Re: [Amc-list] Re; A front suspension idea!

[Jeffrey.Bohler@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

I am not sure I understand the interest in spending the time and money
developing a lower control arm for the AMC's.  After all, the current
system is very similar to Ford's except for the direction of the strut rod.
Also, if it was good enough for the Roger Penske's cars to finish second by
1 point to a Mustang with this type in the 1970 Trans Am season, and win it
in '71, it is good enough for me.

I think it would take a lot of R&D to ensure the front suspension worked as
intended in regards to caster, camber, and Akermann through the limits of
its vertical travel and turning movements.  If all these are not sorted out
correctly, some scaring handling could occur.

The trans am cars eliminated the flexing of the lower control arm by
"boxing" it.

(Embedded image moved to file: pic14798.jpg)


 Since the lower control would not be allowed to flex anymore, I would
assume they would have used hiem joints on the ends of the strut rods to
allow multi-directional travel.  The following light weight strut rods are
available from amracing for $95, and they have a poly bushing option for
another $72 which I assume eliminates the hiem joints making them more
pleasant on the street.

http://www.amracing.com/

(Embedded image moved to file: pic15281.jpg)


Jeff Bohler
St Louis, Missouri
1970 Javelin, 390 4-speed








                                                                           
             Wrambler242@comca                                             
             st.net                                                        
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             amc-list-bounces@         "AMC/Rambler owners, drivers and    
             amc-list.com              fans." <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>      
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             09/25/2007 09:35                                      Subject 
             AM                        Re: [Amc-list] Re; A front          
                                       suspension idea!                    
                                                                           
             Please respond to                                             
               "AMC/Rambler                                                
              owners, drivers                                              
                and fans."                                                 
             <amc-list@amc-lis                                             
                  t.com>                                                   
                                                                           
                                                                           






"

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John Elle" <johnelle@xxxxxxxxx>
> SNIP

> The Front part of the Control Arm would stay exactly where it is at the
> present. There is no need to change it.

I was thinking the arm would spread to the front. That was last night
thoguh and I guess it could move toward the rear, just different thinking.
My impression of the Chevy II item wsa that it bolted to the front, my bad
if I looked at it wrong.

> Probably take a rack too.
> Snip
> But not important.

It is if your trying to keep cost down. Moving the arm to the rear ends
that problem though.


> SNIP
> Back to this bolt in lower assembly.
> Your going to have ot crawl under the car and spec out where the front
arm
> pivot point needs to go.
> Then see what it takes to put it there.
> SNIP
> No need to change the front, leave it where it is.
> SNIP
> Will it clear the steering?
> SNIP
> Not necessary to worry about it.
> SNIP
> Then will you be able to fit an existing swaybar?
> SNIP
> If the front portion of the lower control arm is exactly the same as
> existing unit, no change in sway bar.

I agree with the above.

> Get the length of those Chev II lower arms and if they are the right
length,
> you could actually start with those!
> SNIP
> It is not hard to fabricate a lower control arm. The front pivot is
located,
> the Ball Joint position is located, all that is needed is to determine
the
> angle of the rear part of the control bar which in part would be
determined
> by the interfering parts if any. A lower control arm can be welded up out
of
> tube stock and re-enforcing plates using something of the same pivot that
is
> currently in use.
> The trailing side of the control bar would be determined by seeing to it
> that it was physically in line with the pivot point of the front side
which
> is mounted on a "cam" type adjustment bolt which could be duplicated for
the
> rear side too.
> The mounting "plate" could be fabricated to be located by the two bolts
that
> hold the front crossmember and at least one of the bolts that holds the
> existing strut rod mount and be gusseted as needed with a "cam"
adjustment
> in it too.

My question is, if it is so easy, why has no one done it???

> SNIP
> Keep it as narrow as is safe, no I don't know what that is?!
> SNIP
> I don't either
> but to the best of my knowledge, nothing says that a control arm has to
be
> uniform in dimension with the front portion equaling the rear portion.
>
> Just noodling, but it sure is causing some intriguing thought to surface.

> My thoughts do not see a need to address a coil over type of suspension
as
> there is nothing specifically wrong with existing configuration


That is why I would try and build it as a two part system. If you could
build the lower assembly for the late model cars, then do the upper for the
pre 70 cars. You would increase your market for the lower. No, there is
nothing wrong with the uppers of any year, but the general impression by
the public is that it is faulty...
   Building the upper would open a larger market. it could be done in
phases, trying to keep in mind where you were headed to allow for it as you
design it.



nor to
> address the probability of incorporating a rack as there is no particular
> need to do so.
> Neither does the existing kit for Chevy applications, that is one of the
> reasons the kit is listed for under $400.00 and for comparison purposes a
> Mustang II suspension package starts at about $1200 from most places and
> goes up. Including a Rack and Pinion Steering is extra!
> John.
>
>
>

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
" I was different before people dared to be different"

>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
>
http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20070924/2affa138/attachm

> ent.htm
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic14798.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20821 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20070925/aa7403f3/attachment.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic15281.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 22652 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.amc-list.com/pipermail/amc-list/attachments/20070925/aa7403f3/attachment-0001.jpg 
_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list