Vintage Mustang Forums banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part August's Ride of the Month Challenge!
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Why wasn't the a-arm modification that shelby did to the early shelbys done to all line Mustangs if it's such a great thing? It seems to me a no brainer that, if this modification is so great, and it's nothing more complicated than moving the mounting holes 1 inch lower, that Ford could have easily done this right off the line and be done with it. So what's the story?

Visit my repair page for Repair info, with pictures! http://home.dencity.com/mustangcub
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,176 Posts
My guess would be, Ford didn't want the cars to oversteer. Seems most of the cars of the day had a lot of built in understeer to keep everybody safe. Just a guess!

Regards,
BillGear

1966 Mustang Coupe, 302 custom roller cam, holley 650dp,http://www.289mustang.com
http://www.289mustang.com/images/vmfcar.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
Back when this modification was developed it was to be installed in conjunction with an independent rear suspension. The IRS project got canned because of the cost. The control arm change was considered totally unnecessary for street cars. We're dealing with bias ply tires at this point anyway. Even Shelby quit making the change on Shelby mustangs at some point because it took too much time to do.


You can see my 65 fastback at: http://hottarod.stangnet.com/
http://members.aol.com/macstang/Gifs/macstang3.jpg
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
If the modification was designed to be used with an independent rear suspension, and wasn't, AND was deemed to be unnecessary for street cars, what's the overall benefit today? Really great handling, moderate handling, no difference from factory, worse than factory because of accelerated wear?

Visit my repair page for Repair info, with pictures! http://home.dencity.com/mustangcub
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
The change is for real and it does a couple of things. It helps decrease body roll in corners because of the improved camber angle. The other thing it does is it helps high speed straight line tracking due to the improvement in caster. Whether you need those things depends on how you drive your car and also what other suspension and handling changes you have made.

I can't verify this for sure but in cases of accelerated wear I believe people have gone more than the recommended 1 inch drop and/or they have not changed their alignment over to the modified alignment specs. I know for sure that one case of accelerated wear is nothing more than a company trying to sell their negative wedge kits as the only solution when this one is essentially free except for the labor.

If you like aggressive handling with performance springs, shocks and higher rate sway bars this change should be considered a necessary part of that package of enhancements. The GT350's that had lowered control arms also had more aggressive coil and leaf springs, the quick steering kit, bigger 1 inch front sway bar, 3/4 inch rear sway bar, Koni shocks, traction bars, export brace and monte carlo bar so it was a part of the whole suspension package.

Just making the control arm change by itself without enhancing the rest of the suspension so that it performs better isn't worth a whole lot in my opinion.





You can see my 65 fastback at: http://hottarod.stangnet.com/
http://members.aol.com/macstang/Gifs/macstang3.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,092 Posts
Don't forget Ford was losing money on all the 65 GT 350s.
In order to cut costs, somewhere midstream in 66 they quit doing it to save a buck or two.

[color:red]1966</font color=red> [color:blue]V8</font color=blue> [color:red]Coupe</font color=red>
http://www.geocities.com/2bav8
5 speed, 4.11s, 10.13 in the quarter mile.
Oh wait, that was a Sammy Haggar song...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Joe- It is my understanding the 67-on Mustangs actually had their suspension geometry designed to provide most of the benefits of the lowered arm mounts already. It could also have something to do with the inherent affect on the oversteer/understeer balance. Detroit liked to be very conservative when building in handling characteristics. That is, they always wanted cars to understeer - to make them more forgiving of driving errors. Don't know for sure, but the dropped arms could possibly upset that balance.

Glenn Morgan: 66 GT V-Burgundy Fastback 351w+toploader+9 in. TracLoc. Started out as a rusted-out Chicago-area crusher. After sacrificing a solid 66 coupe for its sheetmetal sub-assemblies, I have one solid (and expensive) work in progress!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,148 Posts
I have been wanting to do this modification to my 67 for a long time now. I even made a tool so that the new holes would be exactly 1 inch from the original location. I worked in a machine shop at the time. But now for the question. Do the new holes go above the original ones or below. I want to "lower" my A arms so that sounds like moving them lower or below the original is correct. But as look at my Mustang and imagine the front end dropping I see the A arm moving above the original location. I do not want to do the modification wrong and stand there like Homer and say "dooh" Thanks fd

1967 GT coupe been in my garage since 1974
1993 Ranger ExtCab 4.0L daily driver
1996 Aerostar wifes ride
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top