mv fury
New Member
First time to post on this site. Looking for ideas for front suspension 65 fury. Would love to go with rack and pinon type set up aka mustang two or in that direction . Any ideas for up grades appreciated . mike
suspension
- Thread starter mv fury
- Start date
A Mustang II set-up is too light for a C-body front weight. Look for other alternatives. Would require a bunch of fab work to re-engineer the front suspension to use something of that nature. E-body cars have the full frame replacement for all of that trendy stuff, not C-bodies.
Contrary to popular belief, the C-body front suspension has many neat engineering aspects to it, which neither Ford nor GM suspensions had at any time. Meaning they were better to start with. By comparison, the Chryslers were "on rails" as the others floundered in the sea.
What might your end-result desires be?
CBODY67
Contrary to popular belief, the C-body front suspension has many neat engineering aspects to it, which neither Ford nor GM suspensions had at any time. Meaning they were better to start with. By comparison, the Chryslers were "on rails" as the others floundered in the sea.
What might your end-result desires be?
CBODY67
commando1
Old Man with a Hat
Rebuild the front end stock. It will work perfectly.
mv fury
New Member
Thanks for response. Using mustang as a general idea. Looking to improve handling and ride , get torsion bars out of the way . I do agree that rebuilt and with sway bar they ride fairly well . Fabrication is not a problem . I am in beginning phase of planning , found a 4 speed pedal set up going with a 5 or 6 speed 5.7 or 6.2 motor. Want to build something that look somewhat original , lower wider and great drivability and most of all different. Mike
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,341
- Reaction score
- 1,441
This is not the car you want to monkey with to create " down grades " to your Front End....
Your ride is a 6000 pound Majestic vehicle --- it is not a 2800 pound puddle jumper.....
A rack and pinion steering Front End is for little puddle jumpers....
You are new to the site, so welcome aboard.... But the only right way to do this car's Front End correctly is to do it with Quality Parts , once for life.......
Fortunately, while some of the items are OBSOLETE / DISCONTINUED--- and the Chineseum garbage " kits " give you 9 of the 15 items are on the
Famous ( forever ) " Back Order ..... I can supply you with all Fifteen (15) items of the Front End, broken up into three sub sections..
SUSPENSION : Upper and LOWER Ball Joints, Upper and LOWER Control Arm Bushings.......
STEERING : Inner and Outer Tie Rods, TIE ROD SLEEVES, Idler Arm and PITMAN ARM........
THE REST : Strut Rod Bushings, Inner and Outer Sway Bar Frame Bushings, Upper and Lower Control Arm Bumpers/ Bump Stops.......
That, as Commando I ( and others, shortly, I am sure ) will point out to you , don't try and reinvent fire, in this case.....
Craig.....
Your ride is a 6000 pound Majestic vehicle --- it is not a 2800 pound puddle jumper.....
A rack and pinion steering Front End is for little puddle jumpers....
You are new to the site, so welcome aboard.... But the only right way to do this car's Front End correctly is to do it with Quality Parts , once for life.......
Fortunately, while some of the items are OBSOLETE / DISCONTINUED--- and the Chineseum garbage " kits " give you 9 of the 15 items are on the
Famous ( forever ) " Back Order ..... I can supply you with all Fifteen (15) items of the Front End, broken up into three sub sections..
SUSPENSION : Upper and LOWER Ball Joints, Upper and LOWER Control Arm Bushings.......
STEERING : Inner and Outer Tie Rods, TIE ROD SLEEVES, Idler Arm and PITMAN ARM........
THE REST : Strut Rod Bushings, Inner and Outer Sway Bar Frame Bushings, Upper and Lower Control Arm Bumpers/ Bump Stops.......
That, as Commando I ( and others, shortly, I am sure ) will point out to you , don't try and reinvent fire, in this case.....
Craig.....
3C's & a D?
Senior Member
I'd look at the Crown Vic front suspension.
In fact, if you can do the fabrication, maybe even the full Crown Vic frame, although I think you have to lengthen it 4 or 5". That would also give you the geometry that might be hard to get right with just a front end swap.
Just some thoughts....
66 Monaco 500 365
Member
I put a rear sway bar on my '66 Monaco 500, stiffer shocks and 235-60-15 tires and it made a huge difference.
I did a '69 Roadrunner years ago, I put a larger front sway bar, rear bar, much stiffer shocks and larger torsion bars it was an amazing handling car.
There are firm feel steering chucks out there that I've heard are a real improvement, I purchased a police box decades ago and put it in my son's '69 Coronet, it was nice and precise.
My $.02
I did a '69 Roadrunner years ago, I put a larger front sway bar, rear bar, much stiffer shocks and larger torsion bars it was an amazing handling car.
There are firm feel steering chucks out there that I've heard are a real improvement, I purchased a police box decades ago and put it in my son's '69 Coronet, it was nice and precise.
My $.02
Thanks for the reply. A known issue with "lower" on longer wheelbase vehicles is driving on non-flat roads. Roads with concrete approaches that are nor nearly flat and have "peaks" at the top. NOT to forget the longer rear body section! Which can scrape bumpers even with stock ride height and a load in the trunk. What might look cool is not so cool to deal with when driving. Especially for the OTHERS behind you as THEY have to slow down while you do your self-inflicted pain of navigating these non-flat areas. One night I almost got rear-ended by a pickup truck as I nailed the brakes to slow down for a lowered vehicle at some railroad tracks. As the people in the car in front of me (yes, I was following at a good distance and at the speed limit) creeped across the tracks in their bliss.
Good handling is more related to front suspension geometry than springing methods. The Chrysler front end geometry ALREADY has the outside wheel in negative camber in turns . . . 50 years BEFORE others realized its benefits. Others are using high-caster front control arms to get that now, except more of it. Only thing is that with the wider tires, higher caster can put more on the edges of the tread than the whole tread surface . . . unless the car leans in the turns.
R & P steering is NOT the panacea some perceive it to be. It IS self-contained more than the earlier systems were, but "slack" can be decreased in the older systems with just a few parts changes. Those changes will also put more of the road into the steering wheel in noises and non-luxurious vibrations. Yet, the stock gear can be rebuilt with faster ratios and such.
One reason many perceive tha R & P steering is quicker and more accurate is that it saw its first use on fwd cars, in the USA. FWD needs a stiffer front body structure, which decreases "flex", so the steering system can do its job just a bit quicker, as a result. With all of the "intermediate shafts" and other tight bends that are made on the way to the R & P gearbox, not the best situation at all. The MAIN thing is that those vehicles are "rear steer", which makes the Ackerman angles better in turning. Front steer cars did not have this benefit. Used to be that the only rear-steer cars were Chrysler products and Corvettes (in the '60s and later, until fwd came around). Is there a message there? SO, adding R & P steering will NOT add a lot of benefits to a Chrysler suspension.
Many people complain about "torsion bars" in the fitmnet of headers. As if the bars prevent them from having better products. YET, in fitting headers to ANY GM car back then, more comments about having to "dent and re-form" header tubes to clear suspension (coil spring) and frame components) happened with EACH installation.
I'll tell you that ANY torsion bar suspension will ride better than any "coil-over" suspension. The newer vehicles with the c-o suspensions also have stiffer body structures, which are also Unit Body construction, plus a ton of more sound insulation in them. Better-insulate any older car against road noise and such and they will seem to "ride good", too.
What you seek to do to "upgrade" on your Chrysler product is already included in the basic engineering, no matter your fab skills. Tweak them in some cases, but not delete them all together for little real gain.
I'm NOT against improvements that are REAL improvements, but to "broad brush paint" a Chrysler product as if it was a "normal car" (using GM and Ford as the points of reference) is flawed from the beginning. Rather than seek to "cut and hack", FIRST learn and analyze WHY Chrysler products are what the were back then. Study the camber gain of the front suspension system (there's a MasterTech course on that, which is where I learned of it, back in the late 1960s), for example, without the need of higher caster angles. Chrysler power steering gears might not have the rebuild flexibility of a similar GM Saginaw gear, but they CAN be rebuilt to different levels of firmness and possibly with a faster gear ratio. There are also the Borgeson units, too.
IF you want to lower the car an inch, use shorter and wider tires to do it. Not specifically with suspension modifications/replacements. Add some stiffer bushings to the rear shackles, too! Easier to get taller tires after putting up with a space beneath the car being less that it needs to be. Remember, too, that most of the C-bodies only had 5.5"-6" ground clearance anyway. Certainly, you could put some different mufflers under the car or even move them to beside the gas tank, which might help some, but not much. There's a reason you see more GM cars from the 1960s with hydraulics and air bags on them . . . they are MORE adaptable to them as the cars started with coil spring suspensions and have a full frame.
In an earlier iteration of "C Body Forums" , in here or elsewhere, a guy put a 4-link rear suspension under a '66 Newport 2-dr hardtop. It was very easy to do. Got it to a lower ride height in the process. He added a Panhard bar to the back, as necessary to keep the rear axle located laterally. Coil-overs went into the normal shock absorber location. Adjusted the rorsion bars down so it was level again. Re-aligned the front suspension. DONE.
Want to go corner-carving? Going to need larger front sway bar and add a rear one. No way around that. I'm not "in love" with the current front aftermarket bar arrangements, but the mounting can possibly be improved on somewhat. Stiffer bushings and physically larger bars in the current location, to me. ADDCO used to sell aftermarket rear bars.
Better start looking around at brake system upgrades, too! Other than a dual master cylinder system, 4-whl power disc brakes will be needed. Kits are out there, some which pre-date the Wilwood kits. Possibly more robust in nature than the Wilwood system, too?
Gen III engines? No problem. Adding a 8-spd ZF TF? Controllers are more available. Was a somewhat recent thread in here on doing that in a '66 Newport 4-dr sedan. BUT, considering the negative things I've been seeing online about Gen III Hemis, might it not be better to start with an aluminum RB block, aluminum heads, etc. to build a lighter-weight 440 engine. Fully modernized with EFI and ignition control. Or if you car now has a LA motor, do an aluminum block LA stroker!
In other words, the "car" can be an open pallet to build from, just NOT the pallet you perceived it to be.
Respectfully,
CBODY67
Good handling is more related to front suspension geometry than springing methods. The Chrysler front end geometry ALREADY has the outside wheel in negative camber in turns . . . 50 years BEFORE others realized its benefits. Others are using high-caster front control arms to get that now, except more of it. Only thing is that with the wider tires, higher caster can put more on the edges of the tread than the whole tread surface . . . unless the car leans in the turns.
R & P steering is NOT the panacea some perceive it to be. It IS self-contained more than the earlier systems were, but "slack" can be decreased in the older systems with just a few parts changes. Those changes will also put more of the road into the steering wheel in noises and non-luxurious vibrations. Yet, the stock gear can be rebuilt with faster ratios and such.
One reason many perceive tha R & P steering is quicker and more accurate is that it saw its first use on fwd cars, in the USA. FWD needs a stiffer front body structure, which decreases "flex", so the steering system can do its job just a bit quicker, as a result. With all of the "intermediate shafts" and other tight bends that are made on the way to the R & P gearbox, not the best situation at all. The MAIN thing is that those vehicles are "rear steer", which makes the Ackerman angles better in turning. Front steer cars did not have this benefit. Used to be that the only rear-steer cars were Chrysler products and Corvettes (in the '60s and later, until fwd came around). Is there a message there? SO, adding R & P steering will NOT add a lot of benefits to a Chrysler suspension.
Many people complain about "torsion bars" in the fitmnet of headers. As if the bars prevent them from having better products. YET, in fitting headers to ANY GM car back then, more comments about having to "dent and re-form" header tubes to clear suspension (coil spring) and frame components) happened with EACH installation.
I'll tell you that ANY torsion bar suspension will ride better than any "coil-over" suspension. The newer vehicles with the c-o suspensions also have stiffer body structures, which are also Unit Body construction, plus a ton of more sound insulation in them. Better-insulate any older car against road noise and such and they will seem to "ride good", too.
What you seek to do to "upgrade" on your Chrysler product is already included in the basic engineering, no matter your fab skills. Tweak them in some cases, but not delete them all together for little real gain.
I'm NOT against improvements that are REAL improvements, but to "broad brush paint" a Chrysler product as if it was a "normal car" (using GM and Ford as the points of reference) is flawed from the beginning. Rather than seek to "cut and hack", FIRST learn and analyze WHY Chrysler products are what the were back then. Study the camber gain of the front suspension system (there's a MasterTech course on that, which is where I learned of it, back in the late 1960s), for example, without the need of higher caster angles. Chrysler power steering gears might not have the rebuild flexibility of a similar GM Saginaw gear, but they CAN be rebuilt to different levels of firmness and possibly with a faster gear ratio. There are also the Borgeson units, too.
IF you want to lower the car an inch, use shorter and wider tires to do it. Not specifically with suspension modifications/replacements. Add some stiffer bushings to the rear shackles, too! Easier to get taller tires after putting up with a space beneath the car being less that it needs to be. Remember, too, that most of the C-bodies only had 5.5"-6" ground clearance anyway. Certainly, you could put some different mufflers under the car or even move them to beside the gas tank, which might help some, but not much. There's a reason you see more GM cars from the 1960s with hydraulics and air bags on them . . . they are MORE adaptable to them as the cars started with coil spring suspensions and have a full frame.
In an earlier iteration of "C Body Forums" , in here or elsewhere, a guy put a 4-link rear suspension under a '66 Newport 2-dr hardtop. It was very easy to do. Got it to a lower ride height in the process. He added a Panhard bar to the back, as necessary to keep the rear axle located laterally. Coil-overs went into the normal shock absorber location. Adjusted the rorsion bars down so it was level again. Re-aligned the front suspension. DONE.
Want to go corner-carving? Going to need larger front sway bar and add a rear one. No way around that. I'm not "in love" with the current front aftermarket bar arrangements, but the mounting can possibly be improved on somewhat. Stiffer bushings and physically larger bars in the current location, to me. ADDCO used to sell aftermarket rear bars.
Better start looking around at brake system upgrades, too! Other than a dual master cylinder system, 4-whl power disc brakes will be needed. Kits are out there, some which pre-date the Wilwood kits. Possibly more robust in nature than the Wilwood system, too?
Gen III engines? No problem. Adding a 8-spd ZF TF? Controllers are more available. Was a somewhat recent thread in here on doing that in a '66 Newport 4-dr sedan. BUT, considering the negative things I've been seeing online about Gen III Hemis, might it not be better to start with an aluminum RB block, aluminum heads, etc. to build a lighter-weight 440 engine. Fully modernized with EFI and ignition control. Or if you car now has a LA motor, do an aluminum block LA stroker!
In other words, the "car" can be an open pallet to build from, just NOT the pallet you perceived it to be.
Respectfully,
CBODY67
Last edited:
mv fury
New Member
Lots of info and even before all the feed back was leaning towards original with larger sway bar and upgraded brake setup . With that being said does anyone know of a good source for upgraded torsion bars possible with slight lower capabilities as to not compromise ride . Also i am thinking a rear b body sway bar kit is close to what is needed for c body 65 sport fury. Also plan on driving this vehicle long distances hence the Gen III hemi and 6 speed for drivability and mileage . In the past have had issues with big blocks running a bit hot with a/c and climate . Mike
A car club friend used a '76 Cordoba rear bar on his '66 Polara 2dr ht. Said he had to heat the bar a bit to bend it a small amount to hook up correctly.
As to the overheat issue, I hope your car has a 26" radiator. If not, shop the salvage yards for a core support that will tolerate one. THEN, other than the normal Chrysler-style radiator, you can change to a GM crossflow-thpe radiator which is approx the same size as the 26" unit, but with the crossflow orientation, you'll need to run new transmission cooler lines (not needed with a manual) and make some mounting brackets. The newer ones with the composite construction (plastic tanks, hi-efficiency aluminum core) are both cost-effective and lighter.
When the Gen III Hemis came out, I lauded them for doing that. With time, though, it appears that there is an issue with oiling the rear roller lifters' needle bearings. Not enough splash, apparently. Or the "splash" is deflected away by some internal engine castings, which is why the caution to not idle them for over 30 minutes at a time. So, until somebody finds a fix for this, which is probably not probable at this time, I'm out.
The 4.7L V-8, from what I've been reading in a Dakota pickup truck forum, with a few tweaks, can return up to 30mpg in those trucks. Seems un-real, but several mentions of such. I need to check on that!
ONE thing about modern motors . . . We always look at them through the lens of their on-road performance. Which is natural. BUT it must also be realized that such performance has the 8-speed ZF TF as a willing co-conspirator. The main helper in that is the approx 4.7 low gear ratio. As to ultimate fuel economy, all of the OD ratios are pretty similar. With all of the intermediate gears, no need to heavily-throttle into the motor to get anything done, on the road. Which means higher fuel economy as a result. NOT to forget all of the computerized controls keeping everything at optimum levels. It is these electronic controls that let the motor run at 1700rpm on the highway at 70mph, too.
As much as I used to like manual transmissions, no real need for them anymore. With lock-up torque converters and such everywhere these days. I can change ATF easily, but not all that it takes to change a clutch disc. Especially on something that I will drive daily and a lot. City traffic in a manual transmission car can be brutal. On the Interstate, not so much. Two-lane blacktop, easier to just floor it to pass quickly and not have to worry about staging in a lower gear, waiting for "the chance". BTAIM
Fuel economy? I'd suspect taking a 30mpg Gen III Hemi drivetrain and putting it in any '60 car would knock 5mph off the top immediately. Which gets to mid-20s HWY mileage quickly.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
As to the overheat issue, I hope your car has a 26" radiator. If not, shop the salvage yards for a core support that will tolerate one. THEN, other than the normal Chrysler-style radiator, you can change to a GM crossflow-thpe radiator which is approx the same size as the 26" unit, but with the crossflow orientation, you'll need to run new transmission cooler lines (not needed with a manual) and make some mounting brackets. The newer ones with the composite construction (plastic tanks, hi-efficiency aluminum core) are both cost-effective and lighter.
When the Gen III Hemis came out, I lauded them for doing that. With time, though, it appears that there is an issue with oiling the rear roller lifters' needle bearings. Not enough splash, apparently. Or the "splash" is deflected away by some internal engine castings, which is why the caution to not idle them for over 30 minutes at a time. So, until somebody finds a fix for this, which is probably not probable at this time, I'm out.
The 4.7L V-8, from what I've been reading in a Dakota pickup truck forum, with a few tweaks, can return up to 30mpg in those trucks. Seems un-real, but several mentions of such. I need to check on that!
ONE thing about modern motors . . . We always look at them through the lens of their on-road performance. Which is natural. BUT it must also be realized that such performance has the 8-speed ZF TF as a willing co-conspirator. The main helper in that is the approx 4.7 low gear ratio. As to ultimate fuel economy, all of the OD ratios are pretty similar. With all of the intermediate gears, no need to heavily-throttle into the motor to get anything done, on the road. Which means higher fuel economy as a result. NOT to forget all of the computerized controls keeping everything at optimum levels. It is these electronic controls that let the motor run at 1700rpm on the highway at 70mph, too.
As much as I used to like manual transmissions, no real need for them anymore. With lock-up torque converters and such everywhere these days. I can change ATF easily, but not all that it takes to change a clutch disc. Especially on something that I will drive daily and a lot. City traffic in a manual transmission car can be brutal. On the Interstate, not so much. Two-lane blacktop, easier to just floor it to pass quickly and not have to worry about staging in a lower gear, waiting for "the chance". BTAIM
Fuel economy? I'd suspect taking a 30mpg Gen III Hemi drivetrain and putting it in any '60 car would knock 5mph off the top immediately. Which gets to mid-20s HWY mileage quickly.
Enjoy!
CBODY67
This is hilarious! Why on earth would anyone want to take out the original torsion bar suspension to put in a variation of the bent-bar front end design from Fbodies? The whole thing is going to be riding in four pucks. If they're rubber, they're going to squirm and that makes for some really neat mid corner course corrections, if they're polyurethane, you'll be able to feel every bump in the road, and if you mount them in steel pucks, you'll be able to run over a dime and know which side was up.
3C's & a D?
Senior Member
I can't say why this product exists. I posted it because it applied to the original posters question, not because I endorse it. I first learned of this companies products five or six years ago on this forum. In that time I've never heard or seen of anyone buying or using it.
Just Carbs
Well-Known Member
The Mopar big block drive train is the last thing I would turn my back on in these big cars.
The first thing I go after on a healthy stock one is getting the steering box sorted out.
And then some really nice brakes are a good thing.
If you don't get the steering box right, it will be a lifetime of complaining. Start wherever you want, but the road to happiness goes straight through the middle of that box.
The first thing I go after on a healthy stock one is getting the steering box sorted out.
And then some really nice brakes are a good thing.
If you don't get the steering box right, it will be a lifetime of complaining. Start wherever you want, but the road to happiness goes straight through the middle of that box.
Similar threads
