Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / May 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Springs for 1968 coupe?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Thomas Cameron - 03 May 2005 21:29 GMT
Hey all -

I have a 1968 coupe with a 289 engine and 14" rims.  It has the "nose up"
look that makes me think that the springs are probably not right.  I want to
go ahead and get new leaf and coil springs for it.  I would like to drop it
about an inch, nothing radical, but I also want to put 15"x8" rims on it.
Will the 15"x8" interfere with lowering it?

Thanks!
Thomas
Laurie S. - 03 May 2005 22:06 GMT
> Hey all -
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Thanks!
> Thomas

You're going to be close on interference.  I have 15x7s on my 68 fastback,
and also a 1-inch drop.  I clear, but am close.  I don't think I would clear
with 15x8s unless I had the fenders flared and I don't want to do that.  The
front tires are 225x60s, and the rears are 245x60s.

-----------------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7
Spike - 03 May 2005 22:32 GMT
That nose up look is normal. My 65 had it, and IIRC my 72 had it. Just
about any early year you look at (stock) you see that nose up
attitude..... just Ford letting the others know what they thought of
them...LOL : )

My wheels are Vintage 40 16x8s with BF Goodrich 225/50Z16 tires.
Going to 16" was an idea I got from an article in Mustang Monthly a
year or so ago. They swapped out the original 14" wheels for the 16"s
and it was a straight across bolt on with no alterations to body or
suspension required. I followed up with Vintage Wheel Works
(http://www.vintagewheelworks.com/) who claimed the wheels were a bolt
on, but a negative wedge kit (which they did not carry, and they did
not point me to any vendor for) was promoted to maintain the geometry
of the steering/suspension. According to their fitment guide, your
model would not require this extra kit.

In their fitment guide they list the following max wheel sizes:
   65-66 Mustang: 225/50/16 front and 245/50/16 rear (should be
equipped with either a Shelby factory front end or use an after market
kit like Pro-Motorsport "Wedge Kit" or Global West's "Negative-Roll
Kit".)  
   67-73 Mustang: 245/50/16 front & 255/50/16 rear

Hope this helps.

>Hey all -
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Thanks!
>Thomas

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
one80out@hotmail.com - 04 May 2005 00:52 GMT
Regarding those tire sizes, remember the "10-plus" system:  that you
can get a tire with roughly the same overall dimensions if, for each
one inch subtracted (or added) to the rim size you add (or subtract) 10
from the aspect ratio.  Thus, rough equivalents for a 245/50-16 would
be 245/60-15 or 245/40-17 (tho I would also calculate for a 45 series
on the 17" rim).

I have never heard the advice to use the Pro-Motorsports Negative Wedge
Kit without also doing the Shelby drop, but now that I think about it,
it would change the camber curve slightly, and for the better.  For
those that have not seen one, what this kit does is put a wedge between
the upper control arm and the ball joint.  Its intended purpose is to
re-center the ball joint's stud in the ball joint's socket after the
upper control arm's mounting point has been lowered on the shock tower,
aka "the Shelby drop."  The reason to re-center the ball joint stud is
to prevent it from hitting the socket and breaking off.  This is not a
problem with the standard 1" Shelby drop; it IS a problem with 1.5" to
2" drops.  Shelby American only did a 1" drop (only in '65 and the
first few '66 carryover units) and did not use a wedge or any other
ball joint relocation mod.  They just drilled new holes in the shock
towers and said to hell with the ball joint stud.

Doing "the drop" causes the UCA to have a more obtuse angle with the
ground, at ride height, than stock.  This causes the UCA to pull the
spindle toward the car upon compression.  This causes camber to move
toward the negative on compression.  Although body roll generally
precludes true negative camber, the drop at least keeps the tire closer
to vertical than the stock setup. This improves cornering traction
dramatically.  But even without the UCA relocation, the wedge would
increase the distance between the UCA and the lower control arm, and
this would also cause the UCA to have a more obtuse angle with the
ground.

A Global West "negative roll" UCA would do likewise, for the same
reason.  Global West claims the unique feature of using a shorter UCA
than, for example, Total Control Products. Global West claims that this
difference allows their product alone to cause negative camber, even
after body roll is taken into account.  I have always been skeptical of
this claim, wondering how much shorter could their UCA be if they hoped
to be able to maintain something close to zero camber at ride height.
Anything more than one degree negative camber at ride height will
destroy your tires.  The only way to make the UCA shorter and still
maintain a tire-friendly camber is to make the pivot thicker, so that
its axis stands out further from the shock tower.  And when you look at
a GW UCA, the pivot's only about a quarter inch thicker than an OE
part.  So I gotta ask, how much difference can a quarter inch make, on
a UCA that's about 10 inches long?

Final observation:  if you're going to the expense and trouble of
installing a Negative Wedge kit or a Global West UCA, you're leaving a
lot of good stuff on the table if you don't do at least a 1.5" drop.

180 Out
Spike - 04 May 2005 01:47 GMT
>Regarding those tire sizes, remember the "10-plus" system:  that you
>can get a tire with roughly the same overall dimensions if, for each
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>ball joint relocation mod.  They just drilled new holes in the shock
>towers and said to hell with the ball joint stud.

The negative wedge essentially executes the Shelby drop in a slightly
different approach to doing the same thing. The result is the Shelby
drop equates to about a 1 inch drop, while the pro-m kit drops it
about 1.75 inches.

>Doing "the drop" causes the UCA to have a more obtuse angle with the
>ground, at ride height, than stock.  This causes the UCA to pull the
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>180 Out

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
66 6F HCS - 04 May 2005 01:08 GMT
>    67-73 Mustang:...  ...255/50/16 rear

Sheesh! I'm assuming they mean keeping all of the tire inside the wheelwell.
I'm running 295/50 15's on the rear of my '69. Of course they DO stick out a
bit. heh! You'll see what I mean here...
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/MVC-673F2.JPG
Signature

Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

Spike - 04 May 2005 01:49 GMT
That would be my guess as a number of states prohibit the tire from
extending beyond the fender (although in California I see this
violated all over the place) to help reduce gravel etc being thrown at
trailing vehicles.

>>    67-73 Mustang:...  ...255/50/16 rear
>
>Sheesh! I'm assuming they mean keeping all of the tire inside the wheelwell.
>I'm running 295/50 15's on the rear of my '69. Of course they DO stick out a
>bit. heh! You'll see what I mean here...
>http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/MVC-673F2.JPG

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
Thomas Cameron - 05 May 2005 17:00 GMT
> That would be my guess as a number of states prohibit the tire from
> extending beyond the fender (although in California I see this
> violated all over the place) to help reduce gravel etc being thrown at
> trailing vehicles.

Texas would be one - it is a no-no here.

Thomas
Spike - 04 May 2005 01:59 GMT
Nice ride. Those tires remind me of my first wife's 72 Nova  with the
16" wide deep dish rear wheels and slicks, along with air shocks. It
also had a tiny steering wheel made of chain links. The guy she bought
it from must have ordered parts from JC Whitney.

I know the article that Mustang Monthly carried about the larger
wheels was how well they filled up the wells (side view) and how the
car took on the wide track appearance (rear view) compared to stock.

Does the '69 have more room in the wells than my '65?  

>>    67-73 Mustang:...  ...255/50/16 rear
>
>Sheesh! I'm assuming they mean keeping all of the tire inside the wheelwell.
>I'm running 295/50 15's on the rear of my '69. Of course they DO stick out a
>bit. heh! You'll see what I mean here...
>http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/MVC-673F2.JPG

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
66 6F HCS - 04 May 2005 02:20 GMT
> Does the '69 have more room in the wells than my '65?

MUCH more room, especially in the rear! The tires used on the original
Boss's were 235/60 14's on all 4 corners, IIRC. I could probably run 245/50
15's in the front, but they would rub. There's no way in hell you could run
that wide in a '65. Maybe 225? You could probably run a 235 in the rear and
215 to 225 in the front and be comfortable, unless you want to actually be
able to rotate your tires, then I'd stick with somewhere in the 215 width.
Signature

Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

one80out@hotmail.com - 04 May 2005 02:42 GMT
> There's no way in hell you could run that wide in a '65. Maybe 225?
> You could probably run a 235 in the rear and 215 to 225 in the front
> and be comfortable, unless you want to actually be able to rotate
your
> tires, then I'd stick with somewhere in the 215 width.

My kids' '65 has 225/45-17's all round, on 17 x 8 rims with 5"
backspacing.  These are as big as you could go in front with no
rubbing.  Rears might be able go to 235 with the 5" BS, but 245's would
require more BS or might not fit at all.  Factors affecting the fronts:
7/32" spacers were required to clear the upper ball joint.  1" Shelby
drop.  Maier Racing "realigned" upper control arms.  Pro-Motorsports
progressive-rate springs, plus I've cut about five inches off the ends
of each coil, resulting in about a 1" drop.

180 Out

180 Out
one80out@hotmail.com - 04 May 2005 05:26 GMT
one80...@hotmail.com wrote:

Something about that "225" part didn't sound right, so I checked when I
got home and they're 235/45-17's. So I should have said that 235's on a
17 x 8 are the biggest that will fit in the front of a '65-'66; that
245's would fit in the rear with a 17 x 8 and 5" BS; and that 255's
would not without more BS, and probably would not fit at all.

Also, here is a pic of how much spring I cut off on Sunday
http://www.mustangmods.com/data/9461/spring_fragments.jpg and here is a
pic of how the car looks now
http://www.mustangmods.com/data/9461/ride_height_5305.jpg -- nice and
even, front to rear.  The 3" spring cut gave me a 1/2" drop, and the 4"
spring cut gave me a 5/8" drop.

180 Out

> My kids' '65 has 225/45-17's all round, on 17 x 8 rims with 5"
> backspacing.  These are as big as you could go in front with no
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> 180 Out
Spike - 04 May 2005 04:17 GMT
I went with the 225/50s all the way around.

>> Does the '69 have more room in the wells than my '65?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>215 to 225 in the front and be comfortable, unless you want to actually be
>able to rotate your tires, then I'd stick with somewhere in the 215 width.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
Thomas Cameron - 03 May 2005 23:55 GMT
> Hey all -
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Thanks!
> Thomas

Well, I just got back from the tire place and I have some very sharp 15"x8"
aluminum rims and 225/60/15 tires.  I think it looks like a million bucks -
I'll post pix to my web site later this week...

I still think the front end up looks goofy.  I definitely think that the
rear is sagging.  I will order the 5-leaf (stiff) stock height springs and
just use a lowering shackle if it needs to drop.  I will also get the 1"
drop front springs from Eaton to see if that makes the car more level.

Cheers!
Thomas
carl - 04 May 2005 00:36 GMT
i went a different way. i ordered the 4 leaf (original look) 1 1/2" lift
rear leaf springs and left the front alone. the car isnt assembled yet
so i cant give you the results

>>Hey all -
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Cheers!
> Thomas
Thomas Cameron - 04 May 2005 00:50 GMT
> Hey all -
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Thanks!
> Thomas

Picture of the new rims and tires -
http://www.camerontech.com/1968_mustang/DSCN1266.JPG

Thomas
Spike - 04 May 2005 02:06 GMT
Sharp! Great color, too. Gives good contrast between the chrome and
the paint. Yep, the nose could come down a bit. That's the oem nose in
the air look Mustangs have.  If you raise the rear, it would seem that
the rear wheels won't fill up the wells quite as nicely, and the front
will still retain that gap between the top of the tire and the rim of
the well.

>> Hey all -
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Thomas

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
SVTKate - 05 May 2005 00:37 GMT
That looks REALLY good!

Kate

Signature

"I hear what you're saying, and I don't think you're dumb,
but that doesn't mean I like you."
The Ransom of Red Chief

| > Hey all -
| >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
|
| Thomas
66 6F HCS - 05 May 2005 03:53 GMT
> That looks REALLY good!

I just wish there was some "before" pix to compare to the "after" pix. That
would give us a better idea of just how much it really lowered.
Signature

Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

Garth Almgren - 05 May 2005 08:22 GMT
>>That looks REALLY good!
>
> I just wish there was some "before" pix to compare to the "after" pix. That
> would give us a better idea of just how much it really lowered.

How about http://www.camerontech.com/1968_mustang/old/ ?  :)

Signature

/     Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7>     \

|      My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang     |
|  RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm  |
\  Mail pgp@v6stang.com for secure reply information  /
Thomas Cameron - 05 May 2005 16:57 GMT
>> That looks REALLY good!
>
> I just wish there was some "before" pix to compare to the "after" pix.
> That would give us a better idea of just how much it really lowered.

Well, it has not been lowered yet - I just put 15x8's on it instead of the
stock 14x6's.  You can see several pix of the car at
http://www.camerontech.com/1968_mustang/

Thomas
Thomas Cameron - 05 May 2005 16:55 GMT
> That looks REALLY good!
>
> Kate

Thanks a million, I appreciate it!

Thomas
SVTKate - 05 May 2005 12:34 GMT
Hey! All ya'll that know..
is the badging on the fender right on this car?

Kate

Signature

"I hear what you're saying, and I don't think you're dumb,
but that doesn't mean I like you."
The Ransom of Red Chief

| > Hey all -
| >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
|
| Thomas
Dinsdale - 05 May 2005 13:27 GMT
>Hey! All ya'll that know..
>is the badging on the fender right on this car?
>
>Kate

It looks ok to my non-expert eyes.
The "Mustang" was changed to a script/cursive style in '68.
('67s had the individual block letters much like the '65-'66 GTs.)

The engine size was added to the running pony emblems on V-8 '67-'68s.
His needs some color though  :)

...I think the side marker lights were new for '68 too.

DP
Pics of the cars:
http://tinyurl.com/d2q9u
SVTKate - 05 May 2005 23:08 GMT
"Dinsdale" <notnew@this.game> wrote in
| It looks ok to my non-expert eyes.
| The "Mustang" was changed to a script/cursive style in '68.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
| Pics of the cars:
| http://tinyurl.com/d2q9u

Thanks DP

I didn't know that it had the Mustang AND the three color emblem on the side
of the fender.
Seemes like allot to me.

Goes to show how much I know about old iron LOL

Kate
Dinsdale - 05 May 2005 23:40 GMT
>Thanks DP
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Kate

...and they are so much fun when it's wax time.

DP
Pics of the cars:
http://tinyurl.com/d2q9u
SVTKate - 06 May 2005 23:16 GMT
Oh my'ggosh.. I would just bet they are!
More beer please!

Signature

Kate

"It's just a couple of greased up broads on a Chevy! Get over it!"
Mrs. Foreman

| >Thanks DP
| >
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
| Pics of the cars:
| http://tinyurl.com/d2q9u 
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.