Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: p2kandm2 (KandM)

OK, I have heard a few differing things regarding the 71-73 chassis, steering and suspension modifications.
I am very interested in increasing the "handling" of this car for feel, fun and safety!
- not for racing -
Yes, I know there are things that are not $$ recomended for a street car and I probably would not consider them for a street car, however, with the stock steering and suspension configuration these cars, our cars, could be out driven by much lesser cars and some larger lesser cars.
- one example - the '68 (bullitt (SP) car) mustang was out driven by the Charger by so much that the stunt coordinator put the skinniest tires possible on the Charger so it would not out drive the Mustang. This was documented by the stunt coordinator.

So, for the 71-73 cars, what is good and what is not good with regard to improving the driveability of our cars?
-And- what is not needed, or no longer needed due to Ford's improvements, etc.???

Upper control arm relocation? G, NG, NN?
Montecarlo bar? G, NG, NN?
Export brace? G, NG, NN?
lowering the front and rear? G, NG, NN?
spring rates, combinations, etc.? What are G, NG, NN?

Shocks - type, control rates? What improves, is G, NG, NN?

I truly would like to improve my 71 convertible's driveability.

Thanks for all your imput
KandM

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: keven (Coates, Keven)

I can't comment on the '71-'73s, but for the '68 which is pretty similar
I can tell you the biggest single improvement is the upper arm
relocation 2" down. This required a negative wedge kit for the '68 that
I made myself. I've heard they relocated the upper arm down about 1"
for the '71 and later models, but I'm not sure if this is really true.
If it is true, the arm should only need to be down another inch.

This results in really good tire wear and excellent handling with wide
tires. This also assumes you have wide (60 or 50 series) tires, a good
sway bar (15/16" or bigger on the front, rear depends on suspension
stiffness) and the chassis improvements to back it up.

Here's my rating from 1 to 5, where 1 is most important and 5 is least:

>Upper control arm relocation? 1
>Montecarlo bar? 4 (not necessarily needed, but helps frame stay
together)
>Export brace? 4 (just like above)
>lowering the front and rear? 3
>spring changes 3 (I like 620s on the front, and a good five leaf rear
suspension, but not so stiff that it doesn't spring).
>Shocks - 3 I like KYBs in front and something much softer than the
standard KYBs in the rear.
>sway bars - 2 these are essential and make the car a lot more fun.
Some of the racers don't use rear bars because their rear suspension is
so firm already, but I'd suggest for the street to run a not so firm
rear suspension and a small bar in the rear.

Keep in mind many of the earlier Mustang owners are going to put more
priority on the chassis stiffening since their cars were even worse than
ours in that department

Keven

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mahilly (Mike H)

Wasn't the Bullitt mustang a 67??? I'm going off on a tangent here, but I
came across this web site (rjsmith.com/bullitt-locations.html)
that documents the movie locations in SF both past and present. Having
lived in SF for several years it is really fun seeing these photos. I'm
also in the constructing biz and one of my past projects was building an
office park directly across the street from the old gas station that was
destroyed by the Charger. If you click the photo link labeled "office
building" at the end of the Chase paragraph you can see my buildings on the
left side of the photo. Pretty cool...for me anyway...okay, back to the
topic...



On 11/27/06, KandM <p2kandm2 at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> OK, I have heard a few differing things regarding the 71-73 chassis,
> steering and suspension modifications.
> I am very interested in increasing the "handling" of this car for feel,
> fun and safety!
> - not for racing -
> Yes, I know there are things that are not $$ recomended for a street car
> and I probably would not consider them for a street car, however, with the
> stock steering and suspension configuration these cars, our cars, could be
> out driven by much lesser cars and some larger lesser cars.
> - one example - the '68 (bullitt (SP) car) mustang was out driven by the
> Charger by so much that the stunt coordinator put the skinniest tires
> possible on the Charger so it would not out drive the Mustang. This was
> documented by the stunt coordinator.
>
> So, for the 71-73 cars, what is good and what is not good with regard to
> improving the driveability of our cars?
> -And- what is not needed, or no longer needed due to Ford's improvements,
> etc.???
>
> Upper control arm relocation? G, NG, NN?
> Montecarlo bar? G, NG, NN?
> Export brace? G, NG, NN?
> lowering the front and rear? G, NG, NN?
> spring rates, combinations, etc.? What are G, NG, NN?
>
> Shocks - type, control rates? What improves, is G, NG, NN?
>
> I truly would like to improve my 71 convertible's driveability.
>
> Thanks for all your imput
> KandM
> _______________________________________________
> Classic-mustangs mailing list
> Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
> lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs
>
> Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20061128/c020c512/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: perri (Tony Perri)

I had a 73 coupe for 20 yrs.Always on the street.
Did a lot that I regretted and would do different.

Always had fun - these cars can handle great !

My thoughts:
- first freshen the front end : new control arm
bushings (upper and lower), strut bushings, ball joints, steering linkage.

- the shock towers are strong enough (if not rusted) that export and monte
carlo braces are not necessary.

- lower is better, up to the point of scraping. I had headers which had 3"
of clearance (didn't work well). If you have a 302, use shorty headers and
get a good exhaust. With a bigger engine, there might be better options.

- front springs : 620 lowering springs work great. For a heavier convt, you
could probably get away with 720.

- rear springs : even a 4 1/2 leaf was too stiff. I would stick with 4 leaf
'heavy duty' rears, though a 4 1/2 might work in a convt.

- shocks : there's an old saying to use stiff springs and soft shocks.
Koni's let you dial in to the rest of the suspension. Gas shocks seem too
stiff and try to take over what the springs should be doing.

- sway bars : 1 1/8" front -- bigger ones rub on strut bars. Use poly
bushings.I like the Stam (adjustable) on my 67. Don't know if you can get
one for the 71.
Instead of a rear bar which always seems to get in the way of travel,
exhaust and fuel lines, I would use the Blobal west del-alum bushings. These
basically limit the body from twisting relative to the leaf spring and control
sway very well. Seems like a lot to ask of the springs, but it works.

- tires : bigger is better. I used 245/60 and they rubbed in front slightly
at full lock. 235/60 is fine. if changing wheels, I would probably go
with 16" wheels and 245/50 tires.

- more advanced : Global West has been around for a long time. They have put
together some packages which work well. Their "Stage 2" is a good choice --
uses their modified upper control arms. They also have a stiffer rubber strut
bushing, shouldn't use poly on struts.

Go slow and add in pieces. Replace bad parts first, then go for improvements.

Good luck,

Tony Perri
-- 67 Fastback
-- 73 Coupe

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:34:05 CST KandM wrote:
>OK, I have heard a few differing things regarding the 71-73 chassis, steering
and suspension modifications.
>I am very interested in increasing the "handling" of this car for feel, fun an
d safety!
> - not for racing -
>Yes, I know there are things that are not $$ recomended for a street car and I
probably would not consider them for a street car, however, with the stock ste
ering and suspension configuration these cars, our cars, could be out driven by
much lesser cars and some larger lesser cars.
> - one example - the '68 (bullitt (SP) car) mustang was out driven by the Char
ger by so much that the stunt coordinator put the skinniest tires possible on t
he Charger so it would not out drive the Mustang. This was documented by the st
unt coordinator.
>
>So, for the 71-73 cars, what is good and what is not good with regard to impro
ving the driveability of our cars?
>-And- what is not needed, or no longer needed due to Ford's improvements, etc.
???
>
>Upper control arm relocation? G, NG, NN?
>Montecarlo bar? G, NG, NN?
>Export brace? G, NG, NN?
>lowering the front and rear? G, NG, NN?
>spring rates, combinations, etc.? What are G, NG, NN?
>
>Shocks - type, control rates? What improves, is G, NG, NN?
>
>I truly would like to improve my 71 convertible's driveability.
>
>Thanks for all your imput
>KandM

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: rick (Rick Larson)

I can't comment on the '71-'73s either but for my '66, I think the 5
leaf rear leaf springs are a bit much. I don't need a panhard *or* a
rear anti-sway bar. I've done everything listed below (and sub frame
connectors). This is setup for autoX c-prepared.

Suspension tuning is really dependent on what you are planning to use
the Mustang. Notice how quiet Walt is. This guy knows a lot about
getting the most out of his 67 coupe on the track.

For the street, I'd get the best brakes and tires you can afford,
stiffen up the front end with a larger anti-sway bar and enjoy the car.

Since my only experience with the 71-73 models are from watching a James
Bond flick and the original Gone in 60 seconds movie, I guessing :-).

rick

----------------------------------------original-email----------------------------------------------
I can't comment on the '71-'73s, but for the '68 which is pretty similar
I can tell you the biggest single improvement is the upper arm
relocation 2" down. This required a negative wedge kit for the '68 that
I made myself. I've heard they relocated the upper arm down about 1"
for the '71 and later models, but I'm not sure if this is really true.
If it is true, the arm should only need to be down another inch.

This results in really good tire wear and excellent handling with wide
tires. This also assumes you have wide (60 or 50 series) tires, a good
sway bar (15/16" or bigger on the front, rear depends on suspension
stiffness) and the chassis improvements to back it up.

Here's my rating from 1 to 5, where 1 is most important and 5 is least:

>Upper control arm relocation? 1
>Montecarlo bar? 4 (not necessarily needed, but helps frame stay
together)
>Export brace? 4 (just like above)
>lowering the front and rear? 3
>spring changes 3 (I like 620s on the front, and a good five leaf rear
suspension, but not so stiff that it doesn't spring).
>Shocks - 3 I like KYBs in front and something much softer than the
standard KYBs in the rear.
>sway bars - 2 these are essential and make the car a lot more fun.
Some of the racers don't use rear bars because their rear suspension is
so firm already, but I'd suggest for the street to run a not so firm
rear suspension and a small bar in the rear.

Keep in mind many of the earlier Mustang owners are going to put more
priority on the chassis stiffening since their cars were even worse than
ours in that department

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

> Here's my rating from 1 to 5, where 1 is most important and 5 is least:

Personal opinions, based on no '71-up Mustang experience but...

1) Detroit convertibles were generally crap, structurally. The early
Mustang was no exception. The front structure on the '71-up is, IIRC,
better than the early cars (which basically *had* no front structure at
all) but you've still got a giant hinge in the middle of the car. I
wouldn't do much if anything to the chassis of that car without some
kind of weld-on bracing underneath assuming you're not doing a roll bar.
The front structure welding per the Boss 302 Chassis Modifications
book would also be a good idea.

My '65 convertible that just came off the rotisserie has about 120lb of
extra steel along the rockers, between the subframe rails, up the kick
panels, and some extra struts to the shock towers, triangulated
everywhere I can, and I like the Maier front tower brace (one piece like
the Fox setup, and better clearance to everything than the export/Monte
Carlo combination.) I'm planning on a 6-point roll bar too, set up as a
bolt-in just so I can see how well the structural bits work without it.
If all goes well I might make a small business out of selling the
bits, though as installation requires significant cutting and is best
done with the car upside down the market will likely be quite small...

2) Steering feel. Detroit had two basic approaches to steering - manual
steering in the "Fifty degrees to port, helmsman!" thirty-six-turns
lock-to-lock and massive-assist power-steering-as-tuning-knob. The
'71-73 Mustang was the first Ford to have a shot at good power steering,
it uses the same basic steering box as all the GM ponycars, and I'd call
Tom Lee at Lee Manufacturing (hey, they've even got a website now:
leepowersteering.com/) and see what it'd take to get a 35oz
spool valve in that box, basically the WS6 Trans Am Firebird setup.

3) Now you can start diddling with all the usual springs, bushings, etc.
If the suspension still has any original bushings, tie rod ends, etc. in
it start with a complete rebuild. For street use IMO stay away from
anything with rod ends, urethane except maybe in the rear spring eyes,
etc. Lowering too much is not a good thing, these cars don't have much
suspension travel to begin with and real-world driving (as opposed to
track use) is all about getting over bumps without bottoming.

For the '65 just as a baseline I've lowered the front arms 1" (for a
track car I might have gone further) and it's getting Maier front upper
arms, front springs, and rear springs w/the extra upper front half-leaf
for windup control, and a .94in front anti-roll bar. Stock lower arms
and Moog tension-rod bushings.

Conventional wisdom says Konis on the shocks but in other applications
I've observed a ridiculously high failure rate (Dinan stopped using them
in their BMW applications because of lousy QC) and I had KYBs in an
earlier car which were just too stiff, this time I'm trying the
Bilsteins that Maier sells.

John.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

> A word of advice, remember that on a 65/66, you can get the late 60's
> tanks (69?) that hold 22 gallons. Get the appropriate sender and
> you are off and running. I didn't do this, and wish I did.

On the '65 I took the tank out from the top, bent the flange flat that
reinforced the opening, made a frame of 1.25x.125 steel angle and welded
it into the top side of the tank opening, so that the tank could be
bolted up from the bottom. Need to have someone roll me a piece of 18ga
steel with a couple ribs in it to weld in as a new trunk floor above the
tank.

This fuel-tank-as-trunk-floor stuff never struck me as a good idea, and
the cost and maintenance of a fuel cell wasn't too appealing for a
street car.

> Wasn't the Bullitt mustang a 67???

Yeah, it was. There were a couple of them, they broke a big-block car
on the yumps and finished with a small-block car IIRC. There's some
interviews with Halicki on the web somewhere.

They used the Firestone (FR100?) radials on it, one of the first US-made
radial tires. It was reputedly very good...better than the next fifteen
years of Akron radials.

>> > - one example - the '68 (bullitt (SP) car) mustang was out driven by the
>> > Charger by so much that the stunt coordinator put the skinniest tires
>> > possible on the Charger so it would not out drive the Mustang. This was
>> > documented by the stunt coordinator.

I haven't seen that, and it wouldn't matter anyway, as stunt driving
isn't exactly competitive and it hardly matters how fast the cars go.

Those 'skinniest tires' were I expect just what was OE on the Chargers
they used in filming.

John.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

>> Wasn't the Bullitt mustang a 67???
>
> Yeah, it was.

Looks like I'm wrong.

>>> > - one example - the '68 (bullitt (SP) car) mustang was out driven
>>> by the
>>> > Charger by so much that the stunt coordinator put the skinniest tires
>>> > possible on the Charger so it would not out drive the Mustang. This
>>> was
>>> > documented by the stunt coordinator.

It's what they say...

hottr6.com/triumph/BULLITT.html

John.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mustang (Brandon Peskin)


On Nov 28, 2006, at 9:12 AM, John Miller wrote:

> On the '65 I took the tank out from the top, bent the flange flat that
> reinforced the opening, made a frame of 1.25x.125 steel angle and
> welded
> it into the top side of the tank opening, so that the tank could be
> bolted up from the bottom. Need to have someone roll me a piece of
> 18ga
> steel with a couple ribs in it to weld in as a new trunk floor
> above the
> tank.


Do you have a picture of that? Just to confirm that *is* the 22
gallon tank, yes?

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

> interviews with Halicki on the web somewhere.

s/Halicki/Balchowsky/

Sorry, wrong Mustang flick.

John.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: walt (Walt Boeninger)

John Miller wrote:

>
>> Wasn't the Bullitt mustang a 67???
>
> Yeah, it was.

No, it's a 68 ... the side marker lights are the giveaway.


--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailto:webmaster at norcal-saac.org
norcal-saac.org

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mkupec (Michael J. Kupec)

I always thought the grille and gas caps was quick indications of theh
different years.

67 gas caps were similar to 65's - chrome cap with black center
68 gas caps were similar to 66's - both all chrome

67 grills had the corral surrounding the Mustang with bars - similiar to the
65's
68 grills had just the corral surrounding the mustang - like the 66

Problem with this is, IIRC, the Bullitt 'Stang has a silver/black gas cap
and there's nothing in the grill!

Michael J. Kupec
mkupec at blueovalcorral.com
blueovalcorral.com

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.



-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Walt
Boeninger
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:39 PM
To: Michael J. Kupec
Subject: Re: [CM] 71-73 chassis & suspension mods

John Miller wrote:

>
>> Wasn't the Bullitt mustang a 67???
>
> Yeah, it was.

No, it's a 68 ... the side marker lights are the giveaway.


--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailto:webmaster at norcal-saac.org
norcal-saac.org
_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: walt (Walt Boeninger)

Michael J. Kupec wrote:


> Problem with this is, IIRC, the Bullitt 'Stang has a silver/black gas cap
> and there's nothing in the grill!

That's why the side marker light is the reliable clue since
almost nobody would remove them.... or add them.. unless they're
doing major quarterpanel work


--

Regards
--------------
Walt Boeninger
mailto:webmaster at norcal-saac.org
norcal-saac.org

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: keven (Coates, Keven)

>On the '65 I took the tank out from the top, bent the flange flat that
reinforced the opening, made a frame of 1.25x.125 steel angle and welded

it into the top side of the tank opening, so that the tank could be
bolted up from the bottom. Need to have someone roll me a piece of 18ga

steel with a couple ribs in it to weld in as a new trunk floor above the

tank.

Cool idea. Can we get some pictures?

>This fuel-tank-as-trunk-floor stuff never struck me as a good idea, and

the cost and maintenance of a fuel cell wasn't too appealing for a
street car.

Not my favorite idea either!

Keven

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: keven (Coates, Keven)

>67 gas caps were similar to 65's - chrome cap with black center
68 gas caps were similar to 66's - both all chrome

Nope, my '68 gas cap has a black center.

>No, it's a 68 ... the side marker lights are the giveaway.

Walt's right, the side marker laws came out in '68 and so they are a
dead giveaway. No '67s I've seen have had them.

Keven

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

> Do you have a picture of that? Just to confirm that *is* the 22
> gallon tank, yes?

No, it's not the 22-gallon tank, it's the stock '65 tank (which has now
been trashed, I need to find a replacement.)

If faced with the choice of extra fuel capacity or adding extra metal
between the Mustang's oh-so-squashable fuel tank and the passenger
compartment (it's a convertible, so adding a steel bulkhead TA-prep
style between the wheelwells isn't practical) I'll stick with the small
tank.

> Cool idea. Can we get some pictures?

Thought I had some up, but I don't. I'll snap something later today.

John.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mahilly (Mike H)

On 11/28/06, John Miller <jem at milleredp.com> wrote:
>
> ...and I had KYBs in an earlier car which were just too stiff, this time
> I'm trying the
> Bilsteins that Maier sells.



I'm about to buy new front shocks to go with the new 620 springs. I was
planning on the KYB gas-a-just flavor but John's coment above has me second
guessing. Those of you who have the 620 coils, what shocks are you using
and what would you recommend for a 67 coupe (non daily driver)?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20061129/43e1c18b/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mkupec (Michael J. Kupec)

Walt Boeninger wrote:

>
>> Problem with this is, IIRC, the Bullitt 'Stang has a silver/black gas
>> cap and there's nothing in the grill!
>
> That's why the side marker light is the reliable clue since almost nobody
would remove them.... or add them.. > unless they're doing major
quarterpanel work
>


My bad! - I was thinking basic stock Mustangs and not restomods (or just
plain personal mods!).

Yeah, shaving off the side marker lights would be a bit of pain to do, but
trying to make a 68 look like a 67, or changing a 67/68 into something like
a Shelby wannbe, by tearing out the corral chrome from the grill and/or
changing the gas cap seemed to be the quick and easy mods to do.

I totally forgot about the side marker lights appearing in 68 - something I
should keep in mind next time I see a 67/68 body style and want to determine
the actual year. FWIW - those of us who prefer 65/66's over the fat bodied
67/68's tend not to notice the side marker lights. Probably because our
years didn't have them! ;-)

Thanks for pointing that out!

Michael J. Kupec
mkupec at blueovalcorral.com
blueovalcorral.com

Tact and Political Correctness were developed by those who lack the
testicular fortitude to say what they really mean!

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: keven (Coates, Keven)

The other easy clue is that the '67s had the side "vents" that at least
looked like a real intake (just past the door). The '68s had that trim
piece that didn't even pretend to be a vent, except for mine, which has
side scoops like a California special.

Keven

-----Original Message-----
From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of
Michael J. Kupec
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:21 AM
To: Coates, Keven
Subject: Re: [CM] 71-73 chassis & suspension mods

Walt Boeninger wrote:

>
>> Problem with this is, IIRC, the Bullitt 'Stang has a silver/black gas

>> cap and there's nothing in the grill!
>
> That's why the side marker light is the reliable clue since almost
nobody
would remove them.... or add them.. > unless they're doing major
quarterpanel work
>


My bad! - I was thinking basic stock Mustangs and not restomods (or just
plain personal mods!).

Yeah, shaving off the side marker lights would be a bit of pain to do,
but
trying to make a 68 look like a 67, or changing a 67/68 into something
like
a Shelby wannbe, by tearing out the corral chrome from the grill and/or
changing the gas cap seemed to be the quick and easy mods to do.

I totally forgot about the side marker lights appearing in 68 -
something I
should keep in mind next time I see a 67/68 body style and want to
determine
the actual year. FWIW - those of us who prefer 65/66's over the fat
bodied
67/68's tend not to notice the side marker lights. Probably because our
years didn't have them! ;-)

Thanks for pointing that out!

Michael J. Kupec
mkupec at blueovalcorral.com
blueovalcorral.com

Tact and Political Correctness were developed by those who lack the
testicular fortitude to say what they really mean!


_______________________________________________
Classic-mustangs mailing list
Classic-mustangs at lists.twistedpair.ca
lists.twistedpair.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/classic-mustangs

Visit the Classic Mustang Wiki! sauce.donair.org/~cm/

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: keven (Coates, Keven)

I like my KYBs for the front in my '68. Yes, they're stiff, but I think
they're just right, and they've lasted for over 100K miles with no
problems. I have what I think are 620 coils.



For the rear, the regular KYBs are way too stiff. I've heard the low
pressure versions work well, but I haven't used them.



Keven

________________________________

From: classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca
[mailto:classic-mustangs-bounces at lists.twistedpair.ca] On Behalf Of Mike
H
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 1:03 AM
To: Coates, Keven
Subject: Re: [CM] 71-73 chassis & suspension mods



On 11/28/06, John Miller <jem at milleredp.com> wrote:

...and I had KYBs in an earlier car which were just too stiff, this time
I'm trying the
Bilsteins that Maier sells.





I'm about to buy new front shocks to go with the new 620 springs. I was
planning on the KYB gas-a-just flavor but John's coment above has me
second guessing. Those of you who have the 620 coils, what shocks are
you using and what would you recommend for a 67 coupe (non daily
driver)?




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20061129/d8ca6dc0/attachment.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: mahilly (Mike H)

just in case there is still any doubt what year it is...
youtube.com/watch?v=_cTU5DRfAuI&mode=related&search=


On 11/29/06, Coates, Keven <keven at ti.com> wrote:
>
> The other easy clue is that the '67s had the side "vents" that at least
> looked like a real intake (just past the door). The '68s had that trim
> piece that didn't even pretend to be a vent, except for mine, which has
> side scoops like a California special.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: lists.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/classic-mustangs/attachments/20061130/75f153ba/attachment-0001.html

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: jem (John Miller)

> If I remember correctly - bigger and fatter
<snip>
>> In the Boss 302 Chassis Modification booklet, the Stage III steering section
>> refers to a "special crosslink" PN D0ZX-3304-A. Does anybody on this list
>> know what the difference is between this special crosslink and the stock
>> (manual or power steering) crosslink?

You mean as in:

milleredp.com/~jem/image/boss302/DSCN1551.JPG and
milleredp.com/~jem/image/boss302/DSCN1553.JPG ?

Quoth from page 15: "The specified power steering idler arm assembly
mates with the longer pivot stud on the crosslink in the kit", and other
parts of the page references "improved toe change geometry" so it'd
appear the kit crosslink moves the inner tie rod ends a bit.

John.