I need some advice regarding sub frame connectors for my 60 Ranchero project. Buy? A few available. Most are round tube-some weld on, some bolt on. I know the sheet metal on the early Falcons is thinner, so I don’t think I would trust a bolt on system without additional material reinforcement. Build? Anyone that has gone that route care to share specifics? The car will have a warmed up 200, T-5, Maverick rear, complete 65 Mustang front 5 lug drum brake suspension, Monte Carlo bar, and some other bits and pieces. I want to tie it all together to make a decent handling daily. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
I would bolt them then weld them, at least you know that are already secured 1 way. Otherwise go to the metal supply and get square tube and make them and weld them.
I did think about that and knew I would have to open up the ends of the existing connectors to insert new metal. Just thought I might get more insight from those who have already installed them.
This may not be what you are looking for but it is how I fabricated connectors for my Cyclone. The material is 1/8” plate, I made templates then cut the pieces from the plate and welded them together to form the channel. They are tied in to the torque boxes at each end then the flange on the connector is bolted to the floor pan. ( plates are on the interior so the pan itself is not stressed) I also tied into the relocated rear spring mounts but you will probably not be doing that. The pictures are of the fabrication, and after the sound/ heat barrier was applied.
These were made by Tin Man fabrication sold through Summit. We installed em on a 62 Falcon , Overall I was happy with the fit.
@kabinenroller, very nice job. I don’t have the equipment to cut the steel necessary to duplicate what you did, and a lot of welding too. I would have to see what my metal supplier would charge me to cut to size, even if they would do so. But that looks like a super strong set up. @lumpy 63, I will check into that, it looks more to my skill level, and fabrication ability. Thanks for the replys and pictures, any more information is always appreciated.
On Chrysler stuff we used to use a straight piece of tubing and let it come through the floor and tie it into the rear torque box and the front frame ext. trans crossmember
When I built my '63 Falcon and put a 468 BBC engine and 4 speed in it, I did a lot of frame upgrades. I bought mid '60's Mustang subframe connectors and bolted and welded them into the Falcon chassis and unibody. They fit most places, but did have to do minor modifications up front to attach them. I also reinforced my front frame rails with box tubing from the front end of the frame all the way back to the subframe connectors, and welded them to the box tubing. And round tube at two places from subframe connectors out to tie into the rocker panels. Mustang subframe connectors did not require cutting anything away from floors or unibody. They simply bolted to the front spring perch at the rear, and overlapped the Unibody up front. Holes drilled up front crossways to bolt them in, but I welded them in in front for more strength, and didn't bolt them up front. This and a 8 point roll cage made the Falcon chassis plenty strong for the BBC swap. Car is long gone now, but found a couple pictures that sort of show some.
I'll throw my .02 worth in here... Yes, the six cylinder Falcon/Comet coupe/sedan body shells are pretty flimsy affairs. The one Kabinenroller shows above is a '63-up V8 shell, and while it looks nearly identical there is much thicker metal in a lot of places. With that said, you don't have a coupe or sedan, you have a Ranchero. While I can't speak specifically to a '60 model, I know the later versions had reinforced rear framerails similar to the later V8 cars and even had torque boxes at the rear tying them to the rockers. No doubt due to their 'truck' usage. The front 'frame' was standard six-cylinder structure though on the six-equipped Rancheros. And therein lies the problem. The original Ford Falcon/Comet design used 18 or 20 gauge metal for the floors and extended that use to the framerails and crossmembers. When the V8 was added in '63, they upgraded the body structure with 3x thicker metal in the framerails, crossmembers, rockers, and shock towers. Plus added torque boxes at all four corners tying the rockers/frame together. These bodies were only used for V8 cars/convertibles, the other six-powered cars still got the 'light' body shell. Mercury switched to the V8 shell in '64 for all Comets, dropping the six version. So when you install subframe connectors, on a six body you're welding to those light gauge rails. You can check to see if you have the heavier structure in the rear by looking at the flanges where the rails are welded to the floor. They will be obviously thicker if upgraded. In the front, I'd recommend doing what 1971BB427 did; tie the subframe connectors all the way forward into the front frame rails which have additional layers of metal for more strength, maybe even adding front torque boxes and rears too if not present. A few other things I'll note. The transmission crossmember may be in the way of your T5 shifter, try to find a T5 that won't require cutting it. If you do cut it, rebuild it to maintain structural strength around the opening. As to the Mustang steering, it'll all fit with the exception of the Mustang center link. That is 1.5" too wide for the Falcon/Comet, you'll need the narrower '65 V8 Falcon center link. And if you swap to the '65 Mustang upper shock mount (which is different from the Falcon/Comet), that will open up more choices in shock absorbers. Structural improvements in the front should include an export brace, shock tower brace and lower crossmember under the motor. All three of these are available in the aftermarket, but you do need the Falcon/Comet versions as the Mustang pieces are too wide. These do make a noticeable improvement in handling. Looks like a nice solid car, good luck!
With my 6 I don’t think I will need the front frame rail reinforced, and I wonder how much different the dimensions are from the Mustang to the Falcon for the connectors.
@Crazy Steve, wow, a wealth of information! A little I knew, most I did not. More inspection of the underside of my Ranchero is in order to make sure of metal thickness, but I think I’ve got the early thin version. I know there are no torque boxes front or rear. And that’s something I plan to add. And I will rethink adding front frame rail reinforcement. Better too much than not enough. My car came with the lower crossmember under the motor, so that’s a keeper. I was under the impression that the export brace and the shock tower brace were essentially the same. My mistake? Thanks to all for the information provided so far, every bit helps believe me.
Nope, two separate parts. The export brace ties both shock towers to the firewall, replacing the light-duty braces fitted as standard (if even present...). The shock tower brace (also known as the Monte Carlo bar) connects tower to tower across the front. Again, these need to be '60-65 Falcon/Comet specific as the Mustang units are too wide. Lots of places sell them, you should be able to pick up both for well under $200 with a bit of shopping. 60-65 falcon monte carlo brace - Google Search There are some max-effort units available that combine both into one piece, but these can be a PITA to install if anything has 'moved' a bit in the last 60+ years and you'll have to pull the entire brace to change motors. Big bux too... $400+ and probably major overkill for what you're doing. Ford designed both of these parts when they took the new-for-'63 V8 Sprint to rally race in Europe (actually in Monte Carlo, hence the name of the brace). The export brace got a factory part number and could be bought over the counter at one time (as well as being fitted to export cars) but the tower brace didn't make the cut for various reasons.
Weld-in, only. There is a caveat: chassis from 1960 to mid 1961 are not only made with thinner metal, and with fewer layers, the subframe rails are actually have different dimensions, too. If you search for subframe connectors, you will see listings that mostly only start at 1961. Of the rest, the makers might not even know that they won't directly fit This is not the end of the world, it just means that you will need to weld in spacers to get them to fit, along with trimming the floor bracing for the seat. It's not a big deal. My 1960 sedan is equipped with weld in connectors. They are Global West 916. https://www.globalwest.net/916.html
These are a good idea, too. Hard to beat the price: https://opentrackerracing.com/shop/shock-tower-wheel-side-brace-kit-1960-1965-falcon-trans-brace/ Plate the bottom side of your export brace bars (the diagonal hat channels that run from the shock tower tops to the firewall). Drill and rosette (plug) weld them every 2-inches, on the lower flats.
Research what is called the "Shelby Drop". Contrary to the name, this is not intended to lower the car. This is a upper front control arm relocation. You need to buy a single specific sized drill bit, and drill four holes, into which you will move the control arm. That's it. This changes the camber curve that the front wheels move through when you are in a corner, better planting the tires. Add a 1-inch front anti sway bar. The T5 will fit, but you will need to trim off the bits that stick out on the case, along with a little hammer work. If you can score a 200 that has both bellhousing patterns on is (up to about 1966 ish), you can get an early Econoline bell housing, and a GM to narrow toploader adapter, and bolt on an S10 T5. You will need a Ford to GM extended pilot bushing. That will need to be trimmed a bit to fit with a grinder. Econoline bell housing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/126778256255?_skw=econoline+bell+housing&epid=17027480748&itmmeta=01JDRSNKTDCPKJBF7MQV27W3H2&hash=item1d8492ab7f:g1QAAOSwG~ZmmcmX&itmprp=enc:AQAJAAAA8HoV3kP08IDx+KZ9MfhVJKnqBEnHY1qrBfCHlygib/nUhbT5yJwGvClLmRYRaQrrRwD5uf2NAbuZX828QbTYB/TpZGYeOMpRST7Lg85L8RrhwTgt1gR28j0ymi8aQSQSxoatfCn+As0DaJkOqmXjDtTVtmWHRN3sRTJdEgdzqEdPdyF6BporPKYKEGCgmT4olkXjVlyzbwxkWzkDxMI1XW4w42YymueE4UfMhJk6h5RBMhY7y+gA9yMntz1USvYnrlJxsbb3YKMPd1RHY4S6C97JMnXoQe5oAMxuhF95L/dwNXJIkWxG3VaIYqtx8CDpvA==|tkp:Bk9SR6i91pnuZA Adapter: https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Offe...-Trans-to-Ford-Bellhousing-Adapter,20628.html https://www.ebay.com/itm/276382965779?_skw=offenhauser+5173&itmmeta=01JDRSWY17PSGP329D37WT384B&hash=item4059b56013:g:jx4AAOSwadNlB2vA&itmprp=enc:AQAJAAAA8HoV3kP08IDx+KZ9MfhVJKl/GSCMon3wtREBjykgwAtN6SQeaGLiQd1nlrbdDjnptCm4pzNHUmkW7zsNQWgULZw39BkNYTVE8kHn2Y/hZM09OzlicAsPBvGT/7a3gEDtvri0dRTS2/VhDwFa+UFkdoJnm4gfSoZ40x8o5KXOSBecp6fl9P/J1ApE7alFjZdp0sKzIV1EtapVlFWqCkS7Bs3lQfbWn6K28uSQ1VYBldz04nRstfOdGXIUNEQg4nXPVlD5sg8xla2WLkmN2BBqBuOytyYh0CBwlwyrct9H/AXGg7SiXlxvfnlvQ4xFSCST0A==|tkp:Bk9SR9jg85nuZA For the clutch, you would need to have the flywheel resurfaced, and have the step reduced from 1-inch to 0.770. Tap all of the extra holes in the perimeter of the flywheel to 5/16-24. They are already the right size. Once you do that, you can directly fit a Mercedes Benz 190E pressure plate. Yes, for real. You'd need to track down a Pontiac Sunbird or Diesel Jeep disc. That will slip right on. The Mercedes Benz 190E throwout beaing can be taken apart, as can the original Ford one. Bizarrely enough, the spring clips of the MB bearing snap right into the Ford bearing carrier. Have the input bearing collar, where the throwout bearing rides, from the T5 turned down to the ford diameter. I already solved these issues, and have tons of answers, so ask away. This is the original 3-speed input bearing collar, with the Ford throwout bearing carrier, wearing the Mercedes bearing! Have the T5 collar turned to that snout diameter. The added bonus of this clutch is that it has easier pedal effort, too. I probably have an extra new clutch disc.
Clutch kit: https://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinf...q82Fc+P447pT/XELZjCyTsdEJx5ok3DF9UkIRNuJeqw== You will not be able to use the disc on an S10 T5. Again oddly enough, it is the same 26-spline as a GM transmission, too, but the T5 is not that. My 1960 now has a T56, and uses that disc, too. It just fits. Clutch disc. Hurry, there is only 1: https://www.rockauto.com/en/moreinf...q82Fc+P447pT/XELZjCyTsdEJx5ok3DF9UkIRNuJeqw==
I removed as much of the extra metal from the flywheel step before handing it to my engine builder. Here it is, clamped into the lathe at the Mythbusters workshop.
You will discover that you cannot directly fit the steering from the 1965 Mustang to that Falcon. The suspension will need some "adjustments" too, You will need a Falcon-specific center link, as the Falcon tub is narrower that the Mustang. https://www.falconparts.com/ford-fa...65-V-8-MANUAL-STEERING-CENTER-LINK-17p769.htm The radius rod attachment to the lower front control arms is different between the Falcon and the Mustang. The hole spacing for the two bolts that hold the radius arms to the control arms have a different spacing. You will need to slot the holes on the radius arms a little. No, you cannot use the Mustang ones. The attachment at the other end is different.
The Jalopy Journal
