CSRP 65-66 drop spindles on a 69 mustang? - Vintage Mustang Forums

 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-12-2017, 04:44 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,367
CSRP 65-66 drop spindles on a 69 mustang?

Guys, lots have been posted on running later spindles on a 65-66.
What are the pitfalls with running the CSRP drop spindles for a 65-66 on a 69 mustang?
Bumpsteer?
It seems that no one makes a dropped spindle for a 69 other than Maier racing.
Jsams is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-12-2017, 04:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Ponyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Bothell, WA
Posts: 745
I would think it would mess up the geometry and cause bumpsteer and other problems.

66 coupe, '93 Fox seats, Three point belts, 289, 500 Cfm, Weiand, Hipo manifolds, duel exhaust, T5 trans, Pro 5.0 shifter, 3.40 open, KH front disc, Porterfield R4-S pads, 1" front sway bar, Shelby drop, Spring perch relocation, Shelby quick steer, GT progressive coils (1/2 coil cut), 4.5 leaf mid-eye, KYB Gas-A-Just front & GR-2 rear, Export brace, Monti-Carlo bar, Sub-frame connectors, Performance alignment (+3.5 caster/-.5 camber), 16x7 wheels, 215/55/16 & 225/55/16 BFG G-force

Brad

Ponyboy is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-12-2017, 05:03 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,367
I think the steering arm is shorter on the 65-66.
The Pro Motorsports kit effectively shortens the steering arm to prevent bumpsteer on the 69-70.
So it might work.
Jsams is offline  
 
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-12-2017, 06:21 PM
Senior Member
 
GT289's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,226
I had nothing to do late one night at GW, so I drug out a bunch of spindles
and did some measuring. Unfortunately that data is buried here somewhere,
so not looking at my notes, but from memory, it's not the length of the arms
as much as the positioning (and height) of the end of steering arm in your
comparison.
It is very likely you would need to mod the bumpsteer of the early arms
AND fix the tie rod holes...... at the very least. (or maybe the tie rod holes
are already bigger on his drop spindle- I don't recall)

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995

As the drill sergeant said, "I taught you everything you know. I didn't teach you everything I know."

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
- Douglas Adams
GT289 is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-12-2017, 08:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Boom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,291
It's a known fact that the spindle threads and the tie rod's hole are smaller on the earlier cars. Those aren't too hard too overcome themselves but I believe as GT289 mentioned, the arm is in the wrong location for a 69.

You might send a PM to Dennis at CSRP or maybe he'll chime in with more info. I wish someone made one for a 68, too.

The Maier unit forces you to use a Wilwood kit for brakes if I remember, that alone is a huge turn-off for me, on top of the less then mediocre customer service Maier seem to have sometimes.

-Brett
1968 Mustang coupe 5.0/T5
FiTech EFI
Build Thread
Current Project: 1968 fastback 351w
Boom is online now  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-12-2017, 09:17 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom View Post
It's a known fact that the spindle threads and the tie rod's hole are smaller on the earlier cars. Those aren't too hard too overcome themselves but I believe as GT289 mentioned, the arm is in the wrong location for a 69.

You might send a PM to Dennis at CSRP or maybe he'll chime in with more info. I wish someone made one for a 68, too.

The Maier unit forces you to use a Wilwood kit for brakes if I remember, that alone is a huge turn-off for me, on top of the less then mediocre customer service Maier seem to have sometimes.
Yes the Maier units dependence on Wilwood is an issue for me too.
I am going to keep my big Lincoln Trans Am brakes no matter what. I can used that setup with the CSRP spindles.
Jsams is offline  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-13-2017, 08:06 AM
Senior Member
 
j persons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Natchitoches, LA
Posts: 1,962
Just wondering, do you not like Wilwood or just the fact that Maier requires you have to use Wilwood instead of OEM type brakes?

John

Dynacorn 67 fastback. Dart 363, Close ratio Magnum 6 speed, 3.70 Eaton Truetrac in a fabricated full floater 9", SorT coil over suspension. Still in pieces.
'14 SHO with most all the bells and whistles. Stock for now.
j persons is online now  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-13-2017, 09:10 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 15,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jsams View Post
Guys, lots hyave been posted on running later spindles on a 65-66.
What are the pitfalls with running the CSRP drop spindles for a 65-66 on a 69 mustang?
Bumpsteer?
It seems that no one makes a dropped spindle for a 69 other than Maier racing.
I'm not an expert on suspensions but I have spent a lot of time on my 66's. I'm using 72 spindles and SoT parts. I'm familiar more with the quirks on the early cars then the later as there are some changes. I have spoken with Dennis on the phone from CSRP about the differences. He told me the the early spindles have .500" more offset to them. I'm pretty sure he said in posts on the forum that the angle of the tie rod arm is the same as well. That makes sense as the wheel base is exactly the same from 65 to 70 and the Ackerman would be the same. I do know that the length of the tie rods are the same. I measured them. I believe that number is 6.25" from the center of the ball joints to the center of the tie rod end.

I needed to know this for the bumpsteer issue I was having even before I ran the later spindles. I remember reading a post a long time ago related to bumpsteer on early cars with later spindles. It was suggested to set caster at 5 to reduce the effect of bumpsteer. At the time I didn't understand but one day it hit me. As you add caster the spindle is obviously tilting back. This lowers the outer tie rod closer to the road. If you divide 6.25" / .500" = .088 which is the sine of 5.

As you lower the outer tie rod in order to correct toe back to normal you have to increase the distance between the inner and outer tie rod. This causes a more gentle arc and effects less toe change. I believe this is why the Promotorsport bumpsteer kit moves the tie rod out. It does the same as lowering it except you don't have ground clearance issues. They always say the tie rod arm needs to be parallel to the LCA which I can agree with generally but what I think might be more important at least on our cars is how long the tie rod assembly is. I've come to think you can't make it long enough on our cars. I run a Baer bumpsteer kit on my car. I started to make a bumpsteer gauge, it almost done but I ended up tuning my suspension the Redneck way. Driving it over the crest in my road and adding shims in till the bumpsteer was gone or at least not really noticeable.

Another thing I noticed on my car whither the front end on Jack stands with the suspension at full droop. Before the suspension ran out of travel, the outer tie rods or I should say the rod ends on the bumpsteer kit ran out of travel and bound the steering up. At this point the camber went positive and the tires toe In severely. Sound familiar? I realized that it could be due to the fact I'm running rod ends that have been lowered working at a greater angle but I wonder if the same happens with stock tie rods but we don't see it because of the boot?

Keep in mind ad you add caster, it'll have some effect on the ride height of the car because as the caster angle of the spindle increases the vertical distance between the upper and lower control arm decreases. Again I'm just sharing what I have learned while fooling around with my car. Maybe something may be helpful to you. My last comment I would say set your car up how you like and see how it sits. It all effects ride height. My car sits a good 1.5" lower maybe more and I haven't done anything to specifically lower the car. I'm glad I didn't!

Tom

I'm not a complete idiot, pieces are missing.
Huskinhano is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome