Topic: Lower Control Arms 1965 - 1973

[Bob Gaines]

Found this today. Not seen these types before! Came from a 66 Shelby, but do not know if they are originals or not. Both have the C5 rubber.

Those would be the earlier style squared off tabs ,65 until the later part of 66 Mustang /Shelby IMO. Notice the end link hole . It looks like the rubber failed and the bolt walked over and over time wore a notch into the side of the hole.

[JohnRB]

Those would be the earlier style squared off tabs ,65 until the later part of 66 Mustang /Shelby IMO. Notice the end link hole . It looks like the rubber failed and the bolt walked over and over time wore a notch into the side of the hole.

Maybe, but they do have the later style retainer plate!

[Bob Gaines]

Maybe, but they do have the later style retainer plate!

Picture shows two different lower arms based on the two different tab. More likely one or the other is not original to the car rather then both original.

[Anghelrestorations]

Totally agree with Bob here.

John, what exactly are you saying you have not seen before?  Clearly the hole in the center is from the sway bar links failing - I havent ever seen that before either like that.  You can actually see the witness marks where the rubber has moved.   

[Bob Gaines]

Totally agree with Bob here.

John, what exactly are you saying you have not seen before?  Clearly the hole in the center is from the sway bar links failing - I havent ever seen that before either like that.  You can actually see the witness marks where the rubber has moved.   

Just wish I could hear that at least once from Spec Ed .

[JohnRB]

Totally agree with Bob here.

John, what exactly are you saying you have not seen before?  Clearly the hole in the center is from the sway bar links failing - I havent ever seen that before either like that.  You can actually see the witness marks where the rubber has moved.   

Marcus

Was thinking about the holes for the sway bar links. They are so nice and even! Would look at them again later this week.

Thanks

John

[Anghelrestorations]

Ok...yes.  Those holes are not original. 

[JohnRB]

Ok...yes.  Those holes are not original.

Ok. Thanks

John

[specialed]

Ok bob i totally agree to disagree (now u heard it).  I think the tabs tits nubs whatever u want to call them came about from when the metal was first stamped flat and the tabs were left on both sides of the rectangular shaped jack tabs to hold them together then they were stamped  into the U shape and then tabs sheared off. Kinda like the eyelets on battery cable & ground straps and wireing eyelets ends all held together then break them off as they are used. I have a roll of wiring end eyelets that all have the little tabs still holding them all together yet. On the c7wy lower arm the 4 hole pattern is different because of the unique 1 year only 2 part strut rod system used on 67 cougars only. Also the 70 & up change in the sway bar end link hole big washer being used on the top side may have something to do with the 8 new bigger washers being used on the 1970 & up  comp suspension cars end link kits because of new 14x7'' & 15x7''wider rims and tires being used. I had these unique Bigger  washers made for the 70 & up comp suspension strut rod kits since they were never serviced by ford only used on the assembly line but they are a very slow seller because most restorers never noticed this little detail but there is a note about this in 70 assembly manual. Also the new 70 bigger  upper sway bar hole washer has 2 side tabs that disappeared late on the 70 lower arms and not on  71 & up d1oz arm big upper washer. Back 20 years ago or so i had 400 upper & lower a-arms here we hauled back from the rustfree southwest on many trips back when u could find them stacked up in junkyards before the big  metal crush began and nobody was buying them.

[Anghelrestorations]

Made some changes based on previous comments and some mistakes I found....now version 1.4a  There is a separate thread now on the upper control arm section so if you have any comments or questions go to that one. 

http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf

[jwc66k]

Marcus,
Nice. Tomorrow I'll have to look at my 65-66 lower arms.
I did get an Adobe error message on page 16, some of the pictures on page 18 "blinked" in and out, and page 23 was blank. I assume that's a download problem on my part, so I'll download it again.
Jim

[Anghelrestorations]

All the pages should work.....I would try again.  And yes, page 23 is blank as this is still a work in progress and not done so there will be more pages added as it grows. 

[Bossbill]

An excellent technical write-up.
I do have a question regarding 67 and 68 interchangeability as noted on page 5.
Although a 68 LCA will not interchange Into a 67 due to strut rod changes,  I thought that 67 LCAs would fit 68s.
It's not concours, but I thought it bolted up correctly.

[67gtasanjose]

An excellent technical write-up.
I do have a question regarding 67 and 68 interchangeability as noted on page 5.
Although a 68 LCA will not interchange Into a 67 due to strut rod changes,  I thought that 67 LCAs would fit 68s.
It's not concours, but I thought it bolted up correctly.

Only if using the same year strut rods for arms used.

[Anghelrestorations]

Yes...I dont get into any of those hypothetical cases of can you make this or that work on this or that year.  The answer is you can make anything work Im sure.
Im just focusing on what is correct and original for that year and people can take it from there.