how much weight will i lose

i'm gona redo the frontend on my pig so i thought i'd ask some opinions on it.the brakes,spindle's are fox mustang and the struts are some stock deal i got to fit the fox stuff with a coilover kit.lower's are fox a-frame's cut off with tube's welded in the balljoint end with heim's threded in the tubes.it's worked well for 15yr but i'm updating to strange stuff hopen to lose as much weight as possible.any guesses on how much i'll save?

Its all the little stuff that adds up, I lost 10 #s going from the prostars and m/t front runners to a set of Alumastar 2.0's and a set of Hooiser tires..........also used the alum lug inserts Jeff C sells here and the 12 point nuts..........trimmed an inch of the front studs as well. Would love to have some carbon fiber brake rotors but damn $$$$$$

I would guess 25-30 lbs per side.

dkp

i would have done this over the winter but i wanted to do the glide test without changen anything on the car.i'm thinken 40#'s maybe.if i go on a diet too i may be pushen a tenth on my et!

bosshoss wrote:I would guess 25-30 lbs per side.

dkp

that'd be sweet! i'm gona weigh the stuff and get a "guesstamate" on it.

Cool40,
what you are removing! I am putting on my ride! I already was using Lakewood struts with the coil over kit,stock shock towers and cc plates. that stuff is history, new rails,engine set back a few inches,front stb supports etc... I am redoing the complete chassis. How wide are your frame rails apart outside to outside? Thanks Jason

I answered my width question...your inside is 23.5". I was planning on making my rails 23" on center. Cause I believe that is the pivot point of the tie rods on the Flaming River rac.

i looked for this thread the other day when i got my frontend on my car but couldnt find it so i just put it in the general sec.i had to make my rails that way to fit what was already under the car.it's coming together slow now,waitn on the second motor plate so i can finish it up.i dont know what your doen to yours but s&w has some good info on their site.the strange struts are worth 50lbs over the fox setup.

'65 T-BOLT wrote:I answered my width question...your inside is 23.5". I was planning on making my rails 23" on center. Cause I believe that is the pivot point of the tie rods on the Flaming River rac.

Before you decide to "set-in-stone" the lower A-arm's chassis pivot points exactly the same distance apart as the rack's inner pivot points, you might want to mock up everything first & map out the suspension travel. This is because the Fox strut spindles have quite a decent amount of Ackerman steering geometry/angle built into them. This causes the steering arm's tie-rod hole to be farther out/away from the car's C/L than the spindle's bottom ball joint hole is.

Because of this, if you make the lower control arm's chassis pivot points exactly the same distance apart as the rack's inner pivot point distance apart is (aprox 23.5" to 23.75"), the outer rack tie-rod arm could end up being noticeably longer C/C than the lower control arm is C/C depending on the layout. In a "front steer" rack setup, having a tie-rod arm C/C length that is noticeably longer than the lower control arm's C/C length is could create an ever increasing toe-out bump steer condition as you approach each/either end of the suspension travel. And having a tie-rod arm that is noticeably shorter than the control arm is can cause the opposite to happen, a toe-in condition at each end of the travel. This is less of a problem with aftermarket "full chassis" drag struts because they have limited total travel, and therefore any possible bump steer swings will be somewhat less. But you need to be more careful when setting up the Fox stuff in a situation like this because of their increased travel. Increased travel magnifies any bump steer problems.

A geometry "crutch" for some cars built with really narrow front main rails (and therefore narrow placed control arm chassis pivot points) is the "narrowed" pivot point Pinto racks a number of the chassis shops now carry.

This is why you always mock-up & map first before final welding anything.

Thanks Dave for your input. I do realize the mock up stages and such. I was currently using fox body components. When the rac was mounted in front of the small block, the tie rods were angled back by 3" per side. But when I introduced the big block to the car, I had to move the rac under the oil pan. by doing this the tie rods now pointed forward by 1" per side, okay for forward motion. Upon backing up the tires would toe in bad. This was all with the stock frame rails, shock towers, custom lower arms and mounts.
I am trying to lighten my car up from 3500 lbs to what ever it winds up being. This being said, I have decided to remove the floor pans,fire wall, roll cage ( it was installed in sections as the car got faster 1 3/4 and 1 5/8 bars). The sub frames and rear back half is currently 2x3x3/16 tube and steel floor pans,and all four torque boxes.
My goal for this time around, 2x3x.083 frame front to back, all 1 5/8 cage, aluminum tin work where applicable, engine set back in chassis, I have done a great deal of research, but I am open to all opinions and recommendations. The only thing set in stone....that I am doing this! no turning back...pans and cage already gone
I have a few questions for you; 1) with a 115" wheel base, what length ladder bars? car currently has 30" bars. 2) can I use a suspension limiter on the fox body struts to keep the separation to a minimum? I was planning on using a 10 or 12" spring to reduce ride height along with QA1 struts (they are 2" shorter in the main body compared to the Lakewoods) Thank you for you time and anyone else who chimes in. Jason

t-bolt,you can use a limiter on the struts,i used chain that you can see in the o/p pic.my struts were not off a fox though,they were new but i didnt know what they went on.all i knew was they were short! and thats what i was looken for.i put a coilaver kit on them like you'd use on a shock,this was before all the aftermarket stuff for fox cars.it was'nt the best setup but it's worked good for me.good luck and post some pic's dangit!

'65 T-BOLT wrote:My goal for this time around, 2x3x.083 frame front to back

Have you thought about possibly making the chassis out of round tubing vs 2x3?

'65 T-BOLT wrote:with a 115" wheel base, what length ladder bars? car currently has 30" bars.

The longer wheelbase does kinda point to needing a ladder bar longer than 30". Just remember that not all ladder bar makers measure from the exact same point-to-point when they give a bar's "advertised length". Some makers measurements are referring to the front/rear rod-end C/C length, and some refer to the front rod-end to housing C/C measurement.

RJ/Quarter Max for example says their 33" ladder bar is measured from rod-end to rod-end. So the actual "total" bar length (housing C/L to front rod-end C/L) will actually be a little longer.

Since the wheelbase will be that long have you thought about a 4-link instead?

'65 T-BOLT wrote:can I use a suspension limiter on the fox body struts to keep the separation to a minimum?

As cool mentioned there is nothing wrong with limiting the fox struts. Limiters are about your only choice for cutting down on the total travel without having to resort to either modifying/shortening the Fox strut cartridge body & inner shaft length a bunch, or buying the aftermarket super short "full chassis" struts. Only thing is leave enough limiter adjustment so that you can allow the amount of travel the car actually needs to work good vs shooting for the minimum travel.

If I was starting over like you are, it would be a round tube, 4 link setup................

Nevs wrote:If I was starting over like you are, it would be a round tube, 4 link setup................

Round tube is easier to work with or I thought so anyways...


Randy

the Coug wrote:Round tube is easier to work with or I thought so anyways...

It's kind of a coin flip either way when it comes to the time/labor side of things.......

The round tubing weld joints will have much less weld puddle surface area/puddle length vs 2x3 box tubing's weld joints which means less actual welding time. But on the other hand since box tubing has flat surfaces, it is much easier to fit/clamp in place on the jig vs round tubing. Good & bad points to both when it comes to time/labor/effort.

progress report,slow but some work done.i forgot how the small stuff can be a PIA.

lookin real good there! what cubic inch is the engine?

Doug...

thats just an empty block in the pics but it will be a 572 with a new ultra block and idt heads.i'll probly just run one injector but i just had to set the old "big gun"on it for pic's. i even thought about setten my dominators on it but didnt.

got a little more done,got some HeRo black paint on it.been worken alot but hope to get r done soon.