Vintage Mustang Forums banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,802 Posts
When I replaced my rear springs, the rear came up quite a bit. I remedied that with 1.5" blocks from CJ Pony (the write-up on their site is from my install).

You shouldn't need more than 1.5" to get the ride height acceptable. As has been posted earlier, if its that high, consider readjusting the springs with the car sitting on the ground (just leave the car off jacks, and loosen then re-tighten the rear bolts on the springs with the car on the ground).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
A pic of my 65 GT350 Tribute after lowering

My 65GT350 Tribute after I lowered the front and back. Currently I am sitting at around 24 1/4" from ground to fender all the way around with 205/70/14 tires on front and 225/60/16 tires on back. I have a 4 1/2 leaf on the back with a reverse eye that lowers the car 1 1/2" and then I added 2/3" lower blocks. The front has 620lb 1" lower springs with 1/2 an additional coil cut off which lowered it about another 1/2" or slightly more.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Them tires are approx 23.5 inches in dia.
Those small wheels will add a lot to the impression that the car sits high on the springs. Just compare to a stock Shelby. They came with very big tires making them look lower than they actually where. I believe the Shelby blue dot tires was nearly 3" higher than those on your car.

DelAuto91: Ford Mustang GT 350 images 2 from 8

I wouldnt start making changes to the suspension before the car had been on the road and the seen if and then how much the car settle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Discussion Starter #24 (Edited)
I wouldnt start making changes to the suspension before the car had been on the road and the seen if and then how much the car settle.
That is " Plan A"....just lining up options at present.
The S or T front suspension makes putting that where I want it easy......I'm new to leaf springs/live axles.....can't say I like it much, but I have spent enough money for now. Rear coil overs are part of "Plan B".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,896 Posts
Old leaf springs when right are quite ingenious actually . They not only hold the back of the vehicle up, they also stabilize the rear axle front to back and laterally. It takes several parts to do this any other way. What they are not is they are not very tunable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
467 Posts
Your problem is using a tire 2'' too short. You should have tires around 25 1/2'' tall. Even with the right tires you will still want a 1'' lowering block to give it the right stance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Discussion Starter #27
Old leaf springs when right are quite ingenious actually . They not only hold the back of the vehicle up, they also stabilize the rear axle front to back and laterally. It takes several parts to do this any other way. What they are not is they are not very tunable.
A problem with the set up on the Mustang is *lack* of lateral control plus leaf springs are heavy as hell. A Watts linkage or Panhard bar is necesssary for any such "lateral control". More weight, but a trade off worth doing.

It was a decent set up in 1940.

Thevirus: I agree with the the "stance" part but since when is a lower car CG having no effect on suspension geometry a bad thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,907 Posts
A problem with the set up on the Mustang is *lack* of lateral control plus leaf springs are heavy as hell. A Watts linkage or Panhard bar is necesssary for any such "lateral control". More weight, but a trade off worth doing.

It was a decent set up in 1940.

Thevirus: I agree with the the "stance" part but since when is a lower car CG having no effect on suspension geometry a bad thing?
Come on now. 1940?
Plenty of Mustangs do in excess of 1g lateral on the track with the antiquated
leaf spring. Watts, panhard or properly designed bushings all by themselves.
By definition they're "unsprung" weight since they sit on an axle which sits on
the ground- leafs being heavy as hell isn't that big a penalty to handling.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
I'd wait until you get it on the ground to decide. If you only jacked the RF, it will rack the car, taking weight off the RR.
I did jack up both sides up front trying to see how the suspension reacts to movement......this ain't my first rodeo. As a result I cut off one inch from each tie rod (on the r & p) to get toe within some semblance of spec. With the tie rod ends bottomed out, I was looking at 1 inch toe in when measured *at the rotors*. Now there is 1/16 toe out with some adjustment for my alignment guy.

GT289:My experience from several years of building an AX car taught me that weight is a killer. Sprung, unsprung, rotating, what ever.
Karts have no suspension (other than frame flex & what the tires provide). On a race track, they pull considerably more than 1G. Put them on a real life road and they will beat the crap out of you while jumping from pillar to post.......handling suffers. There is more to handling than G forces. Keeping the tires in contact with the ground is an an art form. I haven't got all the answers, but enough to make good judgements.
Your comments on the 1940s suspension reflect something.....but I'm not sure what.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
I had a similar experience with my 68. Put on new springs and it was way jacked up in the back. Looked like a redneck ride from the 70s. I was mad as hell, but drove the thing around anyway. After a day of driving the springs settled to the height they are now and I'm happy with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,157 Posts
IMHO, scrap the lowering blocks idea and either replace or de-arch the spring pack. Adding lowering blocks has the same effect as using a lever (see illustration below). For a practical demonstration, take a standard 1/2" socket and a ratchet from your tool box. Place the socket on a nut or bolt head and try turning it, while placing your fingers on different locations along the ratchet handle. Notice how the farther offset your fingers are from the centerline of the socket the easier it becomes. Now imagine the multiplication of force placed on the leaf spring at the point of contact between the spring and the lowering blocks....
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Discussion Starter #34 (Edited)
Thanks for the input.
Yeah, I get it. Give me a long enough lever & I'll move the world.

That is why I asked about any negative effects of the taller blocks. 1 inchers would be managable, me thinks......dunno about any taller. You are speaking about your real world experience with them, right?

I was concerned more about lateral forces. I don't do drag race. I got over that about 40 years back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,157 Posts
There aren't really any lateral issues as the axle is trying to SLIDE from side-to-side and not twisting. I have seen and felt the effects of both lowering blocks and extended shackles and can say that I don't like either. An alternative to 1" lowering blocks that has other benefits is to replace your 8 inch tapered tube axle with a 9 inch from an early big-Ford or another 8 inch of similar width with straight tubes (Maverick comes to mind). The difference in tube diameter is worth an inch in height reduction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,907 Posts
I did jack up both sides up front trying to see how the suspension reacts to movement......this ain't my first rodeo. As a result I cut off one inch from each tie rod (on the r & p) to get toe within some semblance of spec. With the tie rod ends bottomed out, I was looking at 1 inch toe in when measured *at the rotors*. Now there is 1/16 toe out with some adjustment for my alignment guy.

GT289:My experience from several years of building an AX car taught me that weight is a killer. Sprung, unsprung, rotating, what ever.
Karts have no suspension (other than frame flex & what the tires provide). On a race track, they pull considerably more than 1G. Put them on a real life road and they will beat the crap out of you while jumping from pillar to post.......handling suffers. There is more to handling than G forces. Keeping the tires in contact with the ground is an an art form. I haven't got all the answers, but enough to make good judgements.
Your comments on the 1940s suspension reflect something.....but I'm not sure what.
Karts? You're joking, right? Not even a close comparison. Lateral performance in
a vehicle (with driver) that weighs less than the rear section of a Mustang.....
Yeah. I don't know that I want to waste too much time here. Seems like you've
got it all handled. You're not the only guy on here with copious amounts of track
time or setup experience, BTW.
Have a nice day.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
I have the same spring on my car, with 1" lowering blocks and 245/50/16 on the car. Also have the Maier adj panhard bar kit. Car pulls well over 1g and I have never felt any type of ill effects on the handling or braking. And it gets driven hard (built as an AX car that I am slowly pulling back some). I do have a 9" in the car however.

If you have any concerns with the spring itself, contact Mike at Maier Racing. He will make it right. His springs are all US made and are far more consistent spring rate wise than a lot of what is out there these days (from India and China).

G'luck
Fej
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
1 inch rear lowering blocks seem to be fairly common, but 2 or 3 inch are less so. A pic of the my 65 with the suspension loaded. There is nearly 4 inches, tire lip in back. The front is easily adjustable but the rear is tougher.......3 inches of rake is a bit much. I'd like to get that gap down to around 2 inches.
I read that the new rear leafs will settle a bit but not enough, me thinks.
Are there any detrimental issues with 2 or 3 inch blocks and are they available?

Ive used lowering blocks on over 20 of my ford cars..
NEVER had a problem in 35 years :)
Yes re-tempered springs is better way to go obviously .
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top