LocostUSA.com

It's time to narrow the research on front suspension setups. If possible I would like to use the rangers spindles.for the brakes that match the master cylinder, the 5x4.5 bolt pattern and the reduced cost ( I already have them) This is a rough sketch-up sketch of how i hope to attach them.

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain
In my defense the moon was full and I was left unsupervised

Let's try this attaching images thing again,

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain
In my defense the moon was full and I was left unsupervised

That's an interesting set up. Basically you're making an attachment that is similar to the end of the I-beam, as I understand it, correct?

I was going to do it differently, and use the ball joints as they attach to the spindle, but flip the lower one around so it attaches to the underside to get more separation between them. I haven't gotten to that part yet though, so I'm not sure if that will work out. I like your idea though, and I might just have to shamelessly copy it.

What wheels size/offset do you plan to run?

Is there adjustments with this setup? I am looking but cannot seem to grasp this concept.

Are you suggesting making the parts that connect to the Ranger spindle? I have a Ranger. but don't quite see what is going on here? How about just connecting to the Ranger spindle? You could make an extension that is tapered and fits the Ranger spindle. That type of thing is pretty common even with normal spindles. For instance my Formula Ford uses an extension that fits the taper on the top of it's spindle and extends upwards about 1.5".

Those parts should work fine...

_________________
Marcus Barrow - Car9 an open design community supported sports car for home builders!
SketchUp collection for LocostUSA: "Dream it, Build it, Drive it!"
Car9 Roadster information - models, drawings, resources etc.

Ditto on the concept working, but consider using noncompliant bushings in tubes as long as practical on the carrier to replace the upper and lower sphericals and a large crossection, perimeter box carrier of thin walled steel instead of a thick wall, small crossection tube.

Adjustment of camber and caster is stock ranger, through the ranger eccentric ubj bushing.

Adjustment is a pain and simultaneous separation of the balljoints from the spindle is not fun either, but if you don't plan on dealing with it very often, it isn't much of a down side.

If he raises the ubj, it will reduce the kpi, which is set up for the stock wheel offset and tire od. This would be helpful with a lower profile tire on a stock offset rim, with the added benefit of a lower outer pivot for the lca, allowing a lower inner pivot on the frame for minimizing track change over bumps. Decide on wheels and tires before making the carrier.

Rangers with this suspension have come with 14 and 15 wheels, with tires sized from 195/70-14.

The earliest rangers have thin wall steel beams that wrap around the spindle with a large crossection instead of cast iron.

You might also consider 1979up mustang spindles with a simple ubj adapter and reuse the ranger rotors. It would be lighter without the carrier.

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

Adjustments can be made using the rod ends and to a lesser degree with the upper ball joint caster/camber adjuster. Both upper and lower control arms are angled down towards the rear 4 degrees.

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain
In my defense the moon was full and I was left unsupervised

The design and materials of the control arms hasn't been nailed down yet. An extension might be the answer I will work on that. the top out board rod ends , 5/8-18 x 1/2, will have suitable washers on the outside.

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain
In my defense the moon was full and I was left unsupervised

I'll probably run 16x7s. Some where in the neighborhood of
25 inch dia. and somewhere near the stock -15mm offset.
Been looking at early crown victoria steel wheels that take the dog dish hub caps for that 1958 lotus look?

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain
In my defense the moon was full and I was left unsupervised

you will have a LARGE scrub radius.

You know , if that offset results in an uncomfortably large scrub radius, then I'll look for a 16x7 with an acceptable offset!! no problem

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain
In my defense the moon was full and I was left unsupervised

I see, uca fwd inbd adjustment for caster, with no other adjustment required or shim change.
Uca outbd equal adjustments for camber, with no other adjusment required or shim change.
Requirment to adjust factory eccentric eliminated.
Nice!

I would use a much larger spherical on the lca outbd.

That is a very large tire od for these cars. Have you considered chassis ground clearance and the lca's angle to the ground and where the lca inbd pivots will end up on the frame?

_________________
Miata UBJ: ES-2074R('70s maz pickup)
Ford IFS viewtopic.php?f=5&t=13225&p=134742
Simple Spring select viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11815
LxWxHt
360LA 442E: 134.5x46x15
Lotus7:115x39x7.25
Tiger Avon:114x40x13.3-12.6
Champion/Book:114x42x11
Gibbs/Haynes:122x42x14
VoDou:113x44x14
McSorley 442:122x46x14
Collins 241:127x46x12

I had considered making an extension to raise the UBJ and leaving the LBJ where it is, but wasn't sure how to make the upper extension. Obviously a taper to fit into the ball joint hole, but then the tapered hole to accept the upper ball joint would have to be offset slightly? Horizonjob, do you have a picture of the extension on you FF?

I don't think scrub radius will be a problem here, it will be exactly the same as on the ranger if using the same wheel size. I don't recall what the offset was on the ranger stock.

Btw, have you actually taken the spindles off the truck? I started disassembling mine and found the nut for the UBJ stuck on, so that the ball joint was spinning when I tried to undo it. I think I will have to cut if off, if I can get a grinder in there.

Although I got stalled, I found it hard to get even a moderatly low roll centre with my original 25.4 inch tires, and ended up buying a new set of lower profile ones so I could redue roll centre height without going to very short instant centre lengths. So ditto horizon Job's comment about tire diameter. It may be OK, but work out your geometry first - I didn't and had to buy a second set of new tires.

_________________
Warren
Isuzu Pickup/SR20DE, +401 COLD frame
Build Log: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=11601

Posthumane,

Spindles are still on the truck. They won't be coming off for a couple more months, at the least. I'm picking up a pair of ball joints tomorrow to get a better idea of what I have to work with.

Two problems with the "out rigger" approach ( the top 2). The holes for the ball joints, Size and Alignment, and the steering arm not in line with the ball joints by a good bit. The good news is I may not have to shorten the rack!

_________________
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." - Mark Twain
In my defense the moon was full and I was left unsupervised