1st gen Falcon front coil-overs and disc brakes

I'm too tired to do a tech thread, so here's the quick and dirty....

First gen Falcons ('60-'62) were cursed with tiny spindles and 4-lug hubs. Installing disc brakes can be a real chore because you can't even fall back on the Granada swap because of a tiny upper ball-joint. Everywhere I read, the only answer was to swap everything for later model parts. I stewed for a while, then I just took a leap of faith when a pal handed me his 1967 Mustang spindles complete with drum brakes.
I discarded the Falcon upper ball joint, then grabbed the upper ball joint from a Granada. This is probably the same 3 bolt ball joint that has been used since 1963 on the heavier suspensions, but I went Granada to be sure. It fits the Mustang spindle perfectly, but not so much the Falcon upper control arm. I started to graft in some meaty ball joint perch, but noticed it just might fit if... I bobbed about 3/16" off both sides of the ball joint flange and enlarged the center hole on the control arm to index the joint. Then I used the ball joint flange as a template to drill two new holes for the other two bolts. Last, I ground the 1/8" lip off the tip of the control arm so that the ball joint would sit flush. Done. Now you have a choice of disc brake options. I used the Scarebird kit with Lumina calipers and Toyota rotors from Rock Auto. With a new master cylinder, I spent about $280 for the whole brake conversion, including prop valve and hoses.

Now about the coil-overs. After some research, I found a QA1 Ultra Ride model that had a short 10" installed length. After making up a 3/16" filler plate and tabs for the control arm, I modified a '67 Mustang upper shock mount to take a thru-bolt and spacers. The net result was exactly the length I needed for my target ride height. I could have gone lower using the Falcon shock mount, but it would require clearancing the hole in the shock towers to allow a higher mounting position for the shocks. I will add a 3/16 donut under the shock mount to reinforce the lip where it all bolts together. That will distribute the weight in the same location as the original coil spring.

So far, so good. I may get it on the ground this weekend and add more pictures.






parts...
'67 Mustang spindle, hub and top shock mount
'60-'62 Falcon upper and lower control arms
'76 Granada upper ball joint
'60-'73 Ford disc brake kit from Scarebird
Lumina caliper
Toyota rotor
Caddy brake hose

 

Good information. Love the early 'Birds

 

Consider doing the "Shelby Drop" on the upper arms by relocating the mounting holes 1" downward. It made a big difference in the handling on my early Mustang (same geometry as the roundbody Falcon). With your other mods it will corner like a modern car.

 

Isn't a Shelby drop 1 inch lower, AND a quarter inch back?

 

Scotty,
Good idea and tech. I have something for you to think about, just something to think about not saying anything bad about your build.

The spring tower on the Ford with spring over is built with the weight of the body displaced the actual shock mount does not hold up the weight of the car. Even running one the original type of coils a spring tower connector or hoop was employed on a car that was expected to handle to stiffen this up a bit. Maybe a beefier shock mount would help in the long run.

Like I said just something to think about not a put down. I do like the idea good thinking.

 

What size wheels are you going to run? I would like to go to disc brakes but i love my 13's.

 

This car isn't really going for that much performance, but it is worth noting that the upper ball joint is about 1/2" longer than the original, so you get part of that same benefit in lowering the roll center.

 

That's the rough numbers. I have the template here somewhere and it's pretty close. The quarter inch back is to enable realistic caster number. The Falcon runs about 2 degrees stock.

Again, no reason for me to go that way on this particular car.

 

You're absolutely correct, hence the donut reinforcement I mentioned. I'll add pictures when I get those done. It will be installed in the spring pocket from below, bolt through the shock mount and I'll do 6-8 rosette welds through the spring seat into the donut. The shock mount itself will be beefed up with welding in the spacers to locate the upper shock eye. The Mustang shock mount is shorter and heavier than the early Falcon, and it installs with much larger bolts. It's all pretty stout stuff.

 

The wheels pictured are from a 1962 Galaxie, 15" with the Galaxie dog dish caps. We grabbed them to resemble the 13" wheels and caps we took off. Plenty of room for this brake setup.

 

If you keep thinking like that and convince a couple more to do the same I can throw away my sponge.

 

Yeah. 1" down and 1/8" back according to the template I have for the 65-66. On a 67-68 it's just 1" down.


Longer upper ball joints or taller spindles would do it too, but you'd have to shorten the spring to compensate. It is definitely worth doing.

It lowers the roll center and changes the camber curve. That sharpens up steering response and reduces roll. And best of all, it only costs a drill bit.....

 

Great write-up. I need to upgrade my front suspension and brakes bad on my 61. Driving in the rain these last couple of days has been scary.

 

I used to do a similar thing using '69-71 disc brake Fairlane parts. Also switched over the MC, practically fell together. I never got as far as the coil over thing, but really simple enough once you see someone do it, thanks.

The only thing I would have done different would be changing those upper a-arm shafts to get rid of those end caps with the grease fittings. I'm not 100% sure if they're still around, but Moog used to make the shaft conversion kit.

Bob

 

Yep, I have a set on the '67 arms, and another new set under the bench, but these bushings were new 3 years ago and only saw a few hundred miles. I'll save that chore until it's necessary.

I'm glad you guys got a little something from it. It kills me to see places charging $2000 for a conversion like this that is all dressed up with tubular arms and such when all it takes is a little fabrication and the right choice of materials.

 

Looks good Scotty !

 

i see the same thing when i see a "kit" for stupid money...


how can i do this with off-the-shelf parts?


and now i have one more method to use!

the bitch i have with "kits" is replacement parts; break something and you have to go back to the kit guy to get a new one, unless you were able to identify all of it before you installed it. if i make it up from a list of parts i can get off-the-shelf, i can replace parts the same way. no middleman bumping up the price of a standard MOOG part 100%....

 

Nice setup. do you have the QS1 model number and the coil spring model number? I'd like to do that on my 60'.

 

It's 1" down relative to the axis of the upper arm holes, the pocket in the shock tower is angled and if you just moved the arm straight down the pivot cap on the end of the arm would hit the fender. It's still tight on the earlier cars - check the fit of the arm at the point you plan on drilling BEFORE you drill.

On the later ones some move the pivot down even further, as much as 1 3/4in I think, but do your own homework on the side effects. 1" is about as much as the stock ball joint will accommodate in additional angle at full bump unless you cut/reangle the end of the arm or put a wedge under the ball joint. If you want to spend money on aftermarket-reworked arms the Maier and Opentracker arms have this, as well as some reinforcement along the length of the arm.

Mustangs and pre-66 Falcons are also notably lacking in front-body stiffness, there's basically no structure at the top of the fenders, the outer spring cover and the bolt-on fender ARE the structure. The old Ford 'Boss 302 Chassis Modifications' book is a good place to start regarding shock-tower and LCA pivot reinforcement.

Seam-welding of the shock-tower and strut-rod/sway-bar brackets, the reinforcement plate added to the bottom of the shock tower inside the fenderwell (early Falcons like the OP's were a bit different here), the 'export' brace and 'Monte Carlo' bar triangulating the tops of the towers (illustrations based on '69-70 structure, interpret as necessary for earlier cars):

http://www.milleredp.com/~jem/image/boss302/DSCN1559.JPG

Lower crossmember tied to the LCA pivots (this is harder on the earlier cars, crossmember designs vary, on most I'm familiar with a longer pivot bolt will actually hit the crossmember, you need to notch/drill it and put a tube for the bolt to pass thru or cook up a new crossmember):

http://www.milleredp.com/~jem/image/boss302/DSCN1546.JPG

 

Falcon's require a much shorter shock than a Mustang, as a result of the very short shock towers. They come up about 4" lower in the early Falcon than a Mustang.

The shock is the QA1(Summit part# HAL-ALN3855P). It has a 9.75-10.25" ride height, with a compressed length of 8.625" and an extended length of 11.25". Any coil-over having about the same specs could be adapted. A longer installed length (ride height) would just require a taller top mount.

The springs can be tricky. A small block V8 Mustang would use anything from about 400 lbs for casual daily driver use, up to 600 lbs for a full race kidney buster. I have the added complication of having swapped in a 2000 model 2.5L Lima motor from a Ford Ranger. It's an iron block four cylinder with an aluminum head and an aluminum 5 speed. Based on the static ride height with the stock springs, it weighs a couple hundred pounds less than the original six and three speed that I took out. It was sitting 4-5" higher than stock.
I ran a lot of math in calculating my spring rates, but got lucky and stumbled on a site that had a nice calculator specific to all the intricacies of IFS. I had settled on a 375 lb rate, but decided to err on the firm side with a 400 lb spring. Any 2.5" ID spring of the correct length can be used. I ordered Summit part# SUM-72-5400.

It has yet to be seen how well that will work. Here's the link to the calculator: http://www.ridetech.com/info/spring-rate-calculator/

Study that tool carefully and try several scenarios to see how it affects the spring rates. The calculator will spit out several options for each scenario. It is crucial that you enter the correct spring length, too. These short shocks only use a 7"-8" spring.

 

It also looks like the bottom of your coilover is further out on the upper arm than the stock bottom pivot would be, which affects the leverage ratio of the arm, your 400lb spring might well be equal to what you'd get with a 500lb spring in the stock location.

 

Great post! +1 on everything JEM said in his post.

You can make the early Falcon/Mustang/Fairlane suspensions work fairly well with not too many changes. You're not going to go seriously play with ZR1's or M3's but you can have a fun, stable combination that works very respectably at the track and is quite liveable on the street. I open tracked my '69 428CJ Mach I at Watkins Glen for the better part of 10 years. It was somewhat neutral in the corners and when the front tires went away toward the end of the sessions all you needed was add a little more throttle to get her pointed where it needed to go. The Shelby drop (more than 1"), use of aluminum and urethane bushings in certain locations front and rear and good shocks were the biggies.

 

Great tech mate , so in theory doing the Shelby drop would add approx 1" to 1 1/2" to the spring length yeah ?

Been looking into doing something like this on my 65 XP Falcon ute , going to run a 351w

 

No, What you are seeing is the suspension at full droop. The lower pivot is almost exactly where it was on the original spring perch. The new bolt is aligned with the old pivot shaft position in both planes.

 

Not quite. The Shelby drop lowers the spring seat about 1/2" relative to the top perch, so it does drop the car a tad, but the big value is in the lower roll center from pointing the inside end of both control arms more toward the ground.

The natural spring change to go with it is to use a shorter spring that has a higher rate. The fastest way to get that, though somewhat imprecise, is to cut a coil off the stock spring.


My real ambition here was to compensate for the much lighter motor with an adjustable ride height suspension. I just couldn't stomach a $2000 kit. I have less than $400 in this suspension, less than $300 in the new brakes.

 

My ute has already had the Shelby drop done & I also had it done in this old bird as well , for those who have not driven a car with the mod I can tell you I makes a whole different car out of it - Way better !!!

 

Lot's of love for the Shelby Drop around here, huh? Oh well, back to the subject of this thread...

This is the final mock up before I take it all apart for paint. I still need to make a couple of minor adjustments, but it's turned out quite well. The photos are with the suspension loaded and darn close to ride height. I expect to be cranking the screw up about 1/2"-1" after I add all the weight of the front sheetmetal back in.


A better view with the control arm at ride height and the reinforcment welded in.

I used the original 3/8" shock mount bolts from the '67 Mustang. They are high quality and in good shape. I just put a couple of short welds on the heads of each one since the square neck has nothing to engage any longer. I seriously doubt they will ever need replacement. The shock will be more centered in the hole on final assembly. I just need to add the washers to both sides of the top bushing to keep it from walking around on the spacers.


A better view of the lower pivot point at ride height. It's almost exactly where the OE pivot point was located. I will also clearance the tabs a bit to keep the shock body off them when the bushing gives way.


The original ball joint used the center hole and the two empty holes seen here. The new ball joint was trimmed at both corners, then installed with the center bolt in order to locate and drill the two outer holes. YOu can also see where I clearanced the lip to allow the ball joint to sit flush.



Spacers installed and welded at each end to the mount. Washers will be installed on both sides of the bushing to keep it in the correct location. The rosette welds around the top of the shock tower were made in 5/16" holes, to the top of the reinforcement plate installed from below. The spacing is even with the bolts, three in the wide spaces and one more in the narrow space.

 

Mate this is awsome , can't wait to here how it performs on the road !!
The shock towers in my ute have been cut back for more room for the extractors , I was never happy with the way it was done & am going to redo it myself this time ( if ya want something done right do it yourself ) & be able to get more clearence with this mod - think I may be able to get away with extractors for a 302w on my 351w
Love your work !!!

 

Thanks! I hope you get some use out of it. It should get back on the ground this weekend, but I'll be diving in to repair a leaky cowl after that. It may be a bit before it's back on the road.

How much room do you need? Have you considered milling the flanges on your exhaust manifolds, er... extractors? You could angle mill them to pull them closer to the block, or just straight mill them if you only need a few mm on either side. Also remember that the shock towers narrow at the top. Raising the motor a tad can help too, especially combined with milling the manuifolds, etc.

 

Sorry mate what we call extractors you guys call headers lol .
I'm doing a shock tower mod similar to the one in this video attached but the one they do does away with the upper control arms but you'll get the idea , similar to Boss 429 Mustang I guess !
I have to trial fit the 351w again to see how much room I need for the pipes !
I have a set of headers to fit a 302w with the stock towers so I'm hoping they will fit with the tower mods !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDFke4twWI4