MG Sports Cars

I have looked at both of these steups on many cars and they both seem very well designed and built.
I will be installing a 347 Ford in my 71GT that will put out an honest 400 hp to the wheels.
I am leaning towards the CC 4 link at this time. Just seems that it would control that power better.
I will be using a narrowed 8" Ford rearend (ratio not decided). I know there are those that think this is too weak but I have used them in other cars with high hp and not had issues.
If there is no real difference, I guess I will just go with my initial choice.
I just had concerns about the mounts on the axle. clamped on the CC and welded brackets on the Fastcars.
Any thoughts?

Thanks guys!

I installing the CCE 4 link on a narrowed GM 10 bolt posi. As far as the mounts go, I don't think it matters either way. If they weldor is qualified, the welds will hold. As far as clamping with u-bolts, every car ever built with rear leaf springs uses that method to attach the housing to the springs. Never heard of a single problem there either.

Thanks for your thoughts Jim.
I just wanted to be sure I was making the right choice for my application.
I am going to order the CCE setup this week.
Looks like there is a price increase starting with the new year.

I think you'll be very happy with your purchase. The craftsmanship and quality of the parts are second to none. To me, the CCE design is superior to the 3 link/ panhard bar design which I used on a previous car.

The 4-link photos on Bill's CCE website are photos from my installation done some years ago - the CCE 4-link is a real improvement over the MG leaf spring design.
Although I expect the Fastcars 3-link to behave just as well as the 4-link, there is the added complexity of having to add the panhard rod as the fourth link and adding additional structure and welding on the tunnel to support the upper link.....
......so, for me, the decision for the CCE design came down to a personal choice of less complexity and easier installation.

I have a 3 bar setup very similar to the Fastcars one. I also have a ballpark 400 HP, 347 CID engine. I also have the Ford 8 inch you mentioned. So far so good, and I've even done a few hard launches. I've got my anti-squat setup very nicely, you'd be surprised how well it hooks up for a 2000# 400HP car. I also modeled my 3-link in solidworks and did some FEA, that top link is in tension so even if you had some sticky race tires I doubt the weight of these MG's will even let you load up that link to the tensile failure point. I have the bent Panhard rod, which I was the most concerned about, but it has been absolutely a non-issue, I did do some calculations to make sure it would be fine even if I ran race tires. Personally I like the 3 link better, it can be lighter and simpler to make changes without binding or any issue like that.

[www.britishv8.org]

If you scroll down to the pictures of the rear suspension I think there are some notes about the panhard rod and some good pictures to compare to the fastcars setup.

Ivan,
I have looked at your pictures several times. I am very impressed with your work.
Could you give me some info on the rearend you used?
Did you buy it complete or build it yourself.
What width did you end up with?

Thanks!

I built it up from a '66 fairlane rearend. I'll try to find my notes on width and everything and get back to you on that, but I will say that I started with my known points that worked in from that to get my width and that included my wheel offsets which may be different from yours. The half shafts I used are the universal ones that are splined extra long and you just cut them to length. Brake setup could be improved on only because the way they seal at the bearings. Mine use a bearing with a seal built in rather than a stock seal and I think the stock seal setup is superior and easier to get replacement parts for.

I would really apprecicate any and all info on the rear end that you could supply.
I have been looking on the Currie website and it is very confusing. I did not realize that an 8" came in so many different configurations.
I would like to know what most people are using. Small bearing, large bearing, 11"rotors, 13" rotors etc. Original width?
I have not purchased my wheels yet. I guess that would be the best way. I will be putting modest flares on. I could then just measure between mounting points to get the overall width needed.
I think I may put a post on the drivetrain section and see what that brings also.
Thanks again.

Try to go with at least a 15" wheel. Not only will that allow larger brakes if you wish but it will let you offset the front wheels inwards, a great benefit.

Jim

I recommend you start with figuring out the wheel offset based on the wheels you get or the offset you plan on running. Then measure the inner fender well length because you know nothing can be more narrow than that.

I would run the big bearing because you can run bigger half shafts.
When you shorten your axel you will use the flange for the big bearing.

So either design your brakes or pick your brakes based on the big bearing flange.

Then you want to know all your brake component dimensions.

Then you add up the spacing from the inner fender well to the tire\wheel plus your tire width. That will give you an idea of the fender flare you need.

I am definitely leaving out some of the details. If you want to shoot me a private message maybe we can get on the phone.

Jim, what's the advantage of offsetting the front wheels inward? I'm assuming a larger offset than the standard wheel.
Thanks!

{Try to go with at least a 15" wheel. Not only will that allow larger brakes if you wish but it will let you offset the front wheels inwards, a great benefit. Jim}

Phil, the primary advantage is that it decreases steering effort. Think of the angle of the kingpin, both in caster and camber. Now think if you had a large flat disc attached to the end of it and pick a spot outboard of the center. As you rotate that spot to the front or back it moves down. The farther away from the kingpin you move it, the more it moves down for the same degree of rotation.(Particularly back)

The spot is your tire contact point. The vertical change is the jacking effect on the car in a turn. So obviously the less jacking the easier to turn and the closer to centerline the less jacking.

You do want some jacking effect so the wheels will self center, but it would be very hard to position the contact patch inside of the kingpin.so there is very little risk of going too far.

Wider tires move the patch outward. More offset moves it back. There's more to it of course but those are the basics.

Jim

I agree with Jim's point but I found the tire size options for 15 inch wheels tough without spending excessive amounts. You can go pretty low profile with a 16 or 17 inch almost to point of matching the 15 inch tire diameter. This will also really open up your options when it comes to brakes. Just a thought, both ways work, just depends on what you want out of it in the end.