Alignment specs after Shelby drop

[motorhead428]

Just a question. Couldn't you use a different height upper ball joint and achieve the same geometry ? I see a company name Howe is the stock car magazine that offers ball joints in different heights. Not sure if they offer them for the mustang. Sure would be easier to install.

[shelbydoug]

Just a question. Couldn't you use a different height upper ball joint and achieve the same geometry ? I see a company name Howe is the stock car magazine that offers ball joints in different heights. Not sure if they offer them for the mustang. Sure would be easier to install.

Not sure but I think you need to lower the inner pivot point.

I think that you need a horizontal line through the inner pivots and ball joint center lines?

[The Going Thing]

With the 1" drop it does not require bump steer correction. With the 1.5" drop it will.
You'll also want to use the Global West LOC-2 Excentric lock out kit.
The specifications that have worked best with the power steering on my 1967 Sheby are:
Caster Passenger side: 3 1/2 degrees positive.
Caster Driver side: 3.0 degrees positive
Camber: Driver and Passenger 1/2 degree negative.
Toe in 3/ 32 total.

This is for power steering and I haven't had abnormal tire wear with these settings.

[shelbydoug]

With the 1" drop it does not require bump steer correction. With the 1.5" drop it will.
You'll also want to use the Global West LOC-2 Excentric lock out kit.
The specifications that have worked best with the power steering on my 1967 Sheby are:
Caster Passenger side: 3 1/2 degrees positive.
Caster Driver side: 3.0 degrees positive
Camber: Driver and Passenger 1/2 degree negative.
Toe in 3/ 32 total.

This is for power steering and I haven't had abnormal tire wear with these settings.

All I can do is share my experieces. They may vary from yours. In my case, the 1" drop resulted in what I would describe as severe bump steer.



I do remember that there are two pattern configurations for the 1" drop.

One is where the bolt holes are plumb to each other. The other where the bolt holes wind up parallel but something like 1/4" or 3/8" behind the plumb line.

I think the plumb pattern is what was used by Shelby on the '65s. The second method is what was being recommended for the later cars coming out of Kar Kraft and what I used.

I'm not sure if that would account for the differences in bump steer issues or not. It's my understanding that is more an issue with the steering arm location on the spindles.
The simple solution being to raise the height of the mounting of the tie rod end about 5/8".



I have heard from others that there is a difference in Castor settings between '67s and '68s. I can't verify that one way or the other.
In my case, the COMBINATIONS of front suspension modifications limit my castor to a maximum of about 2-1/2 degrees befor the tire hits the bottom front of the fender opening.

My tire, wheel, wheel offsets with my configuration likely are different then others and logically could explain the limitations my combination has.

I will say that castor really is the largest factor in giving the car straight line stability combined with ease of steering through turns .



To answer an unasked question, yes the car has participated in high speed events, is a street car and not a race car and has pinned the speedometer with no steering where you want it to go issues. Again, these are done with my combinations. Yours may and probably will vary?



I don't do this for a living. I speak from 48 years of specific experience with my 68 GT350. Most is trial and error, with lots of error and more trials.

I just share to save others from going down the same route of mistakes and I'm not a lawyer here to debate the meaning of what "is" is, or debate what is necessary, or what is severe.



It's a free country and everyone should have the right (although that seems to be a legal term) or more correctly the opportunity, to venture out on their own and make their own mistakes, discoveries and accomplishments. It's all part of the experience I suppose?

Mine has been an enjoyable and busy 40 some odd years of "experiences". I hope yours will be too? Best...

[The Going Thing]

Doug- Is your car squatted low on the rear of the car or more on the level side? I also changed over to the Global West 640LB 1" lower spring and the poly 1/2 spring to tower spacer.  Tony Branda's catalog has alignment specifications too for the Arning drop.  It chewed up tires.

[shelbydoug]

Doug- Is your car squatted low on the rear of the car or more on the level side? I also changed over to the Global West 640LB 1" lower spring and the poly 1/2 spring to tower spacer.  Tony Branda's catalog has alignment specifications too for the Arning drop.  It chewed up tires.

No. The low squat always bugged me. The car was my everyday transportation when I got it in '72.
I couldn't put any adult in the back seat without it sitting all the way down on the bump stops, eliminating any rear travel, up and down at all.

I came to a solution that I still use. What I did was get another used set of rear springs, take them apart and cut the loops off of the top leaf. Then I added that top leaf to the stock assembly in the car.

This raised the ride height in the rear to right to a level point.


A couple of other things helped. That was removing the sheet metal clamps and changing out the Koni rear shocks for Comfort-ride rears.

I DON'T CARE what the "book" calls those things. As far as I am concerned, all that they do is add to the choppiness of the ride.

At some point I had also decided that there was no point to the rear seat. First I substituted a 65 GT350 rear luggage panel, then a 66 which is still in the car today.

The battery went in the trunk around that time also.



This was all done in the early 70s. There wasn't much information being shared then so everyone was really on their own.

As far as the extra rear leaf spring, I had noticed that was a common change to the R models and TA coupes I had seen so it isn't a Martian thing to do, just more of a secret proprietary info thing? Racers then didn't share information and considered things like this THEIR personally discovered secrets.


I'd recommend the spring change to anyone now. Combined with the radial tires, it has totally eliminated all of the early handling criticisms of these cars. It is no longer susceptible to bumpsteer, bottoming out and being hassled by road seams. It rides like a Lincoln should and how a Lincoln never could quite get to.



This was also done before individuals calling themselves the Shelby Secret Police were diagnosed and released from observation. They were still being held in captivity and not yet deemed safe to release. Some were Section 8 military personnel. Others, their medical benefits ran out and they were just let go. Some wound up here. Go figure?

Apparently some one made a decision that being annoying is not a public hazard although the mask, tights and cape leave a little doubt in my mind?

...and heck guys, if you're gonna wear the tights consider wearing a g-string, a card piece and waxing? Gee-se!

[S7MS427]

shelbydoug,

I made the same decision to put a '66 package tray in my '67 G.T.500 to prevent my 235R-60-15 tires from hitting the fender lips.  That also took care of passengers burning their backsides when the seats got too hot from the mufflers which are located directly under the rear seats.  Turns out that the rear seat dimensions are all the same from '65 though '70 for Mustangs.  I've used this setup for many years now with no issues.

[The Going Thing]

I fixed the hot "arse" issue another way. Dynamat.  The entire vehicle except the trunk was done. I didn't want it to be seen but it made sense to do during the restoration.

[S7MS427]

I fixed the hot "arse" issue another way. Dynamat.  The entire vehicle except the trunk was done. I didn't want it to be seen but it made sense to do during the restoration.

I like the package tray idea. It keeps folks guessing. 

[The Going Thing]

Like they aren't confused enough. lol

[2112]

I made the same decision to put a '66 package tray in my '67 G.T.500 to prevent my 235R-60-15 tires from hitting the fender lips. 

I am confused. How does a package tray give me more fender clearance?

[The Going Thing]

I made the same decision to put a '66 package tray in my '67 G.T.500 to prevent my 235R-60-15 tires from hitting the fender lips. 

I am confused. How does a package tray give me more fender clearance?

No Fat Arses sitting in the aft seating. 
I had custom rate springs made. They are 190LB rears.  However, with 255 tires they will still catch the edge of the fender well on a good bump.  One of the more interesting sounds the springs hitting the snubbers on the floor pan on a spirited launch.

[shelbydoug]

I made the same decision to put a '66 package tray in my '67 G.T.500 to prevent my 235R-60-15 tires from hitting the fender lips. 

I am confused. How does a package tray give me more fender clearance?

Huh? It has absolutely nothing to do with the inner wheel wells. All it does is fill the void left by the removed seat assembly.

[oldcanuck]

I made the same decision to put a '66 package tray in my '67 G.T.500 to prevent my 235R-60-15 tires from hitting the fender lips. 

I am confused. How does a package tray give me more fender clearance?

Huh? It has absolutely nothing to do with the inner wheel wells. All it does is fill the void left by the removed seat assembly.

I was kinda wondering the same thing......... (que the head scratch).....

[Dalton]

I think the package tray looks great! Nice, clean look.