- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Old Ford muscle / pony car suspension
Posted on 3/30/24 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 3/30/24 at 11:08 pm
If you look at muscle / pony cars from the mid/late 1960s, there are clear differences in how the engine bay and front suspension are laid out. I understand the decisions that GM and Chrysler made in these areas, but not Ford.
Why did Ford put the coil springs on top of the upper control arm? Just looking at how high up those springs are, how free they are to shift around, and how much weight they do not suspend makes my back hurt. The big "shock towers" in the engine bay that held the coil spring just got in the way, e.g. on the Boss 429 Mustang.
Does anyone know what Ford was thinking? My theory is that their design somehow made cars cheaper / easier to assemble, but that's pure speculation.
(FWIW in the 1980s we saw something similar with the *rear* suspension of the Mustang, which was Neanderthal crap compared to the Camaro, but that's a different thread.)
Why did Ford put the coil springs on top of the upper control arm? Just looking at how high up those springs are, how free they are to shift around, and how much weight they do not suspend makes my back hurt. The big "shock towers" in the engine bay that held the coil spring just got in the way, e.g. on the Boss 429 Mustang.
Does anyone know what Ford was thinking? My theory is that their design somehow made cars cheaper / easier to assemble, but that's pure speculation.
(FWIW in the 1980s we saw something similar with the *rear* suspension of the Mustang, which was Neanderthal crap compared to the Camaro, but that's a different thread.)
5
Posted on 3/30/24 at 11:12 pm to Porpus
the early Novas had the same configuration. when the shock towers developed fatigue and broke, you got dings punched into the hood from below.
Posted on 3/30/24 at 11:24 pm to piratedude
quote:
the early Novas had the same configuration. when the shock towers developed fatigue and broke, you got dings punched into the hood from below.
But does the bottom of the spring really sit on the upper control arm? Maybe there's a shock tower on a first-gen Nova, but the real insanity of the Ford design is that the spring is on top of the upper control arm.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 12:05 am to Porpus
Posted on 3/31/24 at 12:26 am to Porpus
The Mustang used the existing chassis from the Falcon. The motivation to do this had to come from time savings and time is money. The chassis that GM came up with for the Camaro was worlds better than Mustang.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 8:27 am to Porpus
Shelby used the Jaguar suspension with double wishbone instead of the stock Ford suspension.
I had a 69 fastback that I rebuilt from the frame up. First thing I did was purchase the after market stabilizer bar that bolts between the shock towers over the engine. Then you have to purchase another stabilizer bar for the rear end or else it won’t handle right.
I had a 69 fastback that I rebuilt from the frame up. First thing I did was purchase the after market stabilizer bar that bolts between the shock towers over the engine. Then you have to purchase another stabilizer bar for the rear end or else it won’t handle right.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 8:33 am to Porpus
The old man bought a ‘74 Maverick new for the last three if his kids to use for High School. The front coil springs in it squeaked from the day he brought it home.
One of my sisters (no pics) named it the “Maverickity”.
Yeah, it was lãmo.
One of my sisters (no pics) named it the “Maverickity”.
Yeah, it was lãmo.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 8:47 am to soccerfüt
Yay. A classic car thread.
OP- with Ford, the answer was almost always going to be money and production. The Mustang was a game changer in the 60s. GM had the luxury of taking all the appeal of the Mustang and making it better for their competing vehicles.
The Maverick and the Mustang II both had coil over suspension in the front. Along with the Chevy Vega, they were attempting to meet govt mandates for fuel economy and compete with Japanese imports by the early 70s.
Neither did well as this famous picture of Mavericks in a cave illustrates.
OP- with Ford, the answer was almost always going to be money and production. The Mustang was a game changer in the 60s. GM had the luxury of taking all the appeal of the Mustang and making it better for their competing vehicles.
The Maverick and the Mustang II both had coil over suspension in the front. Along with the Chevy Vega, they were attempting to meet govt mandates for fuel economy and compete with Japanese imports by the early 70s.
Neither did well as this famous picture of Mavericks in a cave illustrates.
This post was edited on 3/31/24 at 8:50 am
Posted on 3/31/24 at 9:35 am to Porpus
The C2/3 Vettes went in a totally different direction for their independent rear suspension set up. A single multi-leaf transverse spring that mounted to the differential rear case, conventional shocks and three driveshafts.
Engineers were all over the place with some of their designs back then.
Engineers were all over the place with some of their designs back then.
Posted on 3/31/24 at 9:44 am to soccerfüt
quote:Yes, it was. I had a Maverick in high school. Worse, it was a four door!
The old man bought a ‘74 Maverick new for the last three if his kids to use for High School. The front coil springs in it squeaked from the day he brought it home.
One of my sisters (no pics) named it the “Maverickity”.
Yeah, it was lãmo.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News