OD x 3/4" will have to be ordered online. The odd thing is that the new bushing's fitment is way too snug, so be aware some bushings are not properly clearanced, like my old stock pieces.


You may know this, but just a note for everyone if you are buying bushings: Most bushings are listed at their nominal diameters like you listed above, but check the actual part specs and drawings if they have them. Generally there will be a few choices per nominal size. Meaning if you are looking for a 5/8" ID, they should carry them as a press fit -0.001" (0.624" ID) or as a clearance fit +0.001" (0.626" ID), depending on application. The same goes for the OD, and you can generally get varying degrees of press fit or clearance fit (+/- 0.0005 to +/- 0.003 or so) depending on application.

This may be the source of your fitment issues. But as said before, a bit of file or sandpaper work should do it if you don't want to try different bushings.





Ah, yes that Is a good point. My correctly fitting bushings are Hillman, the new one I picked up is unknown to me, and seems to be a press fit.

None the less I made a good correction in setting up with only two bushings, to allow the brake pedal a proper factory alignment for connection to rod and brake switch function. Just have to move the foot over an inch to be good.

If wanting more space between the pedals, you can move the clutch foot about 1/2" to keep the distance more like factory.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jun/29/2017 at 7:33am
Just updated and buttoned up my section on GM clutch pedal installation. I think there is nothing more to add by me for now at least. Unless someone likes to tinker and share their findings, or states a mistake in my part somewhere, consider it complete for now.

Since my intentions are beyond any transmission use, the application I chose has effected how one may look at how I implemented my setup. Well anywho, it works for me, and because there are some who do tinker and get things done creatively, I chose to share it like all my other bits n bobs.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/13/2017 at 3:34pm
Good news... Well sort of. Humidity and heat has been the life of me. As I am waiting and waiting... I got to mocking up further on the modded sway bar setup. A good while back I cut out a section from my AMC 20 cut off axle tube, from selling my center section.

I got around drilling a 1-1/8" diameter hole for welding a grounded taper on a large flanged tractor lug nut to be welded on both sides.

Then I needed to grind off some edge to wedge into the bottom side of the spring perch, under the tube for bushings. It will be welded in place and reinforced a wee bit by bridging from the custom adapter. It will be the base to center the leverage against the action of the suspension.

Since I am able to work within the radius of the way the perch underside is made, I can offset the angle to point out toward the wheel, to allow moisture drainage, as it is mounted in a concave fashion, and will allow better angle for when the spring compresses.

As the big bonus.... drum roll... no need to modify the stock or aftermarket front sway bar with my 1 inch outward and 1 inch back towards the firewall modded suspension humps. I never planed that the sway bar could align up so well just by a slight change to point that angle of deflection out towards the wheel, Instead of straight up.

Just that wee messing around got me feeling drained and sticky. So i save this for another day to pull the spring and spring perch for the customisation.

Will get around cleaning up all the mess about bending or modding the sway bar. And take some updated pictures of the sway bar mounting.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/26/2017 at 12:21pm
Stabilizing strut rod & lower control arm performance


Since the strut rod has three weaknesses, that make the strut rod temperamental and unreliable. Really does not do its job to stabilise the lower control arm under normal use, let alone performance use.

Here are the three weaknesses.

○ The threaded tapered end is flexed at the point of stress, make it weak under extremes and if rusted after time.

○ Flexable bushed pivot lacks stability with rubber bushings after time and under extreme conditions, which can allow binding against the ridged bracket which is to keep rod and bushings stable. Unfortunately rubber wears and will conform under pressure and create a memory condition, allowing oval elongation of alignment.

○ Geometry is effected by sway bar as suspension compresses. Too much force acting against the strut bar natural movement.

I covered how to modify sway bar to make it more effective and release the control arm's to function without forces working against them. So the 3rd weakness is not directly related to the strut bar mechanism it's self.

To relieve the top two issues, you can simply add reinforcements to assist with stabilising the strut rod. I will explain further with each small modification.

Since the strut rod only gets adjusted when bushings wear and alignment goes off on caster, one can assume for the most part caster is more static than the dynamics of wear, as long as the rubber bushings hold up. Well they don't unfortunately.

That brings up how to make the weakest part more robust and less problematic. Poly bushings, I know it puts people off, but it takes a bit of change to allow the poly bushings to work without effecting integrity.

Let's go backwards and go as we assemble each component from the very first nut. We all know the nut is not placed up against the very last thread. So why not add reinforcement and use that reinforcement to place the strut rod length at its optimum for your desired caster. This requires having all new bushings or spherical pivots and adjustments done proper, to measure where the nut is on the large washer to hold the bushing in place.

Once you have the length down, use a steel sleeve of 11/16" ID to assist with stress suppression. Then v cut and flare the end and wedge it onto the strut rod at the end of the taper. Measure the distance needed to cut and allow for lock nut and the adjusting nut to be set for final installation. Refit the sleeve and weld in place, then install the nuts tight against the sleeve. Now the large washer and bushing is ready to be installed.

Wait... not so fast. We need to do something important. Now to support and keep the strut rod centered in a flexible environment. I will choose a 35mm ball to fit inside the mounting bracket.


Below, I placed the Delrin ball about midway inside the mounting bracket's bushing alignment hole, for visual reference.



Note the casting line of the poly bushing is about its mid area. Fairly close to where the ball should fit at its radius.



Delrin seems to fit for no maintenance and added durability. Machining it to fit the poly bushing's steel sleeve through it's center, will not be such a difficult task. The steel sleeve will still be needed to install and place proper compression on the bushings.

Trouble is what to do to keep the ball in place? Ha!

The bloody bushings, ya ninny!

Yes, it's a floating pivot if not tight or within a Flexable environment. Since I chose to use poly bushings under compression, flex is very minimal.

Not done yet! Need to hollow out a dome out on the bushing to allow the 35mm delrin ball to fit within it's confines. Now do you see what we are making? A ball joint!

Here is my modified centering support for drilling near perfect ball cups into the poly bushings.



Since my strut rod bracket needed some rust repair done adding a few holes was not a problem. Ha!

My multi use aluminum plate is used to lightly compress the bushings under pressure, as to make a better fit when things are assembled. I will mount a plate and drill a 1/4" pilot hole to center the ball bit in place. It will assist the pilot bushing, which will be slid inside the poly bushing steel sleeve, in keeping the bit 90° as it bites into the poly bushing, for about 1/2" deep cut.

To drill a center hole in the Delrin, will wrap surgical tape around it and clamp it securely.

I will use a 11/16" OD 1/2" ID nylon bushing to use a a pilot guide for the bearing tipped ball cutter to keep centered while cutting the cup for the Delrin ball to seat. The nylon bushing will slide into the poly bushing's steel sleeve so no special alignment tool needs to be machined.











Now all we need to do is oversize by slotting the bushing hole.



Below you can see how I reshaped by rounding the edges of the flat side to face the washer. It dramatically improves pivot smoothness as well.




Once the mods to your poly bushings are done, the final assembly is done as you normally would.

Below is my almost completed poly bushing mod, still needs a few minor tweaks. All pictures are done without loosening compression nuts for adjustment by hand. Yes, it takes some force to move because of tightness, but does not fight against movement like all other replacement bushing materials.

Please note, the pictures were set by improper orientation of bracket assembly for better image clarity of components.





I am able to obtain 3 inches of unrestricted travel. Though I have not done as much for downward travel, since my suspension is set for 1.5" downward max. I do believe if I further elongate the bottom travel, I will obtain 4" of unrestricted travel. Along with 5" total up and down travel that has minor restriction at .500" above top and bottom sliding movement.

By rounding up the edges of the bushing to allow a better sliding action, the bushings stay in place better but I still recommend obtaining the metal bushing cups from the rubber bushings kit.

That's it! All buttoned up, it should be as sturdy as a mechanical pivot, but without the harsh feeling. Though it Is harsher than the old rubber bushed strut rod assembly.

Here is a more factory look install with Teflon washer.



The washer will need to be thinned a wee bit. Too thick to conform fully to the bevel of the steel washer, though it does conform some. Also it adds a wee too much pressure to the bushings, since it Is fairly thick.

The Teflon washer does a good job installed at the rear steel washer end as well. Once I thin them a out 1/2 their thickness, I can adjust the bushing fitment further. May need to thin the tops of the bushings a wee bit as well to make up for the Teflon washer's added thickness to the stack. As the steel sleeve is set for proper bushing preload.

Here is my improved factory strut rod mod... the threads and taper have been removed at the adjustment nut, by welding 1/2 of a strut rod bushing sleeve to alleviate flex strain at the unused threads near the taper. Doing this makes the rod stronger and eliminates bending and breakage.



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jul/27/2017 at 7:42am
Just a nit to pick... I wouldn't say the strut rod is weak or unreliable -- it's neither. Been proven for 50+ years in my car alone. It has some compromises, but all production products have to be a balance between performance and cost (not only of manufacturing, but of assembly time/complexity as well). So as a performance suspension it leaves a lot to be desired, but for it's intended purpose it's totally adequate. Maybe not much more than "adequate", but it does it's job well for a reasonable amount of time. In snow/salt country rusting can be an issue for anything, but kept clean or in areas where salt isn't used, rust isn't an issue. The rubber bushings wearing after 10-30 years, 100K+ miles isn't an issue of design, just maintenance.  Third party replacement parts or NOS replacement rubber that's sat on the shelf 20+ years isn't a reliability issue of the design, but a parts/maintenance issue.

So for serious performance, it's not the best. But even for that it's been reliable in near stock form -- Breedlove had to run it, as did Donohue...


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/27/2017 at 8:36am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

Just a nit to pick... I wouldn't say the strut rod is weak or unreliable -- it's neither. Been proven for 50+ years in my car alone. It has some compromises, but all production products have to be a balance between performance and cost (not only of manufacturing, but of assembly time/complexity as well). So as a performance suspension it leaves a lot to be desired, but for it's intended purpose it's totally adequate. Maybe not much more than "adequate", but it does it's job well for a reasonable amount of time. In snow/salt country rusting can be an issue for anything, but kept clean or in areas where salt isn't used, rust isn't an issue. The rubber bushings wearing after 10-30 years, 100K+ miles isn't an issue of design, just maintenance.  Third party replacement parts or NOS replacement rubber that's sat on the shelf 20+ years isn't a reliability issue of the design, but a parts/maintenance issue.

So for serious performance, it's not the best. But even for that it's been reliable in near stock form -- Breedlove had to run it, as did Donohue...


Hi, yes I started off a bit harsh on the strut rod. Mainly because in the 10 or so years watching posts off and on, seems that them strut rods now are being more problematic than ever. Age of bushings, and wear and tear rod and rusted away mounting bracket holes, over time and the effects of road salt conditions.

I expected from my mods to show performance more than practical use of components for most needs. The mod also is intended to be maintenance free for extreme conditions.

For a long time I have been expressing my thoughts on the aftermarket replacements, and finally decided to put my plan into action with what can be found readily available, and as a simple option to upgrade and still look close to a factory strut rod install.

As an update,

I ordered my teflon washers, 35mm Delrin balls, and 35mm half round cutter for cupping the poly bushings to fit snuggly around the Delrin balls.

Until I am able to setup and put the mod into action and post pictures, further info is added in this reply, on the slight variation and addition of teflon washers.

The ball should center perfectly within the mounting bracket. As the thickness of the bracket is plenty enough to keep the ball centered when forces drive against the ball as it rotates.

Since the ball is free floating, I will modify the way the poly bushings fit into the bracket. As each bushing has a deep locating ring to fit inside the mounting bracket hole for fitment of the strut bar.

The locating ring is as thick as it is deep, so it should allow a half round plunge cut to incase 94% of the Delrin ball once assembled, once the bushing retaining ring is cut down by 1/2 of its height, so that the retaining ring will still keep the bushing in place. Thus allowing pivot in and around the bushing with the Delrin ball and strut rod washers

Also by utilising an oversized tapered strut rod hole, pivot will be less restricted by bushing pressure around the shaft. Removing interference and counter interactions has been my primary goal with all suspension parts. By removing negative interactions, it puts less wear and tare on bushings in all areas.

Once the bushings are installed, the use of oversized teflon washers will act as a low friction substrate to allow the thick washer to slip around the poly bushings. Both inner and outer compressing washers will be cupped around the rounded ends of the poly bushings. Unconventional as it is, the whole assembly acts as a captive ball joint, with very little resistance to pivot, compared to any other OE bushing install.



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/27/2017 at 10:26am
One thing I forgot to add, mainly it is theory of operation.

Instead of the bushings being utilised as both a point of pivot and to locate strut rod securely. My method removes the bushings from the pivot equation. The bushings are to only serve as a means to locate both strut rod and ball securely.

The ball is to create a near perfect pivot point that does not shift under load, and should not create negative forces in its actions.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jul/27/2017 at 10:41pm
Sounds real interesting, and I think I have it pictured right in my head. Guess I'll see when you get far enough along for pics!


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/28/2017 at 8:03am
Farna, my concept had been tooling about in my head for a great deal of time. Though it was about trying to use some sort of spherical bearing and cup design that had me stumped. I wanted to isolate the pivot completely from the bushing, with a fully secured and robust side load. Then I thought about drilling out a ball joint, and using the upper and lower half to hold the ball in between the bracket. Trouble was hardened ball, or nylon cupped and finding the right diameter ball joint. An impossible job which kept me too focused on trying to use some sort of centered pivot, between the bracket's strut bar mounting hole. Going away from centering, was not a plan and was no better off than what is available.

Then it hit me to just trust the bushings to be hard enough to keep the ball centered. After a bit of thinking and searching for materials to survive harsh environment, and be durable as well, I figured why not machine out a cup for fitting around a ball and forget about a steel cup plate all together.

The more simplistic I kept my idea the more I realised the simplicity made it a worth while task without modification to the mounting bracket. Though the bushing kit is all one needs to modify. Only if Energy Suspension would have tried a test run on such a variance with how to use their poly bushings on AMC and Ford designed strut bars. It would help sell their product, as a real improvement.

After all I chose poly bushings for my mod intentions, just to keep the look fairly stock. Their big enough to hollow out and cover most anything that would fit in the bracket as a pivot.

The strut rod mod is for heavy duty use. The old rubber bushing's steel sleeve will come in handy for trimming and having it in place to keep stress off of the threads, and stiffen the bar where it is tapered. If anything that will be the give away to the strut rod assembly being modified. If one is good at it, they could weld the taper and machine smooth to make the rod look like a single solid piece, to be inconspicuous.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Jul/28/2017 at 5:07pm
Check out some of the 4WD parts places. There are some spherical joints made for extreme angle 4x4 suspension parts (four links and panhard rods) out there. Can't remember what website I saw them on, but sounds like what you're working on. No point in reinventing the wheel if you can find them ready to go...


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Jul/28/2017 at 5:36pm
Thanks for the info. Have been there with searches. Though I still have not been able to find a perfect option.

There is a setup for Mustangs that have a nice joint setup, but still shorten the strut rod pivot compared to OEM for AMC.

I have already ordered the main components, so if my test run does not pan out, I may be forced to look at further sites with custom spherical joints.

For the cost of my mod, it seems a worth while try. So we will see if it pans out as well as I expect.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/14/2017 at 8:23pm
In my other thread about finding info on changing out the AMC upper ball joint, I mentioned that a stumbled upon a thread on another site. Well, I also found some info about this thread. Which surprised me, and also made me feel irratated that peeps will point out my methods without directly asking me here. Giving the wrong info so to speak.

I thought I clearly stated I would gladly answer any questions, and hope peeps don't feel they will offend me by saying your doing it wrong. It's when they say it without knowing the design. It's not perfect yet, but until it get the wheels on the ground, and iron out any further adjustments, nothing is set in stone to how I am doing this setup. Though, it is 90% in the ball park.

I would have posted this long winded reply on the site in question, but I am not able to register. Does not like my email address or some thing. So hopefully they will get the word and use this site to ask questions, and not guess and assume.

To answer the question which ended up being a given assumption I am doing things wrong...

My answer is that they fail to notice that I changed the spring mounting to UCA. Since AMC has a tall spring perch, and Ford has a short one, by using a Ford purch, the UCA is 2 inches in the upper arc range under load without changing springs. Thus a drop without dropped spindles or spring rate change, or dropping plates. This type of drop changes a a lot of how the suspension functions under loads. Almost the complete opposite of how an AMC suspension functions under load.

I basically preloaded the suspension without adding a load to the springs, not just drop the height, which many drop kits don't do, unless you have a custom coil over setup.

Which puts camber at rest closer max camber when compressed, when already set at rest. Plus the LCA is moved close to its full extension (parallel to the ground), should keep camber more steady as it's arc travel will shorten it's distance between its pivot and track with upper arm.

The stock AMC arc will kick the camber out with the travel extending the lower arm out when it becomes parallel to the ground under compression.

I will not run more than 2 inches of travel, as I will be utilising packers in each shock, and limit travel when wheels are exerted from lift off the ground.

This will keep the suspension range between 0 and 2" travel at near steady camber. Have test with my spring removed to notice how lower arm and upper arm travel at the higher end of the arc.

In essence they are trying to make my mods fit into the AMC suspension setup that they are accustom to. I thought my explanations and pictures showed that this is not a true AMC suspension. It's a hybrid 50/50 AMC/Ford with mods to function for track.

Here is a copy from the site.

PseudoSport Dork Dec. 28, 2016 2:58 p.m.

So the guy is making a wide track Javelin by using a 65" wide f150 rear axle in the rear. To get the front to match he is using a 2" spacer and lengthened the lower control arm 1.120" Since he extended the lower arm he then had to move the upper arm an inch out as well. He also moved the upper mount 1" back towards the firewall to correct caster. I didn't read if he was also moving the upper mount down as well. If not then the camber curve and roll center will not be corrected.

I didn't see why he used Mustang II spindles but my guess is they lower the front 2"? They are also .70" shorter then stock which would make the camber curve worse.




-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Aug/15/2017 at 6:56am
Well, maybe he should have asked you about your plans more directly here, but he wasn't impolite in his post... or at least in the section you copied. Hopefully he will read your explanation, as it definitely changes perspective on what you're doing -- not just making the front suspension wider.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/15/2017 at 7:34am
Well I did not take it as being impolite, just the fact nobody bothered to question when stating they seen my thread, and were not sure.

It so happens I am so use to having to explain things that over explaining is not a bother. Just how much do I need to add to clearly show what I had hoped to share. Maybe too many words or the fact I use my thread to keep track in some way where I leave off. As most do some thing post and move on to another detail.

I am one to put a lot of ideas down and move from one completion before doing the next. Thus the big move with the suspension humps. Once I start it will be a mess if I don't have things right.

Now I have as recent thrown a change up once more, with my upper ball joint swap. Going from thinking about dropping the upper control arms 1 inch (cut rectangular sections and weld the mounting plates 180°), then returning back to using thr upper ball joint spacers, and back to eliminating the need for spacers with a ball joint swap. Which I will start on soon, once I figure out which manufacturer will be best as my choices are limited.

Though I have found that the short run (mid 90s) C5 Corvette upper ball joint to be a possible fit, but it only uses two elongated mounting holes. Funny thing is that they may align with the existing front two mounting holes on the UCA, and not require any physical mods done, outside of reaming the upright's upper arm to a 10° taper. Though I don't see any long pin versions, so a spacer will probably be needed. Geeze

Well any way, I hope word does make it about on the other forum, as to see some options that may help with their needs. Though my spring perch mod should help more with camber than using a drop plate, and get the proper drop with a purely stock suspension.

I hope to get my poly bushings and Delrin balls done for mounting soon. Have been waiting for a bushing to use as a pilot for the cupping of the poly bushings. Once I create the proper spherical cups, I can create a wood block ball holder to secure for drilling a perfect centered hole. Rather keep my ball cutting tool clean and sharp for the poly bushing 1st, and then cut on wood once done.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/30/2017 at 8:12am
Updated my Delrin ball poly bushing mod for the strut rod mod. More progress and pictures!

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post789352.html#789352" rel="nofollow - http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post789352.html#789352

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: farna
Date Posted: Aug/31/2017 at 6:04am
The updated post (use the link, or just go to page 8) clarifies things a lot! I think it is a great mode for performance use, but I'll keep my two piece rubber strut rod bushings for street use. The poly bushings sent a noticeable jar through the floor of my car every time I hit a pothole, even a smaller one. That's why I cut and welded the strut rods so they could be adjusted in front and use a late model two piece rubber bushing in the first place (early 60s cars don't have a nut in front to adjust, and the poly busing has to be trimmed down to fit). But for a road racer your solution is more elegant than any other I've seen, and looks pretty much stock at first glance. So now you need to make a modified bushing and Delrin ball available...  You might want to contact someone at Prothane with the idea, not sure you can get anything from them for the idea, since there is nothing patentable (at least I don't think so -- could be, but can cost a bit to find out), but worth a shot.


-------------
Frank Swygert


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/31/2017 at 7:39am
Originally posted by farna farna wrote:

The updated post (use the link, or just go to page 8) clarifies things a lot! I think it is a great mode for performance use, but I'll keep my two piece rubber strut rod bushings for street use. The poly bushings sent a noticeable jar through the floor of my car every time I hit a pothole, even a smaller one. That's why I cut and welded the strut rods so they could be adjusted in front and use a late model two piece rubber bushing in the first place (early 60s cars don't have a nut in front to adjust, and the poly busing has to be trimmed down to fit). But for a road racer your solution is more elegant than any other I've seen, and looks pretty much stock at first glance. So now you need to make a modified bushing and Delrin ball available...  You might want to contact someone at Prothane with the idea, not sure you can get anything from them for the idea, since there is nothing patentable (at least I don't think so -- could be, but can cost a bit to find out), but worth a shot.


Ah, never thought it would be something that wanted. Everyone seems to like tossing the strut rod assembly when performance suspensions are common. Plus, if it becomes more popular by cost and effectiveness, I bet there would be some negativity going on for competition. I guess I am not so ambitious as most, not that I am just too lazy to bother.

As for Delrin parts they are readily available, not sure if the manufacturer will so small batches under 10K peices with proper sized hole through the middle.

As for the bushings, gosh they are so easy to modify with my bracket setup. Would need to make a better setup for drill press for faster turn out.

Had one issue but I can always obtain another Delrin part. It had a air bubble offset from center. Since I hand drilled using small to larger sized bits through my bracketry to center and locate the ball under pressure, one of my bits hit air and pulled slightly off, and allowed for 1 mm deviation after large bits were used. Had to rat tail file it to Re center but it fits a wee loose. Good enough to test and all, but will Need to order another. May order extras as I have a feeling these are cast.

Here is another picture of the Delrin and steel sleeve fitted in the bushing.



Now all I have to do is elongate the bushings for travel and fit to measure proper distance for adjusting nut. Then cut the old rubber bushing sleeve to fit as a reinforcing and spacer sleeve to mount between the first nut the strut shaft, so only a washer will be added to adjust when bushings wear... If that.

As for street use, I know... but they should be a compromise over hiem and other spherical joint options.

May be able to change how harsh by reversing concave washer on its fitment. Will need to test that part on the road.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 343sharpstick
Date Posted: Aug/31/2017 at 8:35am
I love what your doing.
I just wish you could drive the car with your changes and see how it works, and start tuning and competing with it.


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/31/2017 at 8:57am
Thanks! I do too, though it is to be a daily driver, ever when I get to completing it.

Hind sight, I should have left my perfectly good running engine and tranny alone, so I could test each upgrade and feel happier knowing there are real improvements over just esthetics. There are some things that bug me, mainly using obvious non 70's brakes, wheels, alternator and engine accessories. Not that i wanted all factory components, just wanted to keep things in the period, or be sneaky with newer tech to be not so noticeable.

Oddly enough the engine compartment will give away too much of the details once you get looking around at new components.

I may post a light weight upper and lower control arm reinforcement mod, which is a variation to most other mods pertaining to strengthening. Since I have a few things needing welded up, that part will be added to my list. Unfortunately welding is something I can't do, at least for now.



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Aug/31/2017 at 9:08pm
Well, I did a wee test run with stiffness after some elongating the strut rod holes on the poly bushings.

Found a few wee issues. One is I may need to obtain a rubber bushing kit that includes the steel cups that fit between the bracket and bushing. It is to keep the poly bushings in place to lock against the bracket. Will end up trimming off the thin ring that was left from my modification, as the locating ring was sturdy enough before the modification.

Still will need to order Teflon washers, as the poly grabs the metal compression washers.

Also I may need to touch up the cups slightly as I did not use as much compression as I thought. So it is to allow just a wee less pressure against the ball.

All in all it did free up the stiffness when pivoted, and kept the rod in check to its proper angle of pivot. Floating pivot is no longer.

Also it works best with concave facing away from the bushings on both ends.

Though I think rounding the face a wee bit will assist with correcting enough to use the factory setup with concave flipped on one side only.

I will test further when I have time.

As a wee update... looks like a reshaping of the bushing face to the concave compression washer. Too bad the washer is not fully concave down to the hole. I cleaned up one washer and greased up the bushings face for the concave fitment against it. After a few movements of the rod by hand, it proved it needs the Teflon washers and the flat edge rounded. Looks like concave faced washers are the only way to go with this setup. It won't make it worse just keep things in proper function. Will also recommend using the metal seats for rubber bushings. Some kits have them others don't. Though I am not sure if there is enough clearance for the ball with them as of yet. May not be able to use them.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Sep/02/2017 at 5:49am
Almost done... more updates near the end of my page entry, to my Delrin poly bushing mod. With very good results.

Please note, the pictures were set by improper orientation of bracket assembly for better image clarity of components.

http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post789352.html#789352" rel="nofollow - http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic53345_post789352.html#789352

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Nov/21/2017 at 7:35pm
Modding SN95 Hydroboost, Braking and Steering


Parts used: (98-04 can be used)

95 Corsica hydraulic clutch (aluminum body with Russell fitting)
96 Police Caprice / Impala SS - GM big bore front calipers (Mounted - Rear)
2001-2004 Mustang GT front rotors (Mounted - rear)
2011-2014 S197 Mustang standard 13" dual piston floater calipers (Mounted front)
2015 up S550 Mustang standard 14" front rotors up front

If using a V8 Explorer pump use the line below.
07 F350 V10 Super Duty - Pump to Hydroboost - 39.25" hydraulic line (Edelmann 80440) May have to bend the pump fitting a wee more to fit.

If using Mustang GT pump use line below, may be a wee long, and it's the only line with a proper fitting for the pump.
00 Mustang GT - Pump to Hydroboost - 57" Hydraulic line (Edelmann 91974)

00 Mustang V6 - Hydroboost to R&P - hydraulic line (Edelmann 91986)
Less costly, and fits for the custom application in our cars.
02 F150 Master Cylinder Reservoir
04 Mustang GT/Cobra - Hydroboost unit
15 E350 SD - Remote power steering reservoir (3 port)
Additional reference for completing a full Ford setup: http://theamcforum.com/forum/topic81537_post730690.html#730690" rel="nofollow -


Removing Pedal Apply Rod:

Once the rubber boot is removed, cut off the staked section flush with a Dremel tool or hack saw, so that the cup for the ball end of the rod has a smooth and equally formed side wall. The cut off area should be a ring almost as wide as the remaining cup.

Once done, the actuating rod will fall out of the apply piston's cup. Clean up the cut edges so that your original apply rod fits smoothly.


Modding original brake apply rod




I cut down the rod so it is 7/8" longer than the factory Mustang rod (About 2-3/8" from eye inner radius to tip), which makes the replacement about 3-1/4" long from tip to Inner radius of the eye. Once cut, rounding for fitment and verification of pedal placement and clearance will need to be done. The stock brake pedal and my GM pedal both are just above to a 2:1 ratio on the apply rod. So, about 1" apply rod travel is close to 2.1250" of pedal travel.


Brake Line Connections:

I will leave ports alone and lines setup like stock 04 Mustang setup, minus the proportioning valve.

The hydraulic clutch master cylinder will engage the secondary front disc calipers independently if the brake pedal is not engaged, else will work as a slave to the brake pedal as one engagement.

An in line brake bias valve on the rear brake line, and a few other brake hardware enhancements will be used as things are tied into place.


Brake Fluid Reservoir Mods:

Easy mod on any Ford master cylinder reservoir. Cut off the wee tabs that are 180° apart located inside the fill neck. They are to keep the float body in place when upside down. Once removed the barrel float body will drop out. Will make access for cleaning out much easier. For me it will allow for more capacity to leave it out. I made even more capacity by cutting out the float cylinder top half. A heated Exacto knife cuts it out in 1/4 sections.

I also removed the low fluid sensor switch at the bottom, since it is not used.

The parts I removed for modification are shown below.



This is the inside of fill chamber, with the low fluid float and the upper half of the cylinder removed.



Notice there are many chambers to keep fluid from sloshing about and sending false signals by the sensor. Opening up the sensor area can assist in allowing more fluid reserve, and quicker response to the demands of the braking system in track use.

Swapping reservoir can be done with reservoirs that have the same spacing for the mounting nipples. Trouble is diameter. The SN95 V8 version has small diameter inlets to the master cylinder. While truck and vans get larger diameter inlets. I obtained a late Bronco reservoir shown below.



Notice that the Bronco reservoir is wider, even though it is about as tall.

Here is the under side. Notice the diameter of the nipples. The Mustang is about 10mm ID, and the Bronco is about 12mm ID.



I will braze a 3/4" washer on each of the 2 brass 3/4" PEX to female 3/4" NPT fittings. The washer at the NTP end will act as a seating base for the truck reservoir grommet. This mod will do just fine for a simple adapter without the need of modding any of the components for fitment.




Master Cylinder Mods:

Found I will have to take the master cylinder off and disassemble, to modify the rear brake to function like the front brake section.

The reservoir port is an area of needed change in function, so enlargement of the fluid feed hole for the rear port is required. Notice that the front brake bleed has a pin to keep the assembly in place when the C-clip is removed. These master cylinder bodies are used in just about every model car and truck for the years produced, some have a bleed hole for the rear brake pressure. After further review, the pin is a semi loose fit, so I guess the wee bleed hole is to equalise the differences between the pressure lost by the diameter of the semi loose fitting pin.

Here is a picture of the internal components and pin.



Note: I am going with minimal mods to the master cylinder, since they can be very effective in allowing large bore disc brakes to function on the rear wheels along with dual caliper fronts. I have reversed the seal (OEM placement, has a seal not facing forward in the bore) on the front piston so pressure from the larger throw for the rear piston will bleed into the front, to equalise some of the differences in displacement during engagement. What I am doing is removing most of the delay in independent function. As long as I keep the springs in place there will be some independent action between the front and rear pistons. Having rear engagement be quickly applied for stock purposes, will defeat some of the requirements of large disc calipers at the rear.

Here are the two feed ports of the master cylinder. To the right notice the pin in place, and the differences between the feed holes between the two ports.



For now, if repairing a limited run master cylinder on late model cars, is not so easy, as seals are not being available to parts sources. If keeping factory correct with markings and such, buying a rebuilt unit with a lifetime warranty for swapping seals would be your only option for now.

This is a low milage 04 Mustang GT/Cobra master cylinder, so everything should be like new inside. A tare down will verify and allow for cleanliness, especially when using a used item.


Hydroboost Mounting:

I got around installing the Hydroboost to the firewall as a direct fit through the factory hole for the OEM master cylinder. To mount, you must remove the brake booster, master cylinder nuts on the right side (engine bay), and remove the studs from under the dash and reverse the installation of the stud assembly and mount from the engine side and from the dash install the nuts. Then install the Hydroboost and use the large lock nut from under the dash.

Here is the bugger that needs to be remounted on the engine side of the firewall.



After further inspection, you must grind a radius in the center of the long side edge facing the Hydroboost unit. If you don't, the Hydroboost will install crooked.

Below are pictures of clearance and looks. You will need to replace the Mustang reservoir with an Explorer / Ranger reservoir, since the Hydroboost is level not tilted up by the mounting on a Mustang.





The nice thing is no mods needed to mount, and you save time and money with a custom modders adapter plate.

For some, they may not find it fun to install or remove, as it requires dropping the steering column and pedal assembly. Which may require dash removal. This is because of the large locking retaining nut and it's clearance between the pedal and steering column mounting bracket. Since I am building a car from the ground up, this is not an issue. May look into modding the locking mounting nut, by welding on an extension to the nut, if clearances allow.


Pictures and further information to come.

-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Nov/24/2017 at 9:24am
I have updated my changes, and cleaned up a few errors, along with some assumptions on my recent entry. Since many views have been done since I first posted yesterday.

After a bit of looking at ratios, volume and function of the pistons on the Ford and Chevy master cylinder's, I realised simple mods 1st and if need be, some changes can be done to sort out any issues.

At least the layout is coming along and easy to follow.



-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Nov/30/2017 at 7:45pm
To give an idea of what is going on so far... 2-1/4" between springs and rim edge, though the springs are about 1" further out than stock, for my mods with rear mounting, thus he ability to use 10" wide 2015 Mustang GT wheels, but... there will be some mods needed to the sheet metal as expected.

One is removal of the trim lip and rolling the contour of the wheel opening out at the top inch or so, just enough for clearance for maximum wheel travel. Then finish it off with blending the body to fill in the gaps at the lower front and rear for that 70's fat Vette look. It Is a wee more flair than I expected, but I forgot I moved the spring pads out so much to compare fit with body. I put too much into clearance when selecting, so this issue was a given once that had settled in my brain.

I assume the same changes will be for the front fenders as well.

The picture below shows how far I have with the rim edge and body, though it is off from viewed angle, so the wheel looks to protrude more than what it is. The rim will rub the lip for the trim, but it will require another 1.2500" more bulge for covering the tire without rub. I can deal with that, just expecting anymore, would be less than desired for my setup.



12" rear discs look a wee small now. Ha!



2-1/4" free clearance for tires. Yes i used trailer spring plates and U-bolts. Wanted the most secure and stout setup possible for maximum stability the plates are so much bigger that they flatten put the spring arc when clamped down.



For cheap wheels they are well packaged, never had low to mid priced new wheels shipped so well. Removed the plastic they were bagged in, to show the soft fiber liner and nylon snap on lip protector. The only cheap part of the packaging is the box. Either double box or use a heavier box, and it would be considered a premium wheel. These boxes tear easy at the handle holes.

Wheel construction seems better than expected. Knowing they are pressure molded and heat treated before finishing, but it seems the paint is powder coated. Or something like it, as it seems to be bonded to the aluminum. Thin but durable. I purposely rolled the edge at the back lip on the cement, and it did not scratch up like the factory Ford Racing wheels I had. The whole wheel was done in matte black, and the face was machined in the final process.





-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: tomj
Date Posted: Nov/30/2017 at 10:47pm
Originally posted by 304-dude 304-dude wrote:


Still will need to order Teflon washers, as the poly grabs the metal compression washers.

i have some surplus teflon sheet, about 1/8" thick, and make washers from it with a hole saw. big hole saw first (OD) then small hole saw or Greenlee punch for the center (ID).

did the same with some Micarta sheet for suspension spacers.



-------------
1960 Rambler Super two-door wagon, OHV auto
1961 Roadster American, 195.6 OHV, T5
http://www.ramblerLore.com



Posted By: 304-dude
Date Posted: Dec/01/2017 at 4:06am
S197/S550 Braking, WTF!


After contemplating my choice of wheels, and looking at the open gap between rotor and the wheel opening between the spokes, I had to think a bit. Now that I am done with my thoughts... Drum roll!

Yep, S197/S550 brakes. Tada!

No images as of yet, just a plan in the works. I will dump my Ford Explorer 4x4 12" rotors mounted in the rear, and replace wity my SN95 Mustang GT 13" front rotors, making almost an equivalent of the standard S550 rear disc diameter. Replacing the fronts with the stock Mustang GT (S550) or 2010-2012 GT500 (S197) 14" front rotors. With my 18" Heritage knock offs wheels, the brakes will look like the S550 big brake rotor size, with scaled down fitment.

The bonus is that I can still run 17" rims with s550 rotors with a proper bracket, while any Mustang 15" rotor will limit me to 18" as my smallest rim size. I see no real benefit moving to a 15" rotor with an 18" wheel. You will see why as you read further.

There are a few S197 guys already doing this with great results. Though I am going further with my customisation with my caliper setup. I will be using dual piston Mustang GT (S197) calipers on a custom mounting plate.

One may ask, why not use 2014 on up Ford F150 front calipers. They a bigger than any Mustang 2 piston caliper and look stock.  After looking into the pad size, there is only 1" (length wise) more pad, and being a bigger caliper, it is heavier. Even with the bigger modified cooling slots on the caliper, and the open area to cool the rotors is also reduced. My dual caliper setup is built around a balance of cooling and added braking. Dual F150 calipers would not bring any benefit.

The reason why I am mounting two smaller dual piston calipers instead of a single large 6 piston Brembo caliper, is that two calipers have more surface area to hold against than one large racing type caliper. 6 piston pad surface area is about 180mm X 60mm while total combined surface area is 220mm X 52mm when freshly installed and increases to 245mm x 52mm after worn in. So they get a wee more grippy after time.

Since Hawk only makes one good Carbon Metallic for track, but it is noisy on the street, I am lucky enough to have Performance Friction Z rated pads available. They are quiet and also have a bonded pad to the metal backing, unlike other brands, they will not separate under extreme conditions. Plus if I use what works well with one caliper, doubling it up may make street driving touchy, if using track pads.

From what I have seen, 6 piston Brembo pads are about 50% to 40% bigger than the 2 piston floating caliper pad. Doubling the calipers makes the combined setup 20% to 30% bigger than the Brembo pad. Also many of the manufacturers that make pads, are becoming strictly ceramic based, or carbon / ceramic. Very few are still producing carbon metallic pads, which brings me to a lot of thinking of the disadvantages of the factory Ford caliper. I did not want to be stuck in ceramic land, as there are top notch carbon metallic pads for both race and street still being made, just few are producing them for stock Mustang brakes.

Why so?  Because peeps hate brake dust, and big money is being made on ceramics because of the hyped status they bring.

Here are pad size diagrams to compare with. Top is Brembo 4 piston, 2nd is Ford F150 dual piston,  3rd is 2014 Mustang GT dual piston, and last is 2015 6 piston Brembo. 







Donohue wanted the dual calipers to work back in the day, but the materials and brake designs were limited on such brakes. Now, having carbon metallic, and ceramics readily available, with better lines and fluid, such brake fires are not the issue anymore.

The only issue is weight... Instead of the 15" front and 14" rear big brakes used on S550 Brembo brake package Mustangs, my 14" front (2010-2012 GT350/500) and 13" rear (SN95 Mustang GT/Cobra Front) rotor setup will place less rotational mass on the wheels. So there will be a wee advantage over the larger rotor setup. As an added note... A 14" rotor is about 29 lbs, while the 15" rotor is about 33 lbs. A Brembo hat style is about 30 lbs, though there is more rotational mass, due to most of the weight is extened outward by the rotor's added diameter.

Centripetal force magnifies rotational counter forces, as mass is extended away from its axis. Also balancing becomes a part of the force as well. The further out the mass the more energy it takes to rotate, and stop while it is rotating. Some advantages wash out because of how much mass is displaced away from center. I rather have 13" brakes but wheel size dictates the need to add stopping power.

If I wanted light weight and excellent stopping, I would modify 60's big body Buick drums (12" x 2-1/2" finned aluminum castings with steel inserts. It would be a head scratcher, but more effective than big buck, big break packages being sold today.

Outside of weight comparisons, the pads on dual and single piston calipers are limited to about 50mm in thickness between inner and outer edge of the pad. All 4 piston and above calipers push the width up to 65mm, which makes for creating more heat for the extra stopping power.  Example, the narrower 2 piston pads have its surface area directed at the outer portion of the rotor than inner, to keep heat from saturating near the spindle. Also as a benefit of keeping more meat clamping at the top of the rotor, is like using a breaker bar to crack a nut over that of a small wrench. Thus why 15" rotors are more effective than 13", but as a negative side, 15" rotors have much more mass for the caliper act upon when stopping, and create a wee more heat because of the wasted energy in stopping it's rotation. Though, to measure would be negated by heat sinking effect of the extra mass, and would need more frequent durations than just a single duration, in testing. 

With the dual calipers (around 5 lbs each freshly loaded) being 180° apart, the effects of heat from friction and air cooling are evenly distributed across both sides of the rotor. Also it has a leg up on the coolness factor over a single big brake hiding behind the wheel.  

Took me forever and a day to finally make a decision which brake packages to mix... like most of my work. Though it's been a waiting game for Ford to move along with brakes, since starting collecting parts for my build back in 2004.

I get set and reset my mind set at times, and because I am not on a schedule. I have the luxury, if you can call it that, to get carried away with allot of mixed ideas. Nobody really wants to read my mind, even I don't!


S550 rotor design

Until I get my rotors, here is an image of features that may be available in the latest design.



Notice the vein ventilation is now up front of the disc. Porche, VW, Audi and other performance cars have this feature.

Also the vein design is multi directional, and is found on late sporty Cadillac among other newer cars, and allows for a lighter and more efficient design.

I have looked at may different specs on OEM spec replacements, and find varying details, mostly with weight. I assumed rotor diameter was fudged. So I looked at diameters, and found it is hard to find any that are true 14" or 355mm in diameter. Some are 352.5 roughly and others are very close, ranging from 354.5mm to 355mm.

Also I found and oddity, some have rear ventilation for the veins. Which is older design.

Now for my mock up with S550 rotor and S197 calipers. It can be done, but a wee modification is needed. The anti rattle plates need to be tossed, and depending on how thick the pads are, the pistons will need to be shaved where they meet the steel backing to the pads. There is plenty of the cup protruding from the rubber boot, to allow such shaving. It does not need much, and will check with the pads I choose to run.



Yep that rotor weighs 30lbs, 1.250" thick and is 14" not 13.86" so I get the full benefit of heat sinking and rigidity.

Beware, many are pushing performance coated rotors, and also stating cross drilled and slotted rotors are performance specific. Which is a bunch of hoey. So a plain disc will perform just as good as any that is of same size and build quality.

Here is another thing to keep straight... stationary calipers require floating rotors when diameter sizes go beyond 13". Many two piece rotors for stationary or multi piston calipers, are not floater types. Even though they work good on floating calipers, they do not adjust to heat ranges and demands for apply pressure. Seems that something must float, either the caliper or rotor, when using large brake package.


-------------
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads
NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons
78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low
50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension
79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles
Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker


Posted By: billd
Date Posted: Dec/01/2017 at 7:17am
Originally posted by tomj tomj wrote:

Originally posted by 304-dude 304-dude wrote:


Still will need to order Teflon washers, as the poly grabs the metal compression washers.

i have some surplus teflon sheet, about 1/8" thick, and make washers from it with a hole saw. big hole saw first (OD) then small hole saw or Greenlee punch for the center (ID).

did the same with some Micarta sheet for suspension spacers.

That's where having a fully-equipped wood shop upstairs can be an advantage - I can work with almost any material, from pine to oak to maple to plexiglas to laminate to teflon chunks or sheets to brass, zinc (I cut my zinc bars on the table saw- sliced them to the thickness I needed for use with plating) aluminum stock, whatever. I have a good variety of blades for the band saw and scroll saw, multiple hole saws including an adjustable size hole saw, various sanders - disk and belt, etc.
I often have to clean up almost as many metal or plastic shavings and dusts as I do wood. 


-------------


http://theamcpages.com" rel="nofollow - http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com" rel="nofollow - http://antique-engines.com



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net