Big Block Dart Forums banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So I'm working on my Valiant and I realize the rear frame rails are a lot beefier than the ones in my wife's 1970 Mustang. So I took a tape measure and measured the Valiant and they were 4.5x2.5-inches (I think that's what they were) and the Mustangs were 3.5x1.5 inches. The Mopar seems thicker, too.

Overall, I think the Mustang is a cheap, poorly built car. I've worked on a lot of Mopars and they are built much better than the Mustang.

Just an observation for you guys. -o
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
They also tend to rattle and shake like hell. The parts are ridiculously cheap, though; you can practically build one from a catalog. Same thing with Novas... ::)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
I put a 5.0 in my daughters 66 coupe,formerly 6 cyl. car.
They are flimsey. Guess thats why they only weigh about 2600-2700.
Even with V8s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
Go to car shows and notice the body tears on the '65 - '66 behind the rear side window.

A buddy on mine is building a stoked 427 cammer in his '69 convertible. I'll send picks when he twists it up. lol

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
I've been told by the Mustang boys that the big block Stangs almost always crack or twist the inner fenderwells if you beat on them a little. I've seen the Cougars do the same thing. %)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
I've had 4 late model Mustangs, and I havn't left any of them alone. Sub-frame connectors are a MUST for any kind of racing, which is what I did. On that note, my last one ran 10.80's and I could drive it 30 miles each way to work every day. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,941 Posts
I put Edelbrock cylinder heads and a cam in my boss's 70 convertible. When I got under the car to connect the headers, I almost died when I saw the front suspension. What a heap. I drove it back to his house and it was all over the road. I told him to get one of those aftermarker front ends with all the spherical rod ends and whatnot. I didn't want to go fast in that thing ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
One thing my Ford loving buddy says. Apparently the shock towers have a tendency to crack on the '69 and '70's. Take a good look at the towers.

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
b569rr said:
One thing my Ford loving buddy says. Apparently the shock towers have a tendency to crack on the '69 and '70's. Take a good look at the towers.

Tom
That's true. Though a good thing about them is that they are set high enough to use a strut brace; I have a friend who has the triangular-shaped setup on his and it stiffens up the front quite a bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
::) I always wonder about fords front end set ups , I get crap on a daily basis on how mopar has poor front ends with torsion bars . Funny enough it's from a die hard ford guy with mustang .
Is there an advantage to torsion bars versus coil springs ? other then fitment issues or weight ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,049 Posts
g-cuda67 said:
  ::)  I always wonder about fords front end set ups , I get crap on a daily basis on how mopar has poor front ends with torsion bars .  Funny enough it's from a die hard ford guy with mustang .
Is there an advantage to torsion bars  versus coil springs ? other then fitment issues or weight ?
Tell your Ford buddy that our tie rod ends are bigger. I have the O.E. 9/16".

Tom
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
g-cuda67 said:
  ::)  I always wonder about fords front end set ups , I get crap on a daily basis on how mopar has poor front ends with torsion bars .  Funny enough it's from a die hard ford guy with mustang .
Is there an advantage to torsion bars  versus coil springs ? other then fitment issues or weight ?
Older 'Stangs have the coil spring placed on top of the upper control arm so they have to run higher spring rates which means everything gets more extreme as far as suspension tuning. Most of the aftermarket kits use coilovers and mount them on the lower control arm so you can run a softer, more progressive spring rate. once you do that the front end is pretty nice. Stock setup sucks as far as I'm concerned, though. I'm putting a Mustang II setup in the wife's car, partly for ride quality and partly because it gets rid of the shock towers which will give us more room for the 429. 8)

I'm not sure about torsion bars, but the mopar front is way more heavy duty than the Mustang front - most don't even have a crossmember and just use the engine as a stressed member. Here's the front on my wife's '70 Mach 1 with just the round bar as a crossmember: doh



Not to mention most get holes torched into the shock towers by a mechanic at some point (like ours) so they can grease the upper control arms. I love the looks of the car and the fact that it's all spot welded together makes it easy to work on, but man, they're so cheap. From the numbers I've seen the fastbacks aren't that light, either. I think the number for the '70 was like 3500 pounds, but the early coupes are really light, about 2800 pounds and early fastbacks were around 3000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
tnku Guys , That front end does look wimpy with out your crossmember :-\ By the way loiq I like your work and it's looking good 8)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
My friends '64 Galaxie has an "S" bracket that's simply rivited to the frame rail to hold the shackle.  You all know Chrysler's shackle design bolts right through the frame rail.  How'd you like to be driving a twisted mountain road with the family in that loaf?  No thanks!

[attachment deleted by admin]
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top