FYI FORD - MustangSteve's Ford Mustang Forum
The Internet's Most Knowledgeable Classic Mustang Information
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT CLASSIC FORD MUSTANGS, YOU HAVE COME TO THE RIGHT PLACE!
MustangSteve has over 30 years of Mustang experience, having owned 30 of them and restored several others. With the help of other Mustangers, this site is dedicated to helping anyone wanting to restore or modify their Mustang.... THERE ARE NO DUMB QUESTIONS!!!!!
Visit MustangSteve's web site to view some of my work and find details for:
FYIFORD Contributors' PICTURES - Power Brake Retrofit Kits for 65-66 Stangs - Classic Mustang FAQ's by MustangSteve - How to wire in a Duraspark Ignition - Mustang Ride Height Pictures and Descriptions - Steel Bushings to fit Granada Spindles to Mustang Tie Rods - Visit my EBAY store MustangSteve Performance - How to Install Granada Disc Brakes MustangSteve's Disc Brake Swap Page - FYIFORD Acronyms for guide to all the acronyms used on this page - FYIFORD Important information and upcoming events

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

1/18/2018 11:16 AM  #1


Lower control arm question

Lately I remember when I installed the lower control arms on my 67 coupe and I remembered the bushing being wider on the new ones which made it harder to get into the pocket to put in the camber bolts. I had aligned after finishing and it wants wander going down the road now. I been wondering if that may be caused an issue when the guy was doing the alignment to cause it not to be correct. Does anybody on here have any experience with this?

 

1/18/2018 12:47 PM  #2


Re: Lower control arm question

What were you alignment specs? Not enough caster or toe not right can make it wander. I assume since control arms are new everything else is in great shape too. I always set the old Mustangs to as much caster as I can get including playing with all the parts to get it. Strut rods need to be set the same side to side as well. Do you have the Shelby drop?

 

1/19/2018 6:00 AM  #3


Re: Lower control arm question

Typically new bushings seem wider than the ones they replace because the old rubber has shrunk and dried out.  I've always found lower control arm bushings to be a bit of a friction fit in the pocket, often requiring a couple of taps with a deadblow hammer to get fully seated to where I could line up the bolt.

I don't think this is your problem.  More than likely, DC is on the right track.  I would find out what alignment specs were used, because if they are the original Ford specs they are totally wrong because we no longer have bias ply tires.  Find an alignment shop that will align the car to the specs you provide.  Without the Shelby drop I prefer specs as follows: as much positive caster as possible, 1-1.5 degree negative camber, and 1/16-1/8" toe in.

With the Shelby drop you need less camber, so dial that back to 0-0.5 degrees negative with all other specs the same. 

The Shelby drop does two things to improve handling dramatically.  It improves the camber curve, so there is less positive camber gain during suspension cycling, which keeps the tire contact patch as large as possible during cornering for better grip.  AND, it relocates the upper A-arm rearward to provide more positive caster.  Positive caster keeps the car pointed straight ahead and reduces the tendency of the front end to wander, especially at higher speeds.  The stock geometry only allows for maybe 2-3 degrees positive caster, and that can only be accomplished by shortening the strut rods, which taken too far also causes all kinds of problems in the front end like binding and strange steering geometry. 

Long story short, the Shelby drop is a very worthwhile modification, even for a a cruiser.  Without it the car can still be aligned and handle reasonably well, but its going to react like a 50 year old car.  A big issue with these cars is that they are older than the parents of the kids doing the alignments nowadays.  The methods are becoming a bit of a lost art because most cars today use strut type suspensions with totally different methods of adjustment. 

 

1/19/2018 7:56 AM  #4


Re: Lower control arm question

TKOPerformance wrote:

Typically new bushings seem wider than the ones they replace because the old rubber has shrunk and dried out.  I've always found lower control arm bushings to be a bit of a friction fit in the pocket, often requiring a couple of taps with a deadblow hammer to get fully seated to where I could line up the bolt.

I don't think this is your problem.  More than likely, DC is on the right track.  I would find out what alignment specs were used, because if they are the original Ford specs they are totally wrong because we no longer have bias ply tires.  Find an alignment shop that will align the car to the specs you provide.  Without the Shelby drop I prefer specs as follows: as much positive caster as possible, 1-1.5 degree negative camber, and 1/16-1/8" toe in.

With the Shelby drop you need less camber, so dial that back to 0-0.5 degrees negative with all other specs the same. 

The Shelby drop does two things to improve handling dramatically.  It improves the camber curve, so there is less positive camber gain during suspension cycling, which keeps the tire contact patch as large as possible during cornering for better grip.  AND, it relocates the upper A-arm rearward to provide more positive caster.  Positive caster keeps the car pointed straight ahead and reduces the tendency of the front end to wander, especially at higher speeds.  The stock geometry only allows for maybe 2-3 degrees positive caster, and that can only be accomplished by shortening the strut rods, which taken too far also causes all kinds of problems in the front end like binding and strange steering geometry. 

Long story short, the Shelby drop is a very worthwhile modification, even for a a cruiser.  Without it the car can still be aligned and handle reasonably well, but its going to react like a 50 year old car.  A big issue with these cars is that they are older than the parents of the kids doing the alignments nowadays.  The methods are becoming a bit of a lost art because most cars today use strut type suspensions with totally different methods of adjustment. 

What TKO said! I do my own alignment so I know exactly where everything is. It's really not hard. Anyway a couple problems, the factory alignment specs just plain suck. The other problem is with radial tire's contact patch is farther back then a bias since it has a softer side wall. This reduces net caster even more. Another problem is with shops and their computer alignment machines. Not a problem with the machine but the operator. I don't know how many posts on various forums where someone will go to a shop and the shop will either totally ignore the new specs and do what they want or just not do it because their machine doesn't have the specs for a vintage Mustang. So that's part of the problem. Understanding some of the faults with these cars and fixing them is a big, big help. As TKO said if you don't have the Arning drop, do it! It's a free modification that makes a huge difference. It's the main cornerstone in any suspension kit. The only reason not to do it is if it's a concourse show car. You may want to think about the eccentric eliminator kit from either Opentracker Racing or Street or Track. The stock eccentrics used to set camber can slip. Just the other day I was reading a post on another forum where the person's 67 was severely wearing the inside of the tire's right after alignment. He posted the specs and they were fine. He had like 2* caster and .5* negative camber on both sides. The problem was the shop that did the work missed the worn eccentrics. They slipped and threw the alignment out. The second shop found it and fixed it, they knew exactly what to look for. With the eliminator kit, it's just a series of plates with various camber settings. Once in the camber is never going to slip or change. I would highly recommend this. Next, even though caster is set by the the strut and not shims, there's absolutely no reason why you could use shims for additional caster, lots of people do that. My last comment. If it's in your budget, invest in a set of adjustable struts with the Heim joints that Opentracker or SoT sells. Without the rubber biscuits compressing erratically the car will drive a whole lot better and be a lot more stable under braking because you alignment isn't going all over the place. With a few changes, these cars can really drive pretty well.


I'm not a complete idiot.....pieces are missing. Tom
 

1/19/2018 5:51 PM  #5


Re: Lower control arm question

I did the upper control arm drop and had the guy do it to the specs that daze has on his website. I instructed the guy not to adjust to factory specs

     Thread Starter
 

1/19/2018 5:56 PM  #6


Re: Lower control arm question

Also, it was metal sleeve in the bushing that I was talking about that was wider on the new one compared to the old one

     Thread Starter
 

1/20/2018 6:19 AM  #7


Re: Lower control arm question

Where did the bushings come from would be my first question?

The metal sleeve is supposed to lock in to the pocket and not move.  The idea with a rubber bushing is that its bonded to the outer shell and inner sleeve, neither of which move.  When the control arm needs to move up or down it does so by twisting the rubber.  So again, it should be a tight fit, but are you sure its wider?  Did you measure the old and new?  What was the difference? 

What Huskinhano said about the eccentric eliminators is great advice.  When racing they used to tack weld the eccentrics in place to keep them from moving under load.  The eliminator kit gives you this security without having to grind the welds when you need to get the car aligned.

Likewise, a shim or two to improve caster is also perfectly acceptable.  You can't adjust that strut rod too much or you get the negatives I was noting, and shimming avoids this.  '65-'66 cars do not have adjustable strut rods, so all adjustments are made with shims.  Cars built when manual steering was standard typically don't have a lot of positive caster adjustment built in, because it makes a manual steering car harder to steer.  Typically these cars were set with 0 degrees of caster, or negative caster from the factory to ease steering effort. 

I also do my own alignments.  Its not that hard, and I bought about $300 worth of tools to do it.  With alignments at $90 each they pay for themselves quickly.  I never have to wonder where my specs are.  My car is actually still aligned from about 15 years ago when I first learned to do it.  I didn't have the tools back then I have now, but I was able to get the car to handle much better than how it was aligned by a shop.  It took a lot of time (the big benefit of the right tools is it takes less time), but using a tape measure, an angle finder, two 4x4s, and a 10' length of straight angle iron I was able to greatly improve what two or three shops over the years couldn't seem to correct with trained operators and expensive machines. 

 

1/20/2018 7:38 AM  #8


Re: Lower control arm question

They were brand new moog lower control arms straight out of the box and I just remembered the metal sleeve part of the bushing was a little wider. How much I can't remember. That was a year ago.

     Thread Starter
 

1/20/2018 8:40 PM  #9


Re: Lower control arm question

Here's what my old ones looked like. They were Ford service replacement. How well do you think the car drove? Not very well. A mono bearing is going to make a big difference in ow the car responds.


Last edited by Huskinhano (1/20/2018 8:45 PM)


I'm not a complete idiot.....pieces are missing. Tom
 

1/20/2018 9:33 PM  #10


Re: Lower control arm question

I was going to install a mono ball in the LCA, but then figured while in at it I might as fab some control arms.


Bob. 69 Mach 1, 393W, SMOD Toploader, Armstrong  steering, factory AC.
 

Board footera


REMEMBER!!! When posting a question about your Mustang or other Ford on this forum, BE SURE to tell us what it is, what year, engine, etc so we have enough information to go on.