Early Mustang/Falcon Shock Tower, Strut & K-member Modifications - Lateral-g Forums

windsor · #1 10-07-2009, 04:10 AM

I have a 65 Falcon. Wondering about input on the below idea. Interested in running the AJE k-member style front suspension coversion, but moving the tops of the strut assembly camber/caster plate outward and making mini shock towers. Running a BBF so will need as much room as possible. For the record, AJE said it would be 'no problem'...but we've all heard that before.

The idea entails:

1) Use the AJE K-member and adjustable LCA's.

2) Use a stock replacement style strut and knuckle/spindle.

3) Move top mounting location of strut/camber plate outward

4) Cut off and redrill/reinforce the upper strut bolt hole mount in the spindle The new hole would be moved close to proportionate in degrees the distance the upper strut mounting point in fender is moved out.
The would theoretically reduce that positive camber back close to stock.

Thoughts?

wiedemab · #2 10-07-2009, 06:06 AM

I don't think I would recommend it. If it were a drag only car, you could probably get an alignment that would allow it to track straight in the 1/4, but for going around corners, probably not a good idea.

By moving the top of the strut outward you are really going to limit the static camber and really limit the camber gain in bump, which is an issue with the Fox Mustang strut style suspension anyway.

If you run a coilover (which I assume you would be) you should have some room to leave the upper mount in the same location and just make the shock tower much smaller as you don't need all of the room for the larger coil spring of the stock suspension. I don't know if that would give you enough room.

Beyond that, I can only suggest a big cube Windsor motor as it may fit better????

Good luck and keep us posted.

windsor · #3 10-07-2009, 06:26 AM

thanks for the response. Could you explain a bit further the affect it will have on the static camber?

I could leave the top of the shock tower in the stock location, but it gets very tight (see pic of a BBF in a 66 Mustang). I'd like to move them out at least a bit... but, if it won't work it won't work!

No small blocks for me this time around. I love them (see my user name)...but, I already have everything to build this combo and really really want to

.

Appreciate any other feedback on this idea.

J

wiedemab · #4 10-07-2009, 07:07 AM

As you move the top of the strut outward you are adding positive camber. You can adjust some of this at the spindle to strut bolts - I think, but not much. The only way then to get more negative camber is to move the lower control arm mount outward, which then affects the track width.

As far as camber gain, the suspension will move along the axis of the strut, so the more "straight up and down" for lack of a better description the strut is the less the wheel and tire will lean in at the top in bump ie: camber gain.

I know from messing with Fox Body Mustangs that they suffer from minimal negative camber gain in bump. If you see people Autocrossing them they typically build in a ton of static camber to negate this fact - not good on tires for street driving though.

Does that help? - Anyone else can feel free to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. I'm not an expert in suspsion design by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks,

Brandon

wiedemab · #5 10-07-2009, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsor

I could leave the top of the shock tower in the stock location, but it gets very tight (see pic of a BBF in a 66 Mustang). I'd like to move them out at least a bit... but, if it won't work it won't work!

No small blocks for me this time around. I love them (see my user name)...but, I already have everything to build this combo and really really want to

.

Appreciate any other feedback on this idea.

J

I really do think you can gain quite a bit by eliminating the dead space around the coilover/strut without actually moving the upper mount. I've seen people run late model mod motors and have to do exactly this.

windsor · #6 10-07-2009, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiedemab

I really do think you can gain quite a bit by eliminating the dead space around the coilover/strut without actually moving the upper mount. I've seen people run late model mod motors and have to do exactly this.

That's definitely correct, but I just wanted a few more inches at the top. Thanks for your explanation on camber above, it makes sense. I'd like to hear more theory on it, however!

Thanks again...J

Bryce · #7 10-07-2009, 09:40 AM

i would decide how much camber gain you want. then run it through some suspension analyzer software or by hand and figure out how must initial camber you need and where that allows you to mount the upper strut mount. Also a longer lower control arm and a huge offset front wheel like FWD cars may help get the strut angle you need.

windsor · #8 10-07-2009, 09:43 AM

how about a shorter strut?

Bryce · #9 10-07-2009, 09:58 AM

that would work aswell. Just keep the same strut angle or whatever angle you need. The only issue i see real quick is overall travel.

To give an example: my shocks have 7" of travel. My suspension has zero bind over that travel. but that is well over what i need. so i have a droop limiter built in.

windsor · #10 10-07-2009, 10:17 AM

do they make a stock-style shorter strut? Or, could the shaft just be cut? talking only an 1" or 2" here.