Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Call me ignorant but....

So the other day I went to put my "new" 64 falcon up on jack stands. Once I got underthere I noticed that it has some crazy unibody-frame type construction going on. It seemed really weird to me. I have always worked on 60's chevy's and they all pretty much have a individual frame unit. When did Ford convert to this unibody-frame style?

Also, I had understood it from the guy I got the car from that the chassis and suspension are the same as the Mustang. Is this true?

Thanks

J
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
557 Posts
You need to get those Chevy's off your brain!

Chevy used full frames because their unibody cars were pure crap...like the Chevy II Nova with a bolt-on front subframe (what kinda crap is that??, what were they thinking??), and the Corvair (Nuff said).

The following cars from FoMoCo were "unibody" cars:
Falcon
Ranchero...1960-1971
Fairlane...1962-1970
Comet...all
Torino...1968-1971
Cyclone...1964-1971
Montego...1968-1971
Maverick...all
Mustang...all
Cougar...1967-1971 and 1979-present
Pinto/Bobcat...all
Capri...all
Theres probably some that I forgot, but the full frame cars were the full size Fords, Mercs, and Linc's.
Just dont jack up the car from the floorpans!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
281 Posts
It is my understanding that the 1964 Mustang was built off the 1964 Falcon. (If you look closely, you will notice even the dashes are the same.) This means you have a huge selection of go-fast, handle-well parts available for your ride. (Wish the same was true for my 64 Fairlane.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks guys, that is very interesting.
I guess it just bring a totally new meaning to "frame-off" restoration, eh?

I think the design is pretty cool. I suppose it makes the body-chassis-suspension much stiffer and stronger. It'll just take some time to get used to it.

What sort of upgrades should I look at for the suspension. Front and rear if you please. I'd like to keep the back around stock height or maybe a little lower and to drop the front down to lower my center of gravity, improve handling, etc.
Could you recommend any websites as well?

Thanks

J
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,758 Posts
Actually, the uni-body design flexes more than most full frame cars. The first thing I'd do is get a set of sub-frame connectors. Crites Restorations has 'em for $79. Invest in the weld-in type for the most strength. As far as handling is concerned, look to somebody like Global West. They have a whole slew of parts to make these cars handle. Remember, nearly every chassis part for 64-65 falcons/comets are interchangable with 65-66 mustangs. That includes springs, upper and lower control arms, sway bars, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/
http://www.globalwest.net
http://www.critesrestoration.com/

subframe connectors
big front and rear sway bars
lower the upper control arms- its free!
http://themustangshop.com/
stiffer springs
big sticky meats on 16" wheels
shelby style traction bars

That'll get you started. You can use quite a bit of mustang stuff, you just have to be carefull as to what will fit.

_________________
-Walt-

1964 Comet 289 C4 daily driver
TFS TW, Weiand Stealth, Comp XE268, Rhodes lifters, TFS roller rockers, Carter 625 AFB, Hooker SuperComps
"These go to 11." -This is Spinal Tap

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dragman64 on 3/20/02 6:06am ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dragman64 on 3/20/02 6:08am ]</font>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
512 Posts
LOOK in our Archives!!!!!!!!!!!

Link is at the top of the page. Under the Suspension section....


JL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
Actually, unibody cars built in the 60s (particularly Fords) were known to be more "ridgid" or more resistant to torsional stresses than their full frame counterparts. Also, while the Mustang body was based on the same concepts as the Falcon and Fairlane, it shared very little, if any, actual metal parts. The Mustang engineers took special pains to design a very ridgid structure and those of us who owned 65/66 Mustangs (when they were new) can attest to their solidness when compared to other cars of that era. Shelby GT-350s successfully raced in SCCA B-Production class (won the chanpionship over the Corvette) with basically stock Mustang bodies (only adding bolt on braces between the shock towers. IIRC, the Camaro race cars had to have "full" roll cages installed to help stiffen their structures as there was lots of movement between their body and subframe. The 60s Fairlanes and Mustangs were reported in magazines of that era to "feel" as if they were carved from a solid block of steel. Of course, modern, computer designed structures are lighter and stronger than 35 year old designs, but the Mustang was no slouch in that respect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Dragman64,
Why on earth would I want to lower the upper control arm. That would effectively raise up the front end. I want to lower the front. Simple physics tells me that lower roll center is better.
I'm sure I must be missing something here.

J
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
625 Posts
Actually if you lower the upper control arm. It will lower the car. It helps with negative camber I believe. So when you corner it more tire will be in contact will the road. You should be able to find a templete. My came with my TCP front end. I have not be able to drive it yet, but some of the guys here swear by it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
Did you look at the tech section of this link http://themustangshop.com/ ????

How will lowering the upper control arm raise the front end of the car??

All of the stuff I mentioned was just stuff Shelby did to the Mustangs they raced in SCCA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Ahh hah! Upon actual inspection of the front suspension design I know see that lowering the upper arms and reducing that horrible angle would by a good thing!

thanks for your help guys.

J

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: argonaut on 3/21/02 6:21am ]</font>
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top