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.

[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

[windsor]

I keep hearing conflicting info on it. Sure, for what I want to do a MII is probably adequate, but overall on forums I hear they are not the better of the options and primarily only create more engine room.

Then, I go to a place like Corner Carvers (yes, I know - that's like asking for a beating after you just received one) and they say "my" idea won't work and I'm an idiot for putting a BBF in an early Falcon. Well sure, for their purposes yeah, maybe not the best idea. But, I haven't really gotten any productive feedback from them on WHY it won't work...just that Mac struts suck and I shouldn't modify it to make it suckier, that I should get Griggs or, lo and behold, a MII and be done with it. And I'm thinking, "at least explain to me why it won't work, oh Gods of Suspension"....which hasn't happend yet - well except for some insight in post #9 by Boo Boo Foo (that's 1 out of 42-ish posts). Here's the link for those that want to laugh at me some - http://forums.corner-carvers.com/sho...525#post795525

I think my idea has a legitimate interest as an alternative to those out there looking for more engine bay space in an early Mustang/Falcon. IF it can be made to work at least as decent as a MII set up, then why not? A tubular K-member is definitely LIGHTER...which is a huge benefit, especially to those running a bigger/heavier engine.

But, maybe it won't work...which is all I'm trying to figure out. Thanks for any other input folks.

[wiedemab]

If you want to make more room and don't want the MII suspension Geometry, you could look at Art Morrison's IFS. It would give you similar benefits as far as freeing up some space and has great geometry. You would need to strengthen the front clip to support the difference in how it would load the rails etc., but basically what you would/should do for a MII

Just another thought...........

[JRouche]

Then, I go to a place like Corner Carvers (yes, I know - that's like asking for a beating after you just received one)

Im laughing my ass off. Aint it true. Some great car folks there. But I get the feeling that Im just looking for a whipping if I dare post anything there ... Sometimes I like to buck the system and when I get in that mood then Ill post there. But when Id like some decent sound advise I kinda like this place. Not too many engineers gonna rip yer ears off. Umm, ok, engineers start the ripping .. JR

[windsor]

Im laughing my ass off. Aint it true. Some great car folks there. But I get the feeling that Im just looking for a whipping if I dare post anything there ... Sometimes I like to buck the system and when I get in that mood then Ill post there. But when Id like some decent sound advise I kinda like this place. Not too many engineers gonna rip yer ears off. Umm, ok, engineers start the ripping .. JR

Well, that was my first post there, so I expected to get torn up. However, they didn't seem real interested in helping to begin with, just thrust their very subjective opinion upon me. aaahhhh well...

I think I'm still going to go this route. The more I research it and think about it the more I suspect it will work. Perfect? No.. Doable for what I'm trying to do? I think so...

BUT, please anyone with suggestions or ideas keep them coming.

[Bryce]

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

It not all that bad. But most kits for mustangs do not have extra bracing. and th frame rails really cant support those loads as they were not intended to do that from the factory.

as for the geometry, the roll center is below ground. i never thought that was good. and if it truely a MII facotry points the camber gain can be improved and the short shocks kinda bother me. Im runnin a 20.5" extended length shock in my front suspension with 7" of bind free travel. Not like i use it... but I can. haha. It sounds like you really modified your stuff. so call it a MJR not a MII. haha

also non of the MII kit supliers ever have analysis of their suspension. If i improved a suspension then i would brag about how good it is. not just say that is has been improved.

your adjustable arms are making up most of your gains over stock. i think.

[JRouche]

as for the geometry, the roll center is below ground. i never thought that was good. and if it truely a MII facotry points the camber gain can be improved and the short shocks kinda bother me.

Oh man!!! You nailed it. I can deal with the deep RC, Ill accommodate for that. But the short travel!!!! SUCKS. And Im not looking to off road this pig of mine. But come on, 5" of total travel is pretty thin. Yup, you nailed that one on the head. Umm, did I forget to call that short coming out LOL... JR

[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.