North American Turbocoupe Organization



custom suspension
trashline Offline
Posting Freak
#1
So Ive been working pretty hard on my mustang with designing/ fabricating suspension parts. Im thinking about designing rear control arms for the fox tbird that will be a fraction of the cost on mustang arms. I would like some feedback and recommendations from the members here and what they think. First IIRC 87/88 arms are different then 85/86 in which they can utilize mustang arms. Now are 83 and 84s the same as 85/86? I would like to make them adjustable or as adjustable as possible. If not the lowers then for sure the uppers, this way pinion angle can be set and so on. Chances are I will engineer them more for the strip car using solid bushings and heim joints. Pieces will be 100% machined and fabricated with as little welding as I can get by with.

Thanks
Brian

www.BCPCustom.com

06 Cobalt SS
66 mustang 289 C4 handfully modded

Stingers IC install and tbird photos
http://community.webshots.com/user/trashline
Reply

Robert Camp Offline
Posting Freak
#2
I believe all the rear arms are the same for all years (TC). Mustang arms are not the correct length for any year TC.
There are differences in the front arms at the 86 to 87 split. But 86 and earlier can use the Mustang arms.
Robert Camp
'86 Medium Regatta Blue TC, 5-speed, original owner.
Reply

trashline Offline
Posting Freak
#3
I cant remember the fellas name but I am pretty sure he has an 86 with mustang rear arms.
Brian

www.BCPCustom.com

06 Cobalt SS
66 mustang 289 C4 handfully modded

Stingers IC install and tbird photos
http://community.webshots.com/user/trashline
Reply

JohnL Offline
Senior Member
#4
The front arms are longer on an 87-88, closer to the SN95 specs. The balljoints are still the older style though.
John Lewis
88 TC, 87 XR, 84 SVO
Currently deciding which is worth my time.
Reply

Robert Camp Offline
Posting Freak
#5
He may have Mustang rears on them, but it's well documented here and on TF that they are not the same lenght, upper or lower. The wheel base will change, the driveshaft will need to be shorter and the rear geometry will be wrong. The chassis side upper mounts are wider apart in the T'bird causing binding to occur in less arc of motion if shorter arms are used. Do as you please but with the sure knowledge that the rear control arms are not the same length.
Robert Camp
'86 Medium Regatta Blue TC, 5-speed, original owner.
Reply

JohnL Offline
Senior Member
#6
Actually two of the arms are pretty darn close, can't remember which, but two of them are not. The two that are not compatible with Mustang arms at all can be replaced with some type of GM arms. I'm sure the info is found by searching.
John Lewis
88 TC, 87 XR, 84 SVO
Currently deciding which is worth my time.
Reply

Robert Camp Offline
Posting Freak
#7
It's the uppers that are not even close. The uppers are responsible for controlling the side to side movement and have a significant angle to them for this purpose. Since they are longer and bolt to the same ears on the rear housing as the Mustang, the chassis mounting points are further apart. Move the rear closer to the chassis mounts and the UCA will begin to bind. Either the chassis mounts would have to be re-angled or the mounting ears on the rear relocated.
Using a shorter lower, which are parallel, moves the exle forward and without adjustment of the uppers, changes the pinion angle.
The geometry is pretty evident if you lay it out on paper.
Robert Camp
'86 Medium Regatta Blue TC, 5-speed, original owner.
Reply

trashline Offline
Posting Freak
#8
Quote:Originally posted by Robert Camp:
It's the uppers that are not even close. The uppers are responsible for controlling the side to side movement and have a significant angle to them for this purpose. Since they are longer and bolt to the same ears on the rear housing as the Mustang, the chassis mounting points are further apart. Move the rear closer to the chassis mounts and the UCA will begin to bind. Either the chassis mounts would have to be re-angled or the mounting ears on the rear relocated.
Using a shorter lower, which are parallel, moves the exle forward and without adjustment of the uppers, changes the pinion angle.
The geometry is pretty evident if you lay it out on paper.
LOL I dont think you are following me here. I could care less if the mustang arms are not what is needed, I just wanted to know if all arms are different which is evident. anyway with this info I can still make arms that fit both cars. what I need are control arms from these cars which might be hard to come by. the design is engineered and Im set with that anybody have arms sitting around?
Brian

www.BCPCustom.com

06 Cobalt SS
66 mustang 289 C4 handfully modded

Stingers IC install and tbird photos
http://community.webshots.com/user/trashline
Reply

JohnL Offline
Senior Member
#9
Yeah dude, you need to borrow some, need to keep them for good or what? I doubt I'll ever need them. I have an 87 with the axle already pulled.

I wouldn't bother with the front arms since SN95 units are almost a bolt-in. Unless of course you want to come up with something to tangle with the SN95 market.
John Lewis
88 TC, 87 XR, 84 SVO
Currently deciding which is worth my time.
Reply

cougarman Offline
Member
#10
This place makes Tbird specific suspension parts....
http://www.cheperformance.com/
Feel the Thunder !!
Reply





Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Theme © iAndrew 2018 - Software MyBB