Author Topic: Competition Handling Package--Standard on Mach 1?  (Read 2734 times)

Offline drummingrocks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
Competition Handling Package--Standard on Mach 1?
« on: November 26, 2010, 12:21:38 PM »
I'm getting ready to order a set of reproduction Eaton leaf springs for my '69 Mach 1.  Looking at the NPD catalog, I noticed that the leaf spring application chart lists a "Competition Handling" leaf spring for a '69.  Was the competition handling package an additional option on top of the Mach 1 package, or did all Mach 1s automatically include it?  There was nothing on my Marti Report about a competition handling package, and I just wanted to be sure it wasn't something that my car was originally built with.
Too much junk, too little time.

Offline 69grandecj

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Competition Handling Package--Standard on Mach 1?
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2010, 08:43:40 PM »
I'm pretty sure that it is part of the Mach 1 and GT package.
MCA # 24108
MCA Gold Card Judge 3rd Generation
MCA Certified Judge 69-70
1969 Mustang Grande 428 CJ
1969 Mustang SportsRoof
1989 Mustang GT Convertible 22K miles

Offline BuckeyeDemon

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
    • Photobucket Pictures
Re: Competition Handling Package--Standard on Mach 1?
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2010, 08:50:54 PM »
the invoice for my 69 mach indicates "handling suspension" is included at no extra charge.

VIN: 9F02M178303
Build Date: March 31, 1969
1969 Mach 1, Candyapple Red, 351W 4V

Offline cobrajetchris

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
Re: Competition Handling Package--Standard on Mach 1?
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2010, 11:13:50 AM »
I would be cautious with aftermarket springs as I have had many problems with them on the front and rear. If your original springs are not sagging, I would clean them up and intall them. I have found most of the time the reproduction springs raise the ride height of the car, causing the car to sit uneven. Another option is having a spring company re-arch the rear leafs but sometimes they don't get it right either. Even the OEM replacement coil springs from FORD that was available are not correct because they obsoleted the old parts and the replacements were kind of a one size fits all. I have not purchased any reproductions springs in awhile and maybe they have improved them, good luck.
CHRIS KNOBBE
69 MUSTANG COUPE, DEARBORN BUILT 06/10/69 OWNED SINCE 1978
70 BOSS 302 MUSTANG, DEARBORN BUILT 10/24/69 OWNED SINCE 1987
69 R CODE MACH1 AUTO, DEARBORN BUILT 10/10/68 OWNED SINCE 2006
69 R CODE MACH1 4 SPEED (factory black) SAN JOSE BUILT 12/30/68 OWNED SINCE 2007

Offline Bob Gaines

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9317
Re: Competition Handling Package--Standard on Mach 1?
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2010, 12:29:30 AM »
I have found most of the time the reproduction springs raise the ride height of the car, causing the car to sit uneven. .
It might not look right but the cars are designed to not sit even or level . As much as it messes with my sensibilities the rear is designed to sit slightly lower then the front from the factory. Eaton spring was a OEM MFG to Ford and have the original blueprints that they build by . They don't follow the one type fits all philosophy. Bob
Bob Gaines,Shelby enthusiast, Shelby collector , Shelby concours judge SAAC,MCA,Mid America Shelby

Offline SCJSTU

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 272
Re: Competition Handling Package--Standard on Mach 1?
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2010, 05:52:53 PM »
YEP,
the car is supposed to settle once the spring get 'broken in' but some take forever to do that.......its very noticable when someone changes springs..........car sits waaaay too high........I would keep origs if at all possible
1969 Shelby GT350 convertible  4spd-AC built 1-27-69
1967 Mustang S-Code 4-speed built Jan 1967 non therm
1956 Ford F100 Big Window 392 Hemi

1961 Falcon 2 Door Station Wagon 302V8
2004 Mach 1 Azure Blue