Register now to get rid of these ads!

Features Falcons done right?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by guiseart, Nov 20, 2005.

  1. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    The control arms are the same specs from half-way through 1961 to 1966. These interchange with the 1965 to 1966 Mustang.

    Early than that they have the same dimensions, but smaller ball joints.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  2. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Last edited: Dec 28, 2020
    loudbang likes this.
  3. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    I think that might be the issue tbh, I believe I have 65 struts, they have the bend at the tip of them to stop the knuckle.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    Thor1 and loudbang like this.
  4. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Didn't let me attach the pictures before. I know the uppers are the 65 with larger ball joints because the spindles are V8 ones for the front disk swap. 20201230_082959.jpeg 20201230_082933.jpeg

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
  5. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    I can turn my '60 around on two-lane city street. You are hitting the steering stops way too soon.

    Which spindles are on the car?
     
    loudbang and Phoenix24 like this.
  6. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    From what I remember they are v8 spindles from either a mustang or Falcon. I did a 5 lug disk conversion and the spindles came on the car with some big drums that where not set up right. I believe we went off the Falcon enterprises suggested set up and bought new steering and suspension for a 65 Falcon. The upper a arms where used and came in the trunk, but the ball joints, lower a arms, and all the steering is new stuff. The old strut rods where bent and so we ended up buying 65 ones that had the tip at the end they used as a stopper. I still have the old bent metal pieces that they originally used as a stopper on hand, and I'm thinking those probably where allot more inboard allowing for more angle.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  7. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    All of your parts are good. Your problem is in the stops, and it will be easy to fix.

    V8 spindles up to 1966 work from a Falcon or a Mustang., but those are all drum brake.

    Discs were not available on a Mustang until 1967, and those spindles are different.

    Can you take a picture of the back side of the spindle, just above the bottom ball joint?
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2020
    loudbang, Thor1 and brEad like this.
  8. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    This is a Granada spindle in black, next to a full Falcon/Mustang setup on the right.

    Note the number of bolts holding the brakes on. On the Falcon/Mustang it is 4. On the Granada, it is 3.

    [​IMG]

    If you do not have Granada spindles, you will likely need to cut off the built-in stop on the current radius rods, and run the original steering stops.

    Those might require trimming, too, but that will be minor.
     
    brEad and loudbang like this.
  9. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    This is a 1965 V8, on the steering stop. Check out the angle of the backing plate, versus where your wheels stop:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Note the different dimensions of the V8 versus 6-cylinder stops. The V8 ones appear to be shorter on the "business end". The V8 ones tail end is even with the bend in the stamping of the lower control arm (looks off because of the viewing angle). The 6-cylinder ones are longer, but can be cut down.
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2020
    brEad, loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  10. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    I got a conversion for the drum to disk from csrp, and it is not a Granada spindle for sure. I was able to look at my order history and I have the 63 strut rods, not 65 like I thought (sorry for the confusion). I think that I will probably do just that and cut off the built in and use the bolt on ones. Thanks you guys! It will probably be a little bit before I do it, my grandpa is the one with all the tools and the car is about 40 miles away at my house. The 4.11 gears don't like the highway lol

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  11. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Oh wow, I'll have to make sure I have the right ones before I do it. I have a guy that parts Falcons out kinda close to me, so I'll have to give him a call if mine aren't the right ones!

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  12. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Always easiest to have the correct stops. The stops on the current radius arms can be cut off with a regular cutoff wheel on a grinder. Just go slowly, and let the tool do the work.
     
    loudbang, Thor1 and Phoenix24 like this.
  13. Sorry Gimpy, you missed this one...

    Discs were available on the Mustang starting with the '65 models, then Ford added them to the Cougar, Fairlane and Comet option list in '67. These used the V8 drum brake spindles and featured non-floating 4 piston calipers. Ford had issues with wheel bearing runout (mostly from lack of proper maintenance/adjustment) causing pulsing pedals and discontinued them after '67, switching to a single-piston floating design in '68 that used a dedicated disc-only spindle. These first versions used 'spring' caliper returns and developed a reputation for uneven/angled pad wear, so Ford switched to a 'sliding' design (with another new spindle design) around '73 to fix that. The 4-piston discs were arguably better brakes if the wheel bearings were kept up, but there came a time when you couldn't get any replacement parts for them (had a '67 Cougar that I had to have the rotors turned to less than minimum spec because I couldn't find any). Stainless Steel Brakes got their start by reproducing these starting in the '80s for the Mustang restorers, and these could be retrofitted to most any '60s/early '70s Ford intermediate with V8-style drum brake spindles. Rather expensive though, so many opted for junkyard single piston conversions, using the Granada/Maverick brakes as these used the 'better' sliding calipers but still had the early '60s spindle architecture.
     
    brEad, loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  14. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    coneman, Oilguy, loudbang and 3 others like this.
  15. pitalplace
    Joined: Jun 25, 2006
    Posts: 34

    pitalplace
    Member

  16. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 20,495

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    In my 51-years, I have never seen a regular production 65-66 Mustang with factory disc brakes. Not once, ever, and I have seen thousands, and worked on hundreds. Not one single one seen. I have been told that they exist, but have no concrete proof.

    And no, Shelbys don't count. Once Carrol's boys took hold of the car, all bets were off.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2020
    Thor1, loudbang and Deuces like this.
  17. finn
    Joined: Jan 25, 2006
    Posts: 994

    finn
    Member

    The four piston disc brake setup was standard on the GT package, available with any v8 engine in the 65 Mustang ' and available as a stand alone option on any v8 without the GT package.

    We’re getting a little off topic mentioning the “M” word, though.
     
    Thor1, Deuces and loudbang like this.
  18. Deuces
    Joined: Nov 3, 2009
    Posts: 22,128

    Deuces
    Member
    from Michigan

    How's about them Lions???.... :rolleyes::mad::(
     
    gimpyshotrods, Thor1 and loudbang like this.
  19. So, you were born in '69? That would explain why you've never seen one with front discs. They weren't a real common option but they did exist. Ford offered them more widely in '67 (maybe trying to dump inventory?) before switching to single piston. But service parts for them almost completely dried up by the late '70s for whatever reason, and the owners that actually drove the cars were forced to either convert to drums or switch to a newer disc set-up which didn't have a sterling reputation either (the sliding caliper version wasn't in the yards in any great numbers yet). I had a '67 Cougar and all I could find at the time was a caliper seal kit and the master cylinder. No caliper pistons, and the real pisser was no rotors. The rotors were the deal-breaker; I managed to get mine turned to below minimum spec one last time but most places wouldn't do it, leaving most owners with little choice. Or attempt to find good used rotors, but the restorers (mostly the Shelby guys) had snatched most of them up by then and paying outrageous prices for them. I looked into this, but at $250 per rotor with the only guarantee was that it would meet minimum thickness spec, I passed. In any case, it would turn into a pretty expensive brake job, converting to drums was the cheap way out.

    Enter Stainless Steel Brakes. Seeing the market prices these guys were paying for parts, they stepped into the void in the early '80s IIRC and started reproducing them. Originally the kit was over $1K, and separate replacement parts weren't available. Still too much money for the daily driver crowd, but enough traffic to keep them at it. Plus they were a easy bolt-on conversion that didn't require a spindle change in most cases, so got traction with the non-Mustang crowd. Eventually they offered separate parts, although they were still more expensive than the post-'67 bits.

    Apparently they have sold enough of them that parts are now available from 'regular' parts houses. The calipers are still relatively expensive though; Rock auto lists them (for the '65) for between $80 and $90, not including the $40 to $65 core charge. Rotors are now $25-$30 each, a far cry from $250.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2020
  20. agshelby
    Joined: Jan 6, 2010
    Posts: 547

    agshelby
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Kelsey Hayes disc brakes were optional on 65 & 66 mustangs. I’ve had two 66 mustangs with them. There are also vendors who sell reproduction KH brakes for mustangs and I have also done this simple conversion myself, which re-uses the drum spindles.






    Sent from my iPad using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
  21. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Happy new year! Can't wait to start building up my little Falcon! Though, I think the guy today was the third one to call it a Fairlane...

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    Thor1, loudbang and Deuces like this.
  22. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    So my engine is starting to make some noise on top and I'm concerned that the guy built it as carelessly as the rest of the car. I've been looking into getting a roller 302 from an explorer, but I keep getting the itch to see if a 351 would fit in there. Afterall, it should be about the same price to refresh either engine.... So that got me looking and I've seen some people measure the clearance from the shock tower to the inside of the springs, and notch them in order to clear the headers. I figured this with coilovers might work better if anything as well. Has anyone done this? Ik there was someone else on here before looking to swap a 351 in here, but at the time I'd only seen people do it with mustang 2 subframes, now this is somewhat feasible with stock stuff

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  23. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Here's what I'm talking about, the latter picture was done with an ls swap, but the notching is what I'm looking at Screenshot_20210311-203305.jpeg 20130827_205513_zps06be35d7.jpeg

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    loudbang and Thor1 like this.
  24. Unclebud
    Joined: Mar 13, 2021
    Posts: 3

    Unclebud

    Does anyone have pictures of a 60-63 with a mini tub? I've been searching for a couple days now and all the pages I read link to a forum that's shut down now. Im picking up a 62-63 4 door falcon to replace my bronco and I'm getting my parts list together for it. My main concern being fatter rear tires to tame my engine I'm pulling from my bronco.
     
  25. It's a very tough install... I've seen several 351W swaps into early Falcons/Comets with the OEM-style suspension and I would hesitate to call any of them successful. The main obstacle is the upper control arm mounting bolts; those are right where you want to run exhaust. Even doing the 'Shelby Drop' doesn't quite get them out of the way. Custom headers will be a requirement and spark plug access will suck big-time.

    The early Falcon/Comet engine compartment is about 1.5" narrower than the Mustang and that really throws a monkey wrench into the works...

    I've owned several early Falcons/Comets and looked at this swap too, I decided that in the long run a stroker motor was a better choice for more cubes.
     
    loudbang, MUNCIE, Thor1 and 1 other person like this.
  26. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    My main issue with the 302 based motors is the cost to build one, and it has less returns in power for building it. That along with a weaker block kinda makes a valid argument for trying the 351 swap in my head. There's a guy ik selling a 393 rotating assembly for $500, where as a 347 kit is over $1000. Would headers like this work to try and clear things?
    https://www.sandersonheaders.com/sanderson-ff6-small-block-ford-header-set.html
    Or maybe some tri y headers that hug the block? Ik they're right in the place you need them to be, but I'm sure there's something that'll fit with a little denting no?

    Ik the shock towers get in the way allot, but. If they're cut and welded like that I think it'd help allot for headers as well

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    Thor1 likes this.
  27. Phoenix24
    Joined: Nov 21, 2019
    Posts: 147

    Phoenix24

    Look up PJ Nadeau on instagram. He has an early Falcon drag car with a turbo 8.2 aftermarket block and has done a form of minitubs you'd be interested in looking at. It reuses the stock wheel wells by splitting them, adding a spacer in the middle, and cutting a bit of the floor so the inner edge of the well is the outer surface of the subframe. If you want to go further than that there's kits to bring the springs in, but it's allot more intensive. This puts the wheel wells in line with the subframe and leaf springs.

    Sent from my SM-G981V using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
     
    Unclebud, Thor1 and loudbang like this.
  28. MUNCIE
    Joined: Jan 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,286

    MUNCIE
    Member

    What's going on guys? Hope everyone is doing well. I haven't been doing much lately in the garage other than working around the house as usual. Anyway I decided to remove the oil galley plugs and the engine block plugs because I am off next week to spend time with my grandkids for Spring Break and get some things done for myself. So I made an effort to go out there this afternoon to do just that because I wanted to drop the block off at the machine shop.

    So I started to inspect the block and I couldn't believe that I missed this the times I looked at it. While checking the lifter bores and such and I noticed this. Am I screwed? I think I am but would like to know what everyone thinks and what could have caused this? The distributor shaft took a dump and blew the hole? I didn't think they were strong enough to do this to the casting.

    If so another 289 for scrap. At least I didn't pay a bundle for it but it is disappointing to say the least.
     

    Attached Files:

    Thor1 and loudbang like this.
  29. Keep in mind the 351W has it's issues too. One is a considerable more limited choice in intake manifolds. And the 351W has high-speed oiling issues; it's large 3" main bearings present a too-high bearing speed at high RPMs, particularly over extended time. Great street motor, not so much as a race piece...

    I'd take those Sanderson headers with a large grain of salt. The Falcon/Comets are the toughest header fit of all the '60s Fords. And Sanderson is misleading you; the pics they show of a 'Falcon' install is actually a '62-65 Fairlane which is positively roomy compared to the Falcon (note the hole in the tower with the visible bolt head; you don't have that...). I don't see those fitting with a 351W, even with cut shock towers. The only off-the-shelf headers I'm aware of that actually fit are Doug's Tri-Y for the early Falcon/Comet and those only work with the 289/302. Guys have tried 'other' headers that were claimed to fit, with poor results.

    If you really want to go 351W, do a straight axle or M2 conversion and get rid of the shock towers altogether...
     
    Thor1, MUNCIE and loudbang like this.
  30. Looks like casting flash to me, not anything broken...
     
    Thor1, 62rebel and loudbang like this.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.