have read somewhere that Carrol Shelby relocated the a-arms on mustangs to lower them and for better handling. Any info on how to do this and can i do it to a 62 falcon.
I did this to my '68 GT/CS. one of the best modifications you can make. I used a ProMotor sports wedge kit that Doc Fromoder had gotten to do a story on. The price was right. I would never have tried to autocross the car befor 'cause it was such a slush bucket, but after... night and day difference. Better artical on doing the change is at http://www.webrodder.com/index.php?page=showStories&CID=11 Just put falcon in the search box and it'll pop up
You want to improve a Mustang front end? Look up RRS, http://www.rrs-online.com/index.php Aussy design and you wont get any better. Doc.
Nah, I had an old Group C XD Falcon that I was tempted to put one of there set ups under. No history in the car, built but never raced so I didnt mind doing it. Baulked at the $$ though, would have been a fun car though. Rust claimed it in the end, still have the driveline. Doc.
i had a car i was going to do this to , but after talking it over with several shops , they said unless i was actually goin to road race the car , which i wasn't, i was actually better off just cutting a coil out to get the lowered look i was after !
i already have 4inches out of the coils low is not so much the issue as the benifits of better handling but lower is always better
Here is the template. Note on the earlier cars ( Mustangs pre '67) you need to move the pivot points back. That would be similar on the earlier Falcons too.
I did this mod to a 68 Cougar I was building - and also put in the 1 inch original size GT350 sway bar (they are cheap these days). It works like a charm. Takes an afternoon and you will be amazed at the difference. Ahead of time, get a couple of pieces of 1/2 thick by 2 inch flat bar to build the templates. Branda Mustang parts has the layout. I rigged mine to have two 17/32 holes on the original a-arm centers - with two smaller but different sized, properly spaced pilots arranged one inch below on a parallel line. Anyway, between the two bars I had three holes that stepped up to the 17/32 size. Make these bars on a drill press and you won't regret it - drilling the frame holes by using a center punch and a hand-guided drill will result in some trouble you didn't want. Pull the a-arm and bolt on the template - then start drilling. Do the pilots and keep swapping in the larger size drill guides. Takes about 15 minutes of flipping and flopping the bars to get up to the right size and properly spaced. When you are done and the arms are bolted back in - the car will drop about an inch to inch and a quarter on the orignal springs - and with the bigger sway bar, will handle much more like a modern vehicle. You will immediately feel and like the difference. Cheapest coolest upgrade I ever did to that car. After I did this I found that the car had the "one size fits all" headers that will work with a 289/302 - and a 351. This made the collectors hang too low for a soft sprung, lowered Cougar. Had to get stiffer springs to stop all of the sparks! After due consideration - I probably should have just gotten a better set of shorty headers......the little car was no fun to cruise when rigged to ride like a brick, but it would out-turn period stocker Camaros and Firebirds at will. Serious pylon racers often drill the lower set of a-arm holes as far down as 1-3/8 below the originals. But this only works with modified ball joints - the standard set-up will bind and break. Don't let some one talk you into this without getting the "right stuff". I later found photos of Penske's guys doing this same a-arm trick to one of Mark Donahues's TransAm Camaros - with a tricky variation. The second (lowered) line of holes was not parallel to the originals - and offset slightly rearward. This has the effect of changing the "anti-dive" braking capability of the suspension and builds in some extra caster at the same time. It would also work on the Fords (and probably did) but I don't have any idea what the changes would be.
If your 62 still as the small 6 cyl ball joints, be careful. This mod put more angle into the ball joints and I'm not sure the smaller 6 cyl ones will take it. It does drastically improve the handling, even on a street driven daily. Very noticeable. As for the RRS kit, sorry but I call foul on that shot. Converting a long arm short arm suspension to struts is crazy. The geometry in a strut front end is full of compromises and while that kit MAY be better than a worn out stocker, a Global West or Total Control Products a arm kit for the original design is far superior. Strut front ends just don't compare to A Arm front ends. Look at pretty much all race car designs, even Porsche abandoned the struts for A Arms. About as dumb as putting Mustang II front ends under these cars (sure I'll hear flack for that one too, but the MII is also an inferior design to the original Mustang/Falcon)
Shelby was doing it on thier street cars, but abruptly stopped in the middle of a model year, no doubt some reason for the change.
thanks for the info everyone. Hotroddon i have the larger ,later model ball joints upgraded them when i put disc brakes on. Anybody else have any more info/opinions
He stopped doing it because it binds the ball joint and can cause breakage. All you need is a negative wedge correction kit, basically a shim cut on angle for the ball joint to bolt to. It corrects the geometry. Not a bad mod if done correctly. Check out the bump steer corrector kit also. Makes them old Fords drive like a champ.
This was for racing purposes and the right spring and shock combinations. If you keep on smooth streets,LOL it would be ok but drive the everyday stuff that we have for streets and it's the lumber-wagon effect. Very aggressive and magnifies the bumps. Part of the reasoning for the relocation was to take the roll out of the car and you will see that the original cars sat much lower as all 4 springs are different. As I said if you plan on driving hard and agressive go for it just use all the matching parts >>>>.
Hey moon dog, I have done this on my 63 falcon rag top. It seemed to go ok, I cant say much for the driveability because I havent got to drive her yet but that day is fast approachin! You can deffinetly see where the ball joints would be in a bind. I also have fatman droped spindles and and cut a full round off the springs! She is ****in pavement! I will keep you posted after I take the first drive!........and I will try to get some pics up too!
I did t he drop on my 65 but i went 1 3/4 inch global west drop. When you go this far and start chopping springs you run into a bump steer issue. You will find the outer tie rods being lower than the inner tie rods. If this happens get a bump steer shim kit. The outer tie rods are removed for a spearical rod end with shims. The shims adjust to get the correct ackerman effect. You can see the effect of the toe and camber when hooked to a front end alignment machine. Lift the front end and bounce until the arcs are close. I had mine so low that I could launch the car and tires (while being perfectly aligned) would pigeon toe and nto return.
Did it on a 65, with a kit that shims the ball joint to a better angle. I Changed springs,shocks, sway bars, braces and wheel size at the same time. I was very happy with the result. I auto crossed the car a few times and I was enjoyed it. I welded it a control arm re-enforcement at the same time, it was just a plate to box the a-arm.
Wow, this post has so much incorrect information on this simple and effective mod. Shelby introduced this in racing and Ford production soon followed and the mod was stock feature on all Mustangs there after. This mod does not lower the car, it only helps with suspension travel and angles especially on lowered cars. I have a '63 Falcon with '65 Mustang a arms (bolt-on and less $ than Falcon parts), cut coils, and the Shelby mod. There is No bump steer problems, the ball joints don't bind and the handling is fine for a car that has 3" of the suspension removed. My car has been set up this way for nearly 30k! Fordsix.com can tell you more of the same.
Shelby borrowed the idea from another dude, it was not stock on all Mustangs. I have restored a few stock ones(over 20) and a few stock Shelbys(five) as well as owning some of both. I have done this mod on several stock Mustangs/Rancheros and there can be a ball joint bind issue if you push it hard. This is just experience talking so take it for what it cost you.
I have restored a couple of GT Mustangs ( 1-65, 1-66, and 1-67) and done this mod in every one. The important thing is to buy the kit that relocates the ball joint (Mustangs Plus in Stockton, CA, and Tony Branda) both sell them. It works good in conjuction with bracing the shock towers. The best way is the original type brace that is welded to the front cowl, this bolt on **** does solve any issues and the firewall flex's. BCR is correct, this mod never made it into production.............EVER! For a low cost mod it is high on the scale, but don't forget the shim plates for the ball joints and a good quality (welded) brace for the shock towers. (Picture is of the first Mustang I restored, 66GT Hipo Coupe....in 1988) IMHO
True, except you aren't lowering the spring by that much. You are moving the upper arm pivot point 1" which in turn lowers the spring (and the car) by a fraction of that. The drop amounts to about 1/4" to 3/8", if that much. I've done this on numerous Falcons and Mustangs and it is a great, cheap mod to improve handling. It improves the front roll center and makes the ch***is a lot more responsive. Combined with a 1" roll bar and the Monte Carlo bar, the ch***is really stiffens up and handles better. Body roll is a LOT less without losing the ride. Once you have the mod in place, make sure you align to 3 or 3 1/2 degrees caster, 0 to 1/2 degree negative camber, and 1/8" toe-in. BTW, I've also done this to Mavericks, Granada's and the late 71-73 Mustangs with good results.
The Jalopy Journal
