dj paul Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hey guys, im in the repair/design stages of my z and ive been reading that the front suspension is the weakest link. i was thinking about designing some front double a arms. ive seen them done by auxillary i think or at least he had a link to some on a z. these posts were a while back so i was just wondering if anyone has either: come up with a new design, has some they could sell me, or knows of a cars setup that you could adapt to our car. more than likely im not going to be doing this unless i can generate a lot of interest because i really dont have the time or the money to put a lot of stuff together right now. (working fulltime, fulltime engineering student, and restoring this car!) so basically 3 full time jobs, lol. what i do have though, is a good friend thats awesome at fabricating almost anything, cad based programs for stress analysis, and the will to help others out if i get this done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehelix112 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Dreaming. But dream away, its fun. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Although the suspension design on the Zcar isn't the absolute best design out there, and one could cerntainly benefit from a double A arm design, I'd stay clear of it given your money/ time issues. Setting up the suspension geometry from scratch would be TOUGH and require time, patience, and money. You'll be better off just doing some camber plates, Adjustable TC rods/ Control arms and being done with it. Weld in plates from AZC - $200 per pair Adjustable TC Rods U make - $85 per Pair Adjustable Control arms U make - $100 per Pair Total cost - Less than $400. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj paul Posted January 30, 2006 Author Share Posted January 30, 2006 sounds good man, thats what i was leaning more towards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube80z Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Although the suspension design on the Zcar isn't the absolute best design out there, and one could cerntainly benefit from a double A arm design, I'd stay clear of it given your money/ time issues. Setting up the suspension geometry from scratch would be TOUGH and require time, patience, and money. You'll be better off just doing some camber plates, Adjustable TC rods/ Control arms and being done with it. I do think a relatively easy upgrade would be to create a new crossmember that allows you to run longer lower control arms. I would think something like a K-member the Ford mustang guys use would fit the bill. This would have the pickups for the TC rods and a new mount for the rack, which would need to be shortenned. Just a thought, Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Here comes trouble Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 The front suspension is not weak but hard to properly adjust..........check this out in Hybrid Z classifieds. http://classifieds.hybridz.org/showproduct.php?product=1654&sort=1&cat=15&page=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
260DET Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Any chance dj paul that you could do it as part of your study? For a start there are software programs around that facilitate suspension design, as you would know it is crucial with a double A arm to get the dimensions right. I'm looking seriously at it with the S130 project. In your rear suspension topic here http://forums.hybridz.org/showthread.php?t=107603&page=1 Terry illustrated a strut conversion, which is what I'll be looking at. At present the idea is to retain the stock suspension parts except that an upper A arm would be attached to a short strut. The new spring/damper unit would use the existing strut tower upper attachment point. It looks like a S130 may be more suitable to convert than a S30 though, more room for a start. Anyway, if I can get the dimensions required to fit in the available space then its on. Can't see any other potential problems at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj paul Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 its possible that soon i could have it as part of my studies. im in an automotive club at school and we design suspensions for the dune buggies from the ground up. i might be able to do this next semester because im just taking normal classes right now. if not i could just give some of the guys some dimensions and see what they come up with. thanks paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
260DET Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 The things to consider when designing a suspension are discussed in Staniforth's Competition Car Suspension for one, sure to be others I don't know about. From memory, the rule of thumb starting point for an unequal length double wishbone suspension design is that the top arm should be 2/3 the length of the lower arm and slope down towards the center at 15 degrees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj paul Posted January 31, 2006 Author Share Posted January 31, 2006 ya we have that book and a few other ones. ill let you all know if i go thru with it. i have access to our CNC machine and an industrial tig and pipe benders and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 73TPIZ Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 How 'bout the Mustang II front end. It's been done so much there's sure to be set up in the width that we'd use and with massive aftermarket support in the form of tubular arms, rotors in any lug pattern we'd want, brake performance, etc. Looks pretty sweet. here's one link but there are probably many companies doin' there own thing in different price ranges. http://www.hotrodsusa.com/store/product159.html dj paul, good luck with it and keep us posted if you stray from stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBC_400 Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 the mustang II has bad geometry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube80z Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 the mustang II has bad geometry! I've been resisiting the urge to write that it's a great conversion if you'd like your car to handle like a Pinto Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj paul Posted February 1, 2006 Author Share Posted February 1, 2006 the mustang II was one of the worst cars ever made. Your on the right track though. i wonder who would even spend a grand on the entire car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaparral2f Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 I know that it ain'ta Z, but still... http://www.mgbv8.co.uk/index.html If I only had thetime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolane Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 the mustang II has bad geometry! I've been resisiting the urge to write that it's a great conversion if you'd like your car to handle like a Pinto Cary Huh? Care to explain more? I have read quite the opposite, but maybe it is just propoganda from the manufacturers using this geometry. Maybe it is significantly better than any other options? I am not trying to start an argument, I just want to learn. I have just always heard the contrary. Furthermore (for extra credit), what front suspension geometry would be better, regardless of track width? The one issue I saw with the Mustang II front end is that the track is too wide. If you shorten the crossmember, you need to also shorten the rack and pinion by an equivalent amount. You can get custom R&P's made, but they are mucho dinero... Otherwise it seems like it would fit quite nicely into a Z front end (with sufficient frame rail reinforcements of course, which need to be significant relative to stock!). A tube front end is on my mind for this type of conversion... Thanks, Joshua Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube80z Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 Huh? Care to explain more? I have read quite the opposite' date=' but maybe it is just propoganda from the manufacturers using this geometry. Maybe it is significantly better than any other options? I am not trying to start an argument, I just want to learn. I have just always heard the contrary. Furthermore (for extra credit), what front suspension geometry would be better, regardless of track width?[/quote'] These all fall into what I class as bolt and pray parts. You bolt them on and pray the live up to the marketing hype. The mustangII/Pinto front ends are a universal fit piece that are marketed by hotrod companies. My father inlaw bought one of these and I got to take a close look. It had a lot of bumpsteer for being a high performance piece. It had limited adjustment for caster and a lot of lot of KPI/SAI. And it was kind of heavy. It didn't come with any info on suspension geometry and I called the company to ask if they had this. I was told about how great it was but they didn't seem to have anything to send to me. As for what you need I don't think there's a simple answer to that. It depends on how you use your car, tires, and things specific to your setup. There are some broad generalizations that can be made, however. Better control of RC/ICs. Less lateral/longitudinal tire movement during suspension, less bumpsteer, ability to run more caster, seperating camber adjustment from KPI/SAI (two piece strut designs), etc. A lot of this can be obtained by running longer control arms and having the ability to raise or lower the pickup points. If it were dead simple you'd see a few kits offered and that's all we'd run. I guess the biggest plus for the hotrod suspensions is that you can use cool names to describe your car, like PintoZ, MuZtangII, Pinto BeanZ Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 The Pinto (Mustang II) suspension design is not a bad design in the parts used, but more in the use of the parts. Proper geometry will provide a very good set-up with this group of parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dj paul Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 i dont think its that bad of a design. i just dont think it would be worth it on our cars. for the price and work. it might be worth it, but i think i just have some bias against how fruity i think the mustang II is. =) and couldnt live with any of its parts coming in contact with my soon-to-be beautiful z. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 73TPIZ Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 You guys should go here and do some light reading before bashing the idea. http://www.rodandcustommagazine.com/techarticles/54298/ Go to the bottom of the page and click on the links to how these guys improved upon the original shortcomings of the original design. Every company has done improvements to improve the geometry, bumpsteer, etc. Really these companies' products are probably have nothing interchangeable with the original. Take Care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.