that's exactly what I failed to accurately describe when I asked John about having seeing any others who had just moved the springs seat outboard to allow deeper shaves. the pictures posted above seem to indicate that the springs are just located closer to the fenders bolt line. I've been under my car umpteen times now with measuring tapes while making future plans for my coil over setup. From waht I've figured so far.. moving a coil overs top mount location outboard would not be an issue for at LEAST 3 inches until running into the fenders weaker area/bolt line(there's a pronounced rise/lip before it jumps all the way up to the fenders bolt line). Moving a stock diameter spring out much more than 2 inches looks to be a bit tougher though. IMO, another thing to consider is that the springs stock angles are not extreme enough in the first place to really allow that much upper pocket movement before we end up going too far beyond a vertical spring position. The springs vertical centerline also changes slightly as the suspension geometry moves the springs lower perch up and down as well(its centerline moves in and out slightly as it strokes through the range). I'm just guessing here based on studying various designs, but level/horizontal upper control arm location is probably going to be the deciding factor for a "best overall average" between all locations of the lower spring perch(full jounce/static ride height/full rebound). I'm not too sure what type of outward tilt would be acceptable on the topside from a safety standpoint.. but I myself wouldn't be too comfortable for fear that the spring could bow exceesively and potentially shift off the lower perch at full rebound(not that it would apply here with taller drag racing type springs(although you'd think that the bow would be worse on taller springs).. but for shorter road racing springs with lower initial compression at full rebound). If the spring were to move off any location at all.. I'd much rather it be captured in the upper pocket and the cars sudden ride height change scare the bejesus out of me as I tried to correct steering.. rather than punching into the side of my wheel and sending me off completely. There are obviously 2 ways to go about remedying that negative here.. 1. with some slight adjustment being possible through lower spring perch mounting mods(which I aim to do as it's said to allow greater spring/shock control with slightly less rate required to do it/better leverage). From some quick rough and dirty measuring.. it appears that the lower spring perch's stock mounting location could be moved out closer to the ball joint by at least 1 full inch.. likely considerably more when losing the factory perch with coil overs. However.. stock diameter springs and moreso the actual perches themselves.. would quickly move outwards beyond the ball joint and even the UCA's outer edge. Probably not as much an issue if one were to use skinny's up front though. This would allow us to push the topside of the springs seat outwords a bit further before running too much off of a vertical spring arrangement. 2. use longer upper/lower control arms to effectively move the lower perch's factory location outwards. I'd also think that the above mentioned relocation effort for the lower perch would also help retain more of the factory style "inward spring cant" even after the upper seat had been moved out to the fenderline as mentioned above. I'd easily consider doing both mod's together on mine too.. but the road racing theme's prerequisite big tires up front already make it tough to get enough rim into the wheel wells as it is. I'll eventually work on flaring the front and rear fenders.. but with the more subtle widths I'm looking at.. it still may not be enough to get wider tires stuffed in there with a wider control arm arrangement. Anyone have any solid numbers for how much longer the front a-arm arrangements would be on these cars? Would it be safe to assume that we'd just be looking at using the longer Mustang and similar for the parts swap? sorry it's so wordy.. I don't really have much time today and wanted to just quickly ramble my thought out there to get the discussion moving as to what you guys have seen or have in mind here. These are the types of discussions that I need the most help with on my particular project and they're interesting to say the least. PS.. thanks for those digging up those pic's John(and others too).. exactly what I had in mind too. It's also quite obvious that the top sides need to be made near perfectly horizontal vs the factory slanted top once the springs are near vertically arranged. Is it just the pic?.. or are those springs in a slight negative angle now? And more importantly.. would that be safe for a road race setup that see's far more range of motion over longer periods of time? Thanks for giving me the time of day guys. :Handshake Greg
Another thing to consider is, when you move your entire tower outboard, you will also move your top A-frame out with it since their mounts are part of the tower. You will be tilting the top of the tire out. To get the top of the tire back, you would actually have to use a shorter top A-frame (but that would give you very quick camber gains) or a longer bottom and except the wider track width. Now with the tower mod plus adding a longer top A-frame would really put that tire out on the top. Another thought about the Super Stocks is they only had to go straight, a 1/4 mile at a time. We aren't sure how this mod will handle in the turns. Possibly the move of the towers outboard, coupled with a coil over replacement might just be the ticket.
Also cars specially built for pavement circle track such as Modifieds or Late Models use coil overs and are tipped in on the top about 10 degrees or so. Sometimes these same cars are used on a road course. This is Jimmy Spencer's Troyer Nascar Modified back around 1984 at Sgangi-La Speedway in New York
I have raced for almost 30 years, in circles. We have built dirt late models and dirt modifieds from scratch, the fabrication does not bother me. To address a few questionsposed above.... First, the whole tower is moved out approximately 4". That also moves the upper control arm out a like amount. You would need to extend the lower control arm the same distance, not shorten the uppers, for a drag car. Look at the pictures. The 1970 Pro Stock cars used a 3.5" wide wheel, it sits nearly under the fender lip. My 4" wheels sit 3.5" inside the inner fender lip. Things are working out mathematically, anyway. I have looked for a longer lower control arm that would have existed in 1970 but so far turned up nothing. A Torino uses the same lower. Looks like an extension is needed, several good and safe ways to do that. Instead of moving the spring mount outward on the upper control arm, you actually move it inward. You can move it back in approximatlely 1.5 to 2" by simply re-drilling it's attaching points on the control arm. That helps with the angle of the spring, it also softens the spring rate the wheel sees. That means you only need move the top of the spring out 2" to maintain spring angle. I have seen pics someplace that show the top of the spring leaned out towards the wheel on these cars. All that does is further soften the spring rate the wheel sees. The final piece of the puzzel is the tie rod. It will need to be extended the same distance the lower control arm is to keep acerman and bump steer under control. Bump steer is bad anyway with a stock suspension design. Probably the best solution I have come up with for the tie rod is a solid sleeve in place of the split adjuster. Inner tie rod end, jam nut, sleeve, jam nut, outer tie rod end. Problem solved. If you also did the "Shelby Mustang" upper a-frame mount move down and forward, it would help with the radical camber changes and loss of caster a stock front end sees. Look closely at the pic of the Boss 9 in the Mav. Notice how low the top of the spring tower is compared to the pic of my stock one. It apears the tower is cut free from the car, moved straight out towards the wheel, and re-plated into the fender line. The spring top is lower than in an original car in relation to the fender bolt line. Keep the ideas flowing. SPark
I still contend that the lower control arms were not altered, only their mounting location. This statement from Jeff Gapp's site backs that up. I also have seen a photo of the bottom of the '70 Schartman Maverick and the lower arm appears stock.
Thanks a bunch for the front suspension info. That clears up the lower a-frame to me. Yes, it came from Oklahoma. Got it a few weeks ago. He had a cougar sitting right beside it. SPark
Please see my responses and additional questions in red. My front end will end up heavily mod'd in some similar fashions as well but for obviously differing reasons. I'm really looking forward to seeing your process and wish you the best of luck on everything.
Gary, I totally understand IM14's direction trying to engineer the car like a ProStock Maverick of 33 years ago, but why would you want to try and modify the stock Maverick/Comet suspension to go road racing? Are you going to build a "road coarse only" car or just a dual purpose street and track car? Although I've only raced SCCA I've never seen an Maverick/Mustang/Falcon that has ever competed successfully.................unless it's in the Vintage classes. Personally I'd scrap the stock suspension and either go with a MacPhearson type or R&C type...................both are just a better designed for adjusting to different track conditions plus giving better ackerman/caster/camber and considerably less bumpsteer. It would be interesting to see a Maverick/Comet setup for one of the GT classes. Just a question.....................................................................IMHO
again.. responses in red. This threads pro-stock build will be cool to watch.. and I'll try not to clutter up the OP's thread with my little low budget 20k restomod. later John.. and actually.. my name is Greg. :Handshake
Sorry Greg, I don't know why I keep calling you Gary...................I guess it's because I good friend named Gary owns Gary's Mustangs in Portland, OR...just have Gary on the brain.
If you are going to build a drag car like me,I am going to use stock mtr mts bolted or welded together.Being as I am going to have to modify my trans. tunnel any way,I have a set of 70 Mustang mnts that are just a little bit taller and I have cowl hood.I plan to mock the mtr up with bell & trans and see if this gives me just a little more room with out causing other problems.If it works i will let everyone know.
groberts101; not concerned about any of your coments. You actually caught my brain fart on the caster issue. I try to read everything I can. Even though you are going to turn corners, some issues will interchange between the 2 cars. Appreciate the comments. I was also thinking along the lines of oldrodder in the front suspension issues he addressed in your situation. If you want to stay true to an older time, like I am, why not just copy the Shelby stuff that was already out there? It worked. dan gregory; I have V8 mounts and will use the stock Mav stuff to start with. My tranny tunnel has already been enlarged by a previous owner so I won't have to fight that battle. Mine has to fit under the flat hood, with a Tunnel Ram I (period correct) hood scoop added for the carbs. I appreciate all the feedback. Keep the ideas coming. Never too late to learn something. Hopefully have a few more pics to add tomorrow. Been on another shopping spree and another road trip! SPark
cool.. I appreciate that and it's nice to know that the creative juices flow in all directions. In my short'ish experience with suspension/engine swap mod's(I'm more the engine mod type).. it certainly seems to help improve the thought process sometimes. and yeah.. I knew you probably knew the error of that particular comment with the experience you seem to have had in this area. It's not like you were ready to drill and I needed to warn you at all. lol As for the "copycatting"?.. I figure things have progressed far enough by now that if Shelby were to have those/these same cars antiquated suspension technology to work with under a specific class rule in this day and age?.. he'd surely be "one upping" his previous incarnations to utilize some of the newest tech and all that's been learned/accumulated by others so far. Things obviously keep progressing and even though many are crossing over to the newest/fastest tech($$$$).. I've seen some damned fast low budget builds that may not run up front with the high dollar stuff.. but seem to do all right and definitely gives "bang for the buck" a whole new meaning. Almost "ringer like" performance. Kinda like the guy with seemingly stock iron heads who has relocated valves.. offset pushrods.. and extensive CNC work hiding underneath the valve covers. I've won thousands through the years with similar ringers and can only assume that many will fall for some of the same tricks when it comes to suspension setups as well. Maybe I won't get the cash after losing to half the pack on the road course.. but a nose.. thumb.. or even a finger up in the air will be satisfaction enough that I surprised a few in the process. also.. I'm not adverse to swapping to a shorter aftermarket UCA which would allow fabbing/mounting parallel with the framerail and clear up many of the issues with engine clearance. We need to keep in mind that many of these kits on the market aren't all that complex and utilize some cookie cutter UCA/LCA designs(namely the universally implemented MII/Chevy stuff) to keep their engineering/fab costs down. Someone came up with the ideas in the first place by mod'ing what they had in their garage.. and I aim to do just the same since I can implement many of the best features into one economical design. Truth be told.. if I had the 12-15 g's all in one shot to blow on chassis and suspension alone?.. I'd just run the Grigg's setup and be done with it.
Spent some time mocking up the shifter on the tranny and making sure everything worked out. Here's a couple pics of the engine/tranny that will be in my "privateer" Pro Stock Maverick (since I can't afford a Boss 429) To address fitment on lower control arms and possible donar vehicles, I went to Summit's site. Here is what our lower control arms interchange with. It's a surprising list, at least it was for me. I was thinking a Torino or Fairlane piece may be what I wanted but not now. Looks like the re-located lower is the way to go. Here's Summit's fitment list: http://www.summitracing.com/parts/rnb-520-397/applications To clear up where a tire sits in relationship to the wheelwell and how much they widened the front track of a Pro stock look back a few posts at the brand new Pro Stock from the "factory" that was posted by JMGFORD in post #3 on the first page. The front wheels in my pics are not the final wheels, but they are the correct sized tires. The wheels are 1/2" wider (4") than what I will be running in the end (3.5"). The difference appears to be in the backspace so the front face is correct for location. Here is my current loction with the stock suspension in the stock location, compare to the pic on pg 3. Thanks for the responses, I appreciate them all. SPark
