TCI Suspension Help!!! - Page 4 - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Vintage Mustang Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-12-2012, 08:53 PM   #46 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 35
Default Struts

[QUOTE=TCI Engineering;4329325]I am very passionate about what I do and where I work so please understand why I take things personally.

Like I have already mentioned, I am not trying to hide anything so if I haven't posted something it is solely because I haven't received it yet from R&D. I have had pictures of the uppper & lower control arms sitting on my desk since we last had this discussion. They prints are too light to scan so I need the original file so I can screen shot it and post it up. However, the actual dimension were already posted in this thread. TCI Engineering's Custom IFS

The uppers are shorter than the MII but the lowers are slightly longer.

You'll notice that the camber gain listed in that thread is different than what was previously posted. The original info given to me was changed at some point due to some changes made to accomodate the Fairlane. (They wanted one tower that would work with both vehicles). In simple terms the upper control arm is now as close to the frame as it can go without touching. The lower arm is as close to the frame as it can go and still allow an engine to fit above the crossmember.

The point I've already tried to make is that our camber curve is specifically matched to the roll amount the vehicle/suspension has. The stock set-up needs more camber gain because it is rolling more (roll resitance) and has more travel bump/rebound.

The Camaro has the same ball joints with no spacers. Don't you think I would have mentioned that if it had? I am not trying to hide anything, I've already laid my cards on the table. The Camaro front end has slightly more travel, is a wider car and is also heavier so it needs a little more camber gain (.8 degree @ 1" bump/static = 1 degree). It also uses longer control arms which requires the pickup points to be closer together to achieve this. With that car you don't have the constraint of the stock frame so we actually offer two upper control arm mounting points. One for the street/drag guys and one for the autocross.

I guess I misunderstood before. I thought you were talking about pics and videos I had posted. So I am assuming it is media you took yourself? Was it a Mustang?



Did you scale both of them? How much less was it? I think you'd be surprised how much the shock towers weigh.


Thanks for responding J, no I did not scale it yet but I did do the tower noching removing about 2/3 of the tower. Also I did purchase a Heigts M2 kit for my car and didnt install it I just thought that there is a more modern way to accomplish my goals and I went with the strut set up. If I remember correctly the stock set up has a 2 to 1 ratio where the struts have a 1 to 1 ratio relieveing much stress on the body.
preaction is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-13-2012, 12:53 AM   #47 (permalink)
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,129
Tongue front end stuff

J, the videos I'm referring to are found on your TCI Engineered Custom IFS thread. I wanted to cut and paste in a pic of the outside top of the tire rolling badly as the cars corner. I'm not sure yet how to pull a still out of a you tube vid. I'll send you a PM with the owner names. It didn't seem polite to me to be using someones car as a example of what I think one should not do, and leave their name on it. Listening to the tires howl as the cars plow through the turns with massive positive camber hurts to watch, and why is there seemingly no antidive ?

I looked through the thread you left us a link too and could find no dimensions, only the very slightly improved camber numbers of neg .8 at 1 inch compressed and neg 1.8 and two inch compressed. At two inches of suspension compression, thats only an improvement of 1/2 of one degree..........still not even remotely close to being enough to counter the roll of the body. Arm lengths and angles would be good to know.

I also watched the videos of the Maier car, its harder to freeze frame it in the right spot because he is going SO much faster, But its obvious that he is hotdogging and having lots of fun. The cars without plenty of negative camber gain don't appear to even be competitive.


IIRC some of the TCI cars were getting .90 on the skidpad. But, back in 1969, with reworked stock suspension and bias belted tires, the T/A cars were getting 1.1 on the same test.

If the mustang custom IFS had taller spindles or ball joint spacers, you might be able to achieve a better curve. From the looks of it, your setup cannot lower the inside pickup of the upper arms any farther because you're already right on top of the frame rail, yes ?


LSG
LSG is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2012, 02:42 AM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 11,660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post

Slot, how do you figure that R & P is an 'update' ?! R&P steering was patented in 1895 for some kinda tricycle. Wooden sailing ships had R & P drive for the rudder in the 1600s. Not what I'd call an update. Just a lighter wallet, and lost turning ability. No thanks. LSG
Not sure if a man with this type of logic should be participating in a discussion about chassis design?
JohnnyK is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2012, 01:04 PM   #49 (permalink)
Supporting Vendor
 
TCI Engineering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
J, the videos I'm referring to are found on your TCI Engineered Custom IFS thread. I wanted to cut and paste in a pic of the outside top of the tire rolling badly as the cars corner. I'm not sure yet how to pull a still out of a you tube vid. I'll send you a PM with the owner names. It didn't seem polite to me to be using someones car as a example of what I think one should not do, and leave their name on it. Listening to the tires howl as the cars plow through the turns with massive positive camber hurts to watch, and why is there seemingly no antidive ?

I looked through the thread you left us a link too and could find no dimensions, only the very slightly improved camber numbers of neg .8 at 1 inch compressed and neg 1.8 and two inch compressed. At two inches of suspension compression, thats only an improvement of 1/2 of one degree..........still not even remotely close to being enough to counter the roll of the body. Arm lengths and angles would be good to know.

I also watched the videos of the Maier car, its harder to freeze frame it in the right spot because he is going SO much faster, But its obvious that he is hotdogging and having lots of fun. The cars without plenty of negative camber gain don't appear to even be competitive.


IIRC some of the TCI cars were getting .90 on the skidpad. But, back in 1969, with reworked stock suspension and bias belted tires, the T/A cars were getting 1.1 on the same test.

If the mustang custom IFS had taller spindles or ball joint spacers, you might be able to achieve a better curve. From the looks of it, your setup cannot lower the inside pickup of the upper arms any farther because you're already right on top of the frame rail, yes ?


LSG
You criticized me for posting a picture of our Camaro, yet the suspension on the Camaro more closely resembles the Mustang IFS than either of the vehicles you just mentioned. I really can't say this in a nice way so I'll just come out with it. You really need to research our product before you continue feeding the gullibility of any unsuspecting forum readers. <--see the irony

.90 on the skidpad was the Falcon WITH A MII FRONT END and that was on 320 treadwear tires. That same car also went 48.50 mph through the slalom on those same tires(215 front and 245 rear I might add). AGAIN, THAT VEHICLE IS NOT USING THE SAME FRONT END/GEOMETRY AS THE MUSTANG so any arguement you have against it or the '32 are irrelevent.

The T/A cars were using slicks, how is that an apples to apples comparison? We're pulling a G on the skid pad with 200 treadwear tires with the Custom IFS in a car that is easily 500 # heavier.

Arm lengths are in that thread as is ball joint pivot heights. I'll have the new pickup points for the inners posted shortly but really what does it matter if I've posted the camber #'s already. I must stress again though that camber gain is not the be all end all of a performance front end. Watching some videos online doesn't equal a suspension analyzer especially when you're analyzing the wrong car/suspension.

-J

Last edited by TCI Engineering; 11-13-2012 at 02:40 PM.
TCI Engineering is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2012, 01:09 PM   #50 (permalink)
Supporting Vendor
 
TCI Engineering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by preaction View Post

Thanks for responding J, no I did not scale it yet but I did do the tower noching removing about 2/3 of the tower. Also I did purchase a Heigts M2 kit for my car and didnt install it I just thought that there is a more modern way to accomplish my goals and I went with the strut set up. If I remember correctly the stock set up has a 2 to 1 ratio where the struts have a 1 to 1 ratio relieveing much stress on the body.

Did they mean motion ratio is 1 to 1? Ours actually falls between the stock or even a MII set-up (which is roughly 50%) and a typical strut set-up which are normally 100% but our shocks don't mount to the body at all.

You've got me curious now though so I'll have to weigh all the removed stock components and compare them to ours.

-J

Last edited by TCI Engineering; 11-14-2012 at 10:50 AM.
TCI Engineering is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2012, 01:32 PM   #51 (permalink)
Supporting Vendor
 
TCI Engineering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 416
Default

Since LSG asked me to here are the screen shots of the videos that he has been using to argue that our suspension geometry is less than optimal on our Mustang Custom IFS.





You can clearly tell that the Mustangs in the pictures don't handle very well and don't have enough negative camber gain.

On a serious note though this is exactly why you can't judge a book by a online video. The '32 in the picture actually has less static and less negative camber than the Falcon in the picture above it. Looking at the pics it sure doesn't look that way does it?

-J

Last edited by TCI Engineering; 11-13-2012 at 02:38 PM.
TCI Engineering is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-13-2012, 02:27 PM   #52 (permalink)
Member
 
Lowfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas via Madison Wisconsin
Posts: 95
Default



Love the body style of those two Mustangs, what years are they.
__________________
1965 ProTouring Falcon Hardtop
TCI Protouring IFS & Triagulated 4-link, 6-pot Wilwoods, blown modular 3v 4.6 and big rubber.
Lowfast is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-14-2012, 12:36 PM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: QUEEN CREEK AZ
Posts: 1,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowfast View Post

I 100% agree with this statement and do not understand why the suspension companies do not post a data sheet on their sites with this information. This is not proprietary, knowing the numbers only serves to better inform the consumer.

Ochohill, do you have the numbers/information for the stock mustang set-up? For comparison sake. And if you could be so helpful as to provide a link or example of how the take all of the critical measurements I would be happy to use my TCI front end to provide hard data next time I have it up in the air. Good or bad, at least we will have the numbers for discussion, no more guessing. I can't do much about the other systems, DSE, AM, Heidits, unless someone wants to fund me to build one of each.
As to your request, I have collected some data from Luigi at cornercarvers.com. I need to give credit where credit is due. Luigi had to have gone through a great effort to get these. I saved that info in pdf.s. I don't know how to post those. His data is on 5/6 cars.

For the 67/8 cars you can download a free trial of suspension analyzer software from Performance trends (from memory not sure). They have listed the dimension for a 67/8. You would need to check some of their measurements to confirm it was stock vs. shelby drop of 1" or more.

It is a rather large task to measure the X, Y and Z coordinates with a minimal amount of error. Remember, few cars will be the same unless built with the same parts. Weight, springs, age, etc. all have an effect on the static location.

BTW, I dig the falcon. I always wanted one of those, 4/5 ofcourse.
__________________
Sense is not as common as you think.
17" MB Old School wheels from discount tire (a lot of people ask)
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i5...l/DSCF3220.jpg
OCHOHILL is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-16-2012, 10:12 PM   #54 (permalink)
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,129
Tongue front suspension

J, okay, so I found the lengths of the arms in the 'Custom IFS' , 7.87 uppers 13.25 lowers for a ratio of 1.68, not too shabby. My GW arms and the stock lowers give 1.73, so ratio wise, you're in the ball park. But we still have the problem of where do these arms mount, and how are they different from the M2 gear. We also know the camber gain of either design is much much less than what a tweaked stock setup can offer.

I'd like to see a still of the falcon at 1:05, at 1:54, and 2:20, and at 2:32. On The 32, what about the video at the 2011 'run to the coast' at 0:24, at 0:37, and at 0:45. I'm not seeing any obvious difference between the M2 setup and the "Custom" other than that the Custom uses more expensive coilovers.

Why doesn't the TCI setup advertise how they've done at the Super Chevy handling challenge? You guys did well in the 2009 survey, and then placed dead last in the autocross in the 2010 survey. I realize them ain't stangs out there..... ....but dang, last place ?! A 66 Nova, like the one you had in that survey, has a unit body construction and shock towers from the factory, just like our mustangs do. The guys from GW ran a convertible , which flexs more, and beat you at everything. It appears that you didn't send a car in 2011 and 2012 ? it seems to me that what this shows is that your style of front end conversion cannot achieve the same geometry and camber gain as the tower suspensions can. Now, if y'all designed taller spindles, great things might be possible. But If you have a car that originally has shock towers, the frame rails don't seem to allow placing the inner pivots low enough to get spectacular camber curves, and cornering power. It can be good, but not great. So i'll stand by my recommendation that they only be used if one is swapping in a coyote or a mod and one has to have the room.

LSG

And MMike, yes, i really will put some numbers up for you soon. I haven't forgotten you.
LSG is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-19-2012, 12:22 PM   #55 (permalink)
Supporting Vendor
 
TCI Engineering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
J, okay, so I found the lengths of the arms in the 'Custom IFS' , 7.87 uppers 13.25 lowers for a ratio of 1.68, not too shabby. My GW arms and the stock lowers give 1.73, so ratio wise, you're in the ball park. But we still have the problem of where do these arms mount, and how are they different from the M2 gear. We also know the camber gain of either design is much much less than what a tweaked stock setup can offer.

I'd like to see a still of the falcon at 1:05, at 1:54, and 2:20, and at 2:32. On The 32, what about the video at the 2011 'run to the coast' at 0:24, at 0:37, and at 0:45. I'm not seeing any obvious difference between the M2 setup and the "Custom" other than that the Custom uses more expensive coilovers.

Why doesn't the TCI setup advertise how they've done at the Super Chevy handling challenge? You guys did well in the 2009 survey, and then placed dead last in the autocross in the 2010 survey. I realize them ain't stangs out there..... ....but dang, last place ?! A 66 Nova, like the one you had in that survey, has a unit body construction and shock towers from the factory, just like our mustangs do. The guys from GW ran a convertible , which flexs more, and beat you at everything. It appears that you didn't send a car in 2011 and 2012 ? it seems to me that what this shows is that your style of front end conversion cannot achieve the same geometry and camber gain as the tower suspensions can. Now, if y'all designed taller spindles, great things might be possible. But If you have a car that originally has shock towers, the frame rails don't seem to allow placing the inner pivots low enough to get spectacular camber curves, and cornering power. It can be good, but not great. So i'll stand by my recommendation that they only be used if one is swapping in a coyote or a mod and one has to have the room.

LSG

And MMike, yes, i really will put some numbers up for you soon. I haven't forgotten you.

I've made it pretty clear that you can't diagnose a suspension by watching a video especially when you're watching the wrong vehicles in said videos.

I will say it again and for the last time. You CAN NOT compare the camber gain of the stock front suspension to ours and expect that one piece of information will tell you how one is going to handle vs. the other. There are many other factors of geometry at play that I have already discussed so I am done with it. Our Mustang/Camaro and Nova Custom P/T kits are the only front ends using this goemetry so to compare anything else is irrelevant.

The factory MII suspension has positive camber gain during bump so there is no need to even compare pickup points with our Custom IFS or even our modified MII set-ups.

Please read this thread before anything else is said about the 2010 Handling Challenge. http://www.stevesnovasite.com/forums...d.php?t=158537

Up until 2011 we were the only manufacturer that hadn't missed the event. To say we did "Well" in the 2009 event is the understatement of the month. We destroyed the competition by almost 2 seconds on the autocross. The 2011 event conflicted with preparation for the NSRA Louisville show. The 2012 event was supposed to have this Nova Wagon but it wasn't ready in time.


We have actually been begging Source Interlink to add an event like this to a Ford publication so we can throw down with the Mustang.

-J

Last edited by TCI Engineering; 11-19-2012 at 12:33 PM.
TCI Engineering is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-26-2012, 10:37 PM   #56 (permalink)
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,129
Tongue irrellevence

J, we still don't know what are the differences between the M2 setup and Mustang /Camaro Nova 'protour' or custom IFS. So if you don't wish to discuss it further, I suppose thats your choice. But I'm stunned that you would consider camber curve discussions 'irrelevant' nothing affects turning ability more. Yes, there ARE other numbers that matter, but the effect of the curve is nothing short of huge.

Okay, so your engine failed, burning up a dizzy gear. So who built that engine ? Did you guys do it ? If so that would make me suspect your attention to detail. If you had the engine built, just what kind of folks do you hire to get stuff done ? In more than 25 yrs of engine building, I've never burned up a dizzy gear ........does your engine builder not understand how lubrication works ? I'm not really impressed.


I say again, if one needs extra room for a Coyote or Mod engine swap, your stuff will give it. I would add the caveat that a bar should be added to transfer load to the cowl.

Besides just the camber curve your stuff offers, there is the steering issue. It looks as if your kits change the cars to front steering- why is that ? It seems that this change adds complexity and cost to the deal by requiring a new oil pan and maybe new headers. Not sure that helps.



Okay MMike, here are a few suggestions, if you're looking for new front pieces. if you look at Cobra automotive- look at 100-930, a kit with 1.75 drop. You could also look at OpenTracker's 'roller Track Uppers, ( 1.5 drop ) and 'Track Lower arms'- a fully boxed stockish arm. Or howsabout, from GlobalWest, MNR-773 uppers ( 1.325, usually ) and SPF lower arms or maybe Street or Track's STUCA 6773 uppers, ( don't know the drop, ask Shaun ) with STLCA 6873 lower arms.

Whichever you choose, you may want to look at OpenTracker's or ProMotorSports shock tower reinforcement kits. You may also want to look at some help for the strut rods.

In the interest of disclosure, I work for none of these companies and don't sell any of their stuff. I DO however have Global West arms on the front of my car, I bought them in '85 or 86 back when they were the only choice out there for lowering the uppers more than Arning's 1 inch. I'm very happy with them, but have also heard good things about the other stuff I have listed. Yer cash, yer car, yer choice. have fun with whatever you do. LSG
LSG is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-27-2012, 07:42 AM   #57 (permalink)
Member
 
Lowfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas via Madison Wisconsin
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post

Okay, so your engine failed, burning up a dizzy gear. So who built that engine ? Did you guys do it ? If so that would make me suspect your attention to detail. If you had the engine built, just what kind of folks do you hire to get stuff done ? In more than 25 yrs of engine building, I've never burned up a dizzy gear ........does your engine builder not understand how lubrication works ? I'm not really impressed.
LSG
LSG, I have no skin in this as I have already made my choice and it was the right one for me. However this has to be the ignorant statement of the week. Any of us who have been around engines know that any part can fail at any time. Further, to stretch to say that if they had an engine fail then the quality of thier suspension parts are suspect is also foolish.

Have you ever actuall put your hands on the TCI stuff, in my expereince it is of excellent build quality and I have not run into one issue of inconsistancy or having to "mod to fit" like I have on countless other "aftermarket" parts.

Your argument is starting to sound like a rant or you are butt hurt for some reason and less like an intelligent discussion of suspension options and geometry. You provide this community a wealth of valuable information but in this case you are hurting that reputation IMHO.
__________________
1965 ProTouring Falcon Hardtop
TCI Protouring IFS & Triagulated 4-link, 6-pot Wilwoods, blown modular 3v 4.6 and big rubber.
Lowfast is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-27-2012, 11:14 AM   #58 (permalink)
Supporting Vendor
 
TCI Engineering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
J, we still don't know what are the differences between the M2 setup and Mustang /Camaro Nova 'protour' or custom IFS. So if you don't wish to discuss it further, I suppose thats your choice. But I'm stunned that you would consider camber curve discussions 'irrelevant' nothing affects turning ability more. Yes, there ARE other numbers that matter, but the effect of the curve is nothing short of huge.

Okay, so your engine failed, burning up a dizzy gear. So who built that engine ? Did you guys do it ? If so that would make me suspect your attention to detail. If you had the engine built, just what kind of folks do you hire to get stuff done ? In more than 25 yrs of engine building, I've never burned up a dizzy gear ........does your engine builder not understand how lubrication works ? I'm not really impressed.


I say again, if one needs extra room for a Coyote or Mod engine swap, your stuff will give it. I would add the caveat that a bar should be added to transfer load to the cowl.

Besides just the camber curve your stuff offers, there is the steering issue. It looks as if your kits change the cars to front steering- why is that ? It seems that this change adds complexity and cost to the deal by requiring a new oil pan and maybe new headers. Not sure that helps.


In the interest of disclosure, I work for none of these companies and don't sell any of their stuff. I DO however have Global West arms on the front of my car, I bought them in '85 or 86 back when they were the only choice out there for lowering the uppers more than Arning's 1 inch. I'm very happy with them, but have also heard good things about the other stuff I have listed. Yer cash, yer car, yer choice. have fun with whatever you do. LSG



You're really just grasping at straws now. Plus you're apparently not even reading what I wrote, either that or you're just voluntarily taking things out of context. I never said camber gain is irrelevent. I said the videos you are looking at are irrelevent to this discussion which is the whole basis of your opinion that our Mustang parts don't handle well.

Oh and no we don't build engines here, we just build suspensions.

-J
TCI Engineering is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-02-2012, 08:04 PM   #59 (permalink)
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,129
Tongue front suspension

J, glad you're still with us. yes, I really am interested in the geometry. What are the differences between the earlier kits you offered and the Custom IFS ? Am i correct in my thought that your kits covert the cars to front steer spindles ? Do all of them do that ? Do you feel front steering offers some advantage over rear ? regular readers know that I am not a fan of R&P jobs, but R&P is available in both front and rear steer, the rear deals being for more stockish cars, so I'd love to know why you chose front.

Low, your falcon looks great, at least it does in the little pic I've seen. Got any bigger pictures of it ? And if you chose TCI, why did you pick them over Rod and Custom or Heidts or Fatman or whomever? Tell us about your build.

Ocho, can anyone help you upload those files, or maybe you can give us a link ?



LSG

Last edited by LSG; 12-02-2012 at 08:05 PM. Reason: fat fingers, fuzzy thinking
LSG is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-03-2012, 09:27 AM   #60 (permalink)
Member
 
Lowfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas via Madison Wisconsin
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSG View Post
Low, your falcon looks great, at least it does in the little pic I've seen. Got any bigger pictures of it ? And if you chose TCI, why did you pick them over Rod and Custom or Heidts or Fatman or whomever? Tell us about your build.
I chose TCI over the others that we available at the time for a couple of reasons. First, I liked the geometry revisions TCI made to thier ProTouring IFS for the Mustang/Cougar platform as well as the overall packaging. I had looked at thier offering for the Falcon, which is a MSII set-up. After speaking with Jason a number of times I settled on going with the ProTouring IFS and modding it to work with the Falcons narrower framerails. I used the boxing plates from the Falcon kit and then modded the IFS crossmember to work. It was a bit of work but it got me exactly what I wanted. I saved all of the necessary dimensions and info so that TCI could use this to prototype the PT front-end for the Falcons for those who want to go above the current MSII offering.

I looked at Heidits and R&C, good kits and good people but they were not what I wanted. In the end it came down to an Art Morrison Front clip or the TCI set-up, I went with the TCI as it was a little less involved form an installation standpoint, plus I liked the challenge of fitting the Mustang/Cougar specific kit to my Falcon.

Not to pull this thread off topic, but. My 65 Hardtop Project is a ProTouring build trying to strike a balance between autocross/track capability and a car that is fun on the street. The front suspension is TCI IFS, Rear is their falcon 4-link heavily modified (along with new/narrowed rear frame rails) Brakes are 13" 6-Piston Wilwoods up font, 12" out back. Using a narrowed Explorer 3.73 LS rearend with custom Moser Axles. Wheels are Team III LT III's in 18x8 up front with a 245/35 Kuhmo Ecsta tire and 18x11 out back with a 315/30. The car rides very low yet has full suspsnion travel and turning radius. Engine is a 3v 4.6 and TR3650 out of an '06 Mustang GT, plans are to add a Roush TVS as well, goals are 500hp and 500tq at the wheels, if the engine lets go I will build a new bottom-end. Not sure if it is acceptable to link to other sites but here is the build thread.

Project 'Chicken Nugget" - 65 Ford Falcon Hardtop=

Few Extra Pics




__________________
1965 ProTouring Falcon Hardtop
TCI Protouring IFS & Triagulated 4-link, 6-pot Wilwoods, blown modular 3v 4.6 and big rubber.

Last edited by Lowfast; 12-03-2012 at 09:30 AM.
Lowfast is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.