Technical Falcon front suspension strength?

For the early Mustangs Ford went to the expense of using a Fairlane suspension and not the Falcon suspension when a V8 engine was ordered. That should answer the question.

Charlie Stephens

 

400lbs per this wonderful list someone put together.

My 60 Falcon already had a 67 Chevy Van front axle and my small block dodge has aluminum heads and intake, so the biggest problem i have is oil pan clearance...

Common Engine Dimensions for the Engine Swapper (teambuick.com)

 

All my Friends and I had that had early mustangs and Falcons with 6 cylinders did not have a bar connecting the left and right frame rail together under the engine.

All the ones with V8s did.


Ricky.

 

They all left the factory with one, from car #1.

 

The suspension is exactly the same between the Falcon and the Mustang after 1962.

The spindles and steering are the only differences between 6-cylinder and V8.

Fairlane suspension is not interchangeable.

 

Do you, or does anyone else, have a similar Moog catalog page (control arms) for the early Mustang?

 

Maybe try asking here: https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum...d-vintage-moog-trw-parts-catalog-help.877347/

 

sure

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that the early Falcon upper ball joints tended to fail?

 

having worked in Ford dealers for many years we quickly realized that 6 cylinder Mustangs were Falcons underneath and V8 Mustangs were Fairlanes underneath, big differences in strength.

 

My former coworker's father worked at the San Jose/Milpitas Ford Assembly Plant.

He built my Falcon when it was new. #233 on that line in 1960.

He remembers reading the accident reports and memos regarding the design change.

 

Note that says "all models".

There is NOT a suspension distinction between 6-cylinder and V8.

Only the spindles/brakes/steering are different.

 

See post #38 for suspension details.

 

Let's clarify a few points as this thread is going everywhere ...

The FALCON was introduced in the 1960 model run as an econo-box. Designed and assembled as cheaply possible. Power was the 144CI 6CYL. No undo stress on the uni-body design.

Each year (1960/1962) there were several suspension upgrades as FORD ENGINEERING discovered design deficiencies. The big change was the suspension with the 63/ FALCON as it now offered a V8.

The 1965/66 MUSTANG was built as an extended WB version of the FALCON platform. It used basically the same suspension/steering.

The 1967 MUSTANG (and FALCON - incl MERC versions) was based on the new 1967 FAIRLANE platform. That is when it (MUST-FALCON) began using FAIRLANE suspension.

Bottom line is if one wants to up-power a 1960/62 FALCON, they have to understand the car was not designed for it and one has to upgrade the suspension to handle the increased HP/TORQUE.

There were no front torque boxes until the 1963 FALCON.

 

Finally. Someone else has the correct information.

 

And the torque boxes were only part of the V8 package (all body styles) plus the newly introduced hardtop and convertible six cylinder models. Six cylinder sedans didn’t get them until after 65.

Good post .

 

It just wasn't just the torque boxes. Ford increased the metal gauge X3 in the inner/outer rockers, frame rails, crossmembers and shock towers for the V8. There was also yet more reinforcement on the shock towers where the upper a-arms attached. The only six cylinder Falcon to get all this was the convertible, which also got additional bracing in the floor pan under the front seats. This two different 6/V8 body shells was 'normal' for the '63-65 Falcon and 64.5-66 Mustang. The Comet was one outlier; it had the two shells in '63, but in '64 Mercury dropped the 'six' shell and used the heavier-duty V8 shell for all cars to improve NVH.

The other oddball was the wagons/Ranchero. I can't speak to the early ones, but I know the '64-65 versions equipped with the six got the same engine tub as the six cars but did have the heavier V8 frame rails and torque boxes at the rear.

 

Just to clarify further.....
The Small Fairlane 1962-1965 has a unique suspension and it is specific to 1962-1965 Fairlanes and 1962-1963 Meteors.
It does not interchange with Falcon, Mustang or post 1965 Fairlanes.

 

YES! I totally agree.
I read most of the posts and just shook my head.
Also, my Cyclone never had a tube under the engine that mounted between the frame rails, there were no threaded inserts in the sub frame either. When I had the car on the rotisserie I installed threaded bungs so I could install a tube but later found out my headers would not clear the tube.

 

I put a 221 in a 1960 falcon Ia got the Falcon used with 40000 miles replaced all greaseable front end parts from lack of service and drove the car to 120000 miles with regular 3000 mile service no issues.

 

Actually the MERC METEOR used a slightly different front suspension than its' FORD brother.

 

Now let me ask you a question and it is in no way trying to insult you, only answering a question for myself.

Have you determined your COMET is a true CYCLONE and it came through with a V8?

Without that tube, engine torque will twist the lower rails and reek havoc on the aprons after a while.

It seems to me I remember early FALCONS w/o the tube, but my memory (76) is fast fading as once did my sex life.

 

There you go. Surprising what a grease gun can do.

I remember when FORD put plugs in replacing the fittings. That and a 6000 mile oil change and no need for a trans service.

 

Well lets see, I have owned my Cyclone for 56 years so if it is a fake I guess I would know it. Also, my family operated a Mercury dealership so I am quite familiar with most Mercury models. A Cyclone is no different from a V8 Caliente mechanical wise. Who in their right mind would weld up all the trim holes along both sides of a non Cyclone so it would look like a Cyclone?

 

I miscommunicated in my original post. I should've said that I'm not putting a V8 in my '61 Ranchero, and I'm not going for speed. I learned some things about the 1960-61.5 front suspension. And I suppose the direction the thread went will serve as good information for those wanting to take the V8 and speed route.

 

Yup.

My only concerns with the original suspension is the upper ball joints, and the expensive obsolete other parts, if you can even find them.

That's why I provided the information to move you on to cheaper and more available parts.

 

I've never seen a '63-65 Falcon/Comet, V8 or six, with an OEM lower crossmember under the motor. You can get an aftermarket one however that attaches with the lower motor mount bolts. Well worth the investment IMO (along with a strut tower brace).

 

You misunderstand. It is not whether the car has a six or eight, but whether it can withstand a high HP/TORQUE ENGINE (6 or 8) without the cross-member. I know I have seen the delete as I worked on them fairly new.

You are fine.

 

You actually saw all that rolled off the assembly line(s)?

WOW!

 

No, of course not. Did you?

I've personally owned a 1/2 dozen of these, knew another 1/2 dozen owned by guys I knew, and looked at a couple of dozen or so in the boneyards when scrounging for parts. No crossmembers on any of 'em...

You're not the first guy to make this claim which is why I looked for one, but I have yet to see any proof. No mention in any Ford literature or on any exploded diagrams. And the most powerful motor available to the general public (excluding the Daytona specials, B/FX cars, and the Ford of Canada HiPo Falcons) was only the 215HP 4V 289 offered in the '64-65 Comet, so there really wasn't a need.