Modified AJE strut tower in Classic Falcon

[windsor]

I have a 65 Falcon. Wondering about input on the below idea. Interested in running the AJE 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.

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=154733
http://www.460ford.com/forum/showthr...=136222&page=2



Alternative is the standard Mustang II style front, but I really like the idea of the k-member/strut style.

More of a street/strip car. More street, however.

Thanks for any input.

[windsor]

Nobody touching this one, eh? :D

[Kenova]

I have a 65 Falcon. Wondering about input on the below idea. Interested in running the AJE front suspension conversion, but moving the tops of the strut assembly camber/caster plate outward and making mini shock towers.

Would that not give you more (possibly too much) positive camber if they are moved out more than they are designed for?
I would think the Mustang II suspension would give you the most room because you are able to eliminate the shock towers altogether. Any M II conversion I've seen has had a lot of room, even with a big block.

Ken

[Bryce]

MII suspension sucks, the geometry is horrible. And i think the overall weight is much more than strut. For drag racing the strut is the best. The only concern i have is how the geometry will be affected. as well as the camber gain. I think you have to keep the same line of the shock as intended by the design. so the shorter strut at the same angle might be the best idea.

[windsor]

Thanks guys. Yes, if I were to do this with the set up as it comes from AJE then camber would be a problem. However, I have contacted them about doing this they said they would adjust the strut for proper camber before hand.

Honestly, I'd rather use something like this than a MII just due to what Falcon65 says...they aren't great designs, just barely adequate in terms of what they are designed for. The major advantage is clearance for a much larger engine and the BBF would fit with pretty much no problem. However, if my idea would be too difficult I'll just stick with MII because it's not really a car meant for super handling...more of a street/strip car. That being said, the MII systems are tried and true.

Otherwise, I was just looking for other input or ideas on this front strut idea....something this board seems to be good at.

[ANIMOSITY]

Like I ve told many before. These cars(mustangs and Falcons) were not meant to carry all the weight on the frame rails,like the mustang II front does. The front rails are just folded sheet metal. That is why the Ford engineers didnt use them from the factory. The strut front is right for the car,, it spreads the weight through out the front,and the shock towers are part of that set-up. Now If you want to run with the MII front, then that great is you build a new front sub-frame with somthing like 2x3 box steel.

Another plus to the updated front, similar to the Fat-Man front you can use the later model mustang brakes and sterring which just improves the car alot, But Im not sure about the Fat-man kit, as Ive heard some Neg comments about there quality.

Now Im talking from a drag racing veiw. As Ive seen Mustangs converted to the M II front, and alot of them , with high horse motors end up with bent cars after a few years .

Just my 2 cents!

[windsor]

Thanks for the input. Yes, the structural integrity of the MII systems on these year Falcons/Mustangs has come up in many-a-discussion in various boards. If I'm to do the MII style, I'd assuredly reinforce the frame with roll bar tubing inside the fender from the firewall to the frame rail. Such as:



http://www.reenmachine.com/albums/in...thumbnail=true (just as an example)

That being said, it wouldn't deter me from using it....it's been done 10s of thousands of times and is a reliable method, if not best geometrically.

I'm still interested in anyone's input on the AJE style, however :D If I could make that work without much issue, I'd do it.

Thanks again...John

[MonzaRacer]

I dont see why a strut set up with a brace also tied to the firewall wouldnt be strong enough to do what ever you want.

[windsor]

It's not about strength as much as it's about room for the big engine.

2nd factor is what will work well, hence my idea of trying to make this work.

[Bryce]

the strut style suspension will allow you to run a 4.6 mod motor in there. You wont have an issue with clearance.

struts are the best for drag racing since they are the lightest suspension.

[windsor]

Sure, it will fit if you cut down the bottoms of the shock towers, as seen in this pic of a 66 Mustang:



http://mustang520.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=8 (he has a pretty cool site)

But I'd like to create even more room than that with my 'idea'....

[windsor]

OK, here's an idea.

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

2) Use a stock replacement style strut and spindle.

3) Cut off and redrill/reinforce the upper strut bolt hole mount in the spindle (see attached pic). The new hole would be moved close to proportionate in degrees the distance the upper strut mounting point in fender is moved out.

4) The would theoretically reduce that positive camber back close to stock.

Thoughts?

[Bryce]

i think it will work. Cut down the towers as much as needed. modify some caster camber plates. redrilling the spindle should be fine. as long as you keep the edge distance the same as stock.

[windsor]

Cool...I'm going to talk to the builder when I go home in 2 weeks...

yeah yeah, I wish I could do it myself :P Thanks for the input. Can't wait to see your apron on your car.

[Rhino]

I may be way off base on this, although isn't the early mustang suspension double a-arm? I thought that it was double A-arm with the spring/shock combo placed on top of the upper arm.
If this is all correct, I would imagine moving the top of the shock tower would not effect the camber curve. It would, however, influence your spring/shock selection due to a slightly different motion ratio. You would also have decreased clearance for the top inner portion of your tire.

EDIT: Next time I'll read a little closer next time. I missed the part about the conversion being a strut based system.

[Bryce]

Cool...I'm going to talk to the builder when I go home in 2 weeks...

yeah yeah, I wish I could do it myself :P Thanks for the input. Can't wait to see your apron on your car.

Its cheaper to do it yourself. HAHA. i mocked the apron up last night. it needs alot of work. dangit. its not wide enough. so it will need some fiberglass work. i guess i now have to teach myself how to do fiberglass. HA. and i still have to make all the brackets.

[windsor]

I may be way off base on this, although isn't the early mustang suspension double a-arm? I thought that it was double A-arm with the spring/shock combo placed on top of the upper arm.
If this is all correct, I would imagine moving the top of the shock tower would not effect the camber curve. It would, however, influence your spring/shock selection due to a slightly different motion ratio. You would also have decreased clearance for the top inner portion of your tire.

EDIT: Next time I'll read a little closer next time. I missed the part about the conversion being a strut based system.

Yep, you were off base ;) ha...no worries. Thanks for the input.

[windsor]

Man, they're tearing me up on Corner Carvers over this. ha!

[Bryce]

why is that?

[JRouche]

MII suspension sucks, the geometry is horrible.

Damm, now yer gonna make me cry.. LOL Really, are they that bad?? I put one in my nova. I am doing some mods on it right now but I am expecting good things. I do see alot, ok, EVERYONE talking about how bad the MII suspension is, and what I mostly see is ackerman and roll center issues (too low and travels alot).

But it is a solid suspension, easy to work on and align. Nice steering with the rack. I was able to run the arms through all the motions, checking camber gain. You can dial in caster anywhere from 0 to about 5.5 degrees. Decent scrub numbers with the right wheel.

Its by not means a top performer. But when you compare it to some stock suspensions its not bad.

And as for the frame flexing and bending, I havent heard of those issues. You always support the frame with additional links that connect to the firewall area. And I have full sub-frame connectors that are welded in all the way back to the 4-link.

Oh, and some nice wilwood 13" brakes help the whoa section

Ill be able to talk more about the handling once this project is done. Getting closer. Sway bar was the last thing and its in... JR