I'm familiar with that car, but I don't understand what your saying.

(pics from post 40 are below)

 

Eliminating the strut towers and reinforcing them in the same manner as he did. I just wanted to post a good reference pic of what I was thinking about.

 

Keep in mind his shocks are not supporting any weight.

What does this have to do with a shorter spindle?

Just an update, project Super Low has begun and I will be running a shorter spindle. Instead of welding on the spindle, I'm thinking I may be able to cut the top half off and have a machine shop drill a tapered hole into the spindle so I can run a high angle ball joint.

 

I've decided to go with what I mentioned previously. Keep the lower part of the suspension "as is", weld a mount for the upper control arm to the top of the frame, and weld a pick up for the coilover to the frame as well...all while using a C5 spindle. That main bar, like in the pictures, would help keep the frame to body reinforced while providing mounting locations to hang the fenders.

I'll have to check out your super low thread. What spindle did you decide to go with?

 

Doing what your describing is going to be tricky. The boxed "frame rail" is just stamped sheetmetal. Once you cut away the shock tower it's going to bend upward due to the weight of the car. The rail you add over the tire will need to be really strong and preferably straight since it will be under compression. That should prevent the sag.

Also keep in mind that the weight of the car on the upper shock mount is directly above the frame rails. This helps keep the rails from twisting.

I'd just recommend lots of studying before re engineering it. I've been studying it for a few years now and just now feel comfortable reworking everything.

On my car, I'm going to be replacing the frame rails with stronger 2x3 or 2x4 steel tubing. It makes sense because I'm also Z-ing the front frame raising it 2". I'm going to run a strong reinforement bar from the top of he doors (reinforced at the factory) straight down to the frame rail as close to the tire as I can.

Have you compared the C5 spindle to the stock one? I'd like to run them just to reduce unsprung weight. My rear spindles will be aluminum so it only makes sense.

The company Racecraft can make you a tubular upper control arm with bushings in any size you need for under $100. Check them out.

 

Wow...you have your hands full with that one. It should be pretty sick when you get it done though.

I do agree that going with a complete fabricated front end is the best way to go...but, my way is very cost effective. Provided it works. I have some numbers to crunch and a couple people to go see before anything is finalized.

I do have some measurements on the C5 stuff. But it is mainly "overall" measurements (at one point I was thinking of using the front half of a C5 frame under the car). I just need to check my track width and make sure that when all these pieces are together, everything angles uniformly throughout it's full range of motion. I have a feeling I will need custom lower control arms to reduce the track width.

I'm familiar with Racecraft. If I don't go this route, they have a spindle for the thirdgen with a shortened steering arm (allows full turning radius with a steering rack conversion) that I will have to get.

 

Well there's nothing special about the front half of the C5 frame. It cradle/kmember part is neat, but the axle center line is too far forward to use with the fbody.

What I really need to find out about the C5 or later C4 spindles is their hub to balljoint distance so I'll know whether they will make the tires stick out more or less. The other thing is the exact steering arm measurements. I don't know any place that has that info. I may just have to buy one and do my own comparison.

 

That's the same measurement I need.

If it helps you any, C5 track width (hub to hub) is 61.9" and the 4th gen track width is 60.7.

 

Subscribing for my education. Interesting ideas, thanks.

 

Nope, meaningless.

I'm actually considering narrowing my front track by about an inch so it matches the rear. Or vice versa. I never liked how the rear tires looked tucked in more.

 

I was actually complaining about that on my '99 earlier today. Been thinking about taking the 19x11s off the thirdgen and putting them on to fix that problem.

When do you plan to start that IRS?

 

I've got so much to do I'm not too concerned about the IRS right now. What I'll need to do is check the local Craigslist for someone parting out 89-97 t-bird, cougar, mark8. The complete rear assemblies drop out.

 

I have a couple (well, access to a couple...they're mine if I want them) of jag rears if you can't find a tbird one.

 

I think your tossing out wild ideas now.
The Ford setup is by far the best for these cars.
It's a SLA design, real strong, cheap and almost a drop in compared to fabricating something.

 

Well, I'm doing it. My plans have changed a bit since the last time I posted.

I have a donor 98 TA in which I plan to cut up. I'll be re-using the stock k-member and lower control arms and an aftermarket generic upper control arm and some aluminum C4 spindles. I figure why go through all this and end up with heavy steel spindles?

I just need to figure out which C4 version is the best match. The tall one or the short one.



Keep in mind the F-body spindle has 4 3/4" reach like the tall one on the left. That's not a big difference, though. I may end up cutting it off and bolting on a lower steering mount. Otherwise I'll have to use a tall bumpsteer kit.

 

Notice the similarities?


Also notice that the extra distance from the hub to the lower balljoint on the C4 spindle. This will drop the ride height by about 1" compared to the F-body spindle. That's a sweet bonus.

 

Interesting...Subscribing...

 

Well, I mocked up a few things yesterday.

The first thing is rim size. The upper control arm adds about 2" on top of the spindle and the LCA adds 3". So using the short spindle you can fit a 16" rim (I'm thinking of the space saver spare tire), but 17's are a must with the taller ones.

The second thing is that it looks like either spindle is going to have the UCA mount to the side of the frame rail instead of on top of it. This is based on the LCA being level with the ground.

That's important because these C4-C6 spindles are like drop spindles compared to the f-body spindles. I can't say for sure, but it looks like they drop the ride height at least 1"-1.5".

Mounting the UCA on top of the frame rail is going to make the arms parallel or worse. You might loose camber under compression. That's not going to be good for handling.

Now the problem I have with the C5/C6 spindles is the reversed upper ball joint. I don't think anyone makes a universal UCA with a tapered hole in it. That means your forced to use the vette arm. Maybe it's length is just right, but I doubt it. I personally want to get the longest UCA I can and mount them as close to the headers as possible. This will give me the least camber change over a wide height range.

 

I agree 100% on keeping the lower part "as is". Do you still think you can mount the UCA on top of the frame rail? It doesn't look encouraging to me.

 

Here's the situation. There are 3 main locations to mount the UCA. One and two are the easiest, but 3 is the best from a performance standpoint.