3 link suspension

[race-rodz]

welllllllll.......... here is my $.02 on the mustang idea.... and i just happen have my 64 1/2 coupe sittin up on the chassis table right now. initially i thought about doin the SN65 treatment(full sn95 "pan"), ... but finally decided against it for a few reasons. so im bck to square one.

now this is really a backburner project, as my 34 truck is priority after paying jobs.... so i have been mostly thinkin about different ways of doin it.

i have a few priorities with the project that seem to be the biggest problem, #1, the car will be a daily driver, weekend autocross/track car. #2, the car will be really low... most mustangs are usually about 1-2" lower than stock, mine should sit about 3-4" lower than stock.

the first problem i have with the early mustang platform........ is the complete lack of anything structural....... frame connectors are at best just a bandaid for the piss poor structural design. the fixed front rails are really nothin more than 16-18ga sheetmetal, and really rely on the shock towers and the rest to hold it all together....as its a true unibody. an aftermarket weld in crossmember that gets rid of the shock towers has got to be one of the "sketchiest" things that can be done to the early mustangs, granted for 99% of the people that just "cruise" their cars.... its more than enough, not for me.

well for my project i already decided it will use a 3 link on a sn 8.8 (track width will be more as i want minor flares) i really like the design of the top mount that you have pictured... so something similar will be worked out for this car. the rear is the easy part.... now working forward. a complete chassis stiffening kit, similar to what mustangs plus sells, ties the rockers to the t-boxes f&r, then ties back to the frame connectors. it also increases the size and effectivness of the the front torque boxes....and drasticaly increases the strength of the rockers... which in any unibody car are extremly inportant.

now that we have the chassis rigid from the firewall back we start with the front frame "stub"... and this is the point where i am at on the mental drawing board. ideally you would make something that ties into the factory rails...unfortunatly, they are way too thin to tie anything into... and without the towers...they are nothin more than sheetmetal spot welded to the floor pan.... so in reality.... the stub would need to be constructed with the sfc's as part of it. the front of the stub would triangulate back to the top of the beefed up t-box.

for front suspension i was planning on a sn based "k-member" converted to sla setup, and use a hub carrier type upright, so 13"sn cobra brakes could be used.

the main downfall to this whole set-up is gonna be added weight, and obviously install. i cant see the weight difference being more than 100-150 lbs, after the stock "everything" is gone and new "everything" fabbed up outa lil heavier material, i think its a small price to pay for a stable and rigid platform without a full cage. the install is what the real killer is, as there is nothing "bolt-on" about it, major welding and fitting issues will prohibit the average guy from stepping up to the whole system. where this isnt a big deal for me in my one off situation, it would be for 99% of potential customers.

this really sounds overkill...and probably is. but IMHO early mustangs are crap, they were the geo metros of the 60's never ment to become true muscle cars, so by expecting them to handle and perform with todays "standards" the entire system needs a complete rework.

i have driven quite a few early mustangs, one of which was a gt350 coupe(1 of 6).... i got to flog it around the kart track(our local autocross venue), and while the car was better set-up for road racing than my car, i found it to have the same "issues" with chassis flex and poor steering, inconsistant "feeling" etc....as EVERY early mustang i have ever driven with "stock" chassis config. so yeah.... overkill for one guy...means its just about right for someone like me

anyway...these are just my ideas.... i cant wait to hear what you have in store....... as you said...there really is no "support" for the early mustang crowd. (im leaving out 1 place.... as i dont like them, after talkin on the phone with them, gxxxxs motorsports can kiss my a$$)

[MadMax]

Mark,

How much is the 3-link going to cost? Is it a SEMA secret ?

Also, I know this is kind of branching off from the whole topic here, but how would this affect a car that is drag raced? Also how would it compare DSE's 4 link for auto-x and drag racing?

I know there is a very complicated answer there, and many don't want to compare products...

Thanks in advance.
Max

[Jasper Jones]

Along with the above questions, how much of the floor would have to be modified in a Camaro to run your three link set-up? Can I still use my factory back seat? Thanks
-Jason

[Mean 69]

Without question, the early Mustang leave a LOT to be desired in terms of chassis rigidity. For serious track duty, a full cage and "real" subframe connectors are in order. I know exactly what you are talking about in regards to the front frame rails, there are some super thin extensions that come off of the front frame horns, kind of silly how they did that, but the cars weren't designed to rip through turns with contemporary tires, as you stated. The good thing is that even though you will add weight to stiffen things up, at least the car is light to begin with.

Pricing on the setup is not set in stone at this point, we have a good idea where it will be, but haven't firmly set retail pricing as of today. I will say that it will be competitively priced relative to other "like" systems that are available, when you consider everything that is included (all brackets and hardware, fully welded rear end housing assembly, coil-over shocks and springs). This setup will not be for everyone, you will need to do some cutting of the car to install the forward crossmember, and to make room for the upper link. You can use "a" back seat, but not "the" stock back seat, at least not in the first gen Camaros. The seat will require split seat bottoms, like in a secong gen F body, or a late model F body, in order to clear the tunnel extension box (for the upper link).

Our opinion is that this setup offers the highest performance potential of any commercially available rigid axle suspension system on the market, period. We are very close to finishing the product brochure, so hopefully some of the questions will be answered in that text. Also, we hope to have at least a temporary website on line in the next day or two with more info, and more pic's. Sorry for the general comments at this time, very specific info is coming soon, in great detail.

Mark

[David Pozzi]

Mark,
Great stuff, it looks like a really good system. I'll look you guys up at SEMA.
On the subject of back seats, if you install a roll bar with seatbelt anchor cross brace, you won't ever want to have a back seat passenger in the car, it just isn't safe having them sit back there with a bunch of tubes right in front of them.
My wife's 73 Camaro has an Autopower roll bar and back seat but I can't even get back there to clean the rear window let alone sit there.
David

[Damn True]

I just tried to visualize getting to my back window to clean it with the cage I am planning and I threw out my back thinking about it.

Back seat? Guess I wont be having one.

Anyone know if you can buy carpet remnants from ACC large enough to cover the rear firewall?

[Vince@Meanstreets]

I just tried to visualize getting to my back window to clean it with the cage I am planning and I threw out my back thinking about it.

you know why? its 11:30 pm....get some sleep! LOL you could do an anti roll bar of some sorts...but it won't be sanction legal.
Mark, design looks good. BTW what ws wrong with your welding? LOL
second thought how would one get a "new" design sanction legal? just up late