Oooooo, I like that ...great, now I have to find a RUG, thanks Dave lol! I will have to read up on this though, lots of info here that will be useful! Thanks
Clayton, This build is getting me all jazzed to get my '64 Hardtop back on the road. Would love to adapt disc brakes (4 lug) to the front and rebuild my Dagenham trans (4 spd). Rear is out of a Maverick and can hold what the six puts out. Your little Falcon is going to be a terror ! Dave
Very nice! I would love a hardtop...but I love my reliable and trusty ol' sedan..and I like the challenge of building a unique early muscle 4-door sedan.
Scarebird makes a kit to fit Nissan 4-lug rotors and Chevrolet Cavalier calipers. You still have to upgrade to later 14-inch wheels, though (or change the offset on early 14s). -Dave
How late a 14" 4-lug wheel are we talking? What is the difference in offset between the early 14's and the late 14's? ....and I HAD a set of early 14" 4-lugs too....so hard to find!
I think of them as Maverick wheels, but the style may have appeared as early as 67 or 68; Im not sure since its fairly rare to find them still attached to their original vehicle, and few people on the Falcon fora are looking for four-lug steelies. Again, Im not certain, but since I have both, Ill try to remember to measure sometime soon and let you know. I know it, it took me more than a year to track down a full set of matching four-lug steelies. As it stands, I have five Maverick-type wheels on the car with 52-type hubcaps; and three early-type wheels in storage. If I ever come across a fourth for a reasonable price, Ill snag it and go looking for a set of bottle-cap center caps. -Dave
...NICE! It is a true Sprint I take it? ...1 of just 2,806 Sprint 2-door hardtops built in '65 Just killer!
------------- You wrote - " A few of the bigger 4-speed cars pre-1916 are 1:1 in 3rd...4th is overdrive ". Yeah, maybe so, but I don't think you want a "pre-1916" 4 speed behind that hopped up, blown 6 cylinder!!! Seriously though, a T5 five-speed would perfect - a nice low first gear ratio, a decent spread between the gears and an O.D.5th. gear Mart3406
Darn it! ....now you got me thinkin' 5-speed! I just hate to not use the correct date coded T-10 I have for this project, but this (or the RUG 3-speed O.D.) might be the better way to go.
Too bad the OD gearset won't swap into the earlier case. FWIW, I've heard both the RUG and its successor the SROD have pretty inferior gear ratios from a performance standpoint. I compared one or the other not too long ago, and it was virtually the same as the 2.77 three-speed but with an overdrive fourth. Most guys are going five-speed unless they already have one of the four-speeds lying around. Incidentally, I've heard Model A guys like the 1980-81 F150 SRODs because they have nearly identical ratios to the original transmission but with an overdrive and synchronizers. -Dave
That is what I'm concerned with, as well as correctness. The T-10 is correct, has good ratios and is plenty stout...but no matter how you cut it, 4th gear is still 1:1 just like the 2.77 3-speed is...so essentially you would gain nothing in the top end. The T-5 is a nice gearbox, has good ratios, stout and 5th is O.D. so you certainly gain some top end/lower RPMs. The only problem is.....it just don't look right. Am I nuts?
No, you’re not nuts. I definitely get the period correctness thing (see my discussion about mounting up a Model A crashbox behind a ‘28 Chevy banger when a Volvo or a T5 makes way better sense). I’d like a T5 for my Bird, but as we’ve discussed, mine’s a daily driver so it will have lots of hidden new tech. I’m not sure what ratios muscle-era Toploaders had, but if they were available with a steep first gear (I’m thinking 289 in a Galaxie, or somesuch), that could allow you to pull a numerically lower rear axle without giving up too much grunt off the line. It wouldn’t be a T5, but could be a good compromise in a Grand Touring type car like this. -Dave
I know I have the ratios for those Toploaders somewhere, will have to look tonight. I was thinking the same thing. The 8" rear I have for my 'bird has 3.25:1 gears in it now, I was thinking of switching them for a set of 3.55:1 "Trac-Lok" limited slip gears...might just re-consider that. I just want to have that hefty early/mid '60s muscle car / "factory lightweight" look and feel to it, but I want it to be drivable: Good cruising/top end speed (at a decent RPM) and a decent 1st so if I wanna burn 'em...I can ....All while trying to maintain some level of period correctness.
It’s a quandary. My ‘68 Camaro weighs 3300lbs and has 3.42 gears. I’m running a close-ratio Muncie four-speed, and I often wish for the wide-ratio box. Still, it pulled the old 2.73 gears that were in it okay for a while, so I guess you could start out with the 3.25s and move to the 3.55s if you really needed them. Just a thought, but will a ‘50s Ford overdrive bolt up to a Ford T-10? Saginaw three-speed overdrives will bolt to a Saginaw four-speed. That could be a period-correct solution: an eight-speed manual! -Dave
Clayton, Is there any updates on your Falcon build ? Going to have a "real Tiger in the tank !". . . . Also need updates on the speedster build. Dave
The Mustangs offered the 4-piston 'small' Kelsey-Hayes discs from day one (beginning of '64) on the GTs and of course the Shelby GT350s. According to contemporary reports the '63 Falcons that ran the Monte Carlo Rally had them as well, and the '64s used the 12in '65 Thunderbird/Lincoln discs and 15in wheels along with the big-car rear drums (they slipped this one past the scrutineers as it was never anything resembling a production option on any Falcon or Falcon-like car. They may not have gotten onto production Ford product until late '64 but they were undoubtedly floating around the race and engineering shops for a while before that. I've also seen reference to some of the '63-64 Galaxies run in UK saloon-car racing running the 'Thunderbird brakes', and IIRC these were prepped by the same shop - Alan Mann Racing - that did the Falcons. The only example of same I've seen personally was a restored '64 running in an Australian historic series (I'd love to take another trip down there, but with the USD at 0.90AUD it'd be painful.) So I think there's reasonable historical precedent for running either the 11 or 12in 4-piston iron KH brakes if you wanted to; personally, I'd do it as a safety measure. If you elect not to do so then you might want to call Porterfield Racing (http://www.porterfield-brakes.com) about the right lining material to use in your drums. Aside: One of the true pleasures in road-racing is apples racing oranges. The 427 Galaxies ran against Jag Mk2s (half the HP, 1000lb less weight, much better chassis and four-wheel discs) and so forth, in the upper-division of a series with Minis racing Cortinas etc. in the lower-division. The pro series these days are too often nearly spec-car series, every car has to be a tasteless gas-ripened tomato. Amateur spec series can be interesting from the driver's seat, but aren't necessarily much fun to watch.
That is a really great idea...and a VERY period correct one that really follows the Shelby/Holman-Moody/Alan Mann "feel" and methods I'm applying to this car. If the front breaks used were that of a '65 Lincoln or Thunderbird, what sort of trouble am I going to run into? will they simply bolt up to the standard Falcon V-8 front spindles, will I need to modify them or replace the spindles altogether? This also applies to the rear 12" Lincoln/T-bird drum breaks...will they bolt up to an 8"? ....fortunately, I already found the correct, original 15" rims for this
Dave, No real updates. The Falcon has unfortunately been on hold as we get the "Special" finished and prepare to dig into my T in preparation for Bonneville: 2012. After that epic journey is complete however, I will be putting the T up for awhile and changing gears to the Falcon full time. I do have an update in the works for the "Special" as well...just been kinda slow.
Okay, let's see here...I don't know, off the top of my head, what they used to put the big rotors and calipers on the Monte Carlo cars. There's probably something, somewhere that goes into more detail. Here's a thread with some pics but no brake details: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=193273 Some random googled pics: http://speedhunters.com/archive/2011/05/26/retrospective-gt-gt-ford-falcon-rally-cars.aspx Al Aiello's writeup says they used the Lincoln spindles. I think I've got his email addr around here somewhere: http://www.westcoastfalcons.com/scff/histriv/rally6.htm Another option would be to put the big KH calipers on stock drum-brake V8 spindles, as was done with the Trans-Am Mustangs later on. Cobra Automotive, for one, sells brackets to do this (there may be other sources too): http://cobraautomotive.com/cobra_cat.pdf The calipers were '65-69 Lincoln/Thunderbird. I'm not quite sure which rotor was used in this combo, or what hub it was used with (I *think* the Ford 'Muscle Parts' kit sold for the Boss 302 Mustang used a Lincoln rotor on a drum-brake Mustang hub, but I'm not 100% certain.)
The man is prepping a T-engined T for Bonneville! Give him a break! I'm sure he'll be cracking on it the Monday after Speed Week.
Sadly, nothing new to report. I started tearing into the Falcon last year and made good progress until the "Bonneville or Bust" idea came about. I got The body shell pretty much stripped and cleansed, but this is about wear I stopped....sans axles and suspension now: ...and got myself sidetracked on this.... ..which goes in this... When that thing is done...and I'm back from Bonneville, I will be back plowing away on this... I can't wait...it's killing me not having my "Bird"
I forgot about this build ! Looking forward to the future progress.....man I love the T that must be a real blast to drive!!
You and me both kemp...I hate being without it. The T has been allot of fun and might just be a blast to drive..
The Jalopy Journal
