- Mar 15, 2012
- Reaction score
- My Car
- 71 Boss 302 Trans Am ,race car
There’s no doubt your fabrication abilities are amazing, but I went through a lot of similar issues when in my first build I used a 351M with a Tremec trans. To make the shifter line up proper, the motor didn’t sit right and I was shearing motor mounts. It was just bad. Now I’ve put in a 351C with the same trans and stock mounts and the shifter and trans mount didn’t line up right so there were many aftermarket parts that were purchased to make it sit properly. It was a pain to figure out. So when you fabricated the metal to work around your shifter location, are you worried about how it’s functionality will be in regards to the center console shifter opening and where the 2-4-R lower gears will make the shifter maybe hit the armrest of the console? Thanks.Hello once again,making more progress. I cut out the area around the shifter hole and moved it back 2 1/2 inches. I reshaped the sides of the tunnel and made a filler for the front of the panel and a small filler for the passenger side. I then set my sights on the shifter. I built the shifter that Hurst should make but doesn't. Not being able to remove the handle is just a flat out pain in the butt,so....I fixed it. I based my new shifter receiver off of the factory 71 shifters. I built and offset to center the stick with a bolt on handle. I used to the top of a 3 spd receiver and made the offset from 3/8, set it up with a slight angle to the driver like the factory shifters and welded it together.I also installed a different shifter mounting plate the better locates the shifter and bent and new set of rods using a pile of Hurst rods I have. Now on to the Z-bar bracket.
Morning. First off,thank you for the compliment. Now about your console question. I'm not using one. The car will have no interior except for the dash,1 seat and possibly door panels. Everything I'm doing is for the sake of handling and speed. Now,if I was building a street car with this same engine setback and wanting to used the full length console, I would definitely find a way to use it. It could be moved back ,split and lengthened or even reconfigured somehow with leaving it in its stock location.......one of my favorite quotes is,there's always something you can do.There’s no doubt your fabrication abilities are amazing, but I went through a lot of similar issues when in my first build I used a 351M with a Tremec trans. To make the shifter line up proper, the motor didn’t sit right and I was shearing motor mounts. It was just bad. Now I’ve put in a 351C with the same trans and stock mounts and the shifter and trans mount didn’t line up right so there were many aftermarket parts that were purchased to make it sit properly. It was a pain to figure out. So when you fabricated the metal to work around your shifter location, are you worried about how it’s functionality will be in regards to the center console shifter opening and where the 2-4-R lower gears will make the shifter maybe hit the armrest of the console? Thanks.
Hi and thanks. I didn't do the dropped control arm on my car. When Ford redesigned the car for the 71 model, they moved the upper control arm down when they redesigned the engine compartment. It was to fit the Boss 429 in on the assembly line and to correct and improve the cars steering issues suffered by the earlier models. My lower control arms are locked in position to give the most negative camber possible.The tires can never go positive. The car has been lowered to the point where I cut off the ball joint ends of the upper arms and rotated them down 22 degrees to keep the joints from binding up.....an old TA trick. If you study the Tope and Hinchcliff TA 73 Mustangs you'll find there upper arms in the stock location.Hi ,
Attached is link about shelby drop. I have it in my mustang but you need to have the bump steer tie rod blocks by Pro-Motosports too. It works quite well and the car has more grip through turns. The camber angle is improved and it dropped the car about an inch. But if you drop the control arms you must drop the Tie rods close to the same distance or the toe in and out will be out too much during suspension travel. Very few have dared to do this mod on a 71-73 mustang but it works.
Interesting. So what amount of drop would create binding of the upper ball joint?Hi ,
You are correct when you lowered the car you have changed the geometry hence the upper ball joints would bind. It the control arms were not to travel this high in the arc, they would drop positive when wheel goes down at full travel, hence you can benefit from the Shelby drop. The setup you are using keeps upper control arm up and not to drop lower like original setup. I think in your setup the arc is never going as low as normal 1971-73 mustang. For a car on the trans Am circuit this setup you have will work fine. In a car driven on the street with bumps potholes and uneven dips this is would probably be not desirable. If you measure the original setup length of arms and drop and rise with stock suspension bump stops you would see that it goes still quite positive on the drop vs rise ( mock it up with piece's of wood screws on a table ). You can also just jack the car up without springs and sway bar and you would see the positive camber it with a stick on "level .O. Gauge "(Edmund scientific ,New jersey) on a stock 1971-73 Mustang. This control arm setup was abandoned because upper and lower controls never achieved the goals of the designers. This is why we have just a lower control arm on later mustangs and a strut type shock at top on a bearing. I own a 98 mustang and it also has, Strut type shock with lower control arm, rack and pinion steering, 4 link rear suspension right from the factory although its on rubber bushings. All 1994-1998 mustang have this setup and it always handles superb for the normal street car.It keeps the caster and camber at appropriate angles. There is a great book called "how to make your car handle" that makes good reading and discuss all of the geometry issues.
Good Job so far.
Thank you. I will have to check on mine. My UCAs from Maier seem to have an inwards angled ball joint but I didn't compare them directly with stock.Hi Tony-muscle,
It depends how much you move above or below the original bump stops. But when I lowered upper control arm mounting around an 1" this caused binding at end of travel of upper ball joints because it moved past the original angle of stock suspension. I had to use the wedge kit it added about 10-15 degrees back. Note that total drop was only 3/4" Most ball joints can move about 40 degrees off center. So the maximum upper control arm angle was at least 60 degrees. Putting a protractor on side of upper A arm and ball joint would confirm this.
To answer your question it depends how you drop a car.
If you drop the upper control arm about 1" without superb upper bumpers you could bind upper ball joint and add tie rod blocks to correct bump steer from lowering car.
If you use lowering springs you reduce suspension travel and add stiffness. Not pleasant for hilly roads.
Dropped spindles works good, but just watch ground clearance and add tie rod blocks to correct bump steer. This lower Cg too but adds no extra camber modification.
What I haven't had a chance to do is manufacture a lower bump stop instead of Fords idea of using a shock to limit lower travel.
Wow. Wonderful lots of work!Hi,me once again.First 2 header tubes done.I'm doing the drivers side first,because that's the nightmare side.Tubes 5 and 6........not much room for 2 inch pipe with moving the engine back 2 1/2 inches and down 1 inch,but we'll get there.The headers are going to be equal length at 40 1/2.....ish inches depending how you measure it. Tubes 7 and 8 are next,things started going better once I realized that I don't have the room to run all 4 tubes in a bunch next to the block. The bell has a big flange on it also that takes up space.So I will carry on with the next two......
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: