Technical Falcon front suspension strength?

I've seen it typed somewhere before that the early Falcon six-cylinder suspension is too spindly for V8s. Old wives' tale? Those 144s don't seem light. Besides brakes, any other reasons to not refresh the stock front end? I'm thinking about ordering parts.

7/23/24 edit: My above original post miscommunicated. I should've said that I'm not putting a V8 in my '61 Ranchero, and I'm not going for speed.

 

Same as Mustang, just use Mustang 5 lug bits.

 

Ive heard that about the 60/61 birds. I do know that those years are undersized compared to the later ones, which lends credence to the matter. Also that the replacements for lowers are quite hard to find.

-rick

 

Well, that's one way to get around the "No M-II" rule.

 

@gimpyshotrods has insight on Falcon suspension from a 6 to a V8.

 

The steering linkage on 6 cyl. Cars is lighter duty compared to V8 cars, the control arms I believe are the same for both, ( confirm the ball joints are the same, I’m not sure) obviously the spring rates differ between the two.

 

you might want to be more specific what you mean by "early"

 

2. I've done that before. I'm trying to keep as much of the stock stuff as possible.
3. Lower arms are available on RockAuto.
4. Huh?
5. Agreed.

The two current engine choices are Kent 1600 (lighter than a 144) or turbo 2300 (heavier?).

By "early" I mean 60-1. I imagine that six-cylinder 60-5 are all the same.

 

Imagination is one thing, facts are something else from the moog catalog

 

I've read that Ford beefed up the unibody for 1963, the first year the Falcon was offered with a V8. Horsepower & torque might be a greater concern than weight.

 

1960-1961.5 have the thinnest metal, and the fewest layers in the unibody. All V8 cars have thicker metal, and more layers than 6-cylinder cars.
1960-1961.5 also have an undersized upper ball joint, with a smaller tapered hole in the spindle.
After 1961.5 the front suspension parts are the same as the 1965-1966 Mustang.
No center link, 6-cylinder or V8 for a Falcon is the same as a Mustang. The Falcon tub is narrower.
6-cylinder tie rods are small than V8 tie rods.
The tapered hole in the steering arm is smaller on the 6-cylinder spindle.
The brakes are smaller on 6-cylinder cars, and the hubs are 4-lug.

 

Mustang and 1960-1961 lower control arms are not the same.

The bolt spacing for the radius arm is different.

It is better to modify the radius arm by slotting the holes. The early lower control arms are obsolete.

 

Not exactly.

 

I'm thinking that a friend of mine who put 5 lug pieces on a 60/61 Falcon used all 64/65 parts from A frames out when he did it. All I did on it was help him swap the upper control arms and then later aligned it for him at the Firestone store that I worked at. I'm thinking he went to the parts house or Ford dealers parts counter and bought upper and lower control arms and some other pieces after the simple spindle swap that someone else told him he could do didn't work.
He didn't V8 swap it he just wanted to run Crager SS wheels on it.
My Experience on any 60 up rear wheel drive Ford is you never assume any thing on brake or chassis parts you figure out the exact year and model it is and the original engine that it came with before ordering parts especially the Smaller cars = Falcons, Fairmonts and Mustangs.

Looking at this parts list the main break is between 61 and 62 and then you have six cylinder/V8 to deal with.

 

RockAuto has two lower control arms for 1961 (Dorman 526683 and 520395), both for what looks like a Ford P/N (OEM/Interchange Numbers: C4DZ3078A), but none for 1960. I'm glad I asked and you replied because I'm not seeing a date mentioned.

My '61 Ranchero doesn't have a data plate on the driver's door, if that had its birthday. So, it looks like I might need to try to figure out if it was made before 10-15-61 (according to squirrel's Moog info).

 

Pull a front wheel and photograph the upper ball joint. Clean it off first if it is cruddy.

 

What identifiers are we looking for?

 

It's common for all manufacturers to use different components, depending on the powertrain, gross vehicle weight, etc. Don't expect to get the results you're looking for by doing it on the cheap, and know what you're getting into before you start.

 

First-generation small ball joint:

Three bolts.

Second-generation (and Mustang-equivalent) ball joint:

Four bolts.

 

Correct. The 1960/62 did not have torque boxes and had a lighter suspension/spindle.

Have to know the exact year and what you are planning to do with it.

But then again, leave it as it is and put a strong V8 in it. It will be a tire squealing wheel standing windshield launching crowd pleasing SOB.

 

It has three-bolt UBJs.

 

Curious, but what year model of Falcon do you have?

 

1961 Ranchero (that appears to have been made before 10-15-61). If I want to, I could get spindles from a late-'61 and up, then I could keep the six-cylinder suspension, which from my experience is plenty strong.

Even better (from a "use as much as I already have" perspective) would be if I can get new parts for just the worn out parts, such as the ball joints, and keep the original control arms and other suspension components that are already on it. As in, rebuild the original suspension.

 

https://www.falconparts.com/ford-fa...1-LOWER-BALL-JOINTS-UNTIL-10-15-61-18p387.htm

Dang, $130 per LBJ. Originality comes at a price.

 

You can buy complete upper control arms for a 1965-1966 Mustang, and a tapered reamer.

The hole in the spindle is a little smaller, but has the same taper. A little drill time with the reamer gets you away from obsolete parts.

 

You can get complete lower control arms for the same, and slot the holes on the radius arms.

That too gets you out of obsolete parts permanently.

The Mustang stuff has the advantages of economy-of-scale, making it all way cheaper.

 

A 3-bolt upper ball joint is $150.

A complete later upper control arm is $87.

An original lower ball joint is $130.

A complete later lower control arm is $59.

The original ball joint are weaker, too.

This should not be a difficult decision.

Also, if you change your mind about going 5-lug, you can then simply bolt on those spindles and brakes. There are even tapered shims to attach the 6-cylinder tie rods ends to the spindle.

Cheap, too.

While you are in there, get and install a 1" anti-sway bar, and do a Shelby-drop control arm relocation. The handling improvement from those are stark.

 

A 200 is a bolt-in, up to about a 1966 block. Those still had both bellhousing patterns on the back of the block. Mustang guys dump these for cheap.

Grab and freshen a 1980-end head from the yard, along with the Duraspark distributor and module. Grab the exhaust manifold, too. A Fairmont is a good donor.

Take 0.090" (not a typo) off of the head. Swap-in the adjustable rocker arms from the 144. Block the EGR port.

That's a solid 50hp, with junkyard parts.

 

RE most of #24-28:

I'm glad you posted that. Some of that will come in handy when I get to the point that I am actually working on and looking for parts. One of our daily drivers broke suddenly, and I'm working on that. I thought I was going to have time and such to work on the Ranchero.

When I get back to the Ranchero, I plan to take apart the front suspension and see how bad the ~rubber and wear parts are. Then I will search for sources of those parts that aren't $150 for a ball joint. There is some availability of obsolete parts for low prices.

My mention of the two engines in this thread is because of their weight, for the main purpose of this thread, whether or not the stock six-cylinder front suspension absolutely needs to be upgraded IF a heavier (and only heavier) engine is put in. To that point, what does a stock 144 weigh? I did some dumb suspension stress tests on my '60 Falcon with a 144 a long time ago, and it didn't fail. I drive like the old man that I am, these days.

I'll probably get into the engine and fuel choices I'm making in another thread.

 

Believe it or not, a 144 is about the same weight as a Ford Winsor V8, 260-302.

My point with pointing you towards moving away from obsolete parts is that you can accomplish the minor modifications to the non-wear parts in a decent afternoon, or weekend.

It would not only initially cost you less to do that, including the 29/64" drill bit, tapered reamer, Harbor Freight die grinder, and a burr, but it would leave you permanently set up to use much less expensive, and easily accessible fully new wear items going forward.

Your current 3-bolt upper ball joints are a liability. Ford did away with them in less than two years from their introduction, because they tended to fail. I would not worry about the steering.