What's the best hub to hub aftermarket IFS ?

Steve1967 · 07-25-2012, 07:39 PM

Wanted to start this thread on the note that I am trying to get the best hub to hub front suspension with disc brakes, theres a few on ebayavailable that also has the best pricing. Also would love some live feedback on install advise as well as product reliability.

I was looking at the TCI coil over IFS From stangaholics
but would like something just as good but half the price . Guys please help

Also if someone is selling something great thats a complete kit as a bolt on and drive in good condition I'm ready to buy ASAP

Thank you

Greg'66 5.0 · 07-25-2012, 08:00 PM

This topic comes up frequently enough and all too often turns into back and forth bickering about original design suspension vs. aftermarket. There are those who staunchly defend the original design and how it is superb compared to using a Pinto design IFS. It's your car, so in the end all that really matters is what you want.

I personally have the Rod & Custom IFS and it is a very well made complete kit. Every little piece and part that you need to install it comes with it. The only things that you need to supply are grease, anti-seize, and the equipment to cut out the old stuff and weld in the new. The Rod & Custom system is very easy to install, but does require welding. Rod & Custom and TCI are both about as equally popular among the members here. Most of the kits will require welding. I don't think I've seen a kit that is 100% bolt on, but that's not to say there isn't one out there.

GypsyR · 07-25-2012, 08:28 PM

"the best hub to hub front suspension with disc brakes" I suspect that might well be the GR350 setup from Griggs Racing.
Oh, sorry. I overlooked the "just as good but half the price".
I don't know that the most reasonably priced option isn't simply upgrading the stock stuff. Any setup where you are also converting over to rack and pinion steering doesn't come all that cheap. And since your life tends to depend on all those components, which kit is cheapest isn't really the best criteria for choosing. I agree that TCI and Rod&Custom make pretty good kits. I don't think you'd REALLY want a Chinese half- priced copy of them though.

OCHOHILL · 07-26-2012, 12:31 PM

You can choose to trust one opinion over the other on the type of suspension. In the end, I think it is worth your time to do your own research and draw your own conclusion.
Herb Adams book called chassis engineering is a good place to start.

bartl · 07-26-2012, 03:42 PM

1965-66 Mustang front suspension kit - Stage 5

Nothing wrong with the original design that a few improved components won't fix......

Lowfast · 07-27-2012, 01:36 PM

DSE (Detriot Speed & Engineering) now has a full mustang package, probably the best out there short of going full chassis, but it is big $$$

Lukesportsman · 07-27-2012, 03:18 PM

Ouch, Lowfast. I'm pretty open minded in the aspect of cost after working on my E type and the 911's, but Detroit is proud

of its products.

Edit:

That was a hair trigger on my part. After more studying, the DSE looks the part. 295's on front and those tall spindles look like the same part I have on my Buick with C5 brakes. Cheap way to stop relatively fast. Plus the steering and swaybar is integrated with only the need of a steering pump to finish it off. I may have to start to rethink my whole build now. I was always jealous of the early Camaro's for their DSE kits....abilities.

OCHOHILL · 07-28-2012, 03:29 PM

Griggs and Core-tex offer similar systems. I couldn't see going that route without caging the car to stiffen the chassis. 295's on the front will take that car places no one in the 60's dreamed of going.

fej · 07-30-2012, 12:14 PM

Every one of the best handling mustangs I know of at local/national level autocross' have upgraded/improved factory suspension systems. No one from a "performance" handling standpoint runs the IFS systems.

That being said, they ride nice, and provide plug and play brake improvements. And they can be made to handle pretty well, albeit with some questionable geometry.

If you plan on spirited driving, or track days ... cheapest might not be the best route when it comes to your steering/front brakes ... just saying.

Good control arms + good shocks/springs (read not KYB) + upgraded steering box and linkage = very good ride and handling in an early mustang, vastly superior to stock.

Google Maier racing videos, and watch him wax full tube cars at the Goodguys events with regularity in an "upgraded" front factory suspension.

Fej

LSG · 07-30-2012, 03:33 PM

Luke, the DSE front is a fail. Personally, I'm stunned there are so many out there, and they charge so much, but don't understand geometry. The DSE setup is plenty sturdy looking, and it is carefully constructed in such a way as to not harm the front frame rails.......... but the angles on the upper arms are exactly wrong for good handling, and the upper and lower arms appear to be the same length, wrong again. as a reference, my GW uppers are 9&1/4 long, and my modified stock lowers are 16 inches. The DSE crew obviously missed the concept of short arm/ long arm.

Steve, you know that your stang already has independent front suspension from the factory, yes ? And most of those cheapy kits on ebay are Helix/Hoffman parts from china..........not what I would want on my car. I'd keep studying before buying anything. LSG

ace_xp2 · 07-31-2012, 05:03 PM

C5 upper arms can be misleading, if you look you'll note that the upper arm doesn't define the suspension geometry. I can't really tell what the total length of the lower arm is in relation to the upper, pictures make it very difficult to do that accurately.
With that much lower arm, were you able to reduce the upper arm inclination on your car?
EDIT: Oh, and did you increase the strut length too? If so, how? thanks!

LSG · 08-02-2012, 12:44 AM

Ace, can you explain what you mean ? It seems to me the impact of the angle of the upper arms is huge. it dictates whether the top of the tire leans in or leans out when the suspension is compressed. Pretty important. And its the difference in length that helps the SLA system work effectively. LSG

ace_xp2 · 08-02-2012, 04:46 AM

Camber gain can be defined by both arm inclination and the difference in length between upper and lower arms. The greater the difference, the more lean the system will have. Using a lot of arm inclination to gain camber can result in a lot of RC migration. That's why C5 suspensions appear to have a nearly parallel geometry, they rely on arm difference instead. RC migration seems to be the big reason why you don't typically see camber gain equal to body roll (in degrees).
Too much difference in arm length can get you the same problem, but it seems to be the preferred method with high zoot stuff versus arm inclination.
EDIT: Oh, and for the upper arm angle on a c5 suspension, note that the ball joint is in the spindle, not the arm, since the ball joint position defines the arm it's a little different then what you'd usually see. It's basically a bent upper arm.

OCHOHILL · 08-02-2012, 08:53 AM

Just to add a point, corvette suspensions run a lot of caster and have minimal body roll. Both of these will affect camber gain.

j persons · 08-02-2012, 09:37 AM

I read on this site about some suspension failures when using the Griggs/Cortex spindle. I don't know the circumstances of the failures, but when you pay that much for a IFS you don't want to have to go home on the hook.

I've been looking at, well actually lusting after the Roadster Shop IFS, there is an article in the new Modified Mustangs & Fords magazine detailing their install. I like the idea of a factory spindle that is designed for a SLA suspension vs a strut spindle adapted to a SLA.