paddy187

have a look at http://www.opentrackerracingproducts.com/ and if you have big bucks put in a jaguar IRS.

67mustang302

The sad reality, and many here accept it, is the factory suspension setup on our cars sucks big time. The general configuration is great for performance, IF it's setup correctly. But Ford really borked it from the factory. The upper a arms really NEED to be lowered since the factory geometry is *** backwards. That often solves a lot of handling and tire rubbing issues. And also the factory alignment specs were barely adequate for the crap tires of the 60's, but absolutely do NOT work with modern tires. Changing nothing else other than alignment specs and the 1" Shelby drop usually give the car a more modern performance footing. When you start adding performance springs etc then it really becomes a beast in the corners.

Coupe

Well, after looking at the practical side of things I may end up with a warmed over Shelby setup with a flaming river manual box and some other bits as needed. Most of these kits are overkill in reality and price for a car that will never see competition and the Gateway suspension with brakes sounds like a better deal but nobody has chimed in that actually runs one, and that makes me curious.

67mustang302

Most of us run modified stock suspension. The reality is to max out factory suspension you'd need racing tires on a road course. Even then you can box the control arms and push the limits higher. Then you'd need racing tires and a lot of skill/***** to max it out. The average driver would be unlikely to max out unboxed and modified stock suspension. They'll never put an R compound tire on and go drive 140+mph.

andrewmp6

Norm Peterson is our handling/suspension guru on here his word is everything.And yes the strut on spindle is used a lot to save space.And there is kits for fox body up that change them to upper and lower a arms.The only auto racing i know that uses the strut on spindle is drag racing saves space and don't have to handle.If you want max handling your best bet is http://www.gmachinechassis.com/

Coupe

Well, that kinda makes sense on the strut issue. Thanks for that.

The Gmachine chassis is the way I am going to go..(If tonight's numbers hit)

dodgestang

Before you order anything or spend any money you need to properly assess what you have.

Is the car really lower? or does it just have worn out springs?
Does it have 4 leaf, 4.5 leaf, 5 leaf in the rear? Are they new or old?
What kinda shocks are in there?
Is the steering box original?
How old are the uppers and lower and ball joints?

If the issue is the car is just loose all over and makes you feel jittery with every pot hole, you might find a simple rebuild to stock specs or with a slightly tighter spring will do wonders for you....but you need to figure out where you are starting from.

andrewmp6

Yeah if i hit the powerball I'll have a gmachine frame under everything i own.

Coupe

OK, so I was checking out a buddys 65 GT350 survivor car and noticed his steering gearbox had a tag stamped HOC AX 5B12B.
EDIT: Maybe it says HCC...I guess its a power steering box used in a manual configuration?

What was that exactly as far as ratios etc..?

His wheel had little play if any, I dont know if he has the same lack of turning radius that I do (I think mine is out of center somehow because I turn left more than right) but is that box available anywhere or is it as expensive as everything else on that car?

2+2GT

I agree. The Mustang suspension is a re-run of the earlier Falcon suspension, to save development time and expense. In fairness, it was designed for narrow, bias-ply, non-belted tires. Smooth ride, and predicatable handling was the goal.

As early as 1964, though, it was showing it's age. Klaus Arning designed an IRS rear suspension as a handling option for the Mustang, and the 1" relocation of the upper arm was done to make the front more compatible with the IRS. It was road-tested, and the determination was that most of the handling improvement was actually due to the arm change, and the IRS was simply not enough improvement to warrant the cost. Shelby used the "drop" on the GT350, knowing a good thing when they saw it.

The real screwup was Ford knew that early that relocating the arm dramatically improved handling, yet ignored it. The result was the handling of the 65 GT350 was superior to production Mustangs. I would do this mod to ANY 65-70 Mustang, except perhaps a trailer queen show car.

To get back to the OP's original statement, " Well, My fastback is home after a spooky 5 hour drive! Suspension time!", even the stone-stock suspension, in good condition, should not be "spooky" on a highway drive. So some repair, or upgrade, is warranted, but exotic modifications are not.