Bunch of suspension work underway

With an adjustable end link you would be able to run something like this, which is what Jeff suggested right?
Rear - http://www.summitracing.com/parts/aco-914/overview/make/ford/model/mustang/year/1966
Front - http://www.summitracing.com/parts/art-12109100/overview/make/ford/model/mustang/year/1966

 

http://www.drakeautomotivegroup.com/Store/Product/C5ZZ-5A486-ADJ.aspx?wid=141

I'd just run the rear Maverick addco one. I don't have a rear on my car.

 

So Jeff if you ran the maverick rear with this mustang front, would ya have any problems?

 

I have no first hand experience with a rear swaybar on a Maverick. I do know they are more eye candy on a light car like a Falcon or Mustang on a street car where you not suppose to be taken a curve at 100+ mph. On a full blooded racecar is a different story. The '70 Boss 302 used 1/2" in the rear and 15/16" in front. The '69 Boss SCCA Trans Am racecar used 5/8" rear and 15/16" up front. Remember...this was back when the factories was pouring big money into racing and a lot of research and developing. If they think 1/2"-5/8" is big enough then I'll take their word on it. If I was you...I spend the money first on springs and shocks to get the handling before spending it on a over-sized swaybar.

 

Springs and shocks were ordered about an hour ago ;] thats why now im looking into the sway bars, still got some money to spend ;] WHEW tax season!

 

you generally choose the sway bar size based on the spring rates chosen. IOW, you choose larger sway bars with lighter springs.. and smaller one's with heavier springs.

That being said.. most full road-race cars don't use lighter springs.. run at considerably reduced weights compared to street cars and therefore don't always need huge sway bars.

I don't think I would want less than a 3/4 inch bar on mine even after it's lowered and lightened to the max. But I tend to drive em' like I stole em" most of the time.. and comfort isn't such a high priority to me.

 

The Trans-am Boss used 550 lbs. leaf springs…the ’70 Maverick used 535 lbs. The ’76 Maverick came with anything from 720-855 lbs. The aftermarket leaf spring are kinda on the stiff side so I guessing they are way over the 550 lbs. mark, most likely around 800 if not more. SCCA rules state the car's minimum weigh of 2,900 lbs without fuel and driver. That being said, the Boss and Maverick are not that far from being in the same weight class.

 

If you park a Maverick side by side, to a 69/70 Mustang, they are pretty close to the same size.

 

ok.. you definately got me there as the old memory ain't what it used to be. I have that suspension mod handbook somewhere collecting dust and it's been far too long since I've paged through. I was planning on digging it up when the time came.. but you renewed my interest earlier than imagined.

My main point was that regardless of the cars installed on.. the rest of the suspension package is relevant to the parts chosen.

The other point is that regardless of "size similarity".. you shouldn't even come close to imagining that these 2 chassis's are similar from a structural stiffness standpoint. Rated spring rate is only a small part there and one is "econo" rated.. while the other is fairly heavily tweaked and "race" rated. In fact.. if you tried to put the same drivetrain from the Boss and attempt to duplicate it's lap times repeatedly?.. you'd actually start seeing structural failures from such abuse. Which is why the mod'd some of the area's that they did in the first place.

And from an "oh my god that car really flies around the track!" standpoint?.. I'm sad to say that from a chassis perspective.. the old Boss is a pretty much a pig compared to the new stuff out there now. Not to mention that this newer "unibody mod" tech has progressed quite a ways beyond what those guys did to them in those days.

Mind you that we still use some of those very same mod's.. but there is so much more available to us now. That's why we have weekend warriors with pristine looking show style cars that can easily tear up a trans am spec'd Boss when they take it to track day for time attacks. Just think if the old Boss had access to these same parts and the budget to implement them in perfect fashion.

PS. there's a 5 inch wheelbase difference between the 2 cars mentioned here.

 

Man, you really over complicate things...Would a Maverick be stiffer since it's not as wide as a Mustang.

 

That has less to do with stiffness and more to the with center of mass, which has a much greater effect on handling than rigidity. Theoretically if the 2 cars were exactly the same in every aspect the one that was wider would have much more stability, while the thinner car would have more uncontrolled agility. (I would think that this would be barely noticeable at 5 inches though)

Which should point to the fact that you cannot over-complicate this subject.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe groberts is trying to suggest that you have to add rigidity to a mav/comet where the Boss mustang already has that rigidity built into the car, amongst other factors.

 

I rather prefer to take that road over simplifying it with overly vague blanket statements, is all. One liners and a quick bow out the door with smily faces don't cut it for my specific learning curve.

And in theory.. yes it could be when you take pyhysics and basic leverage tendencies into consideration.. all else being equal.

The basic reality is this. The cheaper the car.. the cheaper the unibody construction generally is. And let's not forget we're talking about Ford here... because they sure can corner cut with the best of em'.

So, if these things were so good at twisty racing?.. more would have bought them up and chopped them all to hell by now considering how cheaply they can be found. If people are going to dump 10-20 g's into a unibody car like this.. they seem to want it to have some resell value after all the effort. Not knocking the car as a whole.. because it just is what it is.. but it's no Boss Mustang regardless of installing similar springs and whatnot.

 

I think that is mostly true, but if you can find and re-enforce the key areas of flex well enough these cars are good enough. At least that is supposed to be the purpose of sub-frame connectors and the like. But, that is still having to add a lot of metal and weight to get to a point that is probably still below a stock mustang.

I also believe, that if you already know of and embrace this you will save yourself a lot of aches and pains later. Just look at all the posts of guys putting their shocks through the trunk or whatever.

 

Oh.. for sure. Some of the best mod's that I know of for these types of chassis's can be found here. Talk about overkill!

http://sn65.com/Fire%20&%20Ice%20unibody%20reinforcement.htm

 

That is definitely overkill. That site is basically just building a tube frame chassis and then slapping the body panels on isn't it?