Road / Track Suspension Discussion |
Post Reply | Page <1 11121314> |
Author | ||
72FordGTS
Admin Group GTS.org Admin Joined: 06-September-2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 5802 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
To my knowledge I have never heard or seen anyone on here do it. I think it's possible, but I tend to thing the upper mounts may need to be reinforced somewhat. I mean, they should be somewhat strong, since airshocks will support the back end of a heavy wagon.
John, if you do some of these mods, please share some pics of the upgrades. I think for our cars you may be charting in some new water.
|
||
Vince
1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car GTS.org Admin |
||
BackInBlack
Senior Member Joined: 11-January-2011 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'm debating if its worth doing...
By the time I buy multiple springs, tuning, trying different setups I'll probably ending up spending the same or more than just putting coil-overs on. Coil-overs will allow setting up the ride height without shimming and jack screws, etc. Its the value proposition; time vs money. ON the front I can weld in reinforcement. I can see clearly how to set it up. The rear is a different story. I've seen most just install a truck arm or 4 link setup with coil-overs. I haven't seen anyone try to modify the stock setup and adapt it. Planning for the next step of mods; suspension and brakes. Now that I've finished with the 5speed, exhaust. Will post more on that on my project page soon. |
||
-John
1973 GTS |
||
BackInBlack
Senior Member Joined: 11-January-2011 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Figured out the upper mounts aren't strong enough to support the weight. Would need to do mods like in this kit for the chevelle.
http://www.globalwest.net/rear-coilover-kit-1964-1965-1966-chevelle-gto-442-skylark-a-body-global-west.html I'm gonna wait until I get the other high priority stuff done. I think this can be done without taking the body off. |
||
-John
1973 GTS |
||
72FordGTS
Admin Group GTS.org Admin Joined: 06-September-2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 5802 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I kind of figured they'd need to be reinforced. That setup from Global West is pretty nice. I have used some of their stuff in the past, good quality and great company to deal with. Too bad they don't do anything for our cars. After seeing what they do on this Chevelle, I am sure that it wouldn't take too much work to fab something like this for a Torino if one has the skills and tools to do so. To pay for a one off might be pretty outrageous. I have always liked the idea of coil overs for the ultimate in adjustability. Running them at all four corners would be a nice setup. I think it's going to come down to how far you want to take this car and what you ultimate goal is. I think it comes to a point where you are going to spend a heck of a lot of cash and time to get that final small incremental improvement.
Edited by 72FordGTS - 13-October-2017 at 2:29PM |
||
Vince
1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car GTS.org Admin |
||
BackInBlack
Senior Member Joined: 11-January-2011 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That's why I'm gonna wait on rear coilovers. I would probably buy the chevelle kit from global west then modify it for the torino.
It's prolly the easiest way to put coilovers on. I'm mainly interested in it for ride height adjustability. Edited by BackInBlack - 14-October-2017 at 12:38AM |
||
-John
1973 GTS |
||
Don V.
Member Joined: 07-July-2017 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 174 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you're mainly interested in ride height bags are easier and less expensive. Shocks are a static component used to improve ride comfort. Coil overs that aren't glorified shocks are an active component of a suspension with no real concern to ride comfort. Coil overs are all about Center of Mass and Center of Mass Height. Shocks have nothing to do with this. Using a shocks location for convenience of installing coil overs is potentially dangerous. I'm sure you don't want an essay or lecture so I suggest you invest in an inexpensive chassis set-up program which will help you locate where they should go. I can pretty much guarantee they will be located inboard of the shock location. Bear in mind the problem with what you are considering isn't so much what the coil overs themselves may or may not do but how they will effect the rest of your suspension. Do you know the weight of the car at every tire? Do you know the spring or roll rate and frequency? This may seem over the top but it won't when you have 3 more people in the car with you and you go over some RR tracks 5 MPH too fast for the suspension set-up and you lose 70% of your steering because it's floating. Just something to think about.
Edited by Don V. - 14-October-2017 at 5:40AM |
||
BackInBlack
Senior Member Joined: 11-January-2011 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I do have suspension software to verify setups. I agree the shock mounts are inadequate to support the suspension without modifications. I look to Chevelle aftermarket parts for ideas how I may modify the car since chevelle is very similar to the torino.
The global west setup looked simple to build as compared to completely cutting off the rear rails and grafting on something like a art Morrison rear clip. The mods in the gw kit spreads the load at the mounts and reinforces the mounts (the upper in particular). I was trying to find out if anyone did these mods because I prefer to not reinvent the wheel. I was mainly working through the trades pros/cons to determine if I should go through the effort since my car is torn apart right now. The value of coilovers is adjustability. This conversioncan be done at a later date without lifting the body off. I am lowering the car and making some minor improvents while keeping it streetable. I'm checking the mods with the software and checking aftermarket kits for a point of reference. The mods I'm making are reversable. Edited by BackInBlack - 15-October-2017 at 1:00AM |
||
-John
1973 GTS |
||
Don V.
Member Joined: 07-July-2017 Location: Michigan Status: Offline Points: 174 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
BackinBlack,
Normally I would keep my, fingers here, shut but you did ask. I'm confused about what it is you want to do. The last I responded to you said you were after ride height. Now you mention adjustability. I believe you mentioned a 4 link. It's a lot of disparate information that's not tied together with a common goal. I recently had a thread about 8.8 and 9 inch rear ends. I don't need or necessarily want a 9" but my consideration wasn't about me. My concern was strictly about the perception of others to using an 8.8 when I could have gone with a 9". I feel your in the same place with your reasons with the coilovers. If you are really after the functionality of coilovers you need to start with the suspension of the Chevelle. If you plan to keep the leaf or coil springs currently on car then you're not really after coilover functionality. Each one defeats the purpose of the other. Shocks have little to nothing to do with this. And again, there are coilovers and then there are coilovers. Price is usually a fair indicator of which one you are after. If your looking at glorified shocks then you will need to keep the current suspension and forget about a rear frame kit. If you really want the benefits of tuning your suspension, that's what the adjustability is, to your needs then you will probably have to use a frame kit. I'm not familiar with the Chevelle but I imagine the current frame is at least 10 to 15% too wide on each side for maximum use of coilovers. Your goal is to keep the cars center of gravity, which moves with the motion of the suspension, as close to the cars center of mass, which doesn't move, to maximize stability. Most factory frames are built for comfort and maximizing suspension\chassis abilities is barely considered. If you have plans to use the car in competition than the classes you are looking at will have rules for front to back and left to right weight distribution which determines the cars COG and COM that you have to work with. Since you have suspension software I assume you are aware of how easy it is to f-up a car's suspension. It's not hard to turn a car into a death trap. That's a reality so it's not over the top to say it. Whatever you decide to do it will fall on a line somewhere from "The Cool Factor," to "Maximizing Car Performance." Both extremes are equally justifiable and worth pursuing. You need to first define what you're after and confront the elephant in the room of how much are you willing to spend. The truck I'm working on right now is limited by cash. I can't do everything I want to between the engine, suspension and body. Something has to give. A final thought to bear in mind is the closer you get to maximizing your suspension the less forgiveness there is going to be. There is only so much to give and the closer you get to the limit the less there is that's correctable. More often then not in racing when there is an accident it has nothing to do with reaction time. The car was in a position that just couldn't be corrected from. I'm not familiar with Art Morrison but Competition Engineering and most companies will put together whatever it is you want. Make the calls and tell them what you want. |
||
papadeath
Senior Member Joined: 08-December-2011 Location: Eagle Rock, CA Status: Offline Points: 498 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
The way I look at it, all this stuff is relative when the main problem with these cars is weight. I've managed to shave off close to 1000 lbs off my 75 chero and it handles far better than it did, but that's also with polyurethane everywhere, Lyn shocks, stuffer front and lowered front springs and bigger rear seat bar, but I'm also looking for stiffer and lower rear springs. All this is with a 429 with some aluminum there. Fiberglass hood and fenders would be optimal but they don't seem to be available for the 75s. And those doors...
|
||
75 Ranchero in progress
04 Harley Deuce stage one kit 89 Toyota pickup modded 09 Scion XB (bought for the ol' lady) buy American! (sorry) skateboard 4 bicycles 1 scooter 2 dogs 2 stupid cats |
||
papadeath
Senior Member Joined: 08-December-2011 Location: Eagle Rock, CA Status: Offline Points: 498 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Lots of words misspelled thanks to auto correct, don't quote me, lol.
|
||
75 Ranchero in progress
04 Harley Deuce stage one kit 89 Toyota pickup modded 09 Scion XB (bought for the ol' lady) buy American! (sorry) skateboard 4 bicycles 1 scooter 2 dogs 2 stupid cats |
||
californiajohnny
Moderator Group Joined: 05-October-2013 Location: winlock, wa Status: Offline Points: 14606 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
if you shaved a thousand lbs of your ranch, that's pretty good
yeah i'm thinking about having the machine shop bend up some 3/16" aluminum for my front and rear bumper supports that will save some serious weight! IIRC the rear one by itself is 87lbs!!! |
||
JOHN
74 GRAN TORINO S&H CLONE 74 VETTE CUSTOM 90 S10 BLAZER 4X4 LIFTED 77 CELICA CUSTOM 75 V8 MONZA SUPERCHARGED 79 COURIER VERT. SLAMMED 75 VEGA V6 5 SPD 70 CHEV C10 P/U 68 MUSTANG FB CONVERSION |
||
Big Bird
Senior Member Joined: 25-August-2013 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 4194 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Johnny
You talking about the energy absorbers or the bumper liner?
|
||
"What we do in full frontal view, is more honest than your cleaned-up mind."
Randy 1979 T-Bird 2005 F-150 STX RCSB 4.6, 3.55 LSD How the Heck does a REGULAR CAB SHORTBED weigh over 5200 pounds? |
||
californiajohnny
Moderator Group Joined: 05-October-2013 Location: winlock, wa Status: Offline Points: 14606 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
bumper support, but the absorbers are heave too ( i just looked at my list...oops 45 lbs not 87 )
|
||
JOHN
74 GRAN TORINO S&H CLONE 74 VETTE CUSTOM 90 S10 BLAZER 4X4 LIFTED 77 CELICA CUSTOM 75 V8 MONZA SUPERCHARGED 79 COURIER VERT. SLAMMED 75 VEGA V6 5 SPD 70 CHEV C10 P/U 68 MUSTANG FB CONVERSION |
||
Big Bird
Senior Member Joined: 25-August-2013 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 4194 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Both parts are massive and heavy.
|
||
"What we do in full frontal view, is more honest than your cleaned-up mind."
Randy 1979 T-Bird 2005 F-150 STX RCSB 4.6, 3.55 LSD How the Heck does a REGULAR CAB SHORTBED weigh over 5200 pounds? |
||
Billy C
Senior Member Joined: 10-February-2010 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Status: Offline Points: 947 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
What was your weight before and after?
|
||
-Billy Conturo
|
||
mkshelton
Senior Member Joined: 14-March-2012 Location: Sierra Vista Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
1000 pounds?! What did you do to get to that point?
|
||
"Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually UNinventing the wheel"
|
||
Goose_52
New Member Joined: 11-September-2019 Location: Duluth MN Status: Offline Points: 5 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
Digging up and old topic. Lots of good info here, I have been reading
through all the old posts. I've got a 76 Ranchero that I am currently
rebuilding. My interests have wandered into chassis and suspension
design, so my focus has been to learn the basics this winter while I
rebuild the front suspension. I came across a site that has a very
simple Suspension Geometry Simulator. I am planning to layout my
suspension in this program. What I hope to achieve from doing this is to
see if the 72-76 front suspension has good geometry(according to
books), and if not, what steps can be taken to help correct, or
compensate for these problem areas. I'll be Autocrossing the car this
next season, so the suspension will be rebuilt back to stock, which will
serve as the baseline to make improvements from. Note that none of the actual specs are setup yet on the picture above, I am just playing with the software until I can do my measurements on the car itself. I can already tell that I will need to get creative to find some of the measurements. Here is the site(I'm not affiliated with them at all) - https://www.racingaspirations.com/
Edited by Goose_52 - 08-December-2019 at 2:30PM |
||
mkshelton
Senior Member Joined: 14-March-2012 Location: Sierra Vista Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Cool Goose! We have working on this puzzle for quite a long time. The front geometry isn't very good, because the upper arms point downwards at static. Meaning as the suspension compresses, those arms pivot up and outwards causing positive camber. That is one problem. However, using a large swaybar and stiffer springs to control compression does seem to negate that geometry issue. Others can speak about this with more insight.
|
||
"Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually UNinventing the wheel"
|
||
72FordGTS
Admin Group GTS.org Admin Joined: 06-September-2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 5802 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
|
Like mkshelton says, from the information we have gathered, these suspensions add positive camber as they compress. I know John (BackinBlack) was looking at modifying the suspension geometry to fix this, but I am not sure how far he got.
Hotchkiss makes a control arms for the '65-66 Fords that is supposed to help with the geometry. These should swap in place of the stock arms, but I don't think anyone has invested in them yet. Little Shop also makes a tubular upper arm, but all it does is add caster, does nothing for camber, The other issue with this suspension is the very low roll center, making it more prone to body roll. The best solution most around here have used are stiff springs and a decent front sway bar. It keeps the body roll down and the suspension from compressing in the corners. I am not sure how well it will work with autocross, but on the street, this setup works great and is far better than stock.
|
||
Vince
1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car GTS.org Admin |
||
BackInBlack
Senior Member Joined: 11-January-2011 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'll will be finishing teh suspension next year 2020...I'm trying to get paint/body done atm. "The other issue with this suspension is the very low roll center" Actually its the opposite. Torinos have a high roll center like a truck due to the body on frame design. Corvettes for example have a roll center that is actually below ground level. Its a trade off like everything...low roll center usually means low suspension compression and very low ground clearance. Good for track but not for street. I have to look at my notes, but I think a good target was around 3" roll center. I dont want to lower my car to much and scrape on my driveway and over things like speed bumps. The 3 major items in the geometry I found to improve was (edited) 1. 2. Obtain negative camber gain on compression (taller spindles, extended ball joints, or lower it alot, etc) 3. Increase caster to +4 to +6 (the tubular upper a-arms fix this) These are changes that you can find on newer(modern) suspensions on everyday cars. Like Mazda 6, Mustangs, BMW, and others. My goal isn't to make a full-time track car, but set it up for street that can perform better at a track. Also, I really like the strut arm bushings. They fix one of the typical major faults with ford front suspensions, those huge rubber bushings that deflect under load. Great for a Lincoln, a cushy ride which absorb bumps but not so much for a muscle car.
Edited by BackInBlack - 13-December-2019 at 5:44AM |
||
-John
1973 GTS |
||
72FordGTS
Admin Group GTS.org Admin Joined: 06-September-2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 5802 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
John, according to my notes, Ford sources stated the front suspension roll center on the '72 Torino was lowered from 14" on a 1971 to 8" on a 1972. This is what I was referring to. I wasn't comparing it to modern cars. It's my understanding, the lower the roll center the more the outside tire gets loaded. So, stiffer springs/anti-roll bar are needed to counter act the body roll with a lower roll center. I will gladly stand corrected if this this information is inaccurate. |
||
Vince
1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car GTS.org Admin |
||
BackInBlack
Senior Member Joined: 11-January-2011 Location: Virginia Status: Offline Points: 1013 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I may have mis-spoke, after re-reading your post I believe you are correct. Rephrasing... Quick layman summary...the roll center is used to measure the leverage of the suspension upon the center of gravity of the car. Its constructed from the intersection of lines based on the angles of the A-arms and tire contact patch. This graphically shows a point that moves around when the suspension compresses. That point is measured as a distance from the center of gravity, ground or both vertically. The roll center gives a representation of the suspension load acting upon the center of gravity. The longer the moment arm of the roll center to the center of gravity the more body roll you experience in a turn. Suspension spring rates help prevent the roll center from shifting and moving under hard cornering; resisting the moment arm. An objective of fixing the geometry is to reduce the roll center distance therefore reducing the leverage upon the center of gravity reducing body roll under hard cornering. This is how I remember this subject from reading up on suspensions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Its been a long time since researching this subject. I haven't had much time this past year to do anything on the car except get painting done. I will probably be back at this after getting the car back together, closer to summer time. Definitely an interesting subject; alot to learn and research. Interesting video I found Edited by BackInBlack - 13-December-2019 at 5:47AM |
||
-John
1973 GTS |
||
EvilScientistMoose
New Member Joined: 15-November-2020 Location: Bend, Oregon Status: Offline Points: 13 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry to drag this back from the dead, but it also looks like they've done the old 69-70 Boss 302 Trans-Am trick of tilting the nose down a degree or two. |
||
mkshelton
Senior Member Joined: 14-March-2012 Location: Sierra Vista Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well, I'm going to revive this thread for a bit as I've started the suspension ordering for my car. ( Finally, after all these years!) I am planning on simple Energy Poly bushings throughout with the exception of the strut rods where I will be building an adjustable with solid rod ends like these from Global West
The biggest question I have at the moment is the darn ball joint specs. I couldn't find the specs for the life of me. If anyone can post them, I would be grateful. I like John's idea of welded in bushings for the lower joints and converting to Chrysler type, but I don't know what sizes I need to order as I can't find what was in stock. I will likely box in the rear arms when I pull them out and I may even look at the upper front arms to see what I could do to add castor to them.
|
||
"Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually UNinventing the wheel"
|
||
72 RS 351
Senior Member Joined: 04-September-2014 Location: Knoxville TN Status: Offline Points: 2765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Have you seen the aftermarket control arms with Delrin bushings? Those will be my choice, they looked like about $450 for the set of parts.
|
||
Don
73 Ranchero "Sport 72 front end", floor shift/console, planning EFI 7000+ rpm 351-4V &4R70W 73 Ranchero GT 351C-4V &4R70W for sale later. 92 Lincoln Mark VII SE GTC, OBDII 347/4R70W |
||
72FordGTS
Admin Group GTS.org Admin Joined: 06-September-2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Status: Offline Points: 5802 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
For the strut rods, have you looked at the little shop's spherical bearings? I have them on my car and they tightened things up considerably.
|
||
Vince
1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car GTS.org Admin |
||
mkshelton
Senior Member Joined: 14-March-2012 Location: Sierra Vista Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have not, but I don't think I could put that much money into arms alone. I have made my own arms for 4x4 stuff. ( my personal favorite platform to mess with is my Suzuki Sidekick) And have had pretty good success with fabbing on that. Of course its a different ballgame with trying to get a heavy car play nice on blacktop.
|
||
"Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually UNinventing the wheel"
|
||
mkshelton
Senior Member Joined: 14-March-2012 Location: Sierra Vista Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have thought about those long and hard. But I would like to make the rods adjustable in length, so since I have to cut them, I might as weld some heims on and set it so it stays solid.
|
||
"Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually UNinventing the wheel"
|
||
72 RS 351
Senior Member Joined: 04-September-2014 Location: Knoxville TN Status: Offline Points: 2765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The urethane rear bushings evidently make the back too stiff, bind up with movement etc. I'm not thrilled with the prices, but it's not outrageous for what seem to be excellent assemblies. FYI, I worked at the first Suzuki dealer we had here in 1989. The Sidekick was the first one right, square body and corners, very low power? I like the next one much better, the other model, much more powerful and a better interior etc. Wow time flies.
|
||
Don
73 Ranchero "Sport 72 front end", floor shift/console, planning EFI 7000+ rpm 351-4V &4R70W 73 Ranchero GT 351C-4V &4R70W for sale later. 92 Lincoln Mark VII SE GTC, OBDII 347/4R70W |
||
mkshelton
Senior Member Joined: 14-March-2012 Location: Sierra Vista Status: Offline Points: 357 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Are these the arms you are referring to?
|
||
"Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually UNinventing the wheel"
|
||
Post Reply | Page <1 11121314> |
Tweet |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |