ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1968 Mustang => Topic started by: preaction on July 13, 2018, 12:08:48 AM
-
There are many threads about the sway bars for the 68 mustang and most intersect with GT and competition suspensions but I couldn't find any references to the GT's with the 428 option. Does the 428 GT car have a standard GT suspension and sway bar, also I have seen some threads listing AM rear springs as being part of the competition is this the same as the AM spring on a 4 speed CJ equipped car ?
-
If the car has a 428 CJ it has a 15/16" sway bar whether it is a GT or not. The rear springs I believe are the same as a 390GT would get. Again it would not matter if the 428CJ Mustang were a GT or not. I think that even though you could get the "GT" package on a 428CJ Mustang there was very little that it added to the car other than the badges.
Not positive but I think the only difference in the "competition" suspension versus "GT" would be the shocks. Perhaps the 428CJ website forum might be a better place to ask.
-
What would be the sway bar diameter for a 390 GT for 68 ?
-
I've got a '68 GT 390 in the shop right now and it has a 7/8" sway bar on it.
-
What would be the sway bar diameter for a 390 GT for 68 ?
15/16
-
15/16
Are the steel spacers used on big blocks and small blocks.
-
Are the steel spacers used on big blocks and small blocks.
No, just the CJ cars.
-
According to the VMF, it should be 7/8"..
-
According to the VMF, it should be 7/8"..
*gasp* VMF???
-
*gasp* VMF???
Uh, Volkswagons Mean Fun?
Just asking.
Jim
-
LOL, Vintage Mustang Forum. Sorry, should have clarified. :-[
-
According to the VMF, it should be 7/8"..
Then I would go with the 15/16ths ;)
One of the byproducts of asking on every forum - You get plenty of thoughts but rarely a single answer
-
Good luck finding a genuine original 67/68 style 15/16 sway bar. They are rare. I can't say definitively if not used on a 68 GT390, but I am skeptical. FYI the spacers had to do with helping the 15/16 sway bar to not hit the balancer on a BB. They were not needed on a 7/8 bar. I have not heard of any 390 cars regardless of GT or not that used the spacers. The lack of spacers on a particular 68 car would indicate the 15/16 bar was not used. If there are 390 cars with the spacers then it would have gotten the 15/16 bar. The spacers were eliminated in 69 because the shape of the bar was changed as seen in my previous picture. I would think if they were used on a lot of applications they would be more prevalent. They aren't. 69/70 style is another issue because they were used on the Boss cars too because they are a lot more prevalent. Just some facts and observations to add to the discussion.
-
The lack of spacers on a particular 68 car would indicate the 15/16 bar was not used
Except GT 500
-
Except GT 500
Good point . I have not a viable explanation why they were used on Cobra Jet cars but not on a non Cobra Jet like a GT 500 in 1968 . Anybody got a idea?
-
Would a 428 equipped car be built with the same GT group parts ( springs + shocks ) as a 390 car except for the spacers and a 15/16" sway bar ?
-
Would a 428 equipped car be built with the same GT group parts ( springs + shocks ) as a 390 car except for the spacers and a 15/16" sway bar ?
Allot of things play into how a car comes equipped (individual parts) think the first step is comparing like vehicles - same body type, trans, time of year, air conditioner ....
Looking at Buildsheets (don't have any non- Shelby S code nor many non-Shelby R codes) I see a few differences between what appear to be similar cars but that was with just a quick look But those same sort of differences can be found between one 428 equipped 68 and another, looking at 68 Shelbys as examples
-
Thanks Jeff.
-
Good point . I have not a viable explanation why they were used on Cobra Jet cars but not on a non Cobra Jet like a GT 500 in 1968 . Anybody got a idea?
Just a hunch. The GT500 was the first vehicle to use large sway bar with the C8AE balancer. I don’t think it really became known until the car is where you store while I’m by that point it really wasn’t a service item and they just decided to make a correction on the next model which was the KR With the cast iron intake and larger exhaust manifolds it was easier for the KR to push down and hit the way bar
-
Just a hunch. The GT500 was the first vehicle to use large sway bar with the C8AE balancer. I don’t think it really became known until the car is where you store while I’m by that point it really wasn’t a service item and they just decided to make a correction on the next model which was the KR With the cast iron intake and larger exhaust manifolds it was easier for the KR to push down and hit the way bar
Tim, I don't think that was it exactly but with the same result . The 67 GT500 used the 427 style C6AE balancer which is dramatically larger diameter then the smaller C8AE. The problem was actually less in 68 then 67 but still a problem. The cast iron intake and heavier passenger side exhaust no doubt didn't make things any better as you mentioned. I think it must have been a matter of Ford not getting around to putting a band aid on the problem until the Cobra Jet /KR went into production and the GT 500 was discontinued . I think that is basically the same thing you said. The problem was solved in 69 by re designing the bar.
-
Did the KR and the GT500 use the 15/16" sway bar ?
-
Did the KR and the GT500 use the 15/16" sway bar ?
Yes even the GT 350 did .