opentracker roller lower control arms and adj strut rods or CPP mini subframe kit?

[simplyj 26]

I'm going with a custom coilover system similar to the ron morris setup (eliminating spring perch). I was originally going to convert my lower control arm with the opentracker roller kit as well as installing adjustable strut rods (either opentracker or DIY) however have seen a few installs of the CPP mini subframe kit. I like how it has a mounting plate tying together the front frame rails as well as eliminating the strut rods alltogether.

 

I've seen good reviews of the CPP kit, but have always been a little wary of tubular control arms versus stock stamped ones for a car that will do street duty.

 

Anyone have first hand experience with the CPP kit on a 69 that would like to weigh in?

 

Costs:

CPP kit: $379 shipped via their ebay store

 

Opentracker:

Lower control arms: $240 or $125 DIY (already have new control arms)

Strut rod: $369

 

The car is being built as a weekend driver in a light pro touring style. Mostly spirited street driving with maybe a few HPDE days here and there.

 

Other planned mods:

4.6 DOHC, tr-3650, 13" cobra brakes up front, disc rears, hydroboost, and possibly adapting an isuzu power steering box.

[Jayru 17]

I found this thread online about it:

 

http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/mod-custom-forum/569195-cpp-mini-sub-frame.html

 

No one there had road tested it yet though. Damn that looks like a great kit though! I wish i would have seen this 6 months ago before i ordered my new (stock style) setup. I hate the design of strut rods! Making the lower arm triangulated and stiffening the subframe in the process, seems like a no brainier!

 

I have to add, i'm less than impressed with the way my car handles replacing everything stock specs (except for roller perches/idler arm, shelby drop, and bigger front sway bar). Everyone on the forums talked of this HUGE gain with roller perches alone... I just don't feel it.

 

My car's stock setup was so worn it was practically falling off the car! I figured with everything i did the car would be a night and day difference , it isn't. Upon first impression (only have a few days seat time in the car), It felt decent/tight when driving in a straight line, but It's still sloppy in turns (even at slow speeds) and generally feels like I'm taking a turn in a top heavy pickup truck!

Edited December 2, 2009 by Jayru

[Steve69 0]

Ive added the CPP control arms on my 69 No road time yet. Im installing a Unisteer rack also. Cutting out the Strut Rod Braces were a PIA. Other than that the install isn't bad. The only problem I see with the kit is the Ball joints. I think the Tapper on the Ball joints are to small. Seems like my Spindles sit to low on the Ball Joint. I've called them a few times and they say its ok. But I think its going to be problems down the road. I like the Idea of removing the Strut rods also.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Steve69
spelling

[Opentracker 4]

That is NOT OK. I have been dealing with several customers about that ball joint issue. Do not drive the car like that. From what I have found out, they did NO testing on the arms before they put them on the market. The sleeve and ball joint they used are the wrong ones and they don't seem to want to fix it. A couple of our customers are pulling the CPP stuff and putting our parts in.

 

There is bind with their set up and there is little adjustment for the alignment. All you have is the eccentrics at the two mounting points. There is some adjustment for the camber but not for the caster. I have been told that their response to that question is that the caster is pre-set, you get what you got. The bushings are loaded at a 45deg. angle under braking and bind up.

 

It is a very nice looking kit though.

 

 

Ive added the CPP control arms on my 69 No road time yet. Im installing a Unisteer rack also. Cutting out the Strut Rod Braces were a PIA. Other than that the install isn't bad. The only problem I see with the kit is the Ball joints. I think the Tapper on the Ball joints are to small. Seems like my Spindles sit to low on the Ball Joint. I've called them a few times and they say its ok. But I think its going to be problems down the road. I like the Idea of removing the Strut rods also.

[69RestoRod 10]

I completely agree with Opentracker. The castle nut should be sitting up near the hole in the ball joint stud, at least a 1/2" higher. You're going to run into serious problems driving on that.

[Fordrevhead 29]

oh my, that does look bad! I mean the ball joint, the rest looks ok. The "joint" portion is projecting up into the hole and the boot is compressed! I can see how it would bind. Yeah, dont drive that. I'd be pissed! Opentracker mentioned a sleeve. I assume this reduces the ball joint hole size? Did you use it? If so, it's still wrong. Sorry man but I would start a complaint with the BBB then post a link in all the forums. Who in their right mind would say that's ok? Those guys are "off the list."

[Steve69 0]

They sent me spacers to install between the nut and spidle so you and lock a cotter pin on the ball joint. I never received any sleeves. Ill give them a call again to see if they have any bushings or sleaves for my spindle. I know one guy on Stangnet has been running his 67 Mustang with no issues. But to me it just doesn't look right. The spindle should be up higher on the ball joint.

 

Steve69

[LSG 15]

SJ, I would go with the open track stuff. Not just because he posts here and is 'one of us', but because the geometry is correct. The CPP that Steve is fighting isn't going to work without some help. The fitment on the balljoint studs is wrong, as as been pointed out. CPP seems to know this and be unwilling to do anything about it. If one runs the CPP stuff, you lose one of the adjustability points for caster.....and where does the front sway bar fit into this new setup ? At the moment, I don't have any pieces from either company, I have Global West UCAs and stock lower arms that I was going to weld a plate to for strength. If I were going to buy a piece that wasn't stock replacement, I think I would go with the opentrack stuff, it is already been shown to work and is a known way to go. I agree that the CPP looks pretty, but it looks like a big step backwards to me. Is eliminating strut rods a goal ? and if so, why ? LSG

[Opentracker 4]

 

This is the sleeve. It's a weld-in sleeve for the screw in ball joint.

 

Putting in a stack of washers or sleeve to make use of the cotter pin is a joke. The issue is that with the spindle mounted that low on the ball joint, the ball joint is in danger of breaking. The spindle can hit the arm and snap the ball joint. In a drag racing application, it would be worse than a street or road racing application. Either way, it's a safety issue.

 

 

 

 

Jan. 1 we will be offering a lower arm kit that uses a screw in ball joint for the road racing crowd. This kit has the correct sleeve, ball joint and uses our spherical bearing inside povot.

[Jayru 17]

I guess I have to go back on my previous statement. It sure looks like a pretty setup in theory, but after seeing all the flaws you guys posted about, doesn't seem to be worth it.

 

Someone should come out with a cheap setup like that which uses a strut/coilover like the fox body stangs where you can adjust caster from the top.

[Opentracker 4]

Now that's a good idea ...... :chef:

 

We are all about being "Vintage Legal" so it won't be us but that would work.

 

IMO, there is nothing wrong with the strut rod set-up. It does look odd though compaired to some other systems. I often tell our customers, the spindle doesn't care what it's bolted too, as long as it moves the right way, the car will handle well. Getting rid of the bind in any suspension is key to making it work better.

 

I put a full roller front end in one of our Ranchero's. With the shocks undone, I can bounce the car off the ground in three bounces.

[Steve69 0]

Does that sleeve weld in the Spindle? Do you carry these John?

 

Thanks

Steve69

 

 

This is the sleeve. It's a weld-in sleeve for the screw in ball joint.

 

Putting in a stack of washers or sleeve to make use of the cotter pin is a joke. The issue is that with the spindle mounted that low on the ball joint, the ball joint is in danger of breaking. The spindle can hit the arm and snap the ball joint. In a drag racing application, it would be worse than a street or road racing application. Either way, it's a safety issue.

 

 

 

 

Jan. 1 we will be offering a lower arm kit that uses a screw in ball joint for the road racing crowd. This kit has the correct sleeve, ball joint and uses our spherical bearing inside povot.

[Opentracker 4]

We do have them. They are also available at AFCO Racing.

 

 

The sleeve is part number #20043

 

 

The sleeve is welded in to the frame of the LCA.

 

http://www.afabcorp.com/AFCO_Dynatech_USbrake/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=A&Product_Code=20043&Category_Code=ct_bj-sleeves

 

The ball joint is part #20034

 

 

http://www.afabcorp.com/AFCO_Dynatech_USbrake/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=A&Product_Code=20034&Category_Code=ct_standard-ball-joints

[Steve69 0]

OK, I thought it was a sleeve that went on my spindle that brought up the spindle up on the ball joint since the tappers not right on the ball joint. The sleeve you have a pic of holds the Ball joint on the LCA. I know Mustang Steve has a Bushing for Tie Rod ends when changing from Ford Spindles to Granada Spindles for the Tie rod ends. You think something like that would work on the Spindles and the Ball joint? Thanks for the help.

 

Steve69

[grendi 16]

I guess I have to go back on my previous statement. It sure looks like a pretty setup in theory, but after seeing all the flaws you guys posted about, doesn't seem to be worth it.

 

Someone should come out with a cheap setup like that which uses a strut/coilover like the fox body stangs where you can adjust caster from the top.

 

is this what your looking for?

http://www.fatmanfab.com/catalogpage.php?page=37

http://www.fatmanfab.com/catalogpage.php?page=37

[simplyj 26]

I have no need to be vintage legal, but that ball joint taper problem has definitely turned me away from from CPP, especially after the lack of customer service. Looks like I'll be sticking with Opentracker kits as money becomes available.

[Jayru 17]

is this what your looking for?

http://www.fatmanfab.com/catalogpage.php?page=37

http://www.fatmanfab.com/catalogpage.php?page=37

 

That's a sweet setup, but at around $3500.00 (with all the parts), it sure ain't cheap!

 

This CPP kit is around $700.

 

It would be nice if you could just buy the strut setup with spindles and use the factory steering box.

[Shaun 10]

We do have them. They are also available at AFCO Racing.

 

 

The sleeve is part number #20043

 

 

The sleeve is welded in to the frame of the LCA.

 

http://www.afabcorp.com/AFCO_Dynatech_USbrake/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=A&Product_Code=20043&Category_Code=ct_bj-sleeves

 

The ball joint is part #20034

 

 

http://www.afabcorp.com/AFCO_Dynatech_USbrake/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=A&Product_Code=20034&Category_Code=ct_standard-ball-joints

 

John,

 

Is that the same BJ as the small Chrylser? Moog # K772?

[Opentracker 4]

I'm not sure, it might be. I've been using these AFCO pieces for our track cars for years, they fit well. I did check out the lower arms from TCP, GW and they are the same ball joint, though I didn't ask them where they got 'em to confirm. Safe to say, CPP didn't use them.

[Shaun 10]

I'm not sure, it might be. I've been using these AFCO pieces for our track cars for years, they fit well. I did check out the lower arms from TCP, GW and they are the same ball joint, though I didn't ask them where they got 'em to confirm. Safe to say, CPP didn't use them.

 

The CPP pin looks pretty small. The Chrysler style 772 screw in lower BJ I'm using uses a 3/8 - 1/2" or so spacer under the castle nut but nothing quite like the distance I'm seeing on the CPP BJ.

 

Edited December 7, 2009 by Shaun

[Opentracker 4]

The AFCO ball joint uses a 1/8" thick washer under the castle nut and doesn't squish the dust more than on the regular Moog lower arms.

[Steve69 0]

I believe the BJ on the CPP I have is a Chrysler BJ. Can the same BJ from a parts store? CPP was going to send me a sleeve to try. If that doesn't work Im going to get a different ball joint.

 

The CPP pin looks pretty small. The Chrysler style 772 screw in lower BJ I'm using uses a 3/8 - 1/2" or so spacer under the castle nut but nothing quite like the distance I'm seeing on the CPP BJ.

 

[mjchip 10]

The CPP pin looks pretty small. The Chrysler style 772 screw in lower BJ I'm using uses a 3/8 - 1/2" or so spacer under the castle nut but nothing quite like the distance I'm seeing on the CPP BJ.

 

 

May I ask: What suspension set up is that?

 

MJ

[Shaun 10]

May I ask: What suspension set up is that?

 

MJ

 

Street or Track UCA, LCA, Adjustable Strut Rods with Opentracker roller perches. Street or Track 13" brakes, Bilstein Sport valved shocks, 1-1/8" sway bar and '620' springs.

[Angel 24]

So I've been reading about this and although many people don't seem to like the design much, I haven't read about any people that actually have it installed and have driven with it. I know the ball joint taper was an issue as well as the limited caster adjustability. The price is very attractive for what is included in the lower kit. Its not much more than a set of adjustable strut rods. Most threads I found were pretty old. Has there been any improvements to the design? Are there any new ideas or thoughts on this kit? Or is the stock set up still the way to go?