Carrier OR NO Carrier?

6

68COUGAR

Registered User
So many people refer to an 8.8 inch "Carrier".

What Exactly IS a Ford "Carrier"?

The Ford "Carrier" is a wholely removable 8" or 9" PIG. The fact that the entire Ring, Pinion, & Differential, is REMOVEABLE as a UNIT, makes it a Carrier.

The 8.8" does Not have anything removeable as a unit. That is because every thing is integral to the rear end housing.

Let's get our FORD terms correct guys!!!!!

68COUGAR
_________
 
Mark,

Are you having a bad day or what ?

Carrier, Diff, Rear End and Pumpkin are all accepted terms. Quit rippin on people because they don't use the correct name.

David
 
gldiii said:
A more proper term for the 8.8 might be "integral carrier", but I agree with David the term carrier has become a more common term for a diff.

This link has some terminology info:

http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/127_0310_diff/index1.html

Certainly not as an egregious error like referring to the front shocks on the SC as struts!
Click to expand...

Don't get me started. The things in the front commonly refered to as shocks are actually STRUTS. They are a supporting member of the front suspension which is different from a shock. Shocks do not support the weight of the car. Struts do.

By Webster's definition:

Any part of a machine or structure, of which the principal function is to hold things apart; a brace subjected to compressive stress
Click to expand...
I think this should satisfy the assertion that our cars do in fact have STRUTS in front.
 
Last edited:
Is a coil-over shock a strut?

Strut in car tems typically refers to a Mcpherson strut, which we certainly do not have on the SC. The shock/coil assembly does support the weight of the front, but the wheels do not turn around the shock like on a Mcpherson strut assembly. The wheels turn around the front spindles.

The shocks in either assembly don't actually support the weight of the car by their hydraulics, support in both cases are provided by the springs and their mechanical attachment to the vehicle. The hydaulics of the shocks dampen the up and down movement of the suspension.
 
gldiii said:
Is a coil-over shock a strut?

Strut in car tems typically refers to a Mcpherson strut, which we certainly do not have on the SC. The shock/coil assembly does support the weight of the front, but the wheels do not turn around the shock like on a Mcpherson strut assembly. The wheels turn around the front spindles.

The shocks in either assembly don't actually support the weight of the car by their hydraulics, support in both cases are provided by the springs and their mechanical attachment to the vehicle. The hydaulics of the shocks dampen the up and down movement of the suspension.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the key. All to often we give Mcpherson the credit for designing an automotive strut and base our assumptions on his modification of a basic strut for our definition of what a strut is. Formula 1 cars use a horizontal strut cantilevered inboard and attached to a lever for rear suspension support. In that case it is not called a "coil over", it is called a strut and rightly so.

I think if we were to really get techinical, a coil over shock by it's use of words suggests a shock that is an entity of it's own with a coil attached in some manner over it. In our case, removal of the spring does not result in a simple shock because the housing is specifically designed with the load bearing mounts as part of it's housing. In our case the shock is a structural member and it's housing is designed to carry the load of the car making it, in my opinion, a strut just as much as a Mcpherson design would be.
 
68 COUGAR I call the carrier the proper name, PUMPKIN.

Do you realy have a 68 Cougar,or is that just your name?
I have a 68 XR7 Cougar.

Randy
 
XR7 Dave said:
Don't get me started. The things in the front commonly refered to as shocks are actually STRUTS. They are a supporting member of the front suspension which is different from a shock. Shocks do not support the weight of the car. Struts do.

By Webster's definition:


I think this should satisfy the assertion that our cars do in fact have STRUTS in front.
Click to expand...
Consider yourself started.. ;) :D ;) The weight is carried by the spring, so to me it still isn't a strut.
Now, if you want to return the favor and get me started, just doggedly insist that 3 completely different chemical compounds are the same w/o regard for what the labels and your sense of touch and smell tell you.. ;) ;)

Otherwise, have a good thanksgiving all.
 
When ordering parts or buying parts online, it's important that words are used properly. I can see the issue with carrier vs diff. It gets worse when you end up dealing with the axle vs the diff vs the axle housing vs the diff housing. Always have to get that straightened out.

As far as struts and shocks. Its more of a variation of what the context is in relation to the terms.

Our front shock assembly can be considered a strut as it's outer shell is being used for weight bearing of the vehicle. (i.e. coil over shock) Items typically referred to as only struts are those that influence the alignment of the vehicle and are used as attaching points for other suspension pieces.

Maybe better visualized:

A Shock attaches to the suspension.

A Strut attaches to the wheel.

It really depends on the context the word is used in. In the context of the automotive suspension a shock assembly, even a coil over isn't generally thought of as a strut (even though in a greater context it is).
 
Dave, you missed my point entirely. Would you agree or disagree with the statement that our cars do NOT have a Mcpherson strut suspension in front? (It's actually an SLA coil over arrangement.)

I'm not trying to give credit to ol' Mcpherson for anything. I'm just saying that like Kleenex means any tissue to most folks, strut means Mcpherson strut to many automotive enthusiasts and we do NOT have a Mcpherson strut front suspension.

Now when you say spring, do you actually mean a torsion bar that has been wound into a coil? LOL

Hey, I have both bottles of supercharger fluid (GM and Ford) at home and Duane tells me they taste identical. I have to go with that!!!

(I'm going to have to move this thread to the non-tech section, I can see that now!)
 
Well, I can buy both shocks and struts for the front of my SC at Rockauto.com so which one do I buy? :confused:

I didn't miss the point George, it just bugs me that the aftermarket has come to accept Monroe's description of a strut which is nothing other than a description of a Mcpherson strut which is really a GM invention which in turn bothers me being a Ford fan and all. What's even worse is that after inventing the darn thing GM didn't want to use it so Ford was the first to use the design back in the 50's.

The addition of "locating member" to the definition of "strut" is bothersome and misleading. It looks like a strut, it performs the functions of a stut as per webster's definition, therefore it should be called a strut. If you look at the definition of a "strut" it specifically refers to supporting against compressive forces.

Another definition:

In general, any piece of a frame which resists thrust or pressure in the direction of its own length.
Click to expand...
The definition suggests that a member which provides other than compressive support be called something else. A strut does not provide lateral support or alignment which is why the Mcpherson design is labeled such. It is not a true strut but rather variation.

Furthermore, it doesn't look like a shock, and calling it a shock is confusing so I think we should call it a strut for simplicity and accuracy sake. :cool:
 
You did not answer my question! LOL

It does look like exactly like a shock to me. A coil over shock, but a shock none the less.

My point is that the term strut used in this case is even more misleading than shock, because it is not a Mcpherson strut suspension or even a modified Mcpherson strut suspension.

We have a coil over shock on the front SLA (Short & Long Arm ) suspension. The shock in this case is not performing the duties of a strut in a Mcpherson strut suspension.
 
The school I went to says its a coil over shock.

I have been looking into buying some aluminum
adjustable shocks with coil overs for my SC.

And the rearend is a pumpkin.

RANDY
 
Last edited:
Randy N Connie said:
The school I went to says its a coil over shock. RANDY
Click to expand...

Didn't you flunk out? :p

gldiii said:
Hey, I have both bottles of supercharger fluid (GM and Ford) at home and Duane tells me they taste identical. I have to go with that!!!
Click to expand...

You can't tell the difference and they both taste like grape soda.
 
Randy N Connie said:
68 COUGAR I call the carrier the proper name, PUMPKIN.

Do you realy have a 68 Cougar,or is that just your name?
I have a 68 XR7 Cougar.

Randy
Click to expand...

Randy, I believe Mark has a 390 powered 68 Cougar.

We should start a separate group for SC owners who are also 68 Cougar owners. There are 3 of us anyway. :p

And I say they're shocks, because they don't act as the upper mounting point for the suspension, which struts do.

cheers,
Ed N.
 
gldiii said:
You did not answer my question! LOL
Click to expand...
No. I did not ever say that our cars use a Mcpherson strut. A Mcpherson strut is a different invention designed to combine the function of an upper control arm, shock, and spring, all into one assembly. My assertion was that the locating function of the Mcpherson design is not an integral part of what makes up a strut. Perhaps a better description that we can understand is the struts that support the wing on a small airplane. Those struts do not align the wing to the fuselage. The merely provide support for the wings and in fact are attached with pivots on both ends so as to not interfere with the alignment of the wings but to only provide longtitudinal support. A true strut only provides support along it's length. This was my point from the beginning.

It does look like exactly like a shock to me. A coil over shock, but a shock none the less.
Click to expand...
Engineering aside, the struts/shocks on the front of our cars appear to the untrained eye very similar to a typical strut. The fact that people get confused is evidence enough that this is the case.

My point is that the term strut used in this case is even more misleading than shock, because it is not a Mcpherson strut suspension or even a modified Mcpherson strut suspension.
Click to expand...
Very true, but your original post did not specify "Mcpherson Strut." Since your initial post did not refer specifically to a Mcpherson strut, I did not realize that is what you were referring to.

We have a coil over shock on the front SLA (Short & Long Arm ) suspension. The shock in this case is not performing the duties of a strut in a Mcpherson strut suspension.
Click to expand...

And to answer your other question, I would say yes a shock combined with a spring creating a system which supports the weight of the vehicle can be collectively referred to as a strut unless someone can show otherwise.
 
XR7 Dave said:
And to answer your other question, I would say yes a shock combined with a spring creating a system which supports the weight of the vehicle can be collectively referred to as a strut unless someone can show otherwise.
Click to expand...
On a related topic, I have engine mounts holding up my ENGINE. A motor is an electro-mechanical conversion device.. at least this is what we were taught in our engineering courses. This is a technical term and had a very specific meaning. Since I have an internal combustion engine rather than a motor, ergo, I don't have motor mounts holding it up.. Sound good?.. sound reasonable?

but wait.. there's more... lets obscure the meaning somewhat by the common misuse of the term.

Go look up motor in Websters and when you think you have it defined, right there in the weasely print they sanction the misuse of the technical definition:

Main Entry: 1mo·tor
Pronunciation: 'mO-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from movEre to move
1 : one that imparts motion; specifically : PRIME MOVER
2 : any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion: as a : a small compact engine b : INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE; especially : a gasoline engine c : a rotating machine that transforms electrical energy into mechanical energy
3 : MOTOR VEHICLE; especially : AUTOMOBILE

Ergo, in the misuse of the term, according to Websters, you can in fact have "motor" mounts. :confused:

The longer any term is around and especially the more it becomes familiar, the more and more it will be misused and ultimately redefined! :(
 
The only mechanical differences between the SC's strut or shock is that a true Mcpherson strut acts as the upper ball joint as well as replace the upper arm in the suspension and has the ability(on some models) for adjustments to aid in frontend alighnment. The argument seems to be that since the SC's strut or shock has no adjustment slots( which is optional on Mcpherson strut cars) and mounts on the lower arm of the front suspension rather than at the upper balljoint posistion that magicly makes it a completely different part. I'm with Sparkey on this.
The true deffinition of this part is a strut because it holds up the weight of the car, and as such it exerts the same forces to the SC's frame or unibody that a true Mcpherson strut does. Thats why a tower brace works on these cars in the first place. Now remove that spring and you have a true shock(or dampner) and you'll also remove those forces that affect the (shock, strut) towers on this car thus rendering a tower brace useless.
Simple really:
1. coilover= strut(ie SC front strut)
2. coilover without spring mounted on it= shock or dampner (if you really want to be precise)
3. coilover shock with the ability to act as the upper balljoint and upper arm= Mcpherson strut.
These are ALL dampners (or the american term shocks) but the are different variants of the dampner(shock). Once the dampner has a sring mounted on it to support the weight of the car it becomes a strut. Coilover is also an american term for this.
The confussion of this subject revolves around the fact that we americans like to generalize things into catagories that are far too general sometimes.
Some of us look at a little front wheel drive car and say thats a strut suspension on that car.(which is true, but its actually a Mcpherson strut TYPE) Then we look at the front suspension on the SC and claim its a shock or coilover suspension.(of which BOTH statements are true) The one thing BOTH of these suspension systems share in common is that they are actually STRUT systems, just variants of it.
The real and only difference that matters is the way the dampner(shock or coilover) is utilized. :) ;)
 
Mike just made my point exactly. A coilover without the spring is a shock or dampner. That hydraulic "part" you buy to put your front spring on is commonly called a shock, not a strut.

Now in engineering terms the coil over shock assembly may be functioning as the "strut" on your airplane, but in common automotive speak, most car enthusiasts think of a strut as a Mcpherson strut assembly. I really can't argue as to the precise meaning of words as that always changes. (It is still hard to remember that "dope" means really good nowadays!) So you can have your engineering strut, but the part to buy is a shock! LOL I also don't know who gets to make up definitions for stuff, but all the shop manuals and literature I have on the SC front suspension, calls that part a shock. I musta been in Randy's class, 'cause I have never heard a coil over shock called a strut. (But then, there is a lot of things I haven't heard! LOL)

Also using strut for the coil over shock is confusing with the tension strut that runs from the lower arm back to the car frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top