Vintage Mustang Forums banner

41 - 50 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
1966 Mustang GT 4sp Nightmist Blue
Joined
·
375 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,006 Posts
So when you bent that, didn't that effectively bring your aprons closer together?

Chris
I think the brackets may have bent a 1/16” total. Bending something up 5/8” over 40 inches isn’t going to subtract much from its length.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Badbenz94

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Which brings me back to one of my questions.

What should the length be for a '65 Coupe? I currently have a 'cheap' bar, got it 10+ years ago, never fit right. It was too long. I have measured it as 40 1/2" where the triangle shaped flanges meet the fender aprons. I have heard some are too long, and the measurement should be closer to 40" Wat should it be? I have to do some significant sheet metal replacement in the front and would like to use the MC bar to help keep things square, but only if it is the correct size.

Thanks!

Rusty
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
Because any pivoting joint like a spherical bearing or rod end has some linear and axial play, or it wouldn't move. It may be a tiny amount, but that may be enough over the length of the chassis to make a difference. In suspensions they also loosen over time, though that probably wouldn't happen with a static chassis brace ?
You got me thinking, and i agree that they will be effective on a single plane, but not against any twisting forces. Now i am thinking that a even a solid monte carlo bar is made of what 7/8''- 1'' maybe even 1.125 tubing ? A 1.125 or 1.25 tube would be somewhat sucsessful resisting light twisting forces, but a 7/8'' or 1'' tube i don't think will prevent much of any twisting. a 3 foot long tube can easily be bent by the strength of your arms lol, so the forces of a car it will sway anyways ( maybe not as much as a heim bearing obviously)

Thanks, i already bought a 4 foot stick of 1.25 x.090 tube to fabricate a montecarlo bar, im wondering if stepping it up to a 1.50'' tube would be smarter ? lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,388 Posts
You got me thinking, and i agree that they will be effective on a single plane, but not against any twisting forces. Now i am thinking that a even a solid monte carlo bar is made of what 7/8''- 1'' maybe even 1.125 tubing ? A 1.125 or 1.25 tube would be somewhat sucsessful resisting light twisting forces, but a 7/8'' or 1'' tube i don't think will prevent much of any twisting. a 3 foot long tube can easily be bent by the strength of your arms lol, so the forces of a car it will sway anyways ( maybe not as much as a heim bearing obviously)

Thanks, i already bought a 4 foot stick of 1.25 x.090 tube to fabricate a montecarlo bar, im wondering if stepping it up to a 1.50'' tube would be smarter ? lol
Well, the primary job of the MC bar is in tension and compression, and IMO it's not nearly as essential as the export brace, but works with it. I doubt that there'd be much improvement from up-sizing it, but as long as it's thin wall tube, there's not much weight penalty. I always thought it would be more effective if moved rearward, and welded to the shock tower "hat" like in the Boss 302 chassis book, or incorporated into the export brace similar to Maier's piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
A lot of questions could be answered if one of you tech guys ran a string between the fender aprons and put a gocam under the hood to see how much that string moves under some spirited driving.

The new Mustangs have the bar running between the shock towers, seems like is the way to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dobrostang

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,882 Posts
You got me thinking, and i agree that they will be effective on a single plane, but not against any twisting forces. Now i am thinking that a even a solid monte carlo bar is made of what 7/8''- 1'' maybe even 1.125 tubing ? A 1.125 or 1.25 tube would be somewhat sucsessful resisting light twisting forces, but a 7/8'' or 1'' tube i don't think will prevent much of any twisting. a 3 foot long tube can easily be bent by the strength of your arms lol, so the forces of a car it will sway anyways ( maybe not as much as a heim bearing obviously)

Thanks, i already bought a 4 foot stick of 1.25 x.090 tube to fabricate a montecarlo bar, im wondering if stepping it up to a 1.50'' tube would be smarter ? lol
if you wanna stop all twisting forces use a bolt in monte carlo bar, welded on x brace , and welded on straight lower cross member. But all thats only really necessary if want all the cornering you can get out a serious track car. I would never go that radical for street unless you plan on getting the cops to chase you around town like we did in the 70's. A foto of my welded on lower crossmamber.

762932



762933



762935
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,516 Posts
Well, the primary job of the MC bar is in tension and compression, and IMO it's not nearly as essential as the export brace, but works with it. I doubt that there'd be much improvement from up-sizing it, but as long as it's thin wall tube, there's not much weight penalty. I always thought it would be more effective if moved rearward, and welded to the shock tower "hat" like in the Boss 302 chassis book, or incorporated into the export brace similar to Maier's piece.
You mean like this???
762942


762943
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
902 Posts
Well, the primary job of the MC bar is in tension and compression, and IMO it's not nearly as essential as the export brace, but works with it. I doubt that there'd be much improvement from up-sizing it, but as long as it's thin wall tube, there's not much weight penalty. I always thought it would be more effective if moved rearward, and welded to the shock tower "hat" like in the Boss 302 chassis book, or incorporated into the export brace similar to Maier's piece.
mounting it to the shock towers is exactly what i plan on doing ! since i don't use the stock shock bracket on top of towers, my monte carlo bar will use a plate that bolts on top of the towers underneath the export brace.
 
41 - 50 of 50 Posts
Top