• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

66 upper and lower control arms in a 70

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcode
  • Start date Start date Jul 20, 2005
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
M

mcode

Member
Dec 3, 2004
51
0
6
Jul 20, 2005
#1
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #1
can i install 1966 upper and lower control arms and strut rods from a 1966 mustang in a 1970 mustang. i know the lenghts are different
 

LMan

Founding Member
Aug 10, 2002
1,246
0
0
Mom's basement
Jul 20, 2005
#2
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #2
what sort of effect on handling do you think putting on completely different-length suspension parts will have on your car?
 
F

ForceFed70

That's why they call it "dope"
Founding Member
Dec 6, 1999
4,818
1
69
BC Canada
Jul 20, 2005
#3
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #3
If you know the length is different, then you already know the answer to your question.
 
G

grego37

New Member
May 12, 2004
576
0
0
Fresno CA
Jul 20, 2005
#4
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #4
no
no and no
 

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
Cleveland, OH
Jul 20, 2005
#5
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #5
The upper arms are the same, I think, except for the bolt center for the upper shaft. The lowers will bolt up just fine. However, without actually crunching numbers I think the shorter 65/66 lower arm will cause a nasty positive camber situation. Picture the front end with the tops of the tires leaning way out in relation to the bottom.
 
O

Opentracker

20+ Year Stangneter
Feb 4, 2004
516
0
16
Jul 20, 2005
#6
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #6
mcode said:
can i install 1966 upper and lower control arms and strut rods from a 1966 mustang in a 1970 mustang. i know the lenghts are different
Click to expand...

No - they won't even bolt up. The upper arms are shorter on the '66 and the bolt location is closer (3 3/4" VS 4 3/4"). The lower arm won't work either, way too short and the bolt holes for the strut rod are not the same. The strut rods are shorter on a '66 and the bolt holes are different there too. The spring perch is the only part that is the same.

John
 
C

Cliff Yates

New Member
Jun 25, 2004
23
0
0
n. ca.
Jul 20, 2005
#7
  • Jul 20, 2005
  • #7
John and I have spoken No = no
 

4MuscleMachines

Member
Jul 20, 2005
417
1
17
South Texas
Jul 21, 2005
#8
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #8
I third that, NO & NO!
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Jul 21, 2005
#9
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #9
hmmmm, just wondering out loud here John. say you put the correct UCA shaft in a 65/66 upper arm and bolted it in a 69 would that then net you something along the lines of the GW uca? without the revised ball joint angle of course but then we could wedge cut the arm to compensate for that.

so would it work, ya think? i'm betting we would have to build a spacer like GW uses. i'm just wondering if the shorter arm would improve camber gain much like the GW arm is upposed to. any thoughts?

how much shorter is a 65/66 uca than a 67-70?
 
O

Opentracker

20+ Year Stangneter
Feb 4, 2004
516
0
16
Jul 21, 2005
#10
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #10
bnickel said:
hmmmm, just wondering out loud here John. say you put the correct UCA shaft in a 65/66 upper arm and bolted it in a 69 would that then net you something along the lines of the GW uca? without the revised ball joint angle of course but then we could wedge cut the arm to compensate for that.

so would it work, ya think? i'm betting we would have to build a spacer like GW uses. i'm just wondering if the shorter arm would improve camber gain much like the GW arm is upposed to. any thoughts?

how much shorter is a 65/66 uca than a 67-70?
Click to expand...


Well, I'm always up for checking into something new so I did some research. The issue would be the shaft kit. It's wider on 67 and up cars by 1'' and that would stop you from bolting it in a early car because of the shock tower shape. The early arms would not bolt into a later car even if you tried to drill new holes because of the shock tower shape. With the width of the arms, you would never get a 67 type shaft kit into an early arm and visa-versa. Good idea if it would work. Any way to save $599 is worth checking out but this one is dead in the water in my opinion.

On the same note. You can't make either arm much shorter or the car will not take an alignment. The arms I re-work are 5/16" shorter than stock. The GW arms are 3/8" shorter than stock. Any more than that and you run out of room to work with as far as the alignments go, even with a vario-camber lower arm kit. A shorter upper arm is the ticket but it has to be within reason. Too much camber change/curve isn't good either. A balance has to be met to get the car to drive well and still have a good footprint under braking.

John
 

2bav8

Founding Member
Nov 30, 1998
2,511
1
47
Mesa, AZ
Jul 21, 2005
#11
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #11
Well, I'm always up for checking into something new so I did some research
Click to expand...
John,

That's why you're the man!
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Jul 21, 2005
#12
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #12
well it was a thought anyway. glad you had some around to check out i was about to call the local stang parts guy and see if had any trashed 65-66 arms laying arounf that i could compare to.
 
O

Opentracker

20+ Year Stangneter
Feb 4, 2004
516
0
16
Jul 21, 2005
#13
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #13



My upper arm mod post got lost a while back. I'll be doing another one but I thought this might be a good thread to put up a sneek photo of my adjustable upper arm. This photo will only be up for a few days. I ran out of room on my server.


John
 

DarkBuddha

Founding Member
Dec 11, 2001
2,215
1
47
Seattle & Tampa
Jul 21, 2005
#14
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #14
Hey John, I excited to see these new arms... I'll add this thread to my webpage list tonight. BTW, if you run out of space on your server, consider using something like ImageShack (which is what I use these days). It's totally free and no bs annoying pop-ups or anything. One tip though... if you do decide to register, keep your original email and link because ImageShack doesn't have a log-in process and doesn't keep track of where the heck you put your stuff, so you've just got to make sure you always go in through your very own "MyImages" link. Bookmark it and it's no problem though (unless you clear your cookies and that's when you need your original activation email).
 
O

Opentracker

20+ Year Stangneter
Feb 4, 2004
516
0
16
Jul 21, 2005
#15
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #15
DarkBuddha said:
Hey John, I excited to see these new arms... I'll add this thread to my webpage list tonight. BTW, if you run out of space on your server, consider using something like ImageShack (which is what I use these days). It's totally free and no bs annoying pop-ups or anything. One tip though... if you do decide to register, keep your original email and link because ImageShack doesn't have a log-in process and doesn't keep track of where the heck you put your stuff, so you've just got to make sure you always go in through your very own "MyImages" link. Bookmark it and it's no problem though (unless you clear your cookies and that's when you need your original activation email).
Click to expand...

Cool! I have a ton of photos that I have no room for. Thank you again for putting up a bunch of my stuff on your site.



John
 
B

bnickel

Founding Member
Aug 21, 2002
5,640
3
77
lubbock, texas
Jul 21, 2005
#16
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #16
as always John, that's impressive. me like , me want , me no have no welder , me have no moneys . my paint job pretty much drained my budget. i've been trying to hold off doing any suspension work until i have a ll the pieces i need to get it done. i have most of the replacement stuff to put it all back together but the stuff that's on there isn't all that old and has very little mileage so i'm ont in a hurry to work on the suspension yet. my main goal at the moment is weatherstripping, engine compartment harness and a new vinyl top. then i have a few interior pieces to get and i should be good to go for a while. have you ever bitten off more than you can chew at one time and had to spit some out so you could swallow? that's kind of how i feel right now with the stang
 

DarkBuddha

Founding Member
Dec 11, 2001
2,215
1
47
Seattle & Tampa
Jul 21, 2005
#17
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #17
Opentracker said:
Cool! I have a ton of photos that I have no room for. Thank you again for putting up a bunch of my stuff on your site.



John
Click to expand...
Glad to do it. I figure it's the least I can do since you've been so generous and forthcoming with your projects. And for anyone interested in a running list of John's threads from here on Stangnet, go here --> Opentracker's Stanget threads links
 

2bav8

Founding Member
Nov 30, 1998
2,511
1
47
Mesa, AZ
Jul 21, 2005
#18
  • Jul 21, 2005
  • #18
Pretty impressive looking arm John.
Which of the 3 spots is the original one for the spring perches? I'm really curious what the effects would be... perhaps a smoother vertical compression of the shock through suspension movement?
 
T

tweet66

Founding Member
May 19, 2001
589
0
17
Pennsauken, NJ
Jul 22, 2005
#19
  • Jul 22, 2005
  • #19
John, I was always under the impression that the upper arms on a 67 and later car were shorter since Ford moved the shock towers out while moving the lower mounts inward, necessitating the longer lower arm? the onluy way I could see using that later arms on an earlier (65-66) car would be to swap the towers as well. I have a set of 69 towers I was considering grafting into my other 66 coupe, when I get around to it
 
F

ForceFed70

That's why they call it "dope"
Founding Member
Dec 6, 1999
4,818
1
69
BC Canada
Jul 22, 2005
#20
  • Jul 22, 2005
  • #20
tweet66 said:
John, I was always under the impression that the upper arms on a 67 and later car were shorter since Ford moved the shock towers out while moving the lower mounts inward, necessitating the longer lower arm? the onluy way I could see using that later arms on an earlier (65-66) car would be to swap the towers as well. I have a set of 69 towers I was considering grafting into my other 66 coupe, when I get around to it
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to your question, but keep in mind that the 69/70 mustangs are a wider car than the 65/66.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
1968 coupe global west upper control arm template
  • Butchd88
  • Feb 10, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
186
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 12, 2026
Butchd88
B
Suspension Harsh Ride
  • PonyGTrider
  • Mar 20, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 11, 2026
Noobz347
R
Suspension Lower control arms needed
  • racer_dave
  • Feb 9, 2026
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
3
Views
242
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Feb 20, 2026
Noobz347
Which Lakewood Front Struts Would Work the Best?
  • 93gtmustang
  • Nov 7, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
137
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 7, 2025
Ethereal_Zer0
E
C
SN95 Another Coyote swap list
  • catkiller
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
116
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2026
catkiller
C
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?