Springs for 1968 coupe?

Hey all -

I have a 1968 coupe with a 289 engine and 14" rims. It has the "nose up"
look that makes me think that the springs are probably not right. I want to
go ahead and get new leaf and coil springs for it. I would like to drop it
about an inch, nothing radical, but I also want to put 15"x8" rims on it.
Will the 15"x8" interfere with lowering it?

Thanks!
Thomas

"Thomas Cameron" > wrote in message
...
> Hey all -
>
> I have a 1968 coupe with a 289 engine and 14" rims. It has the "nose up"
> look that makes me think that the springs are probably not right. I want
> to go ahead and get new leaf and coil springs for it. I would like to
> drop it about an inch, nothing radical, but I also want to put 15"x8" rims
> on it. Will the 15"x8" interfere with lowering it?
>
> Thanks!
> Thomas
>

You're going to be close on interference. I have 15x7s on my 68 fastback,
and also a 1-inch drop. I clear, but am close. I don't think I would clear
with 15x8s unless I had the fenders flared and I don't want to do that. The
front tires are 225x60s, and the rears are 245x60s.

-----------------
Laurie S.
Thunder Snake #7

That nose up look is normal. My 65 had it, and IIRC my 72 had it. Just
about any early year you look at (stock) you see that nose up
attitude..... just Ford letting the others know what they thought of
them...LOL : )

My wheels are Vintage 40 16x8s with BF Goodrich 225/50Z16 tires.
Going to 16" was an idea I got from an article in Mustang Monthly a
year or so ago. They swapped out the original 14" wheels for the 16"s
and it was a straight across bolt on with no alterations to body or
suspension required. I followed up with Vintage Wheel Works
(http://www.vintagewheelworks.com/) who claimed the wheels were a bolt
on, but a negative wedge kit (which they did not carry, and they did
not point me to any vendor for) was promoted to maintain the geometry
of the steering/suspension. According to their fitment guide, your
model would not require this extra kit.

In their fitment guide they list the following max wheel sizes:
65-66 Mustang: 225/50/16 front and 245/50/16 rear (should be
equipped with either a Shelby factory front end or use an after market
kit like Pro-Motorsport "Wedge Kit" or Global West's "Negative-Roll
Kit".)
67-73 Mustang: 245/50/16 front & 255/50/16 rear

Hope this helps.



On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:29:10 GMT, "Thomas Cameron"
> wrote:

>Hey all -
>
>I have a 1968 coupe with a 289 engine and 14" rims. It has the "nose up"
>look that makes me think that the springs are probably not right. I want to
>go ahead and get new leaf and coil springs for it. I would like to drop it
>about an inch, nothing radical, but I also want to put 15"x8" rims on it.
>Will the 15"x8" interfere with lowering it?
>
>Thanks!
>Thomas
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

"Thomas Cameron" > wrote in message
...
> Hey all -
>
> I have a 1968 coupe with a 289 engine and 14" rims. It has the "nose up"
> look that makes me think that the springs are probably not right. I want
> to go ahead and get new leaf and coil springs for it. I would like to
> drop it about an inch, nothing radical, but I also want to put 15"x8" rims
> on it. Will the 15"x8" interfere with lowering it?
>
> Thanks!
> Thomas

Well, I just got back from the tire place and I have some very sharp 15"x8"
aluminum rims and 225/60/15 tires. I think it looks like a million bucks -
I'll post pix to my web site later this week...

I still think the front end up looks goofy. I definitely think that the
rear is sagging. I will order the 5-leaf (stiff) stock height springs and
just use a lowering shackle if it needs to drop. I will also get the 1"
drop front springs from Eaton to see if that makes the car more level.

Cheers!
Thomas

i went a different way. i ordered the 4 leaf (original look) 1 1/2" lift
rear leaf springs and left the front alone. the car isnt assembled yet
so i cant give you the results

Thomas Cameron wrote:
> "Thomas Cameron" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Hey all -
>>
>>I have a 1968 coupe with a 289 engine and 14" rims. It has the "nose up"
>>look that makes me think that the springs are probably not right. I want
>>to go ahead and get new leaf and coil springs for it. I would like to
>>drop it about an inch, nothing radical, but I also want to put 15"x8" rims
>>on it. Will the 15"x8" interfere with lowering it?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Thomas
>
>
> Well, I just got back from the tire place and I have some very sharp 15"x8"
> aluminum rims and 225/60/15 tires. I think it looks like a million bucks -
> I'll post pix to my web site later this week...
>
> I still think the front end up looks goofy. I definitely think that the
> rear is sagging. I will order the 5-leaf (stiff) stock height springs and
> just use a lowering shackle if it needs to drop. I will also get the 1"
> drop front springs from Eaton to see if that makes the car more level.
>
> Cheers!
> Thomas
>
>

"Thomas Cameron" > wrote in message
...
> Hey all -
>
> I have a 1968 coupe with a 289 engine and 14" rims. It has the "nose up"
> look that makes me think that the springs are probably not right. I want
> to go ahead and get new leaf and coil springs for it. I would like to
> drop it about an inch, nothing radical, but I also want to put 15"x8" rims
> on it. Will the 15"x8" interfere with lowering it?
>
> Thanks!
> Thomas

Picture of the new rims and tires -
http://www.camerontech.com/1968_mustang/DSCN1266.JPG

Thomas

Regarding those tire sizes, remember the "10-plus" system: that you
can get a tire with roughly the same overall dimensions if, for each
one inch subtracted (or added) to the rim size you add (or subtract) 10
from the aspect ratio. Thus, rough equivalents for a 245/50-16 would
be 245/60-15 or 245/40-17 (tho I would also calculate for a 45 series
on the 17" rim).

I have never heard the advice to use the Pro-Motorsports Negative Wedge
Kit without also doing the Shelby drop, but now that I think about it,
it would change the camber curve slightly, and for the better. For
those that have not seen one, what this kit does is put a wedge between
the upper control arm and the ball joint. Its intended purpose is to
re-center the ball joint's stud in the ball joint's socket after the
upper control arm's mounting point has been lowered on the shock tower,
aka "the Shelby drop." The reason to re-center the ball joint stud is
to prevent it from hitting the socket and breaking off. This is not a
problem with the standard 1" Shelby drop; it IS a problem with 1.5" to
2" drops. Shelby American only did a 1" drop (only in '65 and the
first few '66 carryover units) and did not use a wedge or any other
ball joint relocation mod. They just drilled new holes in the shock
towers and said to hell with the ball joint stud.

Doing "the drop" causes the UCA to have a more obtuse angle with the
ground, at ride height, than stock. This causes the UCA to pull the
spindle toward the car upon compression. This causes camber to move
toward the negative on compression. Although body roll generally
precludes true negative camber, the drop at least keeps the tire closer
to vertical than the stock setup. This improves cornering traction
dramatically. But even without the UCA relocation, the wedge would
increase the distance between the UCA and the lower control arm, and
this would also cause the UCA to have a more obtuse angle with the
ground.

A Global West "negative roll" UCA would do likewise, for the same
reason. Global West claims the unique feature of using a shorter UCA
than, for example, Total Control Products. Global West claims that this
difference allows their product alone to cause negative camber, even
after body roll is taken into account. I have always been skeptical of
this claim, wondering how much shorter could their UCA be if they hoped
to be able to maintain something close to zero camber at ride height.
Anything more than one degree negative camber at ride height will
destroy your tires. The only way to make the UCA shorter and still
maintain a tire-friendly camber is to make the pivot thicker, so that
its axis stands out further from the shock tower. And when you look at
a GW UCA, the pivot's only about a quarter inch thicker than an OE
part. So I gotta ask, how much difference can a quarter inch make, on
a UCA that's about 10 inches long?

Final observation: if you're going to the expense and trouble of
installing a Negative Wedge kit or a Global West UCA, you're leaving a
lot of good stuff on the table if you don't do at least a 1.5" drop.

180 Out

"Spike" > wrote
> 67-73 Mustang:... ...255/50/16 rear

Sheesh! I'm assuming they mean keeping all of the tire inside the wheelwell.
I'm running 295/50 15's on the rear of my '69. Of course they DO stick out a
bit. heh! You'll see what I mean here...
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/MVC-673F2.JPG
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/

On 3 May 2005 16:52:44 -0700, wrote:

>Regarding those tire sizes, remember the "10-plus" system: that you
>can get a tire with roughly the same overall dimensions if, for each
>one inch subtracted (or added) to the rim size you add (or subtract) 10
>from the aspect ratio. Thus, rough equivalents for a 245/50-16 would
>be 245/60-15 or 245/40-17 (tho I would also calculate for a 45 series
>on the 17" rim).
>
>I have never heard the advice to use the Pro-Motorsports Negative Wedge
>Kit without also doing the Shelby drop, but now that I think about it,
>it would change the camber curve slightly, and for the better. For
>those that have not seen one, what this kit does is put a wedge between
>the upper control arm and the ball joint. Its intended purpose is to
>re-center the ball joint's stud in the ball joint's socket after the
>upper control arm's mounting point has been lowered on the shock tower,
>aka "the Shelby drop." The reason to re-center the ball joint stud is
>to prevent it from hitting the socket and breaking off. This is not a
>problem with the standard 1" Shelby drop; it IS a problem with 1.5" to
>2" drops. Shelby American only did a 1" drop (only in '65 and the
>first few '66 carryover units) and did not use a wedge or any other
>ball joint relocation mod. They just drilled new holes in the shock
>towers and said to hell with the ball joint stud.

The negative wedge essentially executes the Shelby drop in a slightly
different approach to doing the same thing. The result is the Shelby
drop equates to about a 1 inch drop, while the pro-m kit drops it
about 1.75 inches.
>
>Doing "the drop" causes the UCA to have a more obtuse angle with the
>ground, at ride height, than stock. This causes the UCA to pull the
>spindle toward the car upon compression. This causes camber to move
>toward the negative on compression. Although body roll generally
>precludes true negative camber, the drop at least keeps the tire closer
>to vertical than the stock setup. This improves cornering traction
>dramatically. But even without the UCA relocation, the wedge would
>increase the distance between the UCA and the lower control arm, and
>this would also cause the UCA to have a more obtuse angle with the
>ground.
>
>A Global West "negative roll" UCA would do likewise, for the same
>reason. Global West claims the unique feature of using a shorter UCA
>than, for example, Total Control Products. Global West claims that this
>difference allows their product alone to cause negative camber, even
>after body roll is taken into account. I have always been skeptical of
>this claim, wondering how much shorter could their UCA be if they hoped
>to be able to maintain something close to zero camber at ride height.
>Anything more than one degree negative camber at ride height will
>destroy your tires. The only way to make the UCA shorter and still
>maintain a tire-friendly camber is to make the pivot thicker, so that
>its axis stands out further from the shock tower. And when you look at
>a GW UCA, the pivot's only about a quarter inch thicker than an OE
>part. So I gotta ask, how much difference can a quarter inch make, on
>a UCA that's about 10 inches long?
>
>Final observation: if you're going to the expense and trouble of
>installing a Negative Wedge kit or a Global West UCA, you're leaving a
>lot of good stuff on the table if you don't do at least a 1.5" drop.
>
>180 Out

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

That would be my guess as a number of states prohibit the tire from
extending beyond the fender (although in California I see this
violated all over the place) to help reduce gravel etc being thrown at
trailing vehicles.

On Tue, 3 May 2005 18:08:31 -0600, "66 6F HCS"
> wrote:

>
>"Spike" > wrote
>> 67-73 Mustang:... ...255/50/16 rear
>
>Sheesh! I'm assuming they mean keeping all of the tire inside the wheelwell.
>I'm running 295/50 15's on the rear of my '69. Of course they DO stick out a
>bit. heh! You'll see what I mean here...
>http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/MVC-673F2.JPG

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16