An early Mustang rear suspension is dead simple, right? Maybe on a street car, but if you want to build a reliable race car, Curt Vogt and his Cobra Automotive crew are as particular regarding the rear suspension as they are on the rest of the car.
An early Mustang rear suspension is dead simple, right? Maybe on a street car, but if you want to build a reliable race car, Curt Vogt and his Cobra Automotive crew are as particular regarding the rear suspension as they are on the rest of the car.
My Datsun uses the same set up, the set up is what Nissan specified in their Competition Suspension Manual. Trevor Harris was the one who did the specifications.
Makes sense that wildly different leaf spring cars would end up with the same set up.
I'm also willing to bet that the car handles well enough in relation to the much fancier set ups that it won't spoil the fun of driving the car.
Our final trick: Replicate the original over-rider traction bars with a Cobra Automotive competition kit that uses Afco dampers hung with weld-on brackets.
I understand that this style of torque link can help manage shock loads, but is that the only advantage here or are there other benefits that I'm unaware of? A traditional solid bar seems like it'd be cheaper/simpler/lighter so I'm guessing there's a good reason to go this route. Does the extra travel help to avoid suspension bind or some other issue a solid bar might exhibit?
Keep up the good work, I'm digging the old tech!
Interesting, the setup looks a lot like a FOX quad shock to prevent axle windup. That's high tech, modern stuff. LOL.
The original Shelby pieces were sort of a poor man's 4 link in function. I would imagine that the flexible member allows a better range of motion and prevents binding.
Just one nit to pick, that's not a hex head, it's a socket head cap screw.........
You'll need to log in to post.
