Vintage Mustang Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of this month's Ride of the Month Challenge!

41 - 60 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #41 ·
I even have the torque specs that they wrote down showing what the LCA's should be torqued at. 35 to 50 Ft, Lbs is what they wrote. I guess you could over torque those and it cause the car to set up that high but I bet it would have to be up in the 100 lb range or more. I can't imagine that if you torqued them to the 35 to 50 and had the wheels off the ground that the car would stay at the height it is.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,885 Posts
Also if the lower control arm was just to tight and holding the car up then when I removed the front shocks the car shouldn't bounce up and down so freely cause it was just very bouncy without the shocks attached.
No . You have to have all 4 wheels on the ground and have the LCA’s loose. Then bounce the car around a little before tightening them with the car’s wheels still on the ground .

Your otherwise “very bouncy” experience does not satisfy the requirements.

Z
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,142 Posts

·
Registered
1967 Mustang Convertible
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
You never said but since these are the stock springs was the ride height fine before? Just wondering if these are like big block springs or something else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,142 Posts
I even have the torque specs that they wrote down showing what the LCA's should be torqued at. 35 to 50 Ft, Lbs is what they wrote. I guess you could over torque those and it cause the car to set up that high but I bet it would have to be up in the 100 lb range or more. I can't imagine that if you torqued them to the 35 to 50 and had the wheels off the ground that the car would stay at the height it is.
Here's the issue with the stock lower arms and those wonderful bushings that are in them.....
if you over-tighten them, you maintain the alignment setting but you can artificially affect ride height and control arm movement.
Conversely, if you under-tighten them you can loose the alignment setting. Really difficult to "win" with that part.
I'm not a fan.

There's a few arms out there in the aftermarket arena which offer a spherical pivot. Way superior to factory.....
And it doesn't matter whether the suspension's loaded or unloaded when you torque the bolt down.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

789948
789949
 
  • Like
Reactions: CJM68GT390 and zray

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
You never said but since these are the stock springs was the ride height fine before? Just wondering if these are like big block springs or something else?
Yes the ride height was very nice it seemed to be about level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
Man, I wish I could read the specs. Looks like what the "after" numbers are could be mainly because of excessive ride height?

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
I recall the guy saying that if I can get to front lowered then he could get the specs more dead on. He said it being jacked up so high was causing something to be unable to be set properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
The specs indicate that the camber and caster are both still out of spec when they finished. Toe in on both are correct and total toe is correct as well as steer ahead is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,142 Posts
I recall the guy saying that if I can get to front lowered then he could get the specs more dead on. He said it being jacked up so high was causing something to be unable to be set properly.
EXACTLY.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #51 ·
After numbers
Here is the front specs as the sheets has them:
Front left : Camber -2.7 Caster 1.4 Toe 0.21
Front Right: Camber -1.3 Caster 1.9 Toe 0.21
Front: 0.41 Steer ahead 0.00
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 ·
Do the LCA's have to be loosened to do a front end alignment ? To cause the front to be jacked up aren't the only things that would normally be able to do that be that the coil springs are installed wrong or the LCA's are over tightened ? I've already seen that taking the shocks out of the equation reduced the height by 7/16 inch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
Here is the best image I have of before all the front end work. This was taken last summer. I realize it's not much in the way of showing the ride height.
789955
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,093 Posts
Aren't there like 1" thick spring isolators, could they have possibly gotten installed? I'm not sure who did the work.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,805 Posts
I rebuilt the front end using a kit that came with everything except the strut rods and coil springs. It had new upper and lower control arms in the kit just to be sure that is known for this discussion.
What exact kit did you buy?
Here is the best image I have of before all the front end work. This was taken last summer. I realize it's not much in the way of showing the ride height.
It shows enought to see there was a lot of air around the front tires back then too, not as much as now, but a lot. Is there any other significant weight missing from the car besides the front bumper and bumper brackets? Did your car originally have PS and A/C but now it doesn't? What other things, any and all, are keeping the car from being complete? Spare tire? Rear bumper? Back seats? The cumulative weight of missing parts could easily cause a too high stance. Mind you, I still think it's the LCA's being tightened when the suspension was dropped and hanging, but even if that's the case I think I see the possibility of new coils or cutting some off the current ones in your future. It needs to be a complete car first to know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,805 Posts
Aren't there like 1" thick spring isolators?
Yes, but they would have to be ordered separately and specifically to raise a too low front end, in other words a total blunder of a mistake. Anything's possible here though, it's something to look at, a valid question. (y)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,954 Posts
Years ago someone told me to put Boss 302 springs in the front of my '66. My headlights were pointing at the moon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Do the LCA's have to be loosened to do a front end alignment ? To cause the front to be jacked up aren't the only things that would normally be able to do that be that the coil springs are installed wrong or the LCA's are over tightened ? I've already seen that taking the shocks out of the equation reduced the height by 7/16 inch.
What everyone is describing is NOT that the LCA bolts are "over tightened", rather that they were tightened with the car jacked up and the wheels hanging. If you tighten the LCA bolts while the wheels are hanging, you will lock them in that position. The stock LCA bushing is rubber and it does not pivot (spin). Movement is only allowed through compliance of the rubber. The LCA would be binding if tightened in that position.

So car needs to be lowered and the suspension loaded when you tighten the LCA bolts. Bouncing the front end up and down after lowering the car from the jack might not be enough to settle the suspension because the wheels need to spread. To reduce friction from tire's grip on the floor, lower the tires onto folded up plastic garbage bags.

I hope this better describes what others are trying to explain above.
Also noted above is that if the new rubber isolator is thicker that the old one, that will raise the front 2X the difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
Very good points all around. I do recall that the rubber isolators were on the car yet very worn out so i suspect that there would be some addition to the height there when adding new ones. Also I fully understand now about untightening and tightening the LCA's in the manner you describe and that does make sense. I will report back and try to have pictures .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
Sometimes restoring a car to stock height can make it look very high.
Keep in mind a few things when doing spring work in addition to the earlier state clocking and loosening then lowering before tightening and such. First thing is that your front end can appear high relative to how low your rear is sagging. As the back goes down, the headlights point up. Two, they do settle in about a full inch, and sometimes more. The only thing my PO did on my car was put in new front controls arms and springs and no motor until I reassembled the rest of my Mustang. Even with the motor in the front was sitting high, and only when I installed new rear springs did things begin to look leveled out. Then I drove it for a while. About 1" came down in front. Supposedly they used front lowering spring when they did the whole front end with a Grab-a-Trak kit. Then I put 1" shackles on the rear to raise it up 1" from stock spring height to get rid of most of that leaning back look and level it out nicely. Allegedly the rear leaning back was a desirable thing for a sports car back in the day, but it should not be excessive. But even one inch of it bother me a lot.

For the rear my new leafs at stock heigh 114 GT rate Eaton spring made the rear come up about 3-4" in the back. I mean it was really sagging with it's (probably) original springs. I loaded the new spring in the back and truck and we rubbed tires all the way to the Army shop where I installed the new ones myself.

One of my front springs is clocked all the way against the stop, the other about 1/2-1" before it. That side that is not square against the stop sits about 2/3" higher than the other side of the car. I am going to fix that now that they are done settling after 2 years and about 8,000 miles and I've run out of big stuff to do, almost.

At last check (this is a 68' Coupe with A/C and power steering) my heights were the following from center of the up to top arch of the fender well, maybe rounded off a bit.

RF 26 3/8"
LF 25 5/8"
RR 26 1/4 "
LR 26 1/8"

And YES that 3/8" of an inch difference between the fronts bothers me. It's also pushing the LR down just a wee bit.

Went digging through ancient posts and one time came back with a guy who cited a 1966 TSB that said Front 26.68 + 1 to -.70 variance and Rear 25.39 +1 -.75 variance. Take that with a grain of salt though, as each car as we know rolled off the lines differently and there really were no published ride heights in those days. I've even heard one side of the frame vs the other can have a difference. I plan to rotate that spring after partially compressing it. If that does not work then I'll have it cut a little at a time until the front is perfectly level......doggarnit!!
 

Attachments

41 - 60 of 69 Posts
Top