69gmachine

I haven't had much time to play with my car this year, just too many things have out-prioritized it. I hope to resume working on it in October. But here's my conundrum: since converting the Cougar XR7 harness to work in a Mustang (and adding several non factory Mustang circuits), I have had nothing but problems. The latest issue is all the interior lights just stopped working. Maybe just a breaker, but it seems to always be something. It seemed to be the easiest solution at the time because i got it for relatively cheap. My goal was to get it back on the road as quickly as possible, but I also need it to be reliable. So now I have to decide between a correct reproduction at approx $750 for just the under dash tach harness that will need to be modified since I had my tach converted plus all the new circuits that will need to be added, or a completely new modern AAW harness that includes both the under dash and headlight harness for just under $700. I have always been a proponent of the factory harness, but at this point reliability trumps everything else, and either way will require custom modifications. So, I know Lil Mike is in the process of installing the AAW kit, but how about someone who has a running car? How did the installation go? Have you had any issues since driving it, and how many miles have you driven since installing it?

I haven't had much time to play with my car this year, just too many things have out-prioritized it. I hope to resume working on it in October. But here's my conundrum: since converting the Cougar XR7 harness to work in a Mustang (and adding several non factory Mustang circuits), I have had nothing but problems. The latest issue is all the interior lights just stopped working. Maybe just a breaker, but it seems to always be something. It seemed to be the easiest solution at the time because i got it for relatively cheap. My goal was to get it back on the road as quickly as possible, but I also need it to be reliable. So now I have to decide between a correct reproduction at approx $750 for just the under dash tach harness that will need to be modified since I had my tach converted plus all the new circuits that will need to be added, or a completely new modern AAW harness that includes both the under dash and headlight harness for just under $700. I have always been a proponent of the factory harness, but at this point reliability trumps everything else, and either way will require custom modifications. So, I know Lil Mike is in the process of installing the AAW kit, but how about someone who has a running car? How did the installation go? Have you had any issues since driving it, and how many miles have you driven since installing it?

Well I must say I don't like their new website. I was unable to find the electronic low fuel sender that they once offered. It worked entirely off of the voltage output of the regular production fuel sender and did not utilize any part of the original design except for the light in the dash. They only made a limited production run and must have finally run out. I don't like the original design that used a thermistor, and like you mentioned, it requires an additional circuit that isn't in the Mustang headlight or under dash harnesses, so it would be difficult to add.

Well I must say I don't like their new website. I was unable to find the electronic low fuel sender that they once offered. It worked entirely off of the voltage output of the regular production fuel sender and did not utilize any part of the original design except for the light in the dash. They only made a limited production run and must have finally run out. I don't like the original design that used a thermistor, and like you mentioned, it requires an additional circuit that isn't in the Mustang headlight or under dash harnesses, so it would be difficult to add.

West Coast Classic Cougars already has a sending unit that adds a smart switch to the regular production fuel sender so you can set the low fuel level wherever you want to close the curcuit for the warning light completely bypassing the factory thermistor (that burns out). Since '69-70 Mustangs never had this option, it will be necessary to add the light to one of the gauges. I thought about adding an LED to the face of the fuel gauge but haven't been able to bring myself to risk damaging the face of the gauge. If somebody else makes it work and comes up with a factory looking solution I'd love to see it.

West Coast Classic Cougars already has a sending unit that adds a smart switch to the regular production fuel sender so you can set the low fuel level wherever you want to close the curcuit for the warning light completely bypassing the factory thermistor (that burns out). Since '69-70 Mustangs never had this option, it will be necessary to add the light to one of the gauges. I thought about adding an LED to the face of the fuel gauge but haven't been able to bring myself to risk damaging the face of the gauge. If somebody else makes it work and comes up with a factory looking solution I'd love to see it.

From your avatar it looks lke you have a fastback (sports roof) and they don't have a dome light, they have opera lights in the sail panels. You didn't mention it, but if you have a deluxe interior or plan to upgrade someday, you will need wiring for the door lights on the same circuit as the opera lights. Do you plan to mount speakers in the doors? If I had it to do over a gain I would mount them in the kick panel vent like one of the posts here (sorry can't remember who originally posted it). Although the option didn't come with Mustangs, I really like my door ajar light although they require a specific latch from a Cougar that came with that option. I used the OIL light for an indicator because I have an oil pressure gauge rendering the light non functional. You also might want to consider adding a parking brake switch and tying the parking brake light circuit into the regular brake warning light. Otherwise it's almost a wasted warning light as most of them will never come on in the lifetime of the car.

From your avatar it looks lke you have a fastback (sports roof) and they don't have a dome light, they have opera lights in the sail panels. You didn't mention it, but if you have a deluxe interior or plan to upgrade someday, you will need wiring for the door lights on the same circuit as the opera lights. Do you plan to mount speakers in the doors? If I had it to do over a gain I would mount them in the kick panel vent like one of the posts here (sorry can't remember who originally posted it). Although the option didn't come with Mustangs, I really like my door ajar light although they require a specific latch from a Cougar that came with that option. I used the OIL light for an indicator because I have an oil pressure gauge rendering the light non functional. You also might want to consider adding a parking brake switch and tying the parking brake light circuit into the regular brake warning light. Otherwise it's almost a wasted warning light as most of them will never come on in the lifetime of the car.

Another component of the steering axis is the steering inclination angle (SIA), which on our factory spindle is a rather shallow 8 degrees. I suspect that was done to make steering effort easier on all the non power steering cars which made up the bulk of sales back in the mid to late 60s. For definition purposes, lets call the length of the car the Y axis, the width of the car the X axis and the height of the car the Z axis. Caster is the tilt of the spindle along the Y axis in the Y-Z plane. The SIA is the tilt of the spindle along the X axis in the X-Z plane. Like caster, the greater the SIA angle, the more the steering will want to return to center. The MII spindle increased the SIA to 10 degrees to make the car track straighter at the cost of slightly increased steering effort. IMO the benefit far outweighs the cost for all street, drag race and most other racing applications where power steering pumps are used.

Another component of the steering axis is the steering inclination angle (SIA), which on our factory spindle is a rather shallow 8 degrees. I suspect that was done to make steering effort easier on all the non power steering cars which made up the bulk of sales back in the mid to late 60s. For definition purposes, lets call the length of the car the Y axis, the width of the car the X axis and the height of the car the Z axis. Caster is the tilt of the spindle along the Y axis in the Y-Z plane. The SIA is the tilt of the spindle along the X axis in the X-Z plane. Like caster, the greater the SIA angle, the more the steering will want to return to center. The MII spindle increased the SIA to 10 degrees to make the car track straighter at the cost of slightly increased steering effort. IMO the benefit far outweighs the cost for all street, drag race and most other racing applications where power steering pumps are used.

A torque arm is a single arm that hard mounts to the bottom center of the rear and goes straight up below the driveshaft and pivots at the front attach point. It can be used as a variation of a 3 link design or with the stock leaf springs. They can range in length anywhere from 50 to 60 inches. Here are some examples: http://www.totalcostinvolved.com/c/317/rear-suspension http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/torquearm.html Truck arms are attached closer to the ends of the rear end and come together like a V below the tail end of the transmission and can use either heim joints or bushings. Typically they are about 53" long. This is the design I have decided on for my car. http://www.hotrodstohell.net/truckarm/truckarm_index.htm Both will require either a panhard bar or a watts link for lateral location (unless a torque arm is used with leaf springs, but then that defeats the purpose of using a torque arm for increased articulation).

Nice work Jim!

The more powerful your engine, the more finesse it will take to harness it on an autocross course. I didn't watch the show, but to keep the rear planted I would say number 1 is tires. Number 2 is not overpowering it with the throttle, and number 3, get rid of the leaf springs. There are several options for the rear that can be made to work well: a) 3 link, b) torque arm, c) truck arm d) even a 4 link if it has enough articulation (although most don't). The OP stated twice his goal was to have fun. All he needs to do to have fun is have safe working brakes and steering. You can go faster by using any number of aftermarket kits, but one of the first things I would recommend is a better seat with a 4 or 5 point harness. If your butt is flying around it makes it really hard to concentrate. If you're goal is to be competitive, that will require a radical approach requiring modern steering suspension and brakes, and will take you out of the stock classes (at least in SCCA). In my opinion, the stock spindle simply cannot be made to work well enough to compete with a modern car, but don't let that stop you from trying.

Once you start trying to make the car faster, it never ends. Waiting to go racing until you buy a bunch of go fast parts is like waiting to have sex with a beautiful woman until you lose x pounds and can bench press y weight. Just DO it and start having fun. You can add/swap parts as you go along. That's just my .02

I've been looking forward to Carlisle since I came home last year, but unless a miracle happens I will probably just rest at home :(

I would recommend you just go to the nearest/soonest event and enter. Don't wait for any trick part. You will have fun. I agree with Frozenmonkey that tires will make the biggest difference. You need to find out what they allow in your region. Some regions allow DOT race slicks, while others require a minimum UTQG rating of 200 (real street tires). Get the best tires you can afford, but don't waste your money on tires that aren't allowed in your local class. Let us know how it turns out.

When I get around to installing them I'll take some pics. A couple of weeks ago I fell off a ladder and did some serious damage; broke a rib and suffered a pretty deep puncture wound on my left forearm. I haven't touched the car in a while. The good news is that gravity still works just like it always has.

If you mean what size hose fits the fuel filter, it's 5/16. All Mustang fuel hoses were 5/16 except for the Boss 429 which was 3/8. I'm not sure what size the threads were, but any auto parts store will have the replacement.

I don't have any pictures of just the modified bracket, but on page 3 of my cardomain site, the lower engine picture shows the pump installed in the cast 68-69 style bracket and mounted on the engine. There is a protrusion on the front of the fox pump that will require the back side of the bracket to be ground for clearance, and some of the passenger side arm of the bracket also has to be cut off. Once you have the fox pump it will be obvious what needs to be cut away on the bracket in order for the pump to sit flush. Other than that, the 5/8-18 to -6AN adapters are readily available from Summit, Speedway, and probably Jegs as well. It's not hard to make your own pressure hose, but you need high pressure hose stock to begin with (not just regular AN hose), and make sure you flush it out so no debris contaminates the rack. The pulley I'm using is from a mid '70s full size Ford car that had a 460. The pulley is stamped 5Z-A/A. It had lots of applications so it shouldn't be too hard to find one.

I'm running 1 3/4" Accufab headers and they fit around the rack great. They are semi-custom headers. They asked what engine (351W), what heads (AFR 205) and what transmission (manual) and then used their templates for that combination. I have also test fit 2 other headers for a 351W and both fit although the Doug's headers ( 1 5/8" with stock heads) require that the adapter at the end of the steering column be clocked at a particular position in order to clear one tube. I believe the other headers I tested were the Hooker Super Comp Conversion 351W 1 3/4" tube headers, but it's been several years so my memory may be off. I think I tested the Super Comps with High Port TFS heads. They hang fairly low and may not clear with stock heads. As Jim mentioned, I use the stock Ford pump from 1978 (at least according to AGR the performance rebuilder) through 1989 on Mustangs. There was a change to the fittings in 1990 and the bolts are metric, but otherwise it's the same pump. I've found that the stock Ford "Fox" pump is perfectly matched to the GM J rack, and as Jim pointed out, the bolt pattern and pulley spacing are the same as the old style stock pumps, so they are an easy swap. Replace the stock outlet fitting with a 5/8-18 to -6 AN adapter and you can use a custom hose to the rack.

Thanks for the kind words Jim. I do this for the love of the hobby more than the money; I don't expect I will ever be able to quit my day job LOL. Helping out a friend is satisfaction enough, and I consider most of the members on this forum friends. I would like to point out that the centerlink is 1 of only 2 prototypes I had made. One is on Jim's car and the other is on mine. When I finally get around to making a production run they will not be adjustable with removable slugs like the one in the picture.

The permanent magnet mini-starters are designed to have the hot lead connect directly to the battery. The built in solenoid uses the ignition lead to power the starter on demand, so you don't need a trunk mounted solenoid. I use an inner fender mounted solenoid in series just to make it appear stock (factory battery cable runs to a junction block that has a 10 ga wire that then goes to the starter solenoid). My mini starter is connected directly to the battery. There are 2 large lugs and one small post on the end of the solenoid. One of them already has a wire connected to it (don't attach anything there). The other large lug is where you connect to the battery. The small post or tab is where the solenoid gets power from the start ignition lead. It should have come with an electrical schematic to show how to hook it up, but it's really very simple.

jandj1970, PM sent.

No, I haven't driven a car with roller perches. When I started my conversion they weren't available. If the coil over car you drove didn't take advantage of the ability to use a softer spring and shock, then I'm not surprised you weren't impressed with ride quality. People sometimes get caught up in a numbers game and think they have to have a higher rate to have a performance suspension. The best spring and shock are almost always the softest one that will still adequately control body roll. Not only will the ride quality be better, but they will react faster. And that is one of the inherent flaws of the shock on the UCA design. In order to control body roll you must sacrifice ride quality with a very stiff spring. There was a very competitive 69 or 70 Mustang in NASA a few years back (around 2005-06) no doubt because the wheel wells in our cars allowed them to run the spec tire which had to fit in the stock wheel well. The car was no where near stock. It stretched the rules to the limit and was virtually outlawed by rules changes the next year. That class doesn't exist any more (they said there weren't enough entrants to justify it). At that time NASA didn't allow any changes to the shock tower shape or firewall location, but it was a full on race car with nothing in the suspension steering or brakes even remotely resembling stock and could not possibly be driven on the street. I don't want a dedicated race car because i want to enjoy it more often than dedicated track days. You are absolutely correct in that 99% of the forum members here aren't hard core racers interested in shaving 1 or 2 seconds off a lap time (although I hope I can start a trend). But that's not what I designed my suspension for anyway. If you could take your full on street car, drive in comfort and style to the track while listening to the radio, then run comparable numbers to the guys who trailer their full blown race car with race tires, how could you not feel some satisfaction? To me that is having my cake and eating it too. Glad your cool. I'm serious about buying you a beer sometime.

The first thing I want to say is that if anyone is happy with the old suspension design, that's wonderful. Paying for anything more would be a waste for them. But it is disengenous to claim they are comparable to a well designed coil over suspension (which means the shock has to mount near the end of the LCA, not the middle of the UCA). This is not just my opinion. It is simple physics (and math). Buening, please don't take the following as a personal assault. It's not meant to be at all. However, I feel it is important to address the various issues you brought up. I would gladly buy you a beer or even let you drive my car if I ever had the pleasure of your company. Can you elaborate on this claim? I'm not aware of any road racing series or autocross series where classic Mustangs (with ancient suspensions) compete with modern Mustangs and are competitive. That's not to say there aren't any, but I'd love to know where they are and who is campaigning them. I looked for racing venues where vintage cars race and they are either relegated to using the rulebook from yesteryear in vintage racing or they have completely modernized the suspension to be competitve (e.g. NASA). I am interested in sponsoring anyone racing a 67-70 Mustang or Cougar in any competitive series if they will compete in every single race of the season, and have at least 1 year of racing experience. I've been to the track and seen the times that the old cars with old suspensions turn in and what newer cars on the same track on the same same day turn in, and the newer cars put them to shame. Generally speaking, the newer cars are heavier and have inferior strut suspensions that aren't nearly as good design-wise as the SLA. So what makes the late models "superior". Tires! They run much wider tires on much taller wheels (18x10 vs 15x8 typically). They also have much better rear suspension designs than leaf springs. With my coil over design, on my first successful completion of an autocross race (last October at the Autocrossers Inc. venue at Blue Crabs Stadium in Waldorf, MD) I turned in a best time that was within a couple of seconds (57.4 vs 55.3) of the C-prepared classic Mustangs average which are fully sponsored, gutted race cars with roll cages and open headers (but choose to run ancient suspensions for whatever reason). My car has a complete interior, a working radio, and everything but a compressor to have working AC. Plus I was running on street tires (P275s on 17x9s). The other classic Mustangs were running 15" wheels with P235 Hoosier slicks all around. I drove my car home at the end of the day. The other classic Mustangs were trailered. The late model C prepared cars turned in much faster times around 52 to 54-something. They were on P315 Hoosiers. They were also trailered. It's possible that at an open track event a classic suspension car "beat" a modern car, but since there are no rules, and so many levels of drivers, and they're not actually racing, that's not a meaningful comparison. Agreed, there are many improvements to be made without changing the UCA design. However, it's not the tubular arms that make the big improvement. It's the design of a shock mounted near the end of the LCA, and then taking advantage of that design by using a lower spring rate and softer shock valving. I guess this depends on your definition of well handling, but have you actually driven a classic Mustang with a coil over suspension? There is a night and day difference in my car from when I had the typical shelby drop, Eibach springs and modified arms (same basic mod that juit did to his UCAs). My front suspension is not harsh at all (but right now the rear is), and yet it stays amazlingly flat in "high" speed turns. I can't make an assesment of anyone else's design, but I would expect very similar results. I will say 2 things: 1) sometimes a small change in location can make a large change in the roll center, instant center, and/or camber curve so just because the change doesn't appear to be physically much, it doesn't mean it won't have a noticeable impact. The small difference in UCA length is adequate and compliments the "shelby" drop. Too much of a good thing will just cause more problems elsewhere. 2) The original design had several major flaws; the location of the UCA pivot point relative to the upper BJ pivot point was too high, the shock mounts 1/2 way on the UCA requiring an excessively stiff spring to control wheel rate, the ride height was too high, the anti dive angle is excessive, the anti sway bar was too small and generally the springs were too soft. All but one of of these issues can be addressed without resorting to coil overs. However, the UCA to LCA ratio is quite good, and making a radical change to the length of the UCA will come at a price; prematurely worn tires. I believe that price is unnecessary and expensive.