The Official SAAC Forum
October 24, 2014, 09:07:44 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Login Register Search New Photo Gallery Calendar Contact Chat  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: UCA relocation. Just to be sure before I start drilling....  (Read 4656 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TorkTek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


Email
« on: January 11, 2012, 04:15:34 PM »

perfectly good shock towers. Looks like the subject has been touched on below. However I want to be sure before I proceed. Thanks

The 1" lowering of the upper contol arm will not bind the (correctly made) upper ball joint with NO ball joint wedge...?? I am using Raybestos 500-1015B ball joints.

All (most) original Shelbys have this modification made using the factory ball joints...??

This will lower the car about 1/2" since the spring perch is about half way between the upper ball joint (not moved) and the UCA mount that moved 1"...??

I am using the 2005 Mustang V-6 wheels 16x7 that looks sort of like the Haldibrands (1" spacers), 215-65-16 maypops on rims now. I have factory power steering
(hey it works and doesn't leak) and am using non-stock rubber bushing UCA shaft kits, new LCAs, new urethane strut rod bushings, new urethane sway bar
bushings/end links, the spring perches are still in tact and not missing any pieces.  My goal is a comfortable stable feel to the ride. A little on the resto-mod side.
No race track or off road use.

Logged
94Cobra
Hero Member
*****
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 874



« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2012, 04:40:55 PM »

I have read that use of urethane strut rod bushings can cause the original strut rods to break, which can lead to an accident.  Be careful. 

If your goal is to lower the car, why not just cut the coil springs?  If you replace all of your front suspension and bring it all up to new spec, the classic Mustangs handle quite well.  I just replaced my entire front suspension on my convertible and am extremely happy with how well the car handles now.  I used rebuilt, original upper/lower arms and OEM tie rods and idler arm.  I think the KYB-GR2 shocks help quite a bit also. 





Logged
zray
Hero Member
*****
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156


« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2012, 05:08:21 PM »

"........ I am using the 2005 Mustang V-6 wheels 16x7 that looks sort of like the Haldibrands (1" spacers), 215-65-16 maypops on rims now..........."

I used those wheels for a while so I could run Goodyear F1 GS-D3 tires (fantastic tire ! ). I just blacked out some of the spoke area.




 I had to use 35mm adaptors in front in order to clear UCA. Back wheel clearance not that critical (used 30mm adaptors). Be sure your adaptors are high quality like the eibach brand.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EIB-904350013/

The cheap cast aluminum adaptors may not be able to handle this HIGHLY stressed area. Losing a wheel at speed can ruin your day.

Z.

Logged


'65K code
'66 Galaxie
TorkTek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


Email
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 10:04:47 PM »

I would prefer not to change the spring rate. I am not practiced at cutting springs. I am sure I could figure it out. However, the 1" drop on the UCA creates a geometry with lower center of gravity lines on the front suspension. Lower CG is almost always a good thing. It may be that cutting the spring does that some as well. Just haven't seen anything on it. Lowering may be a plus as I don't like the squatted rear end look on many older stock Mustangs. If I lower a half inch with the UCA move and raise an in inch on the wheels then I will have improved ground clearance and handling. I will check the ease of movement of the strut rod after it is tight up front and make sure it can travel with the A-arm(before A-arm is in).

Hey Z thats a nice look with those wheels.  The blacking looks like something I might do. I am thinking that the 68 A-arm has more room for the rim/tire at the top ball joint. Plus the extra inch on the rim radius may also help.. I think the 65-66 or so has a longer projection A-arm, from the ball joint towards the tire. The wheels now have a 1" offset. I thought that was about stock for a 68.. Just have to check everythng on assembly.

« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 11:53:16 PM by TorkTek » Logged
TorkTek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


Email
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2012, 07:44:52 PM »

Some progress on the suspension. That setup with lowers, strut rods and small sway bar is snug already with no spindles or uppers

Some materials are blue instead of being correct... Power steering lines aren't either



* Img_00251.jpg (8.09 KB, 800x600 - viewed 177 times.)

* Img_00252.jpg (55.2 KB, 800x600 - viewed 163 times.)

* Img_00253.jpg (59.9 KB, 800x600 - viewed 144 times.)

* Img_00255.jpg (54.42 KB, 800x600 - viewed 160 times.)
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 07:59:36 PM by TorkTek » Logged
TorkTek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


Email
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2012, 12:48:42 AM »

I have set the a-arm and caliper in temporary to check the flexible brake line fit. Spring, perch and spring tool will set in place THEN upper a-arm. As aoon as a few bolts are in place I don't have to worry about losing an eye or a finger. The one pic turned out ok even though daylight was fading fast.



* Img_00258.jpg (54.1 KB, 800x600 - viewed 122 times.)

* Img_00260.jpg (124.26 KB, 800x600 - viewed 127 times.)

* Img_00261.jpg (46.83 KB, 800x600 - viewed 133 times.)
Logged
94Cobra
Hero Member
*****
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 874



« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2012, 07:32:50 AM »

Lookin' good!  Did you lower the upper arms yet? 

Logged
TorkTek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


Email
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2012, 11:46:32 AM »

For one I haven't found my template. Mainly though, on the bay side of the shock tower, there is a piece of reinforcing. (Small block chassis) If I lower one inch, it looks like the nut may straddle the edge of this metal. If I don't build 4 special washers, the bolt could bend or deform when torqued.  Bent bolt = about to break bolt.  

Additionally, I am kind of sure that these are small block springs.  One day I may up the motor to a 428 big block. That will lower the front end some... I have increased the weight already with the 351w vs 289 and added A/C. Hopefully I can set the alignment with some negative camber to help with the turning geometry. (Tires in at the top is negative camber I think). I just don't like the look of one of these Mustangs parked or driving with the wheel cut hard and it looks like the outside wheel is about to fall over. Still thinkn...

« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 04:31:06 PM by TorkTek » Logged
TorkTek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


Email
« Reply #8 on: January 29, 2012, 10:22:12 PM »

I have set the camber at -1.5. I still have to add fenders glass and doors.. May have to reset if it changes much wtih the additional weight. Caster is about +3. Toe in about 3/16 The wheels look ok at full lock. I don't see the tip over of the outside wheel. Still alot of detail to do. Aircraft wire, blue on the tie rods, could add some paint daubs here and there I guess, oh and the exhaust. I just put short pipes on the shorty headers to keep the valves from getting a cold draft. Done with the underside for now till I can get a better master cylinder on it and test drive....



* Img_00297.jpg (82.27 KB, 800x600 - viewed 152 times.)

* Img_00300.jpg (50.91 KB, 800x600 - viewed 127 times.)
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 10:26:38 PM by TorkTek » Logged
supershifter2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2012, 11:58:04 AM »

lowering the uca 1" will not bind the factory ball joint and no wedge kit is needed. 1" isnt enough for best suspension performance BUT its all you can go with stock parts and that why Arning only did 1". 1.375" is ideal BUT that requires either a negative wedge kit or modified factory uca's that www.meacomotorsport.com does. i know this post is old but it was resurected and i thought i would add some info.

Logged
shlby66
Hero Member
*****
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1407


Email
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2012, 02:14:44 PM »




       www.maecomotorsport.com,  will work a lot better. Wink

Logged
supershifter2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 280



« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2012, 07:55:34 PM »



       www.maecomotorsport.com,  will work a lot better. Wink
yep , Jims moddified a few sets of upper and lowers for me, a-arms that is ! i still got my own teeth somewhere around here ! Sad-) < well thats the best i could do ! one tooth !

Logged
stickshift
Hero Member
*****
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1823


« Reply #12 on: June 28, 2012, 06:16:20 AM »

lowering the uca 1" will not bind the factory ball joint and no wedge kit is needed. 1" isnt enough for best suspension performance BUT its all you can go with stock parts and that why Arning only did 1". 1.375" is ideal BUT that requires either a negative wedge kit or modified factory uca's that www.meacomotorsport.com does. i know this post is old but it was resurected and i thought i would add some info.

Absolutely correct. The Shelby 1" UCA lowering is a compromise because of the ball joint.

The ideal is to have the center lines of the lower control arm as horizontal as possible. This makes the oil pan very close to the ground. Too close for stock springs.

Mine are lowered 1.5" but you need to use ball joint shims with that. You are also going to need to do something with bumpsteer. It will be brutal if you don't.

Every car reacts a little differently but  the roads are so bad here, when you hit a buckled road joint or the equivalent, it felt like the car was going to do a sudden 90 degree turn.

I'm using the 680# springs from the Boss 302 Chassis modification booklet recommendation and I'd recommend them over the stock springs. They are very comfortable and you eliminate the probability that you will bottom out on your oil pan at speed with the stock springs which is something to consider.

Before you even go and say I'm not going to track this car, let me define my term "at speed" as anything over about 50mph. Are you going to go faster then that or just back this thing onto and off the trailer? If so, you need the better springs.

Most of this I needed to learn the hard way since there was no one around who knew anything about these modifications on a Mustang when I did them.

Admittedly I can be very stubborn too and learned much through tough love. It may be tied to the type of person who is attracted to Shelbys? It seems to be very common around them?  Smiley

Granted it is difficult to know who and when to listen to so I suppose you are going to have to learn by your own mistakes.

For you to get the correct results from this modification, you can not pick and choose what parts you want to use. You will find that there were additional parts that you NEEDED to do also. It tends to be all or nothing, and the stock springs are not the way to go with this.

You definitely can and probably should play with various alignments to get the car where you wanted but much of this stuff has already been discovered and you can save yourself a lot of trial and error.

« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 06:48:49 AM by stickshift » Logged
TorkTek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


Email
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2012, 07:58:51 PM »

I guess I am staying mostly stock for now. Mainly due to budget.. I do intend to drive it as often as possible and not doom it to a trailer. Those custom a-arms look nice. Probably going to a big block will mandate the front spring change. Stock springs are probably 500#/inch..??  Pushing down with my weight on the front doesn't yield much movement. The pic above does show the current lower a-arm position and pan clearance. Sounds like lowering the uca leads to or worsens the bump steer problem..?? and should include wedges and new springs as well. That's another grand with control arms.... Good info and thanks for posting.

Interestingly I am about to finish putting glass in it and should be able to get tags soons. Cool one  I was able to drive it around the storage building where it is kept. I launched it and was suprised how quick I got to the end of the parking lot and I braked/dove it into the turn and it felt solid.. The rear has an extra leaf that is full length, urethane front leaf bushings and subframe connectors. The rear may ride like a buckboard on the highway. Not sure yet. The rake looks good to me, up slightly in the rear. Won't know for sure till all the glass/doors and fenders are back on. Then, some cruise time on the favorite EMPTY back road, to see if it gives me an unexpected fright check...

« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 08:00:22 PM by TorkTek » Logged
stickshift
Hero Member
*****
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1823


« Reply #14 on: July 22, 2012, 06:53:53 AM »

I personally think that the extra long leaf in the rear is the correct way to go. I added it. With the Koni shock in the rear, yes it will be too stiff. I found the Comfort Ride shock to be perfect for the rear, and the Koni just right for the front.

If you do some research, you will actually find that Shelby did a shock project for the 66 GT350's with Cure Ride. They wound up just on the factory built drag race cars but the part number doesn't designate that. It designates a 65-70 Mustang.

If it bothers you that it is black, then paint it Chevy engine orange and put a Koni decal on it and everyone will think you are running a Koni shock. The Cure Ride in the rear is the better shock with the extra rear leaf.

You will also have a car that looks correct in the rear rather then the original, "you need new rear springs" look that the car had new.  Wink

Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Site Customized by DragonFly Designs StatsPowered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!