ConcoursMustang Forums
Restoring - General discussions that span across many different groups of years and models => Suspension => Topic started by: Anghelrestorations on June 25, 2019, 02:16:38 AM
-
I've been working on putting together a suspension detailing guide that covers all the suspension pieces from 65 to 73. Will do this in sections and keep adding to the same document here so its easier for us to share and comment. The goal is to clear up alot of confusion and questions that seem to come up over and over again and hopefully uncover some new things. Looking forward to comments and questions.
This first section here is just the spring perches and the lower crossmember that was there from 65 to 70.
http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf (http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf)
-
Great article so far.
-
Going to be a really large (lots of pages) article once done.
Look forward to more information.
Might consider adding a picture in the close up of the FoMoCo stamped cross member to show where it can typically be located. Since space is a concern maybe superimpose it over one of the upper corners of the current close up with an arrow of the stamping's general location. Just a thought
-
The article seems accurate to the best of my understanding.
I noticed the spring perch date change-over date is sited as being in mid-November 1966, well into the 67 model year though the Title of the perches are "65 and 66" or "67 to 73".
Would it be splitting hairs to note the (estimated) changeover date in the titles?
BTW, my Nov. 2, 1966 carrys the early "MS" marked perches, originally tack welded, no crimp, early bushings with Rockford fine threaded bolts, exactly as described in the article. I did restore the bolts to phosphate and oil because I saw no signs they were zinc or cadmium...I may be in error on that detail.
-
Link is blocked by Microsoft as unsafe?
-
works ok for me.
-
Yes, will change and add some additional photo so everyone understands where that FoMoCo stamp on the cross member actually is. Good input.
As far as model year and dates I try to keep the information as easy to understand as possible. I dont really want to confuse things too much by adding that in the actual title. But for anyone who reads thru deeper the information is there.
-
Marcus,
I was told, years back by a 66 Shelby owner, that the tack weld on the 66 bushing was a HP exclusive (ref your pg 4). Comments?
Jim
-
Marcus,
I was told, years back by a 66 Shelby owner, that the tack weld on the 66 bushing was a HP exclusive (ref your pg 4). Comments?
Jim
Not Marcus but my point of view is that you did not receive accurate information . The tack weld is not Shelby or Hipo exclusive based on my observations and background. There are too many tack welded bushings found on generic examples to support that Shelby/Hipo only hypothesis.
-
One of the challenges I've always had with the detail and options was that I had seen them (tack weld between bracket and bushing) added by alignment shops when replacing the bushing
-
I have found more times then not that alignment and general maintenance shops will replace a entire spring perch rather then going to the trouble and time to replace just the bushing. That adds to the confusion.
-
For sure the tack welded bushings are not a Shelby or HiPo thing at all. I have a stack of original spring perches that did not come from Shelbys. It was more of an issue with the design of the early bushings and exactly why they changed the bushing and started crimping in the C7 version.
As far as shops tack welding them, Im sure thats possible, but, the ones I have are not sloppy and very well done. Not what I would see typical in a shop....and I agree that its way easier when getting paid by the hour to just replace the entire assembly. Its too much effort to just change a bushing....trust me I know.
-
Updated the link in the first post with the latest updated version.
-
LINK TELLS ME IT'S NOT SAFE, I KNOW IT HAS TO BE, SUGGESTIONS? JANUARY 70 DEARBORN 351C MACH1
-
LINK TELLS ME IT'S NOT SAFE, I KNOW IT HAS TO BE, SUGGESTIONS? JANUARY 70 DEARBORN 351C MACH1
Yes. Lower case please, and the file downloaded just fine. It may be your "system".
Note to Marcus: V1.1 is 37kb smaller.
Jim
-
MARCUS/JIM
im getting the same issue and I cant get download it on any device and even through my service providers home web page.
normally dont have any issues with Marcus work.
here is what i get
This website has been reported as unsafe
Hosted by anghelrestorations.com
We recommend that you do not continue to this website. It has been reported to Microsoft for containing threats to your computer that might reveal personal or financial information
regards
PHILL BERESFORD
MELBOURNE.
AUSTRALIA.
-
Well I do have an Al-Qaeda training camp behind my shop so maybe thats why Microsoft may be blocking you?
But seriously, seems its a Microsoft issue. I assume you are using Internet Explorer so I would use Google Chrome or Firefox as your browser. That should fix it.
Or just go to my website directly and download what you need from the Factoid section of the site.
Let me know if that works.
-
I typically use my iPhone or iPad and have had no issues. I just tried it on my work computer, which runs IE 11 with a ton of security crap, and it opened just fine.
-
Well I do have an Al-Qaeda training camp behind my shop -
Does the noise keep you up at night?
Jim
-
:)
-
Question, what do the red stripes on the rear springs indicate. I found them on the car that I'm restoring except mine appear to be white.
-
Question, what do the red stripes on the rear springs indicate. I found them on the car that I'm restoring except mine appear to be white.
The application and in turn compression rate. After 66 colors were listed on the buildsheets to make it easier and quicker for workers to identify the springs needed for a specific car
Changing an option (example GT, transmission or others) can change the spring rating and in turn, spring markings
In Marcus' cover picture it appears the rear leaf springs are possible marked with two pink and two red stripes. Guessing its for a 70
-
Yes, actually that suspension set on the cover is from a 1971 build I did about a year ago. Some really nice original parts on that one.
I will get to the leaf spring section at some point. Right now working on the control arm section next.
-
I updated this and added a section now on lower control arms from 65 to 73. Any questions or comments let me know. Hope to get some feedback on those that have seen original low mileage cars over the years to make sure this all matches up.
http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf (http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf)
-
Have you ever found and examples of lower control arms with the version A jack tabs with C5 marked boots? If there are they are in the minority . I typically find more of that combination with a later engineering number boots. The version B jack tab style that you have marked is the more prevalent on 65/66 cars from what I have seen at least on the SJ cars . Maybe it is just the survivor and unmolested cars that I have paid attention to .These details make me skeptical of your conclusions. Of course I haven't seen them all but It seems that the pattern at least what I perceive is that the the tabs marked type A were later production 66 model year control arms and of course 67-70. I have not seen a different vendor style as you refer to it version A tab for instance on any later 67-70 arm that are not later service or repros. Has anyone else ? With that said it seemed logical to conclude that the type A style tab was more likely the newer evolution of tab style instead of different vendor. Type B tab seems to be early type. Just what I have observed others my have a different opinion . Your articles always end up being great so regardless hopefully the discussion will make for the most accurate article it can be.
-
I have seen the B style squared off tabs on several early 67's as well.
-
Bob...let me make sure I understand your question/comment first.
Are you asking on the C4DZ control arms if I have seen version A jacking tabs and the C5 boots? Or are you asking about the C7OZ control arms?
And you are saying you have not seen version A jacking tabs from 67 to 70?
-
Bob...let me make sure I understand your question/comment first.
Are you asking on the C4DZ control arms if I have seen version A jacking tabs and the C5 boots? Or are you asking about the C7OZ control arms?
And you are saying you have not seen version A jacking tabs from 67 to 70?
Yes on if you have seen the C4DZ arms with the your A jacking tabs and with the C5 boot. Have you seen the C7OZ control arms with the B tabs and the C7 boots?
-
Ok got it. I will go thru everything I have again today and doublecheck those details.
Also think I will start a new thread going forward just on lower control arms to make it easier to track this discussion in the future instead of having these all in one long thread with multiple topics. Probably makes most sense.