Boosted Falcon

It went ok, better than expected but not perfect.

I put the drivers side in with no spring and shock and moved the suspension through its full range of motion and noticed a couple of things. Firstly, the top ball joint seems to reach the very very extremes of its range of motion just as the upper control arm hits the body. This is probably ok but I'd rather that it still had a few degrees of motion left. I'd like to know what happens on AUs at full bump, or on e-series with the AU conversion (BBQ Burner, you wanna do me a huge favour? PLEEEEZE???) because I don't think factory would be like this.





The shock (koni, hopefully it's the shortest - and consequently allows the most bump travel - that anyone will use) also bottoms out at exactly the same time, and at the same time as that the lower control arm *just* touches the chassis.



I think grinding 5mm of metal off the very lowest point of the chassis should be all that is needed to keep everything happy. When I went on a test drive it bottomed out hardish a few times (I had my ~50kg tool box in the RHS rear passenger seat as well, and the car is bloody low) and there is only a faint witness mark on the LCA even though I haven't yet "clearanced" the hole.

Bunged the brakes on, not happy with the brake lines. E-series is far too short, AU is acceptable for my test purposes but I would like to get a longer one that I can route behind the shock to ensure it can't rub or get caught. Not sure how I'm going to fix this without things becoming expensive (ie, custom rubber or aftermarket braided lines). I think racebrakes or that other mob just use a commodore braided line on their kits so I might find out what a set of those are worth.



NUT347 kindly lent me a couple of 17s to use as test rims, unfortunately the tyres are completely stuffed (not like I expected anything less ) so I used them at the start to check clearances at full bump travel and to see what the suspension does. It gets a lot of camber gain as the wheel moves upwards (which is good) but the toe changes noticeably, the further up the wheel goes the more toe in. I've not noticed anywhere near as much change on stock e-series before, and I've never looked at an AU, so I'm not sure if this is going to be a big issue.





Dropped on the ground to have a look-see and roughly re-measure ride height and setback, at this stage it was within 2mm of what I got with the factory stuff in there, which I was quite chuffed with.



I fitted the other side and threw my 19s on (which are still for sale if anyone wants them!!) so I could check fitment and go for a test drive on tyres that didn't have canvas hanging out. I rechecked the ride height very roughly again and it seems it may have dropped about 10mm from stock, I'll have to recheck all this stuff properly on the wheel aligner at some stage. Might need to adjust the position of the hole for the shock bush to regain that ride height for 'production' versions, as the plan was to make these arms retain original ride height so people wouldn't have to get new springs or stuff about.





It's got some mega camber at the moment due to the right height, as you can see. The original suspension had a camber kit which we'd put about 6-8 thick shims in at each point to get the camber down to about 1 degree, when I put the AU stuff in I put 3 thick shims in each side just to see what would happen. I wanted to make these so that there was room for moar camber if people were going to attempt to stuff stupid rims under the front (I'm yet to try my 9.5" drifteks, but I definitely will asap ) so I'll probably end up putting a bunch more shims in when I put it on the aligner.

The other thing that I suspected and has now become apparent is that EA-ED's will need EF-EL rack ends (I believe they're about 20mm longer) because the EA-ED ones are too short. I'm sure I grabbed some from the wreckers ages ago but couldn't for the life of me find them, so I had to seriously wind out the tie rods on the NC to get the toe anywhere close to straight, which is not cool. Will be getting some proper tie rods tomorrow hopefully.

Test drive went well, she just drove like a stocker I've roughly calculated the area of the AU twin pistons compared to the e-series single, and it seems they have a slightly smaller total surface area. How this affects the bias in the real world is anybodies guess, as the larger surface area of the pads combined with the larger diameter rotor may compensate for the decreased piston surface area, or it may over or under compensate. I'd hazard a guess it will be fine though, and by the time you've fitted better pads and slotted rotors to anything it changes the bias anyway.

awesome mate. looks very promising. couple of kinks, (to be expected). but the fact you were able to drive the car on the first test fit is amazing.

oh and those wheels are horn. i may buy them off you when my ute gets a set of these control arms and has the right offset for them.
so the sooner you can make some arms for the xh, the richer you will be.

I dont htink he is gonna be rich out of this doylie.. he has spent so much money getting to this stage.. i think he will just be happy to break even and feel good about himself that his name will now be known all over Australia for brake upgrades amongst the sick eseries ****.

Nothing short of impressive man. Few minor things to sort but it all looks to work well

Awesome stuff

Dan, if you want to check out an AU, your more than welcome to come and rip mine apart! I need to get yet another alignment as I'm not happy with what it has, so let me know if you want to!

I might take you up on that offer in a few weeks actually, I'm interested to see what the go is.

sdoylie - buying these wheels would be a great help, they take up far too much space in the garage!

After I get them sorted for the NC I'll have to figure out what needs to be done to fit them to an EF/L (which are same as XH?), might need to borrow bipolars car for a little while

With the upper arm travel, i've notice with mine, the upper arm actually touches near its mount point before it goes to the top of the wheel well.

the mounts are different on the AU arm which would give them more clearance is that area.

ed40 wrote:I dont htink he is gonna be rich out of this doylie.. he has spent so much money getting to this stage.. i think he will just be happy to break even and feel good about himself that his name will now be known all over Australia for brake upgrades amongst the sick eseries ****.

iv been following this whole thread. i know how much work and money rollin has put into this project.
its not a money making scheme. i meant he will have more money from sellin me his wheels.......

Lol those tyres had plenty of skids left mofo.

Ford fucked up, I ordered tie rods/rack ends today, described where they were and what bits they attached to. They sent me tie rod ends. Dipshits.

Hopefully will get the correct parts tomorrow. Judging by the temp difference between the inner and outer edges of the tyre it still has lots of toe out - my 'tape measure' wheel alignment is a bit off I think haha. Surprisingly the wheel is almost straight though, so it must be equally out each side.

I think I'll have to get different tie rod ends rather than tie rods, because I need to fix the bump steer. You can't feel it when driving along but it's clearly visible when you move the wheel through its travel with a jack or similar. Looks like AU have a different relationship between rack and lower control arm pivot points than e-series do, which is what is causing the problem.

With upper arm clearance, you know a AU shocker is roughly 1 inch longer then an e-series shocker.

With your toe in, on the up stroke sounds like the steering rack sit lower in a E-series then in an AU.
What are the tie rods costing you? wouldn't have been cheaper to get a rack from pick a part?


Mate i take my hat off to ya that's a bloody great effort for a first run product

Yeah e-series rack pivot point is below the LCA pivot, on AU I think it's the other way around, hence the dramas.

Rack ends aren't that expensive, and the time and effort it saves me makes new ones very worthwhile (3/4 hour trip each way to the wreckers, in an NC that drinks like a fish, plus the time taken to find some rack ends at the wreckers and remove, AND I'd get dirty!)

Can you do me a huuuuuge favour? Next time you have your car on stands, can you take one shock out and shove the upright up as far as it will go, and let me know how acute the angle is on the top ball joint, and if the upper arm bottoms out on the body before the ball joint runs out of travel? Pics would be outstanding if you have the time....

This sounds like a head **** lol.

You doing a good job!

Sure, i was thinking about your bump steer problem and wondered if lowering the lower ball joint position in relation to the lower control arm mount will lower the steering link on the stud axle and realign the tie rod end and steering rack ball joint removing the bump steer? This would also lower the height of the upper control arm at full upward travel.

how bads the tie rod angle?
is it really that much worse then a stocker thats lowered that much?
it looks pretty fucking low in that last pic.

I could go take a wheel off my nc and take a pic on the weekend if ya want. Is around the same height I reckon

BBQBurner wrote:Sure, i was thinking about your bump steer problem and wondered if lowering the lower ball joint position in relation to the lower control arm mount will lower the steering link on the stud axle and realign the tie rod end and steering rack ball joint removing the bump steer? This would also lower the height of the upper control arm at full upward travel.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're on the right track lol. Lowering the lower outer ball joint will raise the car, which is gay.

I am pretty sure I know what I need to do to get rid of the bump steer, but it might not be possible to do and still retain adequate durability, which would mean this whole exercise is an expensive fail.

Wayne - I know what happens with normal e-series stuff, I need an e-series with an AU k-frame etc to check that. e-series are awesome, the nut on the top ball joint hits the body and acts as a bump stop (I have little pimples on both strut towers on the ED to prove lol).

Steady - the problem is the tie rod angle in relation to the LCA angle, they need to be parallel to stop bump steer, at the moment they pretty much form a virtual triangle.

yeah i dig where you're at, but they don't stay parallel stock, and the lower you go the worse it gets obviously.
i just had a real quick look under my slapper then, which is far from low, and the tie rod angle is definitely more pronounced then the lca.
i dunno, just bouncing ideas, you've got it in front of you, but it'd be a bit of a shame to have it die over something so small.

you thinking of spacing the tie rod end at the stub axle down a bit to fix it?

Yes - many different kits available around the world for different cars to help with this problem, but you guys really need to see the amount of bump steer to get an understanding of the chances of being able to fix it No good spacing the ball joint down 40mm, it will snap and someone will die.

Rollin wrote:

BBQBurner wrote:Sure, i was thinking about your bump steer problem and wondered if lowering the lower ball joint position in relation to the lower control arm mount will lower the steering link on the stud axle and realign the tie rod end and steering rack ball joint removing the bump steer? This would also lower the height of the upper control arm at full upward travel.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're on the right track lol. Lowering the lower outer ball joint will raise the car, which is gay.

Serious question,
How much work is to fit a AU power steering rack to a E-series k-frame? Two bolts drilled through and welded to the E-series k-frame with a space to clear the edge of the k-frame?
OR
How much work is it to lift the E-series power steering rack? Is there enough to machine the E-series power steering mounting points to lift the rack up high enough?

Doubt it's possible to fit an Au rack, may be sorta possible to slightly lift e-series rack. Either of those options are not any good for the other people interested in fitting these arms - the whole point of them was to enable people to buy them, fit AU suspension and roll. If I just wanted AU stuff for myself I would have just put a k-frame in, or spent the stupid amount of money I've spent thus far on an FG engine/k frame/front suspension and had seriously cool all alloy stuff and a sick motor to boot.

I need to fix this with a bolt-on part so that the arms retain their intended purpose.

you could use the lower ball joint bolt and the tie rod hole as mounting points, i'm assuming that you need to lower the tie rod mounting point to correct the bump steer?

hope you get this sorted out man, would love to fit a pair to my ef.

hey rollin. had any more progress on the arms?

Not really unfortunately - It's not looking good. Fixing the bump steer issue will likely be expensive - normal heim joints are too short to use with stock tie rods so I'll need to find really really long ones to make them work without some gay extension, and finding a matching tie rod will be a problem.

**** FORD YOU STUPID ****!!!! WHY YOU MOVE THE RACK FOR ASSHOLES!!!!!

sucks man.
we all know how much time and money you have put into this project.
hope it comes good.

Rollin wrote: **** FORD YOU STUPID ****!!!! WHY YOU MOVE THE RACK FOR ASSHOLES!!!!!

i think they had to because they had bump steer issues


sorry i couldnt resit....

any chance of pics so i can understand what the actual problem is?

Paint is less effort than pics:

That sucks

whoa. big issue you got there. is it just a case of lowering the car?
which im assuming most people will be doing anyways?

That's the biggest problem. Probably wouldn't be so pronounced if the car was high

yep. im wrong. just worked out the dimensions in my head while pointing at the picture and poking my tongue out the corner of my mouth.
this is a terrible problem.

I know you've pretty much tried to design this on your own, but have you looked at the UPC kit (is there any others that convert to AU offset?) to see how theyve gone about this issue?

They don't have an issue because they use machined e-series spindles, the rod end connects at the same point as stock.

Its the AU spindle that is the issue.

Dan, you should come have a look at the AU's at mine. I'm sure we could sus it all out that way.

EFFalcon wrote:They don't have an issue because they use machined e-series spindles, the rod end connects at the same point as stock.

Its the AU spindle that is the issue.

Ahh okay, I wasnt sure what the UPC gear actually was.

had a proper look, AU LCA sits level with the Tie Rod/Rack end.

I had a big look when I went to the wreckers the other day. Pivot point on AU rack is DEFINITELY higher than the pivot point on the LCA.

E-series rack is DEFINITELY lower than LCA pivot point.

The only way to fix this is to lower the pivot point for the outer tie rod, or move the inner pivot of the LCA downwards by like 40mm, which is impossible and would reduce the amount of camber gain as the wheels compress up into the body (which is what happens when you corner hard). You could do a little bit of both but redrilling LCA holes is most likely a very big no-no for any authority who looks at the setup, and would be hard to do with any degree of accuracy.

Rollin wrote:normal heim joints are too short to use with stock tie rods so I'll need to find really really long ones to make them work without some gay extension, and finding a matching tie rod will be a problem.

where are you looking for heim joints/rod ends?
if it's not an industrial bearing supplier you are looking in the wrong place.
ring CBC or whatever you have up there with measurements.

have a skim here
http://www.linearbearings.com.au/Default.aspx?tabid=126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've already been through that site and about a thousand others - aerospace, racecar and industrial stuff. All of the female rod ends of the appropriate thread size are at least 20mm too short from the center of the eyelet to the end of the thread.