Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Stance?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 10, 2007 | 11:43 AM
  #41  
nealro's Avatar
nealro
1st Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 71
From: B'ville Illinois
Default RE: Stance?

ORIGINAL: JMD

I thought that the back was a little high for the first 5 or 10 min, but it grew on me quickly...

1970s stance FTW!!
My thoughts exactly - I like it!
Old Sep 10, 2007 | 12:03 PM
  #42  
zmetalmilitia's Avatar
zmetalmilitia
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,458
From: Colorado
Default RE: Stance?

The back is too high--maybe 20 years ago that was the look, but now it needs a lower, more smooth look.Absolutely lower the rear and it will look great, but that of course is my opinion. Make it how you want it. It's your car.
Old Sep 10, 2007 | 02:05 PM
  #43  
Charlie1's Avatar
Charlie1
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 167
From: Minnesota
Default RE: Stance?

For those of who grew up in the 60s, we remember the transition from slightly raised front end to the rake job with the rear-end up later in the decade. So both work for me on the cool factor. Back then, raising the front end was easy...get the load off the front springs and then stick in two or three of those special steel spacers in the coils. Guaranteed to wreck your ride. Back end, just add an extra leaf or easier yet, put in those really long shackles. I'm so ashamed of how I abused great cars back then.

The natural stance of the 65-66 (slightly up on the front) works for me, especially since my I6 will never look like a hi-po car.





[IMG]local://upfiles/20213/0C8F6B17C906499AAE3338B86BE36881.gif[/IMG]
Old Sep 10, 2007 | 02:18 PM
  #44  
Charlie1's Avatar
Charlie1
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 167
From: Minnesota
Default RE: Stance?

Oops, wrong photo. That's my beautiful hood ornament. I'm ashamed of that, too, but at least it was the p.o. who blessed the car with that and not me. It will come off someday.

Here's my favorite stance:


[IMG]local://upfiles/20213/0A843C622A4541B0B1E4866973494B5B.jpg[/IMG]
Old Sep 10, 2007 | 02:31 PM
  #45  
66JameStang's Avatar
66JameStang
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,407
From: New Mexico
Default RE: Stance?

ORIGINAL: fast66

ORIGINAL: texasbluesdownunder

If the fenders can't go down without hitting the top of the tyre I would say it's not ideal backspacing on the wheels.I would also say it isn't that safe or roadworthy.
There's nothing wrong with big rubber on the back. That is achievable with the 4 1/4" or 4 1/2" backspacing on the wheels.Or a narrower diff.
If the wheels protrude outside the fender then the track of the car has been altered as well.
Just my thoughts.Your car needs to be how you like it,not others.The worst thing anyone can do is keep changing things to please others when it doesn't please themselves.
Agree 100% with the comments on the wheels outside the fenders. Its dangerous and unroadworthy, aside from the fact that it looks wrong. (IMHO)
I see what your saying but, that is one of the reasons the rear is so high, the height is actually a perk of making the car safe. The old springs that where on the car permitted contact with the tires and the fender. The new springs make the rear of the car very tight and prevent the wheels from making contact with the fenders. If done right I know it can be safe and look awesome.

A hige thing I have noticed with this setup is the car hooks up like no other. Traction is not an issue (unless I want it to be).

Most of the comments have led to most of everybody saying my car is too high, but the low cars of today is a trend of today. Who knows maybe ok fronts with high rears will make a comeback (just like disco) until then I will enjoy my stance... heck even if it does not come back i will enjoy my stance.
Old Sep 10, 2007 | 02:37 PM
  #46  
Kramer's Avatar
Kramer
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 205
From: Vancouver, WA
Default RE: Stance?

ORIGINAL: 66JameStang


heck even if it does not come back i will enjoy my stance.
I think you hit the nail on the head right there......
you like the car the way it is weather it fits the trends or not..... I think it looks cool the way it is
Old Sep 10, 2007 | 03:42 PM
  #47  
jspagna1's Avatar
jspagna1
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
From: CT
Default RE: Stance?

I think the backis way too high. I like the back of the car to either be even with the front or one or two inches higher. My car is exactly 1" higher in the back than the front.





Old Oct 3, 2007 | 10:24 PM
  #48  
plainsman1876's Avatar
plainsman1876
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 308
From:
Default RE: Stance?

You need to lower the rear end
Old Oct 3, 2007 | 10:41 PM
  #49  
JMD's Avatar
JMD
Thread Starter
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,469
From: AR
Default RE: Stance?

ORIGINAL: plainsman1876

You need to lower the rear end
nah,,,, it will stay like it is,,,, short of normal wear and settling....

With the back up like that it hooks up real good and it handles like it is on rails....

Yea,,, just a little humor,,,I know the back up will not help either issue,,
but in any case, it really does hook up and handle like you wouldn't believe....
I still have a hard time believing myself....
Old Oct 3, 2007 | 11:07 PM
  #50  
tarafied1's Avatar
tarafied1
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 479
From: Western KY
Default RE: Stance?

ORIGINAL: Kramer

here's my rig... I think it's a littl overdone

hmmm, I can top that! Just kidding, I like the rear just a bit higher than the front. Slammed looks good to me too. I really don't like the front end up in the air. I drove my dad's 66 and I felt like I was doing a wheely all the time.


[IMG]local://upfiles/56180/D7BB4B61D1CE44859EFA50E39F981926.jpg[/IMG]



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.