Page 1 of 1

62 Front suspension options

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 2:07 pm
by 62TBYRD
Just joined, great forum with lots of info. I purchased a 62 a few weeks ago and it will be my next project. I'm currently working on a 62 Unibody truck. First let me say I have not done my homework but wanted to get some input. Thoughts on using 2003 and up Crown Vic front suspension? I can get them complete for around $300 good handling, disc brakes and R&P steering plus built in mounts for a mod motor. Also pondering the Jag front suspension. The factory set up is ok with a complete rebuild I know but looking for upgrades and possibly better handling. Any experience or thoughts are welcome. Thanks Kenny

Image

[/img]Image

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:09 pm
by novanutcase
Just my opinion but the car is pretty damn heavy as it is so I would think that using the existing T-Bird crossmember and bolting on a set of tubular uppers would be easier than trying to mod the CV front end, as heavy as it is, to make it fit if handling is what you are looking for. Not sure if the Galaxie or Mustang ones will fit the 'Bird but it would be worth looking into.

Is the track width for the CV the same as the 'Birds?

Also, since the CV incorporates the spring perches into the crossmember will you be eliminating the shocktower sheet metal to free up room for headers and a larger motor? :evil2:

If you can do the fab your self then I would think the CV swap would be worth it but I would look for something a little lighter if your going to go to all the trouble.

Looks like a really cool project! I'm going to keep an eye on this one!! :mrgreen:

John

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 6:02 pm
by fast Ed
I've pondered the CV swap for my 66. The crossmember, spindles, and steering rack housing are aluminium. The whole assembly is a pretty reasonable weight, but sturdy enough to support a full-size car obviously.


cheers
Ed

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 9:40 pm
by 62TBYRD
Thanks for the replies as I said I've got to do my home work but the Crown Vic has a track width of around 63 inches and the Jag is narrower around 59 inches. The Bird I'm guessing is around 60 inches so if this is correct either are not far off. The CV is aluminum alloy and is light but because its an alloy you are limited to the bolt in option. By eliminating the shock towers you will have plenty of room for any FORD power plant. Actually the Jag may be much easier as it is metal so you can easily weld to it or even fab up some connection points and bolt it in as designed. Note the front and rear suspension to frame connection points. Not knocking the original tbird suspension but with a little work you can check a bunch of upgrade boxes off the list. Dated pics of my Uni project. If its inappropriate to post a non Bird please excuse the newbie and delete.
Image
Image
Image[/img]

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:12 pm
by edpol
Track width for '62 Tbird: 61 front, 60 rear. I wondered about this kind of mod as well, using both front and rear CV suspensions. I like the idea of modern 4 wheel disc brakes, and prefer coils over leafs.
The one thing that concerns me is safety in case of an accident. IIRC, unibody construction was advertised as safer, having a wall of steel between the front of the car and the driver, in addition to the fender. If the shock towers are removed, that extra steel is gone.

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:32 pm
by 62TBYRD
Great point. I think the unibody construction is safer because it provides more structure to absorb impact. I would put some structure in place of the shock towers. The towers are commonly removed in mustang, falcon and TBolt projects and most commonly a Mustang II based suspension is installed. Im not a big fan of Mustang II.

Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:14 pm
by novanutcase
Hey Kenny!

Sweet Truck! This forum is more than happy to look at quality work although some are a little OCD about concours! LOL! Just kidding! Most everyone on here are pretty civil about stuff so post away. I have a chevy project that has been going on for years. From the looks of your truck I think you'd like how and where the Nova project is going. PM me if you'd like to see it and I'll send you a link to the project.

John

Posted: Tue May 13, 2014 11:21 pm
by fast Ed
The difference in track width for the CV stuff could be made up with higher offset wheels. Since it can only be a bolt-in, the important measurement would be the width across where the CV subframe would be bolting up to the T-Bird chassis.


cheers
Ed

Posted: Wed May 14, 2014 8:01 pm
by 62TBYRD
Im going to have to get some measurements together to see how doable the CV swap is. Found this on Utube not a CV swap but very similar concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwBoZZ3 ... e=youtu.be

Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:17 am
by Rogue
Keeping my Rocketbird fairly stock, but I am putting XJS IFS/IRS under my 1941 Chevrolet Coupe.
Will be a total sleeper with a nice taildragger stance.
Whats under her skirts is none of your business. ;)
Image

Re: 62 Front suspension options

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:47 am
by Rogue
I kept thinking about this.....A Rocketbird that drives and rides like a Jag.
Looking closer into this, XK6/XJS are easy and cheap to find.

Re: 62 Front suspension options

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:37 pm
by stubbie
Look at this thread from the 64 modified section
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=13636

Re: 62 Front suspension options

Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:33 pm
by Rogue
Thanks, Sure sad all those pics are gone. :/

Re: 62 Front suspension options

Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 3:30 pm
by tee byrd
Novanutcase wrote:
Also, since the CV incorporates the spring perches into the crossmember will you be eliminating the shocktower sheet metal to free up room for headers and a larger motor? :evil2:
I was going to order headers for my '62 from one of the well known bird.com type sites. Was wondering how/if they would fit. I was hoping sine they are bird people, that they would say something on their site about needing body mods to fit the headers. I didnt see anything about that.
Do you folks have any experience fitting "bird specific" headers without mods to that inner wheel well area?
It does look dang tight in there.
I dont have the original engine, but it is relatively period correct FE 390, so I presume it either will or wont work just as if I had the original block in there?

Re: 62 Front suspension options

Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:02 pm
by stubbie