Never seen this

#4
yeloxr7 said:
Not bad, but I think if I went to all that trouble, I'd want to use tubular control arms in place of the stock stamped ones.......
Click to expand...

The stock arms aren't all that bad. I think the setup looks good but I agree the arms could be stronger. Boxing the stock arms would provably be sufficient if it is even neccisary.
 
#5
not much different than what racers did in the past. i agree though i would at least box the control arms, though i would also change the geometry of the upper arm for a better camber curve.
 
#7
What's behind the cowl? If those tubes are not directly linked to the roll cage . . .

I'm sure it's stronger than the original sheet metal. Why not a brace over the top, bolted or welded, serving the same purpose as a Monte Carlo bar? There is ample bracing underneath the top coilover mount, but little above. Basically a crossbrace for the top. I would put it directly above where the coilover mount bar bisects the top bar. Curve it to allow for engine clearance, etc. Mirror the crossmember.
 
#8
is this on a maverick or something? it's definitely not a mustang, well maybe a big body but it still doesn't look quite right.

i'd say that is a pretty nice low buck setup that could even be adapted to a stock car with the towers with little trouble. myabe i should send these pics to opentracker. hmmm, i think i will, actually.
 
#10
12sec67 said:
with the crossmember boxed in and the support bars there it looks pretty solid.
Click to expand...

Yep, pretty solid...got to transfer all that energy to the passenger compartment in a crash. 'Bout as safe as Dale Earnhardts Daytona car. Hopefully the cage will save him
when it happens.
Seriously, I don't see the top tube being able to keep the top of he coil-over in alighment on corners without adding some triangulation to the top. But I don't know anything..just ask some guys here.
 
#11
rbohm said:
not much different than what racers did in the past. i agree though i would at least box the control arms, though i would also change the geometry of the upper arm for a better camber curve.
Click to expand...

It may be the angle of the photograph but it appears to me that the upper ball joint is higher than the mounting point at the frame. Isn't that what you want? You know, to pull the top of the tire in faster (shorter radius moving from the horizontal plain to the vertical plainand all that stuff) than the bottom control arm thereby giving you a camber gain?
But I'm probably wrong. Right?
 
#13
Platonic Solid said:
Judging by the cowl it looks like a 71-73 Mustang.
Click to expand...
I gave-up on Mustangs after 1970 but I thought that in 71 Ford began using GM p/s units, a/c units and Rochester carbs. Read that Henry gave-up trying to beat them and put out the order to just follow their lead and use any part they could supply at a lower cost.
I know the truth hurts, but after Ford quit racing, they didn't do a whole hell of a lot. Oh, wait, they built the PINTO. And Maverick. Sorry for the oversight.
 
#16
It does look like it could use a brace across the top but other than that it looks like a good low-buck solution.

I gave-up on Mustangs after 1970 but I thought that in 71 Ford began using GM p/s units, a/c units and Rochester carbs. Read that Henry gave-up trying to beat them and put out the order to just follow their lead and use any part they could supply at a lower cost.
I know the truth hurts, but after Ford quit racing, they didn't do a whole hell of a lot. Oh, wait, they built the PINTO. And Maverick. Sorry for the oversight.
Click to expand...

Dude, have a beer, chill out or something. Did ford screw you over a pinto once upon a time? Or are you trying to pick a fight? Let it go already.
 
#17
Heck, I wish I could bolt a power GM steering box to my car. And Q-jets are not so bad either. And where would the street rod world be w/o the Pinto/Mustang II front end. I owned 2 Mustang II's and must say they are much better platforms than the old stuff.
 
#18
mikethebike said:
It may be the angle of the photograph but it appears to me that the upper ball joint is higher than the mounting point at the frame. Isn't that what you want? You know, to pull the top of the tire in faster (shorter radius moving from the horizontal plain to the vertical plainand all that stuff) than the bottom control arm thereby giving you a camber gain?
But I'm probably wrong. Right?
Click to expand...

the upper arm looks to me to be the same location as would come stock. the upper arm pivot point can be lowered about 1 1/2" if he also changes the ball joint angle, much like opentracker does, to prevent breaking ball joints.
 
#19
mikethebike said:
I gave-up on Mustangs after 1970 but I thought that in 71 Ford began using GM p/s units, a/c units and Rochester carbs. Read that Henry gave-up trying to beat them and put out the order to just follow their lead and use any part they could supply at a lower cost.
I know the truth hurts, but after Ford quit racing, they didn't do a whole hell of a lot. Oh, wait, they built the PINTO. And Maverick. Sorry for the oversight.
Click to expand...

actually it might surprise you to know that ford started using saginaw steering boxes in the late 50's when they got rid of the cam and lever steering gears, and went with the recirculating ball gears.
 
#20
RacerX said:
Dude, have a beer, chill out or something. Did ford screw you over a pinto once upon a time? Or are you trying to pick a fight? Let it go already.
Click to expand...
What's funny is I didn't even see his post. Somehow, subconsciously, something was telling me it was irrelevant and I should skip it.

Anyway, here is the link with more pictures.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ford...006QQitemZ160142736359QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

AND HERE IS THE DESCRIPTION FOR WHEN THE AUCTION FINALLY GETS REMOVED AND EVERYONE WONDERS WHAT THE HECK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PLUS I'M USING ALL CAPS AND RUNON SENTENCES TO FEEL PART OF THE ELITE CLUB OF EBAY SELLERS WHO LIKE TO SELL THINGS FOR THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS YET NOT TAKE THE TIME TO AT LEAST MAKE A PROFESSIONAL LOOKING AD
1971 72 MUSTANG FASTBACK MACH 1 BOSS 351 CLONE RACE CAR PROJECT.4 SPEED CAR STILL HAS CLUTCH PEDAL. NO MOTOR/TRANNY. THIS IS AN ULTRA SOLID BODY ULTRA STRAIGHT. GREAT FRAMEWORK, FULL FRAME CUSTOM FRAME ALL PROFESSIONALLY DONE, HAS FRAME CONECTORS UNDERNEATH, EVERYTHING IS ATTACHED AND CAR IS ULTRA RIGID. FULLY ADJUSTABLE CUSTOM COIL OVER FRONT SUSPENSION WITH MODIFIED FACTORY CONTROL ARMS. DISC BRAKES. AWESOME CUSTOM ROLLCAGE ALL TIED TOGETHER TO THE FRAME. CAR IS SET UP FOR WIDE TIRES AND HAS OLD SCHOOL FENDER FLAIRS CUSTOM MOLDED IN, AND CUSTOM SETUP FOR RETRACTABLE ANTENNA. DECKLID IS DRILLED FOR REAR SPOILER BUT I DONT HAVE THE SPOILER. COMES WITH NICE RAM AIR NASA HOOD AND 2 VERY GOOD FRONT FENDERS AND A HARD TO FIND EARLY COATED FRONT BUMPER. CAR STILL HAS WIRING INTACT AND FACTORY INSTRUMENTS IN DASH SO EASY TO PUT THIS ONE ON THE STREET.HAS FANCY RACING FUEL PUMP SETUP IN TRUNK AS SEEN IN PHOTOS.ALL GLASS IS GOOD BUT NO WINDSHIELD. I HAVE MANY MORE PARTS THAT GO WITH IT INCLUDING THE BACK FASTBACK GLASS, TAILIGHTS, DASH PANEL AND MUCH MUCH MORE. LET THE PICTURES DO THE TALKING AND ASK ALL QUESTIONS BEFORE BIDDING. SOLD AS IS COMES WITH BILL OF SALE. ALL NEW OR ZERO FEEDBACK EBAYERS CONTACT ME FIRST BEFORE BIDDING...
Click to expand...
Current bid with 18 hours remaining: $152.50
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Interior and Upholstery Interior roof adhesive removal HELP
Replies
3
Views
161
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Riley Barth
R
D
Putting on a lift?
Replies
5
Views
262
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
OX1
O
Teen'93stang5.0
Electrical Defrost switch ignition?
Replies
9
Views
241
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Teen'93stang5.0
Teen'93stang5.0
T
Drivetrain Take a look at this clutch pedal
Replies
2
Views
138
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
TNmach1
T
M
Electrical 93 5.0 No Injector Pulse
Replies
15
Views
397
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Willybill32
Willybill32
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu