i just will never understand the need to include all that crappy music.... had i wanted to listen to crappy music i woulda went to a crappy music channel.... cmon fellers dont cheapen your production
bill thank you for all i have a mustang 1966 conv and I want to fix the way you teach Igo to fallow you in puerto Rico we don't have mechanic for old cars
I think the kit is very impressive. Just an observation. When you look at the McPherson strut assemblies on Ford cars I note that the LCA are attached to the chassis at two locations,. With the early Falcons/Mustangs..the suspension was a mixture of UCA which took the spring load, and it was bolted to a substantive spring tower at two points, and a LCA arm which was located to the chassis at one location. In this modification with via the kit , the spring is bolted directly to the LCA, thus eliminating the spring/shock directly to the UCA, Would the LCA mounts deal with the shock loads or is there no difference overall. I am aware that the UCA went through a period of improvements over the years, especially in the early Falcons where the upper strut towers were improved/strengthened due to fatigue. Did anyone notice the flexing of the lower strut rod mounting bracket when the strut bearing was being torqued. Will the strut mount fatigue over time now??? Would the LCA chassis mount have to be beefed up to take the shock loads?
IMHO for normal use the LCA mounting point would be substantial enough to handle the load from the shock/spring. For a racing application I would consider beefing up the mounting area.
I would think it's better suited honestly considering how LCA is mounted to the frame instead of to a thin ass shock tower. That said, I will and would recommend running a shelby crossmember that is thicker and also bolts to the LCAs to tie them together. An extra plate of steel can't hurt and the front end on 1st gens is known to have too much flex
Make sure you torque your shock and control arm bolts when the vehicle is under its own weight. Otherwise you’ll be putting way more strain on the bushings.
As someone commented those strut rod mounts need some loving on this thing . I usually weld the down both sides at the frame and core support because they were never really that great even right from the factory. These are one of the bad parts of the front suspension in a mustang . Also , even tho this kit is well presented its not designed that well . Very limited front end travel and inherently flawed by moving the load to the lower ball joint in a fashion that its not meant to handle . In this configuration the weight of the vehicle is pulling the ball and socket apart. Some OEMs got bit in the ass doing this (Jeep Liberty comes to mind immediately) Someone needs to come up with a complete bolt in strut front end for these , or maybe they have and I just havnt seen it.
The strut rod mount on this car has pulled loose from the frame. Look at the video at around 16:00 and notice how it is broken loose and pulls away from the frame when Bill torques down the strut rod. YIKES!
I did, I went with TCP on that as well. My car was manual steering before so the difference was night and day. the swap went well with minor grinding here and there to get it in. Because the TCP unit is "race ratio" 2 3/4 lock to lock, it takes very little input to get the car to turn. That and it's very light so you'll want to get ahold of the guys who make the pump and get a set of flow control valves so you can set how heavy the steering is. I gotta say with the front end set up and the rear still bone stock the car rails through corners.. do it, you won't be disappointed.
im curious why it goes all the way to 68 but not 67? they are nearly identical im surprised the suspension has a difference that makes it not applicable to 67s
any reviews on the coil over kit and rack and pinion on the 70 mustang I'm thinking of buying but haven't seen any reviews how does the car feel compare to stock?
Maybe I'm just being paranoid but the way that lower spring seat locks into place makes me really uncomfortable. It looks like it could break off way too easily.
The thread on the shock body is actually an ACME thread commonly used in machine tool and aviation applications. Nothing to worry about there. Also, the spring does not coil bind on this suspension and bump stop at the shock tower is the physical stop for compression travel.
Decent grade bolts and cap screws are surprisingly strong. A single 3/8" Grade 8 cap screw can hold over 7,000 lbs; multiple that times three. A 500 lb/in spring will only load the bolts with less than 1500 lbs of force total. After that the bump stop transfers the load directly in the shock tower.
Wrong the spring load feeds into the same structure as stock the lower backing plate installed distributes the load the bolts are larger than those used on any mcpherson strut I have ever seen. load bearing should note be a problem. think of the motor plate used to hang an engine and trans all the time off 4 5/16 grade 5 bolts, agreed no shock load. Similar design is used on 3rd gen f-bodies without problem. If you are still concerned just make it habit to look at them every time hood is up for signs of trouble..
Bill, Just curious if the famous upper A arm "Shelby Drop" would have any negative impact of this kit. I will be purchasing this kit along with the rack and pinion kit here soon for my 65 Comet
+Travis Cooper This kit is designed to mount in the stock location and will provide plenty of drop if needed, the Shelby control arm relocation is not needed or recommended with this setup.
$3,300 seems pretty steep when you can get a few different Mustang II full conversion kits with cross members and rack and pinion for just under $3000. Such as Fatman Fabs
