70vert

SOLD to Cobra Automotive for $150 - just putting it up here so the next seller/buyer has a guideline.

Hey all, (posted this on Stangnet first, but thought I'd put it up here - might be like selling ice to eskimos, as the '70 drum guys already have this spindle . . . any '69ers want to do the Baer/Cobra upgrade? :biggrin: ) Sold my Baers (switched to Wilwood all around because of clearance issues out back with parking brake bracket) to my mustang shop's detail guy, and he didn't need the spindles, so he cleaned them up for sale. These are what you need if you are doing a Baer/Cobra disc brake swap, or other upgrades based on the original drum spindle. MobileMe Gallery They're in great shape as you can see. I don't know what Cobra Automotive is charging for them these days, but a TCP disc spindle costs about $359. I should know - I had to buy one for my Wilwood kit. PM me if interested. These will work for earlier years, and are beefier and safer, but you'll need '70-up tie rod ends.

Hey all, (posted this on Stangnet first, but thought I'd put it up here - might be like selling ice to eskimos, as the '70 drum guys already have this spindle . . . any '69ers want to do the Baer/Cobra upgrade? :biggrin: ) Sold my Baers (switched to Wilwood all around because of clearance issues out back with parking brake bracket) to my mustang shop's detail guy, and he didn't need the spindles, so he cleaned them up for sale. These are what you need if you are doing a Baer/Cobra disc brake swap, or other upgrades based on the original drum spindle. MobileMe Gallery They're in great shape as you can see. I don't know what Cobra Automotive is charging for them these days, but a TCP disc spindle costs about $359. I should know - I had to buy one for my Wilwood kit. PM me if interested. These will work for earlier years, and are beefier and safer, but you'll need '70-up tie rod ends.

As far as the deck lid trim - the part that should have been made out of stainless but wasn't - I'm hoping that they actually remake this piece by the time I'm in paint. Or else I'll just have to cough up an exorbitant sum to just get some tiny pieces chromed. I'll be watching this pretty closely to see what people do with their latch brackets . . .

As far as the deck lid trim - the part that should have been made out of stainless but wasn't - I'm hoping that they actually remake this piece by the time I'm in paint. Or else I'll just have to cough up an exorbitant sum to just get some tiny pieces chromed. I'll be watching this pretty closely to see what people do with their latch brackets . . .

unruly, where did you have it painted? I ask because I'm in the area . . . still probably a couple years from paint but I'd like to know where people are getting jobs done in the bay area.

unruly, where did you have it painted? I ask because I'm in the area . . . still probably a couple years from paint but I'd like to know where people are getting jobs done in the bay area.

ETA update . . . Currie is out of the TrueTrac until August 1, so I'm waiting on that . . . decided on 3.25 gears since the stroker will do fine down low but won't rev quite like a shorter stroke engine. No need for anything in the high 3s or low 4s and I should get better mileage as a result . . .

ETA update . . . Currie is out of the TrueTrac until August 1, so I'm waiting on that . . . decided on 3.25 gears since the stroker will do fine down low but won't rev quite like a shorter stroke engine. No need for anything in the high 3s or low 4s and I should get better mileage as a result . . .

Congrats - must feel good! Very tastefully done - I believe we have beautiful interiors as it is. Console, clock, woodgrain, etc. Always wanted a Mach . . .

I plan on going with TandL when I do mine, probably next year. I'm looking for close to 9.0 myself so I can go with lower octane gas and then if I go crazy, supercharge it or turbocharge it if I go totally nuts. Turbocharging makes more sense with a stroker, as they have tons of torque low down but, if they even need any more power, it would be at higher revs. I know you don't really rev a stroker as much, but turbo should have benefits at various RPM ranges. Anyway, low compression keeps your options open! And with the price of gas these days . . . it could save you some money even on something that's only driven occasionally.

ok, I bit the bullet and went with the Currie rear 1" narrowed on each side, so basically it is a '65-66 rear end at 57.25 flange to flange. I thought about doing the foam trick like bnickel mentioned, but I think it will be fine, and I can use a spacer if need be. Now before anybody poo-poohs spacers, guys like "bottle fed 70" on stangnet have been using them for years. AND I have beefy ARP racing studs from Steeda on the rear that are longer than stock so I should be AOK. Bottom line - I would rather be too narrow within about 1" and be able to customize with a spacer than too long and not be able to do anything about it. We'll see if it allows me 285s or 295s. After I fry both rear tires when I do the stroker, that is. :whistling:

Leaving it for now. It sounds and feels more badass than it is. I took my tuner buddy from work (who has a very nice Accord, respekt for his build and is working on a Lexus SC400) for a "before" and "after" ride with the 3-link, and he was really impressed with the "after". "it feels like the front and rear are connected now!" and "the rear slides much more predictably!" We had some fun. Believe it or not, they claim they are working on a 2.5" kit over the whole shooting match, and I'm waiting to see how they accomplish THAT one.:dots:

bnickel, you're a genius! :detective: That's an excellent suggestion, I can glue in a foam block cut to 1" thick and contoured to fit the inner wheelhouse. I'd still have to drive it around and corner until the point where I lose rear traction. :biggrin: That would give me the point at which the body has pretty much rotated as much as it will rotate at the limit of traction. Then see if it rubs on the foam. Great solution!

(keywords: narrowed rear, shortened rear, shortened axle, shorter housing swap, etc) I'd like to set up a place for people to post their narrowed rear housing info and their wheel size/backspace/tire info. Some of this can be extrapolated from other posts. (i.e., if your backspace is 5.5 on a 9" rim and your 275/40 tires rub inside on a stock axle, then the same holds true for a guy with a guy with the same setup but a 4.5"/9" rim backspace on an axle shortened 1" on either side.) I'd still like to see it all in one thread on "narrowed rears" so we don't have to go around looking for the info in different places. I'm willing to be the first guinea pig! :stupid: Basically, the rear I'm ordering from Currie will end up being shortened 1" either side, for a 57.25 flange-to-flange width, or basically an early Ranchero width. Wheels 5.5bs, 9" rims, 275/40 rubber. Brake drum/rotor thickness plays a tiny part, as well - according to Currie. .1" for drum to .3" for Baer. Also mention if you had to massage inner wheelhouse or fender lip, of course . . . Wish me luck! :clover:

Hey all, It's been covered here before, but inconclusively, and I'd like to get some educated guesses before I order my 9" from Currie. I just got my Evolution Motorsports 3-Link installed: http://gallery.mac.com/jbauder?#100048&bgcolor=black&view=grid and the handling is amazing. Tight ride without being jarring, the rear is far less vague and powering out of a corner it just plants and goes, and launching happens much faster with no spring windup to worry about. Now I'm ready to do the rear and engine, rear first. I have a reasonable amount of clearance in the inner wheelhousing, none left at the fender. With the EvM kit, I'm not worried about body sway at all, the wheels will stay put in that wheelhousing. It's hard to get a good pic, but I've got some clearance inside there and want to go 1" shorter on either side. My wheels are 17x10, 5.5bs, 275/40 rubber. I could go 285 if this works later on. Any final bets on whether I should go 1" shorter on either side? I won't hold you to it, and I could always use high-quality spacers if I goof, or just use the BFH on the inner wheelhouse. (even though I have a convertible, and can't massage it too much because the top drops down in there) Thanks in advance . . .

coz, did you get the aluminum center section or the steel? It would be great to hear a report of an AL center section doing just fine behind a ~600hp/520tq stroker . . . yeah, customer service is a big deal to me, since I do it well every day and can't imagine how a business can exist without it. EvM is outstanding in this regard, btw, specifically Mike there.

yeah, you can get a lot out of a leaf spring setup, but it still ends up giving you a lot of unsprung weight, which you already have a lot of in a solid axle, and even with all the improvements, you still have a problem of the front part of the leaf shortening under acceleration, and then the reverse happening on decel. Plus the unpredictability of these two flexible components controlling axle location fore and aft, vertical wheel travel, and horizontal anti-sway, even if you have a Watt's/Panhard. It just seems like the leafs have too much work to do and lots of forces are acting in different directions on them. You can put patches on a less-than-optimal design and get it to perform very very well, or start with a more or less blank sheet of paper and design something that starts out great and can get even better. Check out the Moser 3rd member as well - the through-bolt design is supposed to be stronger: http://www.moserengineering.com/Pages/Center-Sections/cs-aluminum.html I will probably just order a crate Currie Track 9 with a TrueTrac diff, then perform upgrades on it if I feel the need. After looking at all the rear end options, I just want to keep it simple and do the crate option.

listen to bnickel - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the corner-carvers.com thread on this and make sure you understand the reasons that most of the posters object to this design! Look for "chassis under a 69" or simply "morrison". It was panned for the following reasons. (ignore the name-calling in the thread, read the actual tech from guys like Jag, SN65, 4DoorBoss351, etc. Reasons they gave, in short: -MII front end, for reasons described already in this thread -High rear roll center -Bolt-on method of attachment to the frame -"Quadrabind" 4-link rear, with binding in the upper arms depending on the durometer of the bushings used. I think probably the ultimate setup is the Griggs system, but if that's not in your budget, you can do what I did - Evolution Motorsports 3-link with Watt's (going in about a week and a half from now) and Tin Man Fabrications subframes going through a convertible under-floor reinforcement pan and weld to it, or if you really don't care about a metal tube going through your rear seat floor, create a square subframe that goes straight through the rear floor, or both! Work with the original sheet metal, don't just add to it. In the future, since this is a convertible, I also plan to add "jacking rails" that tie the subframes to the rocker panels. I need to create a ton of strength through the floor, and the more everything is tied to everything else, the better. Unless you do a roll cage, or even if you do, a heavy convertible-style trunk divider could do wonders tied to a round crossbar. But you lose the cool fold-down-rear-seat deal, and gain a rear firewall if hit from behind . . . A well-designed 3-link with a Watt's is a great compromise between the straight line acceleration of a 4-link, but without the associated bind. You will find a lot of feedback on corner-carvers.com about how the EvM system behaves on an SN95/Fox system, and the difference with a vintage mustang will roughly be due to the "5th spring" - the flex in the chassis. But if you have the money, give that Grigg's system a try . . . I didn't want to have anything intruding into my passenger compartment or remove shock towers, so that's why I went with TCP/UP up front, EvM 3-link in the rear, and custom chassis reinforcement in the middle . . .

"drift" as in understeer, oversteer, or 4-wheel drift?! I put on a hollow 1 1/4" after getting a TCP/Unique Performance front coilover and Steeroids R&P and the front end is pretty planted. I agree with Hendog.

Hallelujah! I got lucky and got one for my '70, but this is loooooong overdue. Kudos to Bruce Couture! Nice guy, great business. I got my TKO kit from him.

at ride height, but when I got my hollow 1 1/4" from Cobra Automotive, I didn't use the end link they supplied - it was too long - but used the one supplied by Unique Performance with my coilovers, but using the bushings from Cobra Automotive. This arrangement got me a pretty flat end to the bar at ride height. I assume this is desirable, as the suspension needs to move up and down and deform the end link bushings above and below the end of the bar more or less equally. I guess, try different end link lengths?

I would second that. On my 17x9, 5.5bs wheels they seem just about perfectly centered, maaaybe could go in .5" on each side, and a 275/40/17 fits fine. 9" rim, 5.5bs = 8" rim, 5"bs. A 4.5 would be out farther. You could always get a custom shortened crate rear from Currie! :whistling::biggrin:

I was lucky enough to get mine from an older VMFer for a pretty good deal. He sent some good photos as well, but was unable to make a website. In the interest of passing on the knowledge, I created a site for everybody: http://web.mac.com/jbauder/iweb/6970clutchpedals/69-70%20clutch,%20brake%20pedals.html I need to do the Mustang Steve roller bearing conversion - I can feel the play in mine a bit and don't want to ovalize that area too much . . .

You can provide your own coilovers, but they provide the QA1 coilovers for a price of $429, very reasonable. At first I was skeptical, but I think the rearward facing coilovers make perfect sense. After all, our cars resist flex far, FAR, better in the longitudinal plane than the vertical plane. As long as the apparent complexity of it does not cause any bind, it could be a work of genius. Corner-carvers.com certainly likes it much more than the TCP coilover unit, which they consider prone to binding, or a 4-link that has inherent binding issues, it seems pretty sweet. Unless you have twice the $ to spend on an IRS, it seems perfect!