Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I'm trying to verify the width of the floor in the front and the rear. And would like to know for me and others how accurate this is. I'm second guessing some of my work I guess. I know you cant get these cars "perfect" but curious to what others have found.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,944 Posts
Other than the A and B dimensions being swapped incorrectly on some drawings, the Liskey copyright diagrams are accurate. If they weren't, a whole bunch of people here would know about it, including me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,923 Posts
I'm curious as to where you got that drawing. Most Ford drawings had more information on them such as tolerances.
I have heard the dimensions were + or - 1/4 inch.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The drawing is all over the web. Been looking at it and using it for two years. I seem to be a bit narrow at the rear floor measurement. I can't remember exactly what it was on my car. I'll measure again tonight and see what it is. I've read on here and other forums that some of the measurements were suspect so I figured I'd ask what ya'll have found
 

·
Registered
1965 Mustang Fastback GT350-Tribute Restomod. 2019 Shelby GT350.
Joined
·
73 Posts
I have a 65 fastback that had the front-end wrecked in the early 80's before I bought it. I came to realize it had a poorly done restoration, so around '92 I removed the engine bay sheet metal, had the frame straightened at a local shop and new sheet metal welded in. The frame has been in storage and I just recently restarted work on it. I've tried to add several aftermarket products in the engine area and nothing was fitting. All the issues seemed to suggest that the engine bay was too narrow. I found the Liskey drawing and my car measurements were dead-on with the drawing. However, the frame rails still didn't look right - they seemed to have an hourglass shape narrowed at the shock towers. My lower control arm mounting bolt holes were 21.5" center-to-center (Item "G" in the Liskey drawing). I then found another copy of the Liskey drawing with different hand-drawn dimensions added in. In this drawing, the lower control arm hole dimension was 22.25". I took the car to another frame shop in town where the diagnosis was that the rails were still bent. They had the book of Liskey drawings, but said regardless of the specs, the frame rails were not straight. I had the frame straightened and lo and behold, the dimension needed to get the rails straight was indeed 22.25". Now all the equipment fits in the car and the alignment is coming out fine. I can't vouch for the source or accuracy of the hand-drawn dimensions , but I thought I'd share this with you since it worked for me.

Jim
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
580 Posts
My lower control arm mounting bolt holes were 21.5" center-to-center (Item "G" in the Liskey drawing). I then found another copy of the Liskey drawing with different hand-drawn dimensions added in.
Other than the A and B dimensions being swapped incorrectly on some drawings, the Liskey copyright diagrams are accurate.
Are those the only errors? If G is supposed to be 22.5", then I assume A & B are also still incorrect in the OP's photo?

I'm going to put torque boxes in my '65 & want to make sure it is straight (check prior repairs) before they go in.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top