"Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:46978e6e$0$6300$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
> news:46978772$0$51692$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
> > Yeah, those fabricated front-ends (upper and lower arms made outa tube)
> > Coddington uses look great.
>
> They do, and while you can buy them in kit form for early Mustangs in the
US
> (which are a perfect fit for early Falcons), they're pretty bloody
expensive
> at around 2 grand for a basic kit without anything special. By the time
you
> add coild overs and decent brakes you're well over three large just for
the
> front suspension.
Ouch,..its that kind of pricing which stops a lot people.
> > Are the original frontends in Falcons not good enough Nod?
>
> They were *just* okay for the original 6 cylinder, but the front ends were
> one of the problems that gave the Falcon a bad reputation in the early
days.
> They had a habit of popping ball joints out of the lower arms, and the
drag
> link steering system is pretty average.
They mentioned this on the Falcon history program. Apparently the US boss at
the time was not impressed with the lack of forsight by Australian engineers
helping to bring the Falcon to market here.
> They also suffer from pretty bad bump steer, and one of the mods the 6
> cylinder guys do is a "Mustang mod" which basically involves re-drill the
> top arm pivot mounting holes an inch lower in the towers to relocate the
top
> arm. It apparently works, but I've never tried it.
>
> The biggest issue with early Falcons is engine bay clearance.
>
> A 302 Windsor *just* sneaks in, and even though the US models were
basically
> the same car apart from being LHD and came out with a 260 Windsor in the
> range, there isn't a shitload of room and you have to cut the heat riser
> bulge off a standard Windsor exhaust manifold so it clears the steering
box.
> There's virtually no room to run any decent pipes unless you want them so
> horribly bent and crimped that they'd be useless.
>
> Engines with a bigger physical bulk than a 302w, like a 351w or a
Cleveland,
> simply won't fit at all without cutting around 4 inches out of the spring
> towers for a minimum exhaust clearance, and that impacts on the front
> springs.
>
> The work around is to either fit a strut system with small diameter
springs
> that will let you cut a lot out of the spring tower for clearance, or fit
an
> upper & lower arm front end that will allow you to remove the spring
towers
> completely.
Holden and Valiant use the lower arm as load-bearing, meaning a lower spring
(or torque-rods). guess Ford had their reasons for sticking the spring on
top of the upper arm. Plus they used to brace the towers on some other
models (6cyl Cortys). More engine-bay clutter.
Jason