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

stance questions

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 19, 2007 | 07:52 PM
  #11  
67 evil eleanor's Avatar
67 evil eleanor
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,106
From:
Default RE: stance questions

I like the worn out springs on the back with a good shock and stabilizer. I just lower the front to match. Raakkkkkeeedd. Actually I have done this on a couple of cars. They sit and drive well.
Old Dec 19, 2007 | 09:17 PM
  #12  
htwheelz67's Avatar
htwheelz67
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 572
From:
Default RE: stance questions

I get a great ride with my 620's 1 coil cut,GW UCA's,roller perches,konis and worn out rear leafs......stance is about perfect

my 67 http://htwheelz.smugmug.com
Old Dec 19, 2007 | 11:23 PM
  #13  
JMD's Avatar
JMD
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,469
From: AR
Default RE: stance questions

ORIGINAL: dodgestang

ORIGINAL: LastStarfighter

I see alot of stangs on the road with the nose looking like its slightly higher then the rear and some that have the big tires on the back and look like their doing a nose dive. What's the difference and why???
Front end higher is stock look
Rear end mucho higher and big tires with nose way down is 80s

Low and level or low and slight rake to front is modern hotness
Yea but the "80s look" cars will be slightly faster and get better gas mileage than the "stock look" cars or the "modern hottness" cars because the raked cars are always going downhill while the poor "stock look" cars are always pulling up a hill.
Old Dec 20, 2007 | 07:38 AM
  #14  
bluovalguy's Avatar
bluovalguy
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,747
From: Portland, OR
Default RE: stance questions

The 80's......awww maaan. I hated the 80's, but I guess I that is where I am at
Old Dec 21, 2007 | 09:28 AM
  #15  
nassaubayman's Avatar
nassaubayman
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 574
From: Houston, TX
Default RE: stance questions

I used to think my '67 coupe sagged in the butt. I replaced the leaf springs and the difference was.... no change. Here's how it looked:



Last night I finished installing new front coil springs. I ordered the 620 lb/in with a 1" drop from Mustangs Unlimited. Now my car looks like this:



Also, I'm surprised no one has mentioned lowering the car changes the handling characteristics of the car - in a positive way.
Old Dec 21, 2007 | 09:42 AM
  #16  
1slow67's Avatar
1slow67
ROTM Moderator
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,158
From: AL
Default RE: stance questions

Does it matter what size engine you have in your car? I know when my car is on a hill there is a big difference. Yet when i get it on a flat surface it almost levels out completely.
Old Dec 21, 2007 | 09:56 AM
  #17  
Norm Peterson's Avatar
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,635
From: state of confusion
Default RE: stance questions

The original slightly nose-up appearance was before fuel economy meant much more than two separate words in the dictionary. If anything, the suggestion was one of power - enough being there to lift the nose and look fast even when standing still. Nose-down came later, when a few people realized that aero drag up around 100 mph mattered and you could win close races by losing some of it. It gives the car a lower drag coefficient (Cd), because Cd is sensitive to both overall shape and how it's oriented toward the wind. And success gets copied even when the copycats might not know the reason why it worked.

Handling characteristics vs ride height and rake is a hugely complex topic, so don't expect any simple, blanket answers here. Consider what happens to your caster setting if you lower the front and rear by unequal amounts. Assume that you had decent alignment before. Your caster will change by whatever change in the car's rake you make.

Rake, BTW, refers tothe side view angle of the body as a whole, not just a 'nose-down' attitude. +rake is nose-up. And that's one of the easier effects to visualize. Roll centers move, and the amount of roll moment per lateral g shifts, as do the distributions of lateral load transfer.


Norm
Old Dec 22, 2007 | 11:02 AM
  #18  
nassaubayman's Avatar
nassaubayman
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 574
From: Houston, TX
Default RE: stance questions

Different motors had different springs. Big block cars had heavier springs. 6-clyinder had lighter springs.

Go to Mustangs Unlimited andcheck out all the options they have. They even have different strength springs based on whether you have A/C or not.
Old Dec 22, 2007 | 11:30 AM
  #19  
dr1965's Avatar
dr1965
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 489
From:
Default RE: stance questions

I had the sag look as well, replaced the rear springs, and now it is level. 27 and 1/2 in the rear,27 inches in the front.
[IMG][/IMG]
Old Dec 22, 2007 | 11:55 AM
  #20  
RGtheKid's Avatar
RGtheKid
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 24
Default RE: stance questions

I wedged my fender aprons from 0-1"up frontand took an inch off the rad support, cut the rear lower portion of the fenders so they would line up. this is the same drop nose modification you will see on the bud moore trans am boss 302's. I must say i have only seen it on jackstands but it looks good. only the trunk pan, floor pan, quarter panels and taillight panel to go
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dokilar
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
15
Oct 16, 2015 08:13 PM
AMAlexLazarus
AmericanMuscle.com
3
Oct 2, 2015 08:06 AM
AMAlexLazarus
AmericanMuscle.com
0
Oct 1, 2015 10:29 AM
AMAlexLazarus
AmericanMuscle.com
0
Oct 1, 2015 09:21 AM
treesloth
New Member Area
4
Sep 28, 2015 07:03 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 AM.