CPP front suspension for vintage mustangs, anyone here used it?

[Coupe]

So I am pondering using the " CPP MINI Sub-frame Kit (http://www.classicperform.com/NewProducts/2006/NewFiles/NovaSubFrame.htm#mustang)" for my 65 mustang.
I was looking at spending about $1200-$1300 on opentracker bits like blueprinted upper arms (with stock bushings) bearing lower arms, new strut rods and roller perches. I am not really sold on strut rods, they only pivot on one end and the other is fixed to the lower control arm, seems to me that would make the LCA twist some?

The CPP system does away with the struts and uses a much wider a-arm design and a new upper arm that also looks like it could work better than the stock arm with fat rubber bushings.

If I go with the CPP full kit and add in OTR roller spring perches and springs I am actually spending about the same if not less. The car is street driven and the goal is handling over high HP or track use. I want the car to handle as good as it looks and this seems like a low cost way to update the technology. The NOVA guys seem to like it but I am not finding a bunch of mustang guys with it, anybody here actually USE it on an early mustang and if so how well does it take/hold alignment?


https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/09/6267DTCAKLarge-1.jpg

[69camarokid]

I have their control arms for my camaro and like them. They are good control arms....

with that said, i cant tell you enough times to NOT purchase from CPP. I have had nothing with trouble from them. Rude service, parts that do not work correctly or at all, botched repairs of their own parts, and replacements sent that were already broken.

If you live local to them then you can always walk in and fix whatever needs to be done. But if not i have heard other terrible things from other forum members about issues with shipping wrong parts, incomplete orders, extra charges added, up to 6 weeks for shipping....

so yourself a favor and save yoursef a major headache by taking your business to another company.

[Bryce]

I like their LCA setup. Very good idea. But since they still use the stock spring perch design, I see room for improvement. I would rather run a coilover setup. If it was me I might buy the LCA set up and run a TCP UCA and coilover conversion hardware.

[funcars]

My .02:
The factory design front end with the springs mounted to the upper control arms isn't optimal and that CPP set-up has the same issues plus it's expensive... Coil-overs that mount to the lower arm (as close to the ball joint as possible) have a lot of advantages. There are several bolt in designs available or you can fab your own. Combine with fixing bump steer and cooling/good pads for the disc brakes and it will work fine on the track until you get more power and speed. If you have factory power steering you might want to do something like going to manual or re-engineer the control valve (it can be like an on/off switch).

The strut links in the front end can be impoved by using a big bolt and spacers with a rod end on the link instead of rubber or poly cushions. It behaves like a a-arm as long as the strut and LCA can move together in the same plane.

Make sure to check the shock towers for cracks and some reinforcement is a good thing if you will work it hard with sticky tires. Use a straight monte carlo bar (the bent ones don't help very much).

There is an old book for Boss 302 racing chassis mods that shows some of the reinforcements you can do for the shock towers from inside the wheel wells plus a bunch of other stuff.

The early cars can use some of the reinforcements added to the 69 and 70s including torque boxes, etc.

Good luck with whatever route you choose.

[klean63]

I have their control arms for my camaro and like them. They are good control arms....

with that said, i cant tell you enough times to NOT purchase from CPP. I have had nothing with trouble from them. Rude service, parts that do not work correctly or at all, botched repairs of their own parts, and replacements sent that were already broken.

If you live local to them then you can always walk in and fix whatever needs to be done. But if not i have heard other terrible things from other forum members about issues with shipping wrong parts, incomplete orders, extra charges added, up to 6 weeks for shipping....

so yourself a favor and save yoursef a major headache by taking your business to another company.

Since I'm new around here and don't want to rock the boat, all I'll say is, this is great advice.

[Coupe]

Thanks for the info....I guess I will reconsider using arms with a strut rod. I just dont see a lower arm mounted coilover being in the budget, thats why I asked.

I really dont like strut rods. Sure the front end can be made to pivot, but the back end mounts to the outer end of the LCA, it's frozen and does not allow the LCA to move in a true arc. The LCA's gotta twist it pretty good at the higher end of the stroke? Bending metal is for torsion bars...

[6'9"Witha69]

OK, Let's lay out the other companies with options for Mustangs and discuss. We have beaten 1st gen F bodies to death, I think we need a good discussion on these companies and products as well to help the OP and others make an informed decision..

http://www.maierracing.com/

http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/

http://globalwest.net/

PLease anyone fee free to add other companies you know making good products.

[Bryce]

You could always build a front suspension like I did.

[TCI Engineering]

PLease anyone fee free to add other companies you know making good products.


:secret:

I know of another one, I just can't think of the name. :fingersx:

-J

[Coupe]

You could always build a front suspension like I did.


No, I may need to drive it someday and if I started to actually build it myself the car may never see the light of day again.

[klean63]

:secret:

I know of another one, I just can't think of the name. :fingersx:

-J

Jason, let me help you out a little

TCI

Total Cost Involved

[TCI Engineering]

Jason, let me help you out a little

TCI

Total Cost Involved


Thanks Bill :cheers:

memory > me

-J

[Coupe]

Ya know I was going to go that way when I was searching for a mustang, but I ended up with a fastback that I really dont want to cut on of since the aprons still have date code stamps and no rust. If I had a car in worse shape or a coupe I would go with a TCI set-up and a mod motor.

[DynoDon]

Thanks for the info....I guess I will reconsider using arms with a strut rod. I just dont see a lower arm mounted coilover being in the budget, thats why I asked.

I really dont like strut rods. Sure the front end can be made to pivot, but the back end mounts to the outer end of the LCA, it's frozen and does not allow the LCA to move in a true arc. The LCA's gotta twist it pretty good at the higher end of the stroke? Bending metal is for torsion bars...
I'm not sure I see how the LCA has to twist, that is what the inner bushing is for. And when you go to a spherical bearing for the inner pivot it moves quite smoothly. That is the way my Global West arms are made and it works quite well.

As for the comment that the standard spring being mounted on the UCA not working as well as a coil over mounted to the LCA, other then the convenience of changing spring and ride height would the OP of that comment care to explain any other reason why it is not as good? Just wondering

[Coupe]

I'm not sure I see how the LCA has to twist, that is what the inner bushing is for. And when you go to a spherical bearing for the inner pivot it moves quite smoothly. That is the way my Global West arms are made and it works quite well.


Forgive my ignorance as I have not had one of these apart yet, but the strut rod end that bolts to the LCA is fixed and rigid, the end that mounts to the chassis/frame is on a pivot.

When you have nothing connected except the strut rod and the LCA (no spindle) can you make the full range of motion without binding or distortion? It looks like the end on the LCA would want to make the arm twist in order to make the arc?

Why cant both ends be on a pivot? Or is that the way yours are made? I was pondering rollerizing stock style arms at this point and the strut would bolt to it.

[DynoDon]

Forgive my ignorance as I have not had one of these apart yet, but the strut rod end that bolts to the LCA is fixed and rigid, the end that mounts to the chassis/frame is on a pivot.

When you have nothing connected except the strut rod and the LCA (no spindle) can you make the full range of motion without binding or distortion? It looks like the end on the LCA would want to make the arm twist in order to make the arc?

Why cant both ends be on a pivot? Or is that the way yours are made? I was pondering rollerizing stock style arms at this point and the strut would bolt to it.
The entire LCA does goes through a rotational movement (I won't call it a twist as the metal is not twisting). With the stock type rubber bushing there is adequate movement in the normal range of movement that occurs during driving, although if test to extreme degrees of travel as you suggest, there is some resistance when taken beyond what will happen on the street (remember these cars have exceptionally long wheel travel to begin with, which is never experienced in the real world) with the spherical bearings there is no binding at all. My Global West Strut Rods have huge heim joints at the front and are solid to the arm, just like stock. It all moves very freely. The system does slightly increase caster as the control arm moves above parallel from the ground, which isn't a bad thing.
I don't think you could mount the LCA end of the Strut Rod on a bearing as there would be nothing to hold the LCA from rotating or flopping about and twisting to the limits of the lower ball joint rotational travel. That is part of the job of the strut rod, to hold the LCA from rotating freely from left to right as you view it from the ball joint inward.

[Coupe]

Looking at some larger pics of the GW setup I can see how it would make the range of motion without issue. For some reason when I look at the stock stuff it looks as though it would want to try to bend the stock strut or move a ton in those doughnuts. I guess thats why we change them.

Now if I could just find a killer deal on a decent kit I would be golden, but after considering the cost of the existing Rack, adding in the money to use GW would exceed the value of many coupes. I just dont want to drop the $3k in the front end of this car, hence the reason for my asking about the CPP stuff in the first place.
I guess ill stick to my original plan or mixing in some OTR roller perches and blueprinted UCA's. I may buy some moog LCA's and buy the roller kit from OTR and box them myself, and of course make or buy some decent strut rods.

[bret]

hate to miss the party...

http://www.ridetech.com/store/musclecar/?subcats=Y&features_hash=V194

Complete systems or individual components. Not on the website yet, but also available with coilovers if you don't want ShockWaves for some reason.

A couple of important points on the Mustang:

1. our upper arm cross shaft is dropped by approx. .750" to improve the camber curve
2. our lower arm is a one piece unit that incorporates a spherical bearing to replace the factory rubber strut rod and bushing setup.

Lots of good stuff around for the Mustang. Look, ask, learn, buy...in that order.

[cheapthrillz]

.....Look, ask, learn, buy...in that order.

Shouldn't it be look, ask, learn, ask, learn, look, buy the wrong thing.... lol

That seems to be how I do it.... lol

[Coupe]

hate to miss the party...

http://www.ridetech.com/store/musclecar/?subcats=Y&features_hash=V194

Complete systems or individual components. Not on the website yet, but also available with coilovers if you don't want ShockWaves for some reason.

A couple of important points on the Mustang:

1. our upper arm cross shaft is dropped by approx. .750" to improve the camber curve
2. our lower arm is a one piece unit that incorporates a spherical bearing to replace the factory rubber strut rod and bushing setup.

Lots of good stuff around for the Mustang. Look, ask, learn, buy...in that order.


Are you saying that you have them coming for the 65's? The 65 is a bit different in how they align.. Will it mount the coil over to the LCA?
And most importantly would you have any "scratch-n-dent" parts for a local guy?
:cheers:

[MonzaRacer]

CPP has HORRIBLE SERVICE. And honestly I am not that impressed with their design setup I put on customer car.
Good Luck.
Id run Ridetech.com first but I am biased.

[funcars]

As for the comment that the standard spring being mounted on the UCA not working as well as a coil over mounted to the LCA, other then the convenience of changing spring and ride height would the OP of that comment care to explain any other reason why it is not as good? Just wondering[/QUOTE]

The basics: With the stock mustang (and older falcon design it's based on) the upper control arms have the springs mounted so they put the upper control arm in bending and have a leverage ratio that requires a higher spring rate to get an equivalent wheel rate to a LCA mount that is close to the balljoint. The same issue applies to the shocks which means you have less sensitivity because there is less travel. It also makes for the shock towers protruding into the engine bay taking up room I wish I had (I just fabricated some headers to fit highport C302 heads in my 70 mustang and it took 80 hrs because of those lovely shock towers)...

[DynoDon]

The basics: With the stock mustang (and older falcon design it's based on) the upper control arms have the springs mounted so they put the upper control arm in bending and have a leverage ratio that requires a higher spring rate to get an equivalent wheel rate to a LCA mount that is close to the balljoint. The same issue applies to the shocks which means you have less sensitivity because there is less travel. QUOTE]
Thanks, first time someone explained it with any logic !:idea:

[darren@ridetech]

Are you saying that you have them coming for the 65's? The 65 is a bit different in how they align.. Will it mount the coil over to the LCA?
And most importantly would you have any "scratch-n-dent" parts for a local guy?
:cheers:

You are correct, our arms only fit on the 67-70. However, we do have an ealy Mustang, so keep an eye out in the future.