Features Doing Falcons Right

I finally had a little time to get back on it again. Gotta get those AC vents rollin'!

 

Just finished swapping the rear leaf springs on my '63. Found a pair of 5 leafs at Laurel Mountain for under $200, and they really help the sag I had. The old springs were nearly flat, and when I bought the car the previous owner had those big ugly shackles on the back, which gave the springs a reverse arc!
It was a pain getting one of the front spring eye bolts out, and ended up cutting it off on each side of the spring. Then I drilled out the frame to make it the same size as the sleeve, and replaced the front bolts with 9/16"x7" fine thread bolts. Worked much better than the old step bolts. Put poly bushings all around in the new springs.

 

Do you have a part number? all I see is 64 and up springs which are wider , correct?

 

Yes, the later springs are wider. I dug through my receipts and found this number: SKU #42-229. But when I entered it at their site it still doesn't come up? The description is 1960-1963 Falcon & Comet leaf springs, but for some reason that doesn't come up either. Just got these the 28th of October, so not sure why they aren't in their list now. Might give them a call at their toll free number 1-888-925-7669 and ask.

 

I'm seriously considering using this system on my '63. Has anyone used it or seen it installed?
Here's a link for more info. It was originally designed for the Nova but now they make it for the Falcon/Mustang.
http://www.classicperform.com/NewProducts/2006/NewFiles/NovaSubFrame.htm

 

That link shows Mustang options, but nothing for Falcon. Falcons are narrower.

 

Kinda' interesting Karl, never seen that before.

I went to the "how to" section and downloaded the 64-65 Mustang mini sub and upper control arm instructions- looks like that set up uses coil springs and the original shock towers...or am I missing something?

I know that shock towers wont be an issue with the engine your planning to run.....

 

Check out this little video I did of my 63 Sprint .. been a few yrs..

http://youtu.be/Swvams5bwMQ

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Swvams5bwMQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Check out this write up. They have it for the Falcon.


http://www.mustangandfords.com/tech...ssic_performance_products_suspension_upgrade/

And this Ebay auction with application notes.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-65-66-...SUBFRAME-KIT-UPPER-LOWER-A-ARMS-/380654948604

 

Hey Al. I was hoping someone has this system or has seen it to talk a little bit about it. I think if I go with this system I'll get the unisteer manual rack and pinion setup, drag race type disc brakes, Fatman 2.5" drop spindles and do the Shelby drop. I'm still looking in to some way of reducing or eliminating the shock towers. At the very least I will be trimming them down and re-supporting them with the chassis work to be done. The car goes into the chassis shop Jan. 4th so I need to make a decision pretty quick like.

 

I don't think that CPP system adds anything over the stock Ford system. The upper A Arms are still in the stock location with the spring off the upper. All they are is tubular with possibly re-angled upper ball joints. You still have to do a Shelby drop if you want to improve the camber curve.
The lower set up has no real advantage in my mind. The stock system with the Tension Rod when set up with good bushings or better yet Rod Ends is stronger in my mind. The work involved to cut off the stock mounts and install the heavier bracket doesn't make sense. The adjustable Tension Rods that are available for the stock set up allows for adjusting wheelbase side to side and can help with Caster Adjustments - something this system can't do. In fact this doesn't locate off any existing chassis holes, so I see an easy opportunity for not getting it perfectly square.
If you aren't getting rid of the shock towers then I think the stuff from Global West or Total Control Products are far superior.
Just my Opinion .....

 

Ya know, it's damn nice to hear a GOOD Jazz score to a car video for a change! I love rock and roll as much as the next juvenile delinquent, but that was a cool classy video!

 

Good input here. Thanks for that. I'm taking from these comments that the stock setup with beefed up components is preferable? Weight is my biggest concern which is why I'm not inclined to go with the MII setup. This is a drag race app with goal weight of 2600-2700 lbs.


Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

Not sure why that weight would rule out the Mustang II stuff, but I think you got it otherwise. Don and I have gone back and forth with the Mustang II vs. stock modified conversation, and I know he is firmly in that camp. I have driven and installed a couple of Mustang IIs under Falcons, and under dozens of other hot rods, and done properly it works great. YOU DO HAVE TO DO SOME SORT OF DOWN BARS TO THE FRONT FRAME RAILS with a Mustang II unit in a Falcon though in my opinion.

I have to admit that I was going to do a plotted "map" of the stock/Shelby modded Falcon front end vs. the Mustang II about a year ago, so we could see which had the superior geometry, but life got in the way and that never happened. With having to put my Ranchero together this spring, I will take time to do it at some point.

The weight you are contemplating is not too far outside of that of some of the later more equipped Pintos and Mustang IIs that the suspension originally came from, so from that stand point it'll work just fine. Installed correctly, that is.

Don's thoughts are correct too. The stock front end under these cars can be made to handle very well, and with the disc brake kits out there, stop very well too. The only problem is the shock towers for those of you guys wanting to do V8s in these cars. Maybe a coil over conversion on the front could be employed to allow a down sizing of the towers, but I have never personally done that, so I can't say.

Either way, as Don said, I don't see a major advantage to the CCP type front end kit. All it is doing is getting rid of the strut rods, which as Don stated can be used to your advantage greatly for these cars.

 

I agree that an MII can work right and have done many of them as well, my current 37 coupe has one. BUT I do not think they gain anything in an early Falcon/Mustang unless you absolutely need the shock tower room. With coil overs you can gain a couple of inches in shock tower room, it's a fair amount of work, but not all that bad - I wish I had pictures of the Mustang I did years ago, but alas I don't.
I also know that the MII is heavier than the stock suspension set up, mainly because of the crossmember. The stock early stuff is pretty light. Remember that many of these cars were dragged raced with stock suspensions and did just fine. Just make sure you keep the alignment dead on, especially toe as they have a ton of travel that changes the alignment a fair amount as it cycles through, and run a really good set of drag shocks (ie; light on extension and heavy on bump damping)

 

Exactly! I think if I was to do a drag race mostly type car I would stick with a stock front end and narrowed towers.

 

The shock towers are almost a non issue for my setup. It would be nice to have a little more room but not essential. This car needs to run 4.60's 1/8 mi. That means 1400 HP. It also means very little front suspension travel. Maybe 2" extension from normal ride height but more likely 1" on a good track. Wheelie bars are not allowed in the class so I will be relying on limiting front end travel to keep from climbing to the sky. I guess I need to refocus on making the factory design work. The MII is too heavy due to the crossmember.


Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

That's a solution, looking for a problem.

I can see no advantage over the stock design. If you are street going, just upgrade the stock stuff.

If you want to limit droop, use the limit straps that the off-road guys use.

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS to all of my fellow Falconers!

 

Back at'cha!

 

Anyone know how much to cut on the front coil to get the drop of 2 inches on a 62 that is stock mechanically?

Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

Depends on the year and the engine, as well as the condition of the springs. Probably 1 full turn. Less if they are already sagged a bit.

 

Cool... thanks! Its the stock 1962 170 ford-o-matic.

Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

I cut a coil and almost a half out of my wife's 60 with a 144 and 1" lowering blocks in the rear.

 

1.5 coils max.

Sent from my SGH-T999L using H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

Im running stock 13 inch wheels, I was thinking that 2 inches would be the max, but I am unsure.

Posted using the Full Custom H.A.M.B. App!

 

If the are original springs, I would start by cutting one coil, and see what that does. You can't cut less.

I have a '60, running 560lb. springs (.620 wire) for a 65-66 Mustang, with a full coil removed. It is 2" lower, and I run short front bump stops.

If you drop more than 2", with a soft spring, you might strike the stock stops, on the rough stuff.

While you are in there, do the Shelby control arm relocation, too. It will make it handle better.

 

Going to be buying some 4 lug spoked wheels, the guy assures me they were on an early mustang.
The problem I hav is that 3 are the same and 1 is different. I may be able to roll them without it being too noticable but would like to find a match.
Can anyone identify the wheel?
The one on the left is one of 3 and the one on the right is different.
Left has 48 spokes and right has 44.
Any ideas?

 

Unless you're going to show it, probably nobody will notice but you.