Vintage Mustang Forums banner

21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
.....If space isn't a concern (as it was in my case) I would reused the 65/66 towers and try to relocate the 67+ LCA's as inward as possible without hitting the oil pan. Might need some custom brackets and a custom length LCA. Could still adjust UCA using shims if you didn't want to recreate the 67' variable LCA mount (Personally, I'd do the slotted inner mount upgrade and use the 67+ style and an eccentric.)

The steering wouldn't be too hard to figure out. Use the 67+ idler arm, centerlink, and a couple of tie rod ends. Use a 67+ manual pitman arm to mount to the 65/66 1" shaft when using manual steering. Might need the 67-70 spindles for correct tie rod location.
This is along the lines I was thinking of. I think I need to start looking for some sapre 67/8 parts>:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,002 Posts
I think you're opening a whole can of worms for a change you will never notice on the street. Early cars already have a problem with upper ball joint clearance, so you don't want to widen the track with '67+ towers. You could keep the early UCA and towers, only lengthening the LCA, but you would have to move the inner pivot inwards, I'm not sure what that will do to the bump steer. This will add LCA "skew" if you don't move the strut rod pivot, which may or may not be a bad thing. The benefit of a longer LCA is a smoother camber curve, and more stable roll center, but I don't know if you would notice a 1" change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
This is along the lines I was thinking of. I think I need to start looking for some sapre 67/8 parts>:)
I pulled out the old 65/66 LCA's and compared them to a 68+ LCA. I verified that the later ones are a full 2" longer (which was also posted above.) That's how much the frame mounting points would need moved inward on both sides of the car in order to maintain the basic spindle alignment using the stock shock towers.

Use the 68-70 LCA as the 67 is a 1 year oddball that requires a one year only strut rod. Other 67 type parts should work BUT when I did my tower conversion I specified 68' as the base year. The only thing from a 67' needed for sure is a hard to find 1" pitman arm if you have manual steering. They were only used for a few months. I sourced a reproduction from John's Mustang (IIRC, Dallas TX) and it mounted up just fine on the 65 box. The price is better than a reconditioned original.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
That's really cool info. These projects always have a stack of little tid bits that we look back at and say "wow, I didn't know that". I have a couple of questions for you. What made you want to do the conversion, and was it worth it in the end?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
That's really cool info. These projects always have a stack of little tid bits that we look back at and say "wow, I didn't know that". I have a couple of questions for you. What made you want to do the conversion, and was it worth it in the end?
I wanted to install larger heads and the required headers as I was about as far as the AFR 205's could push my heavy turd with the windsor block. As it was, the 1 3/4" was already a major restriction for further HP increases.

Every winter I do a major project on the ole girl and decided that I could do the 68 swap for about a grand with 100% new quality parts. I didn't want to contend with the limited front end travel and needed brake upgrades of most R&P kits. I also scrounged up a couple of 68 drum spindles to correct tie rod geometry and found that the Arning drop would cut down on major camber changes when the wheels went in the air.

Was it worth it? It was more work than I first envisioned but it gave me something to do over the cold weekends in the warm garage. Saved 3-4 grand and kept me from going bonkers with the winter blaws. There was an unexpected major hiccup when I found the Dynacorn LH shock tower was drilled and assembled wrong in the area of the LCA and I had to separate the parts in order to relocate them properly--it was already too late to send it back. The LH was perfect-go figure. I also decide to notch the new towers but still wanted the basic A frame appearance of the old towers. That used up a lot of time but I elected to do that to myself and was happy with the outcome. I ran the 1 3/4" headers over the summer and was pleased with the new found space between the shock towers. Made hot car plug changes a breeze.

To complete my goal I am now in the process of upgrading the windsor with the big new heads and 1 7/8" tubes. I'll still have plenty of room to work with the new parts on the motor, so I'd say yes it was worth it to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
After reading all the good info presented I decided to go forward with the project. I am gong to cut out and replace the LCA mount with a new one 2 inches longer made from channel steel with slotted mounts for both 66 and 67 LCA's just in case. Also may fabricate a bolt in removable frame bracket between the 2 sides and eliminate the factory one.. All still in the planning stages.. I did have a successful first run of my new motor yesterday! Couple more heat cycles then it comes out to re torque heads and clearance for new headers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
After reading all the good info presented I decided to go forward with the project. I am gong to cut out and replace the LCA mount with a new one 2 inches longer made from channel steel with slotted mounts for both 66 and 67 LCA's just in case.
Cool. You might be starting or reviving a trend here. Allowing for both arms (and them being slotted) is a great idea since you can always revert back in case of difficulties. Having the 66 slot for the adjustable camber is a bonus. I suggest making the mount a little wider at the frame so that it doesn't interfere with the 68 lca movement when adding caster. Not all LCA's are designed the same and some are overall wider than others (except at the bushing.)

Take lots of photos for posting.

Good Luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
Mike, question about research you did back in the 80's, did you keep the longer LCA mounting position parallel with the original mounts and just move them inward or did you move them down some?
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
5,213 Posts
Sounds like an interesting project. Anybody run the numbers? I'm a data kinda guy and I like to spend 10 hours measuring/plotting things before 100 hours of labor tearing things up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Mike, question about research you did back in the 80's, did you keep the longer LCA mounting position parallel with the original mounts and just move them inward or did you move them down some?

I am certainly not the guy who knows but wouldn't dropping the LCA mounting position be counter productive? Seems you would be negating the purpose of the Arning drop. :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
This is awesome. I agree with Shaun about running the numbers, I'd be curious exactly how much this will effect camber gain and roll center.

When I switched from playing with Miatas to old mustangs I never expected to find more guys tinkering with suspension geometry on the old mustangs! The Miata community seems boring compared to you guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,002 Posts
Sounds like an interesting project. Anybody run the numbers? I'm a data kinda guy and I like to spend 10 hours measuring/plotting things before 100 hours of labor tearing things up.
x2 ! If I was going to go that far, I'd run it through a suspension program. I'd also go with custom A-arms, changing the strut rod pivot and UCA length/pivots as indicated by the suspension analysis.

Dennis, Moving the inner LCA pivot a little won't do much to change the camber gain of the UCA/Shelby drop. The longer arm will help to moderate the effect, but ultimately the location will depend on the RCH desired, and the overall suspension design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,433 Posts
When I switched from playing with Miatas to old mustangs I never expected to find more guys tinkering with suspension geometry on the old mustangs! The Miata community seems boring compared to you guys.
What did you think of the Miata?
GW had a mule in early 1989 to do tuning on. The car they received back had revised camber gain and a few
other tweaks. I have no idea how much of it was incorporated into the final car. I do remember seeing a quick
blurb in one of their ads alluding to revised suspension tuning. (or some such wording)

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
It was amazing other than the lack of power and uninspiring looks. It won its fair share of races (SCCA Hill Climbs and Time Trials). I added a turbo, which solved the power problem but introduced a myriad of on-track reliability issues due to heat (Melted the dipstick multiple times, melted the insulation off wires, turbo bolts consistently backing out due to heat cycling, etc...)

It had the best steering I've ever felt. Anyone who thinks the recirculating ball setup in old mustangs is "good enough" needs to drive a first gen miata with a de-powered rack. Its steering nirvana.


The mustang is better at burnouts, donuts and drifting though ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
This is really good stuff, thanks guys!
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top