early Ford vs GM front end engineering comparison

[roKWiz]

This has me curious as to whether there was an advantage of Fords unibody front support panels construction (Macpherson strut) as apposed to GM style front subframe construction. (double A arm)

Your thoughts on 60's 70's 80's Falcon / GM sized cars. (U.S or Oz)

[lra]

Falcons were not Macpherson Strut.
Zephyrs were, and they were not as durable as the Holden wishbone setup on the normal Oz roads of the day 1950s > early 60s., being neglected dirt.
But the Zephyr was a better handling car on sealed roads. And you have to remember that 'handling' was relevant to the engineering of that period, ie nearly non-existant.

[BENT_8]

HQ-Z K frames were prone to cracking between the wishbones and the fire wall, obviously caused by the excessive flex of being a separate chassis to body construction, having said that, it only took a day to roll a damaged front off and replace with another so it made it easier to repair.

[snowcone]

XW were prone to cracking the front cross member.

I would say the 60/70's Holdens had a more "secure" front end were more predictable and handled better
The comparable Falcons in the 60's (and later) had the spring above the upper wishbone and tended to wallow around in corners and were a lot more spongy.
This is just my observations from driving them back in the 70's

[Raptor]

The Falcon construction was more a shift away from body-on-frame into a true unibody construction than the GM designs of the day. The main benefit was it was a lighter construction and thus lower fuel use, easier on brakes etc. The original US Falcons (our XK/L/M/P) were seen as small compact sedans to compete with the likes of those pesky imports that had started showing up in the US, like the VW Beetle.

The Falcon design takes the suspension loading from the top-arm of the suspension into the inner front fenders/engine-bay/windscreen cowl area. Note they pretty much fell apart when introduced to Australia and needed considerable strengthening for XM/XP to win the public back.

In comparison the GM designs just incorporated the main frame rails into the sedan floor and continued to bolt on a similar front clip as to what they had been when the whole body was mounted on a full frame. Whilst simpler and less innovative this probably worked better most of the time.

I prefer my cars to handle, steer and stop, thus I drove GM stuff when younger. Think 60/70's era Torana's with R&P steering, front disc brakes and coil sprung rear axles located by trailing arms (not leaf springs). I didn't even consider a Falcon until the major suspension redesign that came with the E-series cars and they just kept getting better ever since.






.

[Iggle Piggle]

In before Radial Tuned Suspension

[foxtrot3]

Originally Posted by lra

Falcons were not Macpherson Strut.
Zephyrs were, and they were not as durable as the Holden wishbone setup on the normal Oz roads of the day 1950s > early 60s., being neglected dirt.
But the Zephyr was a better handling car on sealed roads. And you have to remember that 'handling' was relevant to the engineering of that period, ie nearly non-existant.

Hi The Zephyr front end was a bit more prone to suffer from wheel wobble due to unbalanced front wheels but far out did the holden of the day both in the city and the outback where dad towed a caravan around with us kids in the back of the car for many a trip to the NT, SA QLD and NSW as well as the long weekends on the murray river from Albury to Echuca. Cheers MD

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

HQ-Z K frames were prone to cracking between the wishbones and the fire wall, obviously caused by the excessive flex of being a separate chassis to body construction, having said that, it only took a day to roll a damaged front off and replace with another so it made it easier to repair.

This being my first Falcon I often wondered about the ease of access hence the original question.

Owning many HJ to HZ sedans and wagons I don't ever recall a cracked subframe or firewall however most were 6 packs. Also owned quite a few 308 HJ to WB panel vans and those full frames were tough. Primitive but tough.
I do like the easy bolt together front end like the Impalla's and Camaros of the time.
It was easy engine work with the inner guards and bonnet removed.
I reckon I've had it to easy with owning tilt cab trucks since my last pano.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

This being my first Falcon I often wondered about the ease of access hence the original question.

Owning many HJ to HZ sedans and wagons I don't ever recall a cracked subframe or firewall however most were 6 packs. Also owned quite a few 308 HJ to WB panel vans and those full frames were tough. Primitive but tough.
I do like the easy bolt together front end like the Impalla's and Camaros of the time.
It was easy engine work with the inner guards and bonnet removed.
I reckon I've had it to easy with owning tilt cab trucks since my last pano.

Holden sitting on all 4 wheels


Same Holden on jackstands

[roKWiz]

What's a couple of inches here and there.

[lra]

OK, back to the 50s and 60s ……………Dad had a Mk1 Zephyr from new, (I learned how to drive in that car) and it got flogged all over western Qld roads, and the reason I say that they were not as durable as Holden is that he had to keep replacing the bushes in the control arms, and was continually getting the wheels balanced.

His work utes were FC, EK, EJ etc which copped a bigger flogging, and provided the wishbone grease nipples were done every few weeks, never a problem.

I had a Mk2 Zephyr, with a homemade strut brace, but wheel alignments were regularly needed.

I had a HJ from new, and when I pulled it apart after 30 years, the bolts which held the steering box on snapped as I tried to undo them, inside the box section of the subframe, they had rusted away to about 2mm in diameter …….. a disaster in waiting. I have heard about Holden cracked crossmembers, but they always seemed to belong to the cousin’s next door neighbor’s best mate’s brother.

The sag in the Monaro (?) shown by cs123, my guess would be that the rubber mounting bushes between the front subframe and body are stuffed.

[Mercury Bullet]

We had a couple of fc's we hammered in the paddocks when we were kids.

One of them still runs to this day. Never had any maintenance. Those old Holdens will run forever if treated badly enough.

[BENT_8]

The cracked frames are a real thing, back in the day you could buy patch plates which went around the crack to repair them, pretty sure there was an engineering guide to the repair on paper at dept. of motor reg here in SA.

This was back in the early 90's, between myself, brother inlaw and mates, we had about a dozen in HX Kingswood 253, HJ GTS 253, HQ SS 253, 2x HQ Prem 308, HJ Prem 253, HZ Prem 308, HZ Kingswood 202, plus an assortment of HK-G and HR.

[Olbucko]

I had an XE that cracked badly in the shock towers around the upper mounting bolts that hold on the upper front control arms making it almost uncontrollable, but nothing that the local panel beater couldn't fix in a few hours. To be fair though, the van had done 800,000 hard kms, a lot of it on dirt roads.
Probably not a very common problem with X series Falcons.

[aussiblue]

Falcon's were never Mcpherson strut; the coil over shock (often now through common usage called a strut) they use is not a Mcpherson strut. All Falcons are either double A arm or double control arm. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPherson_strut for what a Mcpherson strut is.

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by Olbucko

I had an XE that cracked badly in the shock towers around the upper mounting bolts that hold on the upper front control arms making it almost uncontrollable, but nothing that the local panel beater couldn't fix in a few hours. To be fair though, the van had done 800,000 hard kms, a lot of it on dirt roads.
Probably not a very common problem with X series Falcons.

Yep...not common. 800,000 klm Falcon forever.

[boss351290]

The Xe model was good at rusting I'll tell you that. Almost as bad as a XD. I don't think ford painted them well. The only surviving cars today are ones that have been in the garage their whole life or ones that were rust proofed well

[Fairlane 500]

The early Holdens didn't drive anything like the early Falcons
because of the vastly different front end designs, the difference was like chalk & cheese to drive.

Some prefer the Holdens, but I prefer the way the Fords drive any day of the week!

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

HQ-Z K frames were prone to cracking between the wishbones and the fire wall, obviously caused by the excessive flex of being a separate chassis to body construction, having said that, it only took a day to roll a damaged front off and replace with another so it made it easier to repair.

The cracking wasn't unique to the passenger vehicles, the utes, one tonners and panelvans all suffered the same problem even with the benefit of a full chassis.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

The cracking wasn't unique to the passenger vehicles, the utes, one tonners and panelvans all suffered the same problem even with the benefit of a full chassis.

Yes, I don't see where I said anything to the contrary, what's your point?

The full chassis was still separate to the body, the reason they flex so much is due to there being nothing structural above the chassis, forward of the firewall.
There are only bolt on panels which don't make the front end rigid as with the Falcon.
I also pointed out that it was an easy fix to remove the chassis and replace it.

[roKWiz]

I wonder whether this cracking showed up in later years as I had never experienced it when the cars were younger.
Along with others, I owner drove this modded HX after I finished my apprenticeship back in the early 80's and had never heard of frame cracks back then.
It had a very hard, high speed life doing 200 000km in two years. I later did a body off rebuild but never found frame cracks.
Off topic..I remember regularly doing an urgent kidney run from the Sydney Sans Hospital, Wahroonga to Mascot airport in 40 mins, Ansett made the plane wait on the tarmac for us. Stupid days.

[BENT_8]

I'm talking mid 90's so the majority were 20yrs old by then.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

I wonder whether this cracking showed up in later years ....

Maybe more use dependant than years.

My old man had a Falcon XB-C ? taxi (his first Ford) back in the mid to late 70's and I recall him telling me (back in my teenage years) that the equivalent HQ-J-X ? taxis all had chassis cracks that had to be welds up, so pretty much a problem from new if they got enough use/abuse.

[Interceptor]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

The full chassis was still separate to the body, the reason they flex so much is due to there being nothing structural above the chassis, forward of the firewall.

Sorry, I read your original comment as being specific to the passenger vehicles

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Interceptor

Sorry, I read your original comment as being specific to the passenger vehicles

All good, I just reread it again and see why you came away with that conclusion too.
Sometimes what I'm thinking and how I portray it don't always line up, lol.

Instead of saying, roll the front off for an easy fix, I should have said, unbolt the body for an easy fix, but as I've only done it on sedan and wagon bodies, I just pictured rolling the front off.