Vintage Mustang Forums banner

41 - 60 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,996 Posts
I seem to recall reading a while back about someone making a tubular UCA that has the Shelby-drop geometry built in and did not require the re-drilling of the shock towers ?

Or did I imagine that ?

Thanks !
Wow! A mere $799 to avoid drilling a couple holes. It is a beautiful item, but massive overkill for street use, even if you drive nutz like me. Track racing would be the place for that item.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #42
"Yep ,slow:1 box with Shelby Quick steer kit ,1" ADDCO sway bar ,homemade Strut rods ,UCA drop,-1.5 camber +4 caster +1/8 toe..."

Those are about the most extreme specs I've seen. How did you arrive at them? That's double the amount of neg. camber that I've seen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,889 Posts
"Yep ,slow:1 box with Shelby Quick steer kit ,1" ADDCO sway bar ,homemade Strut rods ,UCA drop,-1.5 camber +4 caster +1/8 toe..."

Those are about the most extreme specs I've seen. How did you arrive at them? That's double the amount of neg. camber that I've seen.
Not really extreme ,But I planned on autocrossing a good amount.I honestly don't recall where I saw it 1st Maybe here someplace :shrug: And talking to people about autox
or maybe here
Tech Information - Opentracker Racing Products
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
Wow! A mere $799 to avoid drilling a couple holes. It is a beautiful item, but massive overkill for street use, even if you drive nutz like me. Track racing would be the place for that item.



To be fair, before the SCCA opened up the CAM T class, the rules in most of the lower street classes for our cars specifically stated that "all suspension must attach to factory attachment points". But those classes also allowed "one upper or lower control arm to be replaced but not both".

So doing the Shelby drop for $free.99 punted you into street mod with track whore miatas but buying $800 control arms kept you competitive. There once was a market for those arms but with the new rule changes probably not so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,889 Posts
To be fair, before the SCCA opened up the CAM T class, the rules in most of the lower street classes for our cars specifically stated that "all suspension must attach to factory attachment points". But those classes also allowed "one upper or lower control arm to be replaced but not both".

So doing the Shelby drop for $free.99 punted you into street mod with track whore miatas but buying $800 control arms kept you competitive. There once was a market for those arms but with the new rule changes probably not so much.
I guess it would come down to a pissing test between an SCCA official and myself being that of coarse the GT350 had the mod as well as 66 Trans Am coupes so in my mind should have homologated the UCA drop as "legal"
Cam T rules are kinda Lax in my area I mean it says I should have a carpet.I don't but I'm not so fast that anyone cares :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,956 Posts
Not really extreme ,But I planned on autocrossing a good amount.I honestly don't recall where I saw it 1st Maybe here someplace :shrug: And talking to people about autox
or maybe here
Tech Information - Opentracker Racing Products
Mine has the power steering box (quicker) and a quick steer kit with roller bearings on the idler arm. Arning Drop, roller spring perches, spherical bearing lower control arms, a 1" front anti-roll bar and a 3/4" rear one. Export brace, monte carlo bar, and Global West sub frame connectors. Alignment specs are 6 degrees caster (lower and upper arms are offset to add caster), 0 camber and 1/8 toe-in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,889 Posts
Mine has the power steering box (quicker) and a quick steer kit with roller bearings on the idler arm. Arning Drop, roller spring perches, spherical bearing lower control arms, a 1" front anti-roll bar and a 3/4" rear one. Export brace, monte carlo bar, and Global West sub frame connectors. Alignment specs are 6 degrees caster (lower and upper arms are offset to add caster), 0 camber and 1/8 toe-in.
To me that seems like extreme caster. I'm surprised your tire isn't closer to the front of the wheel arch of you front fender.And 0 camber :shrug:
Do you have power steering?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,956 Posts
The lower control arm is offset in the opposite direction that the upper control arm is offset (shifting the "mid" points of the two arms' axles) this builds in about 4 degrees of caster while keeping the wheel in roughly the original location. The car's steering returns to center very quickly, something the extremely boosted stock power steering prevents somewhat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,889 Posts
The lower control arm is offset in the opposite direction that the upper control arm is offset (shifting the "mid" points of the two arms' axles) this builds in about 4 degrees of caster while keeping the wheel in roughly the original location. The car's steering returns to center very quickly, something the extremely boosted stock power steering prevents somewhat.
interesting ,I'd like to crawl underneath and take a look
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,747 Posts
The lower control arm is offset in the opposite direction that the upper control arm is offset (shifting the "mid" points of the two arms' axles) this builds in about 4 degrees of caster while keeping the wheel in roughly the original location. The car's steering returns to center very quickly, something the extremely boosted stock power steering prevents somewhat.
My 65 FB has been plagued by the front tires being too close to the front of the fender opening forever. In a parking lot, the front of the tire would contact the fender even with trimmed fender lips.

I just got done building some UCAs with 3 degrees of caster offset (9/16" offset) in an effort to get the wheels centered in the fender opening. I adjusted the rod ends to shorten the UCA and to add another 2 degrees of caster before installing them. I had 225s on the front before I started this exercise and they rubbed. The new tires (245/45R17) are now centered in the fender opening and they are tucked in nicely. They have room to spare...I could feasibly get 255s in the front.

Now I have to address an issue about the spring perch being inwards too much from the upper spring seat. Without the shocks in (which help to keep the spring perch horizontal), the springs buckle when the suspension compresses. With the shocks in, the shock has too much lateral force on it trying to keep the spring perch horizontal. So I am thinking of relocating the spring perch mounting holes on the UCA 1/2" outwards.

My goal is 4-5 degrees of pos caster and 3/4 to 1 degree of neg camber and at least 245s on the front. I have PS.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
It's a '66 coupe. The ride height is good now so I don't intend to cut the springs at all. The top of the tires is about even with the wheel opening. But the tires howl around even the slightest turn. It plows badly. The entire front end has been redone plus an alignment. The camber curve is just not good.

Is there a significant difference between the 1" and the 1.125 bar?

I did all this stuff on my 66 coupe, with the 1-inch sway bar and Arning drop. I didn't like the ride height with cut springs so I've gone back to stock. And I actually just installed an export brace but haven't driven the car yet. One big thing I noticed was the lower crossmember - I put in one from zray and it made a huge difference in handling. Granted, my car didn't have one at all since a PO had broken off one of the mounting bolts inside the frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Der de der der derrrr

That's TCP. IMO, if you lack the ability to drill two holes, you shouldn't be doing this work!
I don't believe I mentioned any inability on my part.

You may be fine drilling holes and chopping up YOUR car but I would rather preserve my pristine 53 year old steel, thank you.

To ME it's worth spending a few dollars to preserve my cars originality while at the same time improving it's drivability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,074 Posts
I don't believe I mentioned any inability on my part.

You may be fine drilling holes and chopping up YOUR car but I would rather preserve my pristine 53 year old steel, thank you.

To ME it's worth spending a few dollars to preserve my cars originality while at the same time improving it's drivability.
Sorry, it wasn't directed at you, it was directed at TCP. I understand you're concern but the extra holes will not have an effect on structural integrity. it's been done for 50 years. I know GT289 who worked as an engineer with Global West and I believe he has a prototype of their control arms on his car has mentioned his concern on the design with the extra stress placed on the mounting bolts with the offset design. When you get into modifying something you should have an understanding of what you are doing, speaking in a general voice and not at you. The other issue I have with the TCP is the barrel adjusters to set caster and camber. Once you start to adjust caster and camber on each side, you effectively change the over all length of the arm which effects and changes suspension characteristics from one side to another. iI you bought 2 upper control arms, would you be ok with them being different lengths? Then why would it be ok to adjust them that way especially when you spent, what $800? The correct way of using that system is what ever adjustment you make to one side, you must make or should make to the other, that is what any decent suspension book will tell you. Personally I don't think too much of their upper arms in general. I think it's all about marketing then function, I would buy a set of stock reproduction arms before I would buy them. I even remember someone posting a photo of their TCP upper arm that bent on the flat plate the ball joint was mounted to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #54
Wrap up

Drop complete, alignment done. I have a new Monte Carlo bar to replace the useless unit that was in the car, but it's not in yet. Roll is much better under control. Turns that were frightening at 45 now no issue at 50-55. However, now the wheel/tires are (and have always been) the weak link. I'm running what came on the car when I bought it; 205/75/14's. My blue car had 215/55/16's on the front and felt much more secure. Just too much sidewall flex on these Uniroyals.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,972 Posts
"…...the tires howl around even the slightest turn. It plows badly……"
just curious, what tires are you using ?

"……...Is there a significant difference between the 1" and the 1.125 bar?
yes there is.

Consider getting bar less than one inch. Remember, the K codes used a 13/16" sway bar, and it was the sweetest handing Mustang during the '65-'67 years. The Hipo 13/16" made a significant difference vs. the 11/16" standard bar.

Unfortunately, a 13/16" repro bar is scarce. If I was putting on stiffer sway, I'd first try the 7/8" bar.

in this link

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hdt-sb-065/overview/year/1965/make/ford/model/mustang


Z
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #56
I went with the 1" bar. Had one on the last car and liked it. The tires are Uniroyal, Tiger Paw whitewalls, 205/75/14's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,553 Posts
Discussion Starter #58
Having driven the car a few days now, I can say that it feels much better and I have much more confidence when cornering. Much more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
791 Posts
Good luck

I would try this: Turn right into a driveway/approach that has a slight dip. This will tell you if you have enough clearance for sure. Don't go too fast in case you tire hits the fender as your front end drops.
 
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
Top