Search results

  1. mustbereel

    Flaring a 65 Fastback?

    I doubt I can pull anywhere near 1g. Perhaps with some really sticky tires but I would expect more like .85-.9g as it is. If I had decreased the track by 2" and put 1" wider tires in the outside-outside dimension would be the same. This probably would have had little effect on road holding...
  2. mustbereel

    Flaring a 65 Fastback?

  3. mustbereel

    Flaring a 65 Fastback?

    I have 275/40/17 on 17x9.5" rims. There is room on the inside for a larger tire but the foward strut of the Heidt's IRS gets in the way. I could have ordered the IRS with a narrower track width but didn't realize at the time that it would be necessary. I probably could have gained another inch...
  4. mustbereel

    Flaring a 65 Fastback?

    That was me. Here's the thread about using the 67/68 outer wheel housings to push out the stock 65 quarter panels. http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=677887 Here's a side by side comparison: - This was quite a bit of work and wouldn't recommend it unless you were already...
  5. mustbereel

    Better motion ratio?

    I think one aspect of the improvement is you can use a spring that weighs less so the unsprung weight is reduced.
  6. mustbereel

    Any San Diego guys here impacted by the fire? (and tech Qs)

    I'm a modularfords member and will buy a ticket. I'd be willing to help here too if someone needs it and we do something similar.
  7. mustbereel

    Any San Diego guys here impacted by the fire? (and tech Qs)

    fire I had to evacuate at 3am as the flames came rushing over the hill across from my house. We have six cars and two drivers so I knew things would be left behind. We packed up photos, clothes, important papers and my computer. We took our daily drivers but after we left I decided we should...
  8. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    Exactly. I've tried to point out where the sfc, torque boxes and MC bars help even thought they didn't show much on this test. I brought home some 16 ga. sheet to make a plate behind the rear seat and I've got some 1-5/8" 10ga tubing coming to make bars for the cowl to frame reinforcements...
  9. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    that's a great idea. It lets us change the front without changing the way we load the chassis. Oh well. I'm with you on marrying the right woman. Notice in my sig it says "67 Coupe, for the wife". She's on board with this crazy obssesion of mine.
  10. mustbereel

    1968 DOHC 4.6 Coupe Project

    Very similar to my current project so I'll be watching.
  11. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    mrmustangman357, It was on your suggestion that I started moving things around. I orignally thought about cutting holes in the shock towers to put the torque bar through so I could compare the chasis at the suspension mounts but in the end took the easy way out. I didn't think about mounting...
  12. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    New info. A suggestion to move the jackstands to try to isolate where the flex revealed a flaw in my method. But first, to make sure the nylon straps I used to hold down the car were not stretching I replaced one with this turnbuckle. Before and after measurements confirmed that the...
  13. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    I think the conv. sheetmetal would help. Not only do they look right but they are prefabricated to fit! The boxing under the seats would be easy to tie into the subframe connectors and would tie them to the rockers. I thought about using the 1 piece seat risers but I would need to lower them so...
  14. mustbereel

    my Stang going for a full respray (lots of pics, dial-up warning)

    How long did it take to roll the fenders this way?
  15. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    This is the basic idea with the stringers or jacking rails: They connect the subframe connetors to the rocker panels to further reduce twist. I found these by searching for "Mustang subframe connectors." I also found examples of the Kenny Bell brand but they look less substantial.
  16. mustbereel

    The "Mustang II" IFS Real Info & Debate Thread

    Murphy's law. As soon as you make it impossible to remove, you'll have to. My father taught me to build things as though I may have to take them apart at some point. It may become necessary to replace the arm in the future. In my case I took the arms off to paint the car and had to cut the patch...
  17. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    I would say yes. The export brace isn't as good at resisting the inward load imposed by the suspension. This is a different force. Imagine you are driving along and both front tires hit a bump at the same time. The impact is transmitted through the springs to the top of the shock towers which...
  18. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    Thanks, best response ever to one of my posts! The primary benefit to the Monte Carlo bar is to keep the shock towers from bending towards each other under load. By keeping the shock towers stable the alignment is maintained and the suspension can work as designed. You've got the beam...
  19. mustbereel

    The "Mustang II" IFS Real Info & Debate Thread

    I cut mine so that when the repair panel is in place the upper arm can still be easily removed. This also goes for the repair panel. Don't bring it so low the you can't remove/replace the upper arm.
  20. mustbereel

    Torsional rigidity test: 67 coupe

    I'm thinking about placing the rear jackstands under the forward leaf spring mount. This will place it right where the subframe connectors end. Maybe I'll try that with and without the subframe x-brace.
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu