Springs for 1968 coupe?

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

who claimed the wheels were a bolton, but a negative wedge kit (which they did not carry, and they didnot point me to any vendor for) was promoted to maintain the geometryof the steering/suspension. According to their fitment guide, yourmodel 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.

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

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

Picture of the new rims and tires -

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

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...

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.

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

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

Nice ride. Those tires remind me of my first wife's 72 Nova with the

16" wide deep dish rear wheels and slicks, along with air shocks. It also had a tiny steering wheel made of chain links. The guy she bought it from must have ordered parts from JC Whitney.

I know the article that Mustang Monthly carried about the larger wheels was how well they filled up the wells (side view) and how the car took on the wide track appearance (rear view) compared to stock.

Does the '69 have more room >

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

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

"Spike" wrote

MUCH more room, especially in the rear! The tires used on the original Boss's were 235/60 14's on all 4 corners, IIRC. I could probably run 245/50

15's in the front, but they would rub. There's no way in hell you could run that wide in a '65. Maybe 225? You could probably run a 235 in the rear and 215 to 225 in the front and be comfortable, unless you want to actually be able to rotate your tires, then I'd stick with somewhere in the 215 width.

My kids' '65 has 225/45-17's all round, on 17 x 8 rims with 5" backspacing. These are as big as you could go in front with no rubbing. Rears might be able go to 235 with the 5" BS, but 245's would require more BS or might not fit at all. Factors affecting the fronts: 7/32" spacers were required to clear the upper ball joint. 1" Shelby drop. Maier Racing "realigned" upper control arms. Pro-Motorsports progressive-rate springs, plus I've cut about five inches off the ends of each coil, resulting in about a 1" drop.

180 Out

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

Something about that "225" part didn't sound right, so I checked when I got home and they're 235/45-17's. So I should have said that 235's on a

17 x 8 are the biggest that will fit in the front of a '65-'66; that 245's would fit in the rear with a 17 x 8 and 5" BS; and that 255's would not without more BS, and probably would not fit at all.

Also, here is a pic of how much spring I cut off on Sunday

and here is apic of how the car looks now -- nice andeven, front to rear. The 3" spring cut gave me a 1/2" drop, and the 4"spring cut gave me a 5/8" drop.

180 Out

fronts:

Shelby

That looks REALLY good!

Kate

I just wish there was some "before" pix to compare to the "after" pix. That would give us a better idea of just how much it really lowered.

How about

? :)

Hey! All ya'll that know.. is the badging on the fender right on this car?

Kate