Vintage Mustang Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part JUNE's Ride of the Month Challenge!
  • May's Ride of the Month contest ended with a tie! Go to this thread to vote on the winner! VOTE HERE
21 - 40 of 50 Posts

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
I don't suppose that they will fit inside a 16" wheel will they? Or stated another way...what is the minimum wheel ID required to clear the tie rod end?
You can use any size wheel on the spindles. Our 13/14" front brakes will need 17/18" wheels.
 

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
@Shawn so basically this is an extended caliper mount for your larger brake kits
These new brackets move the caliper on our 13/14" brake systems from the rear (behind the spindle upright, or 'trailing') to the front (forward of the the spindle upright - leading). This caliper position is needed when using our 2" Drop Spindle and our deep hat offset brake systems.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,392 Posts
Just to be clear Shaun, the flange and the bolt pattern on your spindles are set up like the original 65-66 drum/disc spindles? AKA drum spindles. I get the need to reverse the calipers in some applications because of space limitations.
 

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Just to be clear Shaun, the flange and the bolt pattern on your spindles are set up like the original 65-66 drum/disc spindles? AKA drum spindles. I get the need to reverse the calipers in some applications because of space limitations.
Yes. The new spindles have the 65-73 drum mounting pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,536 Posts
You can use any size wheel on the spindles. Our 13/14" front brakes will need 17/18" wheels.
I meant if I wanted to use wider wheels, since the tie rod end sits inside the wheel for the wider wheels you are showing, which implies to me that to take full advantage you need a wheel with some minimum inside diameter to still clear. If I remember correctly, the stock steering arms are longer, limiting the wheel width to the inside. If I had some 16" wheels with the correct offset/backspacing would I still be able to run a 315 tire? or would I have to have a 17" wheel for that? An academic question for me right now, but later on may matter.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,392 Posts
I got that you're going to need 17" plus to clear the steering arms from the first posts if you want to go inboard of the UCA and and steering arm using SoT components. His name is Shaun, not Merlin!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaun

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,536 Posts
I got that you're going to need 17" plus to clear the steering arms from the first posts if you want to go inboard of the UCA and and steering arm using SoT components. His name is Shaun, not Merlin!
Heh, I can always hope. I asked because most people either run 15s or 17s, very few run 16s and from the picture it looks like there is still a small amount of room up for grabs that might translate into some 16s possibly fitting....I was just looking at the tie rods though, forgot all about the control arms. Regardless though, these are now on my eventual buy list.
 

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 · (Edited)
I asked because most people either run 15s or 17s.
This was why I didn't try a 16" wheel. Maybe they clear, not sure. If you're going to larger wheels you are correct, most skip over 16" nowadays.
 

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,392 Posts
I haven't even been able to get the 3-link installed yet! Why do you torment me so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaun

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
Ran the '66 road race test car at Road America last weekend. 275/35/18 Hoosier R7's on all 4 corners:

801310


Very happy with how the spindle geometry uses the tire. The regular height spindle would always use the outboard half of the tire WAY more than the inboard, no matter what static negative camber we used. This would lead to roasting the outboard edge, turning it blue from heat! We'd have to get lucky to catch the wear in time to flip the tire on the rim and hopefully prolong the tire life. This means much less contact patch on the ground when using it and we wasted life in many tires by burning off the outboard edge before we could flip them.

The new spindles used all 10" of the Hoosier contact patch with -3 degrees of camber:

801312


Another interesting finding is that these new spindles are much stiffer than the old original 70-73 spindles we ran before. We'd get flexing in the old spindles through corners giving some pad knock back. I'd find I'd have to tap the brake pedal with my left foot to set the pads again on the straight before the next braking zone. With the new spindles being so stiff I experienced no knock back whatsoever. Brake pedal was in the same spot every time, even with 30mm extra rubber on each tire so more lateral grip and higher loads.

To say I'm pretty happy is an understatement!

801313
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,219 Posts
One area I haven't seen addressed is the angle of the upper control arm with the now lower mount of the upper ball joint. It seems to me that unless the UCA mount on the chassis is lowered, the geometry would be angled worse than stock Ford before the Shelby drop was done. How was this addressed, or am I missing something?
 

·
Registered
1965 2+2 Vintage Burgundy A-code C4
Joined
·
4,575 Posts
Ran the '66 road race test car at Road America last weekend. 275/35/18 Hoosier R7's on all 4 corners:

View attachment 801310

So do you have any side by side stats from before and after? Lap time reduction? Higher speed into/ out of corners? Wanting to get rid of those test mule spindles cheap?

Very happy with how the spindle geometry uses the tire. The regular height spindle would always use the outboard half of the tire WAY more than the inboard, no matter what static negative camber we used. This would lead to roasting the outboard edge, turning it blue from heat! We'd have to get lucky to catch the wear in time to flip the tire on the rim and hopefully prolong the tire life. This means much less contact patch on the ground when using it and we wasted life in many tires by burning off the outboard edge before we could flip them.

The new spindles used all 10" of the Hoosier contact patch with -3 degrees of camber:

View attachment 801312

Another interesting finding is that these new spindles are much stiffer than the old original 70-73 spindles we ran before. We'd get flexing in the old spindles through corners giving some pad knock back. I'd find I'd have to tap the brake pedal with my left foot to set the pads again on the straight before the next braking zone. With the new spindles being so stiff I experienced no knock back whatsoever. Brake pedal was in the same spot every time, even with 30mm extra rubber on each tire so more lateral grip and higher loads.

To say I'm pretty happy is an understatement!

View attachment 801313
 

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
One area I haven't seen addressed is the angle of the upper control arm with the now lower mount of the upper ball joint. It seems to me that unless the UCA mount on the chassis is lowered, the geometry would be angled worse than stock Ford before the Shelby drop was done. How was this addressed, or am I missing something?
Nothing to address here. We are using the standard Shelby drop spec. and our regular length coilover UCA's. Geometry works great, tires tell me so :cool:
 

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
So do you have any side by side stats from before and after? Lap time reduction? Higher speed into/ out of corners?
Much more front end grip evidenced by way less understeer. Car is much more balanced. Much more even tire wear. Harder braking.
 

·
Premium Member
1966 Mustang Hardtop 289 4 Speed
Joined
·
7,024 Posts
Shaun, a quick question if you don't mind. What is the torque spec for the lower ball joint in your tubular arms? I recently discovered one of mine was loose. I just snugged it up for now until the proper socket arrives next week.
 

·
Vendor
1966 coupe and 1970 sportsroof
Joined
·
5,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 ·
Shaun, a quick question if you don't mind. What is the torque spec for the lower ball joint in your tubular arms? I recently discovered one of mine was loose. I just snugged it up for now until the proper socket arrives next week.
80-100ft-lbs
 
21 - 40 of 50 Posts
Top