Classic Mustangs List Archive

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

I've seen the Shelby how-to for lowering the mount on the upper control
arms for the earlier models, but I have never seen this mentioned for
the 71-73 cars.
What is gained by lowering the control arms [I'm looking for a better
answer than "better handling" ) ]?
Has anyone done it in these bigger Mustangs?

Thanks,
Kevin
72 mock Mach I convertible 351C-4V quench



---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bill Silvershein (email redacted)

Hey Kevin,

The reasoning behind the lowering of the front upper control arms is a
matter of suspension geometry. With the suspension pivot points lowered, you do
get a better handling car, with a better feel to it(in regards to steering
input).
As for whether it will accomplish what you want it to on your car, is
stricktly up to you. I have done this on both a 71 convertible(351CJ roll bar
equiped for open track events), and on an old 73 mustang Mach I I used to own.
On the track, there is a noticable difference, on the street(except for those
high speed off ramp events), the difference was not as perceptible. If your
going to go thru with the conversion anyway, remember to have the old holes
welded up, and to find a set of match rear leaf springs for the back of the car
(unless you like the tail end of your car in the air(to each his own)) to keep
the car level.
Hope this is helpful.


Yours In Fords,

Bill S.







On Feb 25, 3:10am, (email redacted) wrote:
> Subject: [CM:9596] Lowering the Upper Control Arms on 71-73
> I've seen the Shelby how-to for lowering the mount on the upper control
> arms for the earlier models, but I have never seen this mentioned for
> the 71-73 cars.
> What is gained by lowering the control arms [I'm looking for a better
> answer than "better handling" ) ]?
> Has anyone done it in these bigger Mustangs?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> 72 mock Mach I convertible 351C-4V quench
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
> archive please visit:
>
> antler.webworks.ca/cm
>-- End of excerpt from (email redacted)



--
William E. Silvershein Silicon Graphics/Cray Research
Phone:973-299-5735 300 Interpace Parkway
Fax:973-263-8460 Parsippany,N.J.07054
Alt Fax:973-263-8302
Voice Mail:973-299-5701 Mailbox 5735

E-Mail: (email redacted)




"Patience and perserverence have a magical effect before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish."
John Quincy Adams

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

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

I haven't lowered the arms on any later model mustangs (later than '68), but I
can tell you what it does. I can also say that chances are it will give you
the same benefit on your car. In fact, on the article I saw years ago on the
motorports negative wedge camber kit, they lowered the arms on a '72 I think
(it was one of those similar years) and it helped dramatically. I can say on
my car, it has made a huge difference, almost as much as changing to 60 wide
series tires.

In the stock configuration, the mustang was meant to understeer. This means
that, in a turn, the front tires loose grip before the rear tires. It also
means you get really boring, non-sporty handling. It was deemed safer by ford
to do this because that way it is hard to get into a sideways slide. If you
are going too fast, you just skid forward no matter what way your front wheels
are pointing.

For a sports car, if you know how to drive (and pull out of a skid), you want
as neutral handling as possible. This means that the front and the rear of the
car both hold traction the same amount. Then when you skid, you can still
steer, more or less, and sometimes pull out of it. It also means that both
your front and back tires are doing an almost equal share of work, and usually
means much higher traction is available.

The way they got the mustangs to understeer was to manufacture the front
suspension geometry in such a way that the front tires lean considerably with
body roll. This means that whenever the car is in a corner, the body rolls,
and the tire leans outward. This lean is called camber, and is the tires angle
from perpendicular to the ground. Ideally you want the tire to be slightly
more than perpendicular to the ground (leaning into the turn) for optimum
traction. Since the tire leans, the tire is on its edge, and therefore has
less rubber contacting the road, and so has less traction and bad wear
characteristics.

The purpose of lowering the upper control arms is to reduce the front tire's
tendency to lean with body roll, and increase its camber change for bump. This
way, when the car is turning into a corner, the body rolls, and so the tire
would lean slightly out of the turn (not good), but the body on the outside
front is going to dip, which will reduce, or counteract the lean out of the
corner, so the front tire leans as little as possible, or not at all. This
increases traction and decreases wear, and gives much more ideal handling to
the mustangs.

You can lower the upper arms 1" with no other modifications, or you can go for
the more optimum 2" and then you need either special upper a-arms, or buy or
make a negative wedge camber thingy like I did.

Good luck!

Best Regards,
Keven Coates
'68 stang
DSP Datacomm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Wallace, John (email redacted)

I'd just like to commend Keven C. on his succint, informative post.
I've held off on this particular modification for my '72 because I had
not heard any reasonable justifications for changing the steering
engineering that someone at Ford thought was a good idea. I'm not going
to rush out and drop the car 2 inches just yet, but I'm interested in
the particulars for the mod. I hope Kevin S. will keep us updated on
his progress!
-JW
'72 coupe, 351C

-----Original Message-----
From: Keven D. Coates [SMTPemail redacted)]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 6:50 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: [CM:9603] re: Lowering the Upper Control Arms on
71-73

I haven't lowered the arms on any later model mustangs (later
than '68), but I
can tell you what it does. I can also say that chances are it
will give you
the same benefit on your car. In fact, on the article I saw
years ago on the
motorports negative wedge camber kit, they lowered the arms on a
'72 I think
(it was one of those similar years) and it helped dramatically.
I can say on
my car, it has made a huge difference, almost as much as
changing to 60 wide
series tires.

In the stock configuration, the mustang was meant to understeer.
This means
that, in a turn, the front tires loose grip before the rear
tires. It also
means you get really boring, non-sporty handling. It was deemed
safer by ford
to do this because that way it is hard to get into a sideways
slide. If you
are going too fast, you just skid forward no matter what way
your front wheels
are pointing.

For a sports car, if you know how to drive (and pull out of a
skid), you want
as neutral handling as possible. This means that the front and
the rear of the
car both hold traction the same amount. Then when you skid, you
can still
steer, more or less, and sometimes pull out of it. It also
means that both
your front and back tires are doing an almost equal share of
work, and usually
means much higher traction is available.

The way they got the mustangs to understeer was to manufacture
the front
suspension geometry in such a way that the front tires lean
considerably with
body roll. This means that whenever the car is in a corner, the
body rolls,
and the tire leans outward. This lean is called camber, and is
the tires angle
from perpendicular to the ground. Ideally you want the tire to
be slightly
more than perpendicular to the ground (leaning into the turn)
for optimum
traction. Since the tire leans, the tire is on its edge, and
therefore has
less rubber contacting the road, and so has less traction and
bad wear
characteristics.

The purpose of lowering the upper control arms is to reduce the
front tire's
tendency to lean with body roll, and increase its camber change
for bump. This
way, when the car is turning into a corner, the body rolls, and
so the tire
would lean slightly out of the turn (not good), but the body on
the outside
front is going to dip, which will reduce, or counteract the lean
out of the
corner, so the front tire leans as little as possible, or not at
all. This
increases traction and decreases wear, and gives much more ideal
handling to
the mustangs.

You can lower the upper arms 1" with no other modifications, or
you can go for
the more optimum 2" and then you need either special upper
a-arms, or buy or
make a negative wedge camber thingy like I did.

Good luck!

Best Regards,
Keven Coates
'68 stang
DSP Datacomm


---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a
list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm