Triangulated 4 link on Sunbeam

[socorob]

4657546576Hi all, I have a 1963 Sunbeam Alpine. I know its not exctly the kind of car usually found on here, but I like to think of it as a mini version of a pro tourer. So far it has a Ford 2.8 V6 in it, T-5, Ford 8 inch rear with a Currie aluminum carrier and an Eaton True trac. It has disc brakes all around. Here is the car if anyone is interested:
http://www.youtube.com/user/socorob?ob=5

Anyway, its mainly a street driven car, with an occassional autocross. My leaf springs are shot so Im wanting to do a triangulated 4 link since I think its packagable back under there. I used the PT demo and the triaged spreadsheet online. When i put the same numbers in each, I get a different amount of anti squat. Anyone know which is more accurate? My next question is link bracketry. Does anyone know if the 8 inch Fords center "pumpkin" is made from steel or cast iron? Is it strong enough to weld upper link brackets to, or would I need a bridge? The most hp and torque my car will probably ever see is low 200s. Right now its only probably about mid 100s. Any suspensions experts care to take a look at my numbers and critique them?

Thanks in advance,
Robbie

[Bryce]

Performance trends should be more accurate. However I have used both with similar results. I also wrote my own program that allows you to input the desired A/S and IC and two of the four pickup points and t solves the other two. I would double check your entries.

Sounds like a cool project.

Also I would weld to the housing not the nodular iron center section.

I just read through your screen shots. I noticed the IC is the same for both spreadsheets. SInce the A/S is different the error must be in the CG height, wheelbase or tire rolling radius. Double check to make sure those are the same.

[socorob]

Thanks. I'll double check to make sure I didn't mess up entering numbers somewhere. As far as coilovers go, is it best to mount them as wide as possible and have them going exactly vertical or is it best for them to angle in towards the center of the car some degrees at the top?

[Bryce]

I asked the same question awhile back. https://www.pro-touring.com/showthread.php?57509-whats-better-vertical-or-angled-rear-coilovers

Mine are slightly angled in at the top and are as wide as possible. Check out my build thread for pics. Link is in my signature.

[socorob]

I read your thread, nice car. I was actually thinking about a falcon a few years ago when this Sunbeam appeared to me. Thanks for the info, yesterday I crawled under the car and measured, measured, measured, and found out I had to tweak a few numbers slightly to clear things at compression, but according to the analyzer, it only slightly changes the characterstics of it. Now its time to pull the trigger on it and start ordering parts. Any coilover recommendations from anyone out there?

[Bryce]

Thanks Rob,

I have used afco double adjustable coilovers in two front suspesion I designed. Both with great results. On my falcon 3-link I got custom gas charged, mono tube, double adjsutable coilovers through TCI.

[Twentyover]

Can I ask how you adapted the T5 to the Cologne engine? I'm working on a variant (4.0 in a MKII Capri.) Apologies for the off-topic excusrion

[socorob]

Didnt the Mustang V6 at one point come with the 4.0 and 5 speed? I dont know if its the same, but for the 2.8 cologne the hard part is finding a bellshousing from a V6 mustang2 with manual transmission. It had a borg warner 4 speed transmission so they kept the same bolt pattern all the way thru to the T5. You need to get the end of the input shaft turned down slightly to fit inside the colognes pilot bearing. Its somethink like from .668 to .590. You need to ditch the soft aluminum bearing retainer and get one from a certain year V8 mustang, its a certain year range that had a shorter retainer. Then you need to get about 1/16" turned off the end of that retainer so it fits in the hole in the bellhousing. Everything is so close to fitting out the box. I went with a 2002 T5 out of a V6 mustang since it has a very high 5th for cruising with my 4.11s. The 2.8 with T5 is a common swap for Sunbeams, you can find all the exact info here... http://www.sunbeamalpine.org/forum/showthread.php?t=12131&page=6 Sorry I cant remember exactly, I did the swap about a year or 2 ago.

[DarkoNova]

Man, that's a cool car. You should put up a build thread!

[capri v8 driver]

Can I ask how you adapted the T5 to the Cologne engine? I'm working on a variant (4.0 in a MKII Capri.) Apologies for the off-topic excusrion

The 2.8L/2.9L/4.0L OHV all share the same bell housing pattern. There is a 2.8L Ford engine in the early/mid 80's Mustang that came with a W/C T-4 bellhousing that can be adapted to the T-5. I used a bellhouse from a 2.8 v6 ranger, it was almost a direct fit.

[John Wright]

Car reminds me of a mini mid-50's T-Bird...Where's the build thread?

[socorob]

Ill have to put one up soon. Im going out of town thru the weekend, but will when I get back. Its not much to put on there so far, as i feel im only just really getting started.
I Just ordered my lower control arms for my tri 4 link, and have been looking at coilovers. I plan on having them vertical from the side view and angled in at the top 10 degrees looking from the rear. The car is probably pretty close to 50/50, and weights 2340 with a full tank of gas. I think when im finished with everything it will be around 2400-2450. What spring rate and shock is good for this weight?

Some of the early 80s mustang/mercury capri had the same 2.8 V6 as the 70s mustang 2. I think one of the first years of the astro van had a 2.8 also, and ive heard someone say theyve seen a manual transmission one, but i dont know for sure if that bell would work if you could even find one.

[Twentyover]

Thanks all for the comments.

Have the MII 2.8 bell,short input shaft T5Z. On the welding table for first fit check. Interested in pilot bearing fit.

Thought all the Fox 2.8's were automatics.

[socorob]

So I've been busy trying to get most of the parts I needed to get started on the 4 link together and the car taken apart. I got it lifted, the brackets removed from my axle, leafs off, gas tank out47176, tires and brakes off, lower control arms assembled and brackets cut out.I ran into a snag and found out I couldn't mount my top links where I47175 had originally planned on. Now when I put the numbers where they can go into suspension analyzer, I get an error saying "An error greater than .01% in 40 attempts occured during calculations. This means the calculations could not arrive at a solution where all answers were better than this." It happens when I do bump or droop. Does anyone know what this means?

[socorob]

4961749618
Well it took forever and a day, but its done. I really like the way it feels now. I havent had a chane to autocross it yet, but it definitely doesnt get the side to side whip that it had with the leafs. Im glad this website was here to give me motivation to do this.

[Norm Peterson]

Did you ever resolve the error message? I didn't see this thread until now.

What were the link pivot coordinates that you did end up with? I could throw them into a spreadsheet that I developed for myself and maybe have a better idea.

If it was it the PT Suspension Analyzer that choked on your new numbers, I don't have any idea. Since I never could get the demo to work on my computer, I wasn't about to buy it.

If it was the spreadsheet, it's probably running across a singularity, such as when links or construction lines are parallel. I don't know if I have a copy of this one, though it looks like a 3-link/PHB sheet that I do have.


Norm

[socorob]

I never did get the error in PT to resolve, thats one of the reasons why I didnt purchase it. My link pickup poits changed very slightly on my forward upper links, because there was something in the way that couldnt be moved. I never did run my final numbers or even take the measurements to see exactly what they were since it rides and feels so much better than what I started with. Im very happy with it, and cant wait till the next autocross to see how much better it really is. Now on to the 48 year old front components. I think its time they get replaced/upgraded too. The new back setup really brings out how worn the front is.