I don't think anyone is calling you crazy or incompetent... we're just saying that by the time you drill a hole out from 1/8" to 1/2" it's easy for the holes to have "walked" out of tolerance a little bit... even for people who are sane and competent.

Michael H. wrote:

I don't think anyone is calling you crazy or incompetent... we're just saying that by the time you drill a hole out from 1/8" to 1/2" it's easy for the holes to have "walked" out of tolerance a little bit... even for people who are sane and competent.

 
X-2
IF your "luck"(or whatever) runs like mine..........you'll be the "only one" thator anything) has ever happened to!
These old Mustangs really have a way of humbling a guy.
We need to get together at the bash or some place and swap stories.
...example......"It was just a 5 minute job and .......a WEEK later I'm still fighting this thang!!" I've said that more times than I want to admit. Hang in there cause..........eventually you "wear-it-out" and stuff finally goes right.
6sally6

Michael H. wrote:

6sally6 wrote:

..."It was just a 5 minute job and .......a WEEK later I'm still fighting this thang!!" ...

Sal, that's the story of my life.  My wife says I'm cursed.
It's so bad that when something actually works out right for me on the first try I get worried that something must be wrong because it was too easy.

 
A-MEN!!
6s6

MarkinSC wrote:

rbtconsultants wrote:

I understand that the holes I drilled could have walked, but what I'm saying is that the large holes in the template did not fit well at all on the mounting bolts of my ucas, old or new. That's not my drilling. When I get to the garage in the next day or two, I'll take pictures.

Bob

Are there different templates for different year mustangs?  May you got the wrong year template?  OR maybe you have the wrong year control arms on the car? or maybe the wrong year control arm shafts? Or maybe your shock towers are out o whack? Or maybe those control arm bolts weren't protruding  straight thru the arm shaft and the shock tower? Maybe they were angled and point outward or pointing inward? 

 
Yes, '67-'73 is not the same as '65/'66.

http://www.mustangdepot.com/graphics/up-cnt-temp.pdf

ultrastang wrote:

MarkinSC wrote:

rbtconsultants wrote:

I understand that the holes I drilled could have walked, but what I'm saying is that the large holes in the template did not fit well at all on the mounting bolts of my ucas, old or new. That's not my drilling. When I get to the garage in the next day or two, I'll take pictures.

Bob

Are there different templates for different year mustangs?  May you got the wrong year template?  OR maybe you have the wrong year control arms on the car? or maybe the wrong year control arm shafts? Or maybe your shock towers are out o whack? Or maybe those control arm bolts weren't protruding  straight thru the arm shaft and the shock tower? Maybe they were angled and point outward or pointing inward? 

 
Yes, '67-'73 is not the same as '65/'66.

http://www.mustangdepot.com/graphics/up-cnt-temp.pdf

Since the begining of this thread I've been wondering if, somehow you have the wrong year plates for your application.
The one's I used from daze were great, even though I used a 1/2 in bit.

Tubo

So, it turns out the bolts in my ORP UCA were not true. I popped out the damaged bolts and pressed new AMK bolts in and it lined up nicely. The template is still very tight but I wouldn't call it defective. I probably should have checked the other UCA at the time but...

So,  Shelby drop completed.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Now to put on the CPP mini subframe LCA kit.

Bob

Steve69 wrote:

 
Should of double and tripled checked before posting this cascade of crap...LOL

You are correct, I should've  checked more, but I did not leap to the assumption that the new UCA was out of spec, and at the time I didn't even realize the mounting studs were replaceable.

As I said, I wouldn't characterize the template as defective. However, I did not say it was perfect either. I still believe that a combination of the template being a little out and the ORP UCA being a little out caused my issues, along with my loss of patience in the heat of the moment. 

Anyway, I just wanted to follow up to let folks know what my issue was, so they can possibly avoid my mistakes/issues. 

Bob
 

rbtconsultants wrote:

I feel like the template I got was not very well made, and created a cascade of crap.  Maybe I should have done things differently, but I bought the template so things would just built on without me having to measure, etc. 
 

Thats to bad that you had problems.  The solution you chose of enlarging the holes should not be an issue.  As to the quality of the template, they are all water-jet cut, in other words CNC computer controlled cutting from a CAD drawing to extremely tight tolerances.  The holes are cut first to insure accuracy and then the outside of the template is cut out.  That eliminates the chance of the metal moving when the holes are being cut.  If the templates were hand made I would understand your insistence that the template was a little off, BUT they are computer cut to insure accuracy.  Using the UCA as way to check accuracy is in and of it self inaccurate.  If the UCA bots are not perfectly parallel (as you discovered) or if the UCA shaft is off slightly it will not line up with my correctly cut template.

rbtconsultants wrote:

I will say that I am certain I am not crazy or incompetent. I'm glad it worked so well for so many others, but the template did not go on to the new UCA at all, and was very tight to the old UCA, to the point I had to hammer it on so I could slide the old UCA into the old holes and drill the new pilot holes.

There is a good reason for that the holes in the template are 1/2" not 17/32"  this is to insure accuracy.  The template is not designed to go on the arm.  It should be bolted in place to drill the piolet holes.  

If the template was designed to go on the arm the holes would have been 17/32" to allow the arm to easily move in and out.

rbtconsultants wrote:

...The 17/32 drill seems to be wasted money since the tolerances are not that critical apparently. 

Just because bigger holes will work does not mean extra size in the holes is the best option.  The idea of using the 17/32" bit is to:

1.  do it the way Ford did it
2.  To allow easy movement when doing an alignment but still minimize the amount of oversize in the holes.

rbtconsultants wrote:

....In hindsight, I would have printed a paper template and used my step drill to get holes that would have allowed for the UCA to go in without hammering and ruining the threads. 

I always tell people to avoid the printed template!!!  its not a a greed thing where I am trying to sell templates. There is not a lot of margin in the templates and bits I sell them more to help people than make money.  My advice is if you want to use a paper template make your own.  All the print out ones I have seen are reproductions of the tony brenda catalog and the drawing is a little off.  I am not saying it wont work, heck its what I used when I did my car BUT the slight inaccuracy increases the chance of things going wrong (had to take a file to mine to make the holes line up correctly). The print out template is worse on the 67-70 drawing than it in the 65 66 template.

In all of this the one thing I don't understand is the choice to hammer something with threads into mounting holes that are obviously not lining up (regardless of the reason for the alignment mismatch).  I am not taking a pot shot here just giving some free advice.  A better option would be to take a rat tail file and slowly enlarge the holes to fit.  This way you can minimize how big the holes get, fix any misalignment and completely avoid damaging your threads.