AC Owners Club Forum
AC Owners Club Forum => 428 Frua Forum => Topic started by: Englishman on February 13, 2007, 22:20:13
-
My project rebuild is still ongoing with CF64, now at the mantling stage, we have encountered a slight problem in that we need two Spherical Bearings part number RBJ-205 that fit into the Trailing Arm to the Wishbone.
Local bearing suppliers tell us that these were OEM i.e. Original Equipment Manufacturer and as such are not available except from the original vehicle manufacturer -- Yes AC Cars.
Can anyone out there help or come up with an alternate solution as I cannot believe this is a first ????
Peter
-
Have the bearing Factors actually set eyes on the bearings? it is possible that they could cross-reference to something similar, alternatively, my work have just appointed a new supplier, I`ll give them a go if possible.
Nik.
-
Hi Nik,
No the supplier has not seen the bearing, however we did give him the critical dimensions.
The outside diameter is 5/16ths of an inch, the int dia is 1/2inch with a race thickness of 5/16ths and a ball thickness of 7/16ths.
The nearest the supplier can come is an outer dia of 1 and 1/8th, he maintains that this is a non standard bearing and hence not available off the shelf.
Peter
-
Ooops the outside dia is 15/16ths not 5/16ths as stated above.
Peter
-
I replaced several bushings/bearings on a 428 coupe. I refuse to believe that AC had "special" items made for a run of cars that even at best, they could never have thought of building more than 50 a year.
Parts bin specials....the pieces exist somewhere in the automotive universe as cheap, off-the-shelf items....maybe not what AC used 'em for, but, dammit, thay ARE out there!
Transmission complete......resume normal reception.
Rick
-
Rick is right, I have not found a chassis part that is specific to the Frua with the exception of the rear upper control arm which is not adjustable. All the parts should be exactly the same as the MK III street version (Rubber bushing suspension). Please E-mail me all the information on the bearing and I will find a replacement. Also you can call David Kirkham at Kirkham motorsports and he actually might have them in stock!
2575 W 1680 N
Provo, Utah
84601-1156
Tel: 801.377.8224
Email: parts@kirkhammotorsports.com
Emmanuel
-
OK will continue the search, thanks for the information.
Englishman
-
If you don't find, please send me the dimensions and a photo of the bearings, and I will source them for you! Actually, they look more like what's on the MKIV.
Emmanuel
-
Peter, if you require RBJ-205's contact Hawkcars, Gerry keeps these on the shelf along with all the other bits that wear.
As for the Kirkhams, some of the early cars had simular bearings but were metric,later ones use trailing arms like MK4's with a rosejoint at each end. Later still Kirkhams have billet machined aluminium wishbones and links.
Cheers
-
Redcar,
Thank you for the information, I have e-mailed Hawkcars and given the details of the bearings, so fingers crossed that they may be able to help
Thanks Again
Peter
-
Actually the MK IV rear uprights and probably bearings and bits are Frua 428 pieces, that is part of the science in obtaining another 4" of rear track.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jbottini
Actually the MK IV rear uprights and probably bearings and bits are Frua 428 pieces, that is part of the science in obtaining another 4" of rear track.
Actually no, MKIII, FRUA and MKIV have the same suspensions, same bearings, I replaced the rear bearings on my MKIV and we pressed in MKIII bearings. The shop was working on an original 427 at the time and I was able to compare my MKIV uprights with those of the MKIII, exactly the same. The trailing arms however, have different attachments on the MKIV, indeed similar to the FRUA (much stronger). As far as the track it is the same on all these cars. Half shafts are the same and lower and upper control arms are the same as well! FRUA's rear upper control arms are not adjustable however!
Emmanuel
-
Actually Emmanuald you are wrong again..If the MK III & MK iV are identical, explain the 4" difference in track.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jbottini
Actually Emmanuald you are wrong again..If the MK III & MK iV are identical, explain the 4" difference in track.
In your dreams, I deal in facts! I had a MKIV, I have an AC428 and a Kirkham 427 Which is an exact MKIII, all the same! even the wheel offset is the same (MKIII and MKIV). The control arm attachments are a bit different on the MKIV if I remember correctly! [;)]
Trevor or someone, please help and set him right?
By the way jbottini, 4" is a lot!, I think it is wishful thinking on your part, you know what I mean! [:D]
-
Emmanuald...do you believe that you are the only one who has ever owned a car or knows how to read? Your childish "4" remarks are crude at best and probably indicative of your upbringing, I sincerely hope you haven't bred.
-
jbottini, I am willing to listen, please tell me your source for this 4", I deal in facts, maybe compared to a leaf-spring car you may be right but definitely all coil sprung cars share the same track! Some like the AC 289 or the Frua have narrower wheels which can make the overall with of the track narrower, but the suspension is the same!
Emmanuel
-
According to the 60's road tests the 427 has a rear track of 56 inches - as does the 428 Frau.
According to my handbook and the published material form AC the MkIV has a track of 58.5 inches - though a 1986 Motor Trend road test suggests it is 60 inches.
60's road tests of the Leaf Spring 260/289 show a rear track of 52.5 inches and of 54 inches for the coil spring AC 289. As track is calculated as the distance between the mid point of the tyres then the suspensions can be identical with differences being accounted for in the tyre widths and wheel offsets.
-
SB7019
While you are correct in A. the leaf spring cars are very different in frame, track weight etc and B. in your assumptions vis a vis wheel differences, my ex CSX 3327 Street (- not a replica/extension or copy), 427 owners manual calls it this way "track front -53*96 standard & racing" (writers note: I assume that the 54 point 96 refers to the measurement)rear 53 standard and 55*1/8 racing. In the rear are different part numbers for the carrier, hub & calipers for standard as well as racing. I honestly cannot interpret the drawings in the manual, but I can not imagine why there would be differt part numbers for the same parts if the specs were the same.
Now , my AK states "track - front 56", rear 60". (Some of the other dimensions are different such as overall length for nose extension, weight for the "improvements", cockpit size & etc.)I have not examined the all period magazines I have, the ones I looked at agreed with my AK owners manual for an 86'.
I have cross referenced parts between the two cars and find that the above rear suspension parts are not directly interchangable. I further have been advised that the Frua was an extension of the 427/428 coil suspension car, but that new uprights were done to increase the track, (it is possible that I've been misinformed)to impove both the look, road ability and clearance issues in the beatiful Frua coachwork.
It is my understanding that these rear changes were kept in the MKIV to allow for mufflers (silencers for those over there) to be fitted for US approval in the rear wheel wells.
While I can not, with any authority comment on what Kirkham has updated or improved on since they began (except to build the most sincere XXXXX of the type in various configurations). I heard at one time that they used a 427 SC for their digitising...if so the track should have been in the above spec area as stated.
It is possible for the back space to be the cause of the track growth, but then why change other parts? Could some of this been to improve the adjustability of the alignment that was a bear on original 427's and while is more aqdjustable on both Frua's and Mark IV's it a job in itself? Unless we can dredge up a Hurlock or Ford engineer who did the design work on the 427 suspension, we may never know. I would defer some of this lore/urban legend to MKIV "a legend in his mtinmde"
I'd love to know the correct answer and it has nothing to do with "4" inches in my dreams.
Jim
8
-
Jim, I doubt they would be different, I know that the Kirkham control arms are bolt-on on the 428, however since the Kirkham control arms are the SC designs with solid bushings, to be fitted on a street car with rubber bushings they have to be machined (tapered), this would account for the different part number from AC. That is what we did when we fitted the rear control arms to my Frua. The original Frua control arms are not adjustable, so you can't increase the ride height and keep a good geometry. The street version of the Cobra 427 MKIII also has the exhaust in the fender well. The uprights are probably slightly different to account for the different trailing arm bushings, however if they were thicker (Wider) then the half shafts would have to be different as well.
When I had my MKIV, rear bearings on both sides were replaced using MKIII bearings. I had a problem with a half shaft and same thing. However, I know that the trailing arms are different and don't attach to the chassis with a heim joint but a much larger cylindrical bearing, similar to the Frua. I was told the control arms are the same as the other coil spring cars but that machining is required as well to account for the different bushings. If the half shafts are the same, the width should be the same as well! I think SB7019 is right and the difference if any is in the wheel offset and maybe the rotor and hub thickness! I will try to find out for sure.
Emmanuel
-
Jim.
Interesting that that manuals for the MkIV should show different measurements. Mine (from 2001) shows front 55.6 and and rear 58.5. When it next has wheels on (currently sitting on stilts in my garage having it's winter clean and service) I will measure the actual car. Whats the betting that this will show a different number?
-
all bets off!!! I'm sure there will be a disparity. i will check witha couple of orcales such as trevor on this whole thread, but it certainly is confusing...
-
I'm definately not an engineer (just an enthusiastic amateur) but I had this info from Hawk Cars today:
It seems Brian Angliss brought a large quantity of Frua rear uprights and used them on the Mk4. The Frua had larger offset rear uprights to allow it to run 6x15 wheels which were spline-drive, same as the 289. They have track comparable to the front, without undue strain on the wheel bearings.
-
One possible reason for different part numbers for the rear hubs (racing/road), is that the aluminium racing calipers had a different hole spacing compared to the cast iron road calipers and as AC only seemed to thread one set of holes in the hubs they would have needed to differentiate.
You'll probably find that the front steering arms have different numbers (racing/road) for the same reason.
I agree with Trevor, the Frua rear hubs are different to Mk3 Cobras. The bearing position is further outboard relative to the wishbone pick up points thus making the track wider without loading the bearings.
Cheers
-
Trevor and Redman...thanks for the enlightenment.....other comments??Jim
-
quote:
Originally posted by Trevor Legate
I'm definately not an engineer (just an enthusiastic amateur) but I had this info from Hawk Cars today:
"It seems Brian Angliss brought a large quantity of Frua rear uprights and used them on the Mk4. The Frua had larger offset rear uprights to allow it to run 6x15 wheels which were spline-drive, same as the 289. They have track comparable to the front, without undue strain on the wheel bearings."
Words & Photos from Gerry Hawkridge to accompany the above information:
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q113/nikbj68/DSC04950-1.jpg)
quote:
From Gerry Hawkridge: Rear uprights, as you can see Frua/Mk4 on right is different to Mk3 on
the left !!! Regards Gerry
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q113/nikbj68/DSC04951a.jpg)
-
I think Nik has just proved that a picture is worth a thousand words! The picture explains why a MkIV has a wider track than a Mk3. At the same time it can explain why the Frau has the same published track as a Mk3 as the Frau wheels look like they have a shallower dish which could counteract the wider spacing of the uprights. Does it also explain why the MkIV has the lip on the rear wheel arch that was fitted to some Mk3's only (presumably those that were fitted with wider tyres?) ?
-
Interesting,now the hub itself has to be different as well, longer, correct?
Emmanuel
-
The MK IV uses wheels with less offset than a MK III. The Frua upright/hub was specified for the MK IV by Bob Negstad, the Ford suspension engineer who DESIGNED the MK III along with Ford's Klaus Arning.
Bob wanted that hub used to reduce camber change to suit the 16" Goodyear Gatorbacks that were used. Bob also bought a MK IV so I presume he knew what he was doing. Sadly Bob passed on a couple of years ago but I had the great pleasure of knowing him.
One day when I saw Bob in Dearborn with his Roush powered car, he told me that if he, Jack (Roush) and Michael (Kranefuss)all of whom had stroked 351s in the cars, revved 'em to 5000 and dropped the clutches at the same time, the Earth's rotation would change!
Rick
-
Interesting, the parts are different...any other comments?
-
AK02 had a Roush built 351 Windsor, It was not very powerful and rought running, 5000RPM was the most you could get! Hot rodders over here like the 346 which is a bored out 302, with a good set of heads, it is supposed to be the best running small block!
Emmanuel
-
quote:
Originally posted by Emmanueld
AK02 had a Roush built 351 Windsor, It was not very powerful and rought running, 5000RPM was the most you could get! Hot rodders over here like the 346 which is a bored out 302, with a good set of heads, it is supposed to be the best running small block!
Emmanuel
And that relates to the rear hub subject how?
Yes, some early Autokraft cars had Roush motors of questionable power. I had AK013 with a truck 351 that had no guts, and AK017 with a 302 that was not impressive......but after 20 years of NO Cobras, it was better than nothing.
And I first met Jack Roush with Brian Angliss and Brian told me of issues he had with motors Roush had shipped to the UK. As well as how Jack wanted 50 percent of Autokraft for installing engines (the original proposal for the US Mark IVs)...Brians reply, "No problem, how much of Roush Industries will you be giving me?"
Rick[:D]
-
Emmanuald,
Your grasp of the obvious is astounding and your lack of acknowledging your errors is equally astounding. You are great at hijacking threads, deflecting acknowledgements via hijacks and starting muliple threads in an effort to have "dialog" It would appear you are not the oracle you believe youself to be..learn to deal with it. We are most all AC ENTHUSIASTS here on this site. Join in and be part of a solution.
-
Jim / Rick,
Well put, but all you have done is start him off again[:(]. I feel it is like the Olympic torch being passed on through the forum and now it's your turn (again) - Good luck - John.[:D]
-
I surrender !
-
quote:
Originally posted by jbottini
Emmanuald,
Your grasp of the obvious is astounding and your lack of acknowledging your errors is equally astounding. You are great at hijacking threads, deflecting acknowledgements via hijacks and starting muliple threads in an effort to have "dialog" It would appear you are not the oracle you believe youself to be..learn to deal with it. We are most all AC ENTHUSIASTS here on this site. Join in and be part of a solution.
jbottini, why are you so aggressive? is that because I own a original AC and you don't? [:D] Oh well, we now have established that the rear uprights on the MKIV are 1" wider on each side (according to the photo with the ruler) that's 2" for both sides, not 4 as you claimed earlier! Talking about hijacking threads, you are on the wrong forum, the MKIV, V,VI,VII, etc, replica Cobra is on the other side, since you can't have an intelligent and gentleman like discussion, it's getting a bit old.
-
quote:
Originally posted by jbottini
I surrender !
I thought that was reserved for the French! [:D]
-
[/quote]
jbottini, why are you so aggressive? is that because I own a original AC and you don't? [:D] Oh well, we now have established that the rear uprights on the MKIV are 1" wider on each side (according to the photo with the ruler) that's 2" for both sides, not 4 as you claimed earlier! Talking about hijacking threads, you are on the wrong forum, the MKIV, V,VI,VII, etc, replica Cobra is on the other side, since you can't have an intelligent and gentleman like discussion, it's getting a bit old.
[/quote]
And the other TWO INCHES come from the revised offset of the wheel and the lenght of the hub!!!
And JBottini owned and drove CSX3327 long before you bought your "real AC". I also had a "real AC", CSX3326 (wrecked when I bought it and wrecked when I sold it) as well as caretaking/driving a Frua coupe and a 289, so who had what, when is a specious argument....and the Hurlocks seemed to think the MK IV is a "real AC"
Chill dude.....
Rick
-
Gentlemen,
As I started this thread I believe that I should end it with the news that I have located the spherical bearings with the help of the Forum.
Hawk Cars UK were able to assist and supply.
I thank everyone for thier help and will no doubt call on your collective expertise again.
Peter
-
I found the thread! So it appears my memory still works! Emmanuel [:D]