2006 Crown Vic front suspension

updated pics of crown vic project

 

I hope you make this work.Very interesting idea. Good luck.

 

I thought you might have given this up - glad to see you hard at work on it - looking real good so far

 

Ahh, I see you are using the old jackstands on wheels trick.......interesting project....

 

What are your thoughts about header clearance with that Crown Vic cradle being there behind the crossmember?

 

My thoughts as well and also thought starter changes would be a real hoot!

 

I don't see where header clearance would be any different than the mustang II front cross member installs. What is your track width going to be? Looks like they are going to be out a ways. Doing a hell of a job, really like the progress pics, thanks.

 

You could actually cut some of that aluminum frame work away and replace it with a different shaped steel girder structure built to clear headers and starters and bolt it into the Crown Vic structure

 

Not where the steel cross member is concerned but where those aluminum sections of the Crown Vic cradle extend back behind the cross member on each side

 

I think that steel cross member he built takes the place of the aluminum cradle. Unless you are referring to the back of the lower control arm mount.

 

You can see those two aluminum pieces leading back towards the firewall just inside of both frame rails right where headers would have to go - it is part of the mounting cradle of the Crown Vic from what I remember

 

I understand now what you are talking about, those are actually the back part of the lower control arms. He hasn't used any of the cradle, that is what was throwing me. And you are right, it is going to be tight for headers might have to go custom.

 

I like it so far.. but I'm still highly skeptical of the major clearance issues created here. Also the load placement on the inner fenders will be lower overall than the stock arrangement(which is good).. but looks like the longer a-arms will exhibit additional leverage and torque stress down low(which despite that beefy cross member.. could be bad).

IMO, at the very least you'll still require some sort of mini shock tower to tie all that stress back into the inner aprons and transfer it back into the torque box's where it belongs(although, I'm pretty sure all the MII guys will probably disagree).

And is it just me seeing the pic's wrong?.. or is that springs angle coming inward into the bay even more than the original a-arms mounting point? If so?.. that's a major oversight for the already limited engine clearance these cars are known for and there's potential for actually losing clearnace after that spring/shock package is towered back into place.

Then you'll surely need some sort of customized cross directional tie-ins like a monte carlo bar and export bracing to fight against that wider track width strong-arming all this puny little sheetmetal and framerails.

My biggest question at this point would be.. if you're already going to all this work.. why not just kick in the firewall to give enough engine setback to free up some much needed additional header and starter clearance?

That would help clearance in so many ways and reduce the overall stresses created from this wider suspension swap. Regardless of a few doubtful or negative sounding concerns.. many of us certianly enjoy the engineering side of swaps like this one. Just a few thoughts to consider. But.. keep on.. keepin' on.. and good luck with it all.

 

I was getting ready to call you on the phone

I have a Mustang II type cross member in my car and, and with a Cleveland, I use up every bit of that space with my headers - in fact, I had to notch my passenger frame rail and the face of the passenger foot well to get that header to clear because it is built weird in order to clear the starter - using headers built for a 70 Mustang

 

I have been researching the Crown Vic with the thoughts of using it under my Lincoln. From what I've found out, the cradle is 34" on the inside width where it goes to mount on the frame, too wide even for my wide body Lincoln. Track is about 63.5" with those factory wheels with lots of backspacing. Still to wide to use with common aftermarket wheels unless you stay with the flat factory style.

I think I have found a better alternative for a bolt in suspension----Jaguar. The XJ Jag uses a bolt in cradle, is 59.5 hub to hub, and is 33" wide at the outside of the frame. The cradle is steel, so narrowing it shouldn't be much trouble. Only down side is the hubs carry the Chevy bolt pattern, 5 X 4.75. For a Maverick, it would need to be narrowed, for my Lincoln, it is just about perfect.

I am looking to find one locally to confirm the measurements. If it works out, I may be changing the straight axle out of the Lincoln for one.