I don't see any reason why inner and outer bearings and a grease seal can't be found to put a '65-66 V8 5-lug drum HUB on a '65-66 6 cylinder spindle pin. That solves problem #1.
Have you ever had the V8 spindle side by side with the tiny six cylinder spindle? I have. The difference is so pronounced you can spot them 30 feet away. That would be a remarkable bearing set.
__________________
Amateur restorer. (Well, once in a while I have been paid for it)
Do you want to go back to the 4 lug, 6 cylinder rear axle? I have one in Lampasas,TX. I'll trade it for your 5 lug 8".
Thanks for the offer- I would have been happy to purchase the 7.25" axle when mine went kaput!
Unfortunately, when I swapped to the 8" I had to have my driveshaft modified with a new rear U-Joint as well (since Ford in its great wisdom decided every variation of the '65 except for the 6cyl / manual trans would have the 1310 U-Joint). The front of the driveshaft has already been modified to go with my T-5 five speed. Plus, I'm thinking of going with Classic Inlines aluminum head in the future will feel better having the 8" back there at that point.
I don't see any reason why inner and outer bearings and a grease seal can't be found to put a '65-66 V8 5-lug drum HUB on a '65-66 6 cylinder spindle pin. That solves problem #1. I also found that the rear drum for a '95 Toyota Camry has the same 5 on 4.5" bolt pattern and is very, very close in dimensions to the '65-66 9 inch front drum.
Now I'm wondering what kind of project concluded with someone knowing that a Toyota Camry drum would be a close swap in! Seriously, thanks for the out-of-the-box thinking! If I ever went with something like that, I'd have to write up a "readme" document for any future owners (imagine someone 10 years from now going to change the front drums and finding that setup without any documentation ).
I've got a really bad idea. Cast iron welds really well correct? Weld the 4 holes shut, and machine surfaces on front and back flat. Then using a bridgeport mill that is centered over then drum using a dial indicator (perfectly centered) put in new holes for the five hole pattern. I used to be a machinist so it is very feasible. How safe would it be is the question?
I was actually thinking along those same lines... however, its almost like Ford has deliberately taken that option off the table. The periphery of the 6 cyl hub is not round like the 8 cyl... It looks like it would be challenging to get the 5 holes safely placed. However, if it could be done, those Camry drums would possibly solve the other end of the problem.
Some time ago, I was speaking with someone (who was recommended on this site) about a disc conversion, and he told me they had a new kit that would upgrade the spindles and steering linkage to the 8 cyl setup (think it might have been someone at CSRP). In the end, I may give in and go that route. That way, if I ever sell her on she'll be pretty much ready for someone to just drop a 289/302 in the front (the only changes left to do would be new springs and motor mounts- everything else would have been done already).
Seems like everyone is in a rush to eradicate 6 cyl early Mustangs, so it would be a good selling point. I would love to know just how much Ford "saved" per car with the weaker 6 cylinder components (knowing you'd have to subtract out the cost of the extra inventory and assembly line complications associated with the different components). I'd be surprised if the the difference was more than $10 / car.
__________________ '65 coupe, 200ci, T5spd, Silver Smoke Gray, Std Red Interior '03 convertible, V6, auto, Silver Metallic, Black Top '14 coupe (on order- ETA 05/30/13), Sterling Gray, 5.0, 6spd, Track Pack, Glass Roof, Brick Red interior
Actually, about 1/2 of the Mustangs produced were 6cyls- so that would be about 500,000 x $10 for the '65-66 production... okay, point made- $5m in the 60s would have been significant (minus the inventory & production line costs though).
Still, you would think Ford would have given some consideration to the folks who would be restoring these cars 48 years later! (I know- just kidding ) If I could go back in time to June 1965, I'd have been happy to give a line worker $20 to swap out some parts! (Psst- hey you, with the mustache... Me & President Jackson here would love it if you could throw a couple 8 cyl spindles and an 8" axle in 5F07T... over there).
__________________ '65 coupe, 200ci, T5spd, Silver Smoke Gray, Std Red Interior '03 convertible, V6, auto, Silver Metallic, Black Top '14 coupe (on order- ETA 05/30/13), Sterling Gray, 5.0, 6spd, Track Pack, Glass Roof, Brick Red interior
You are wrong. The 69-73 L code six cylinder had the same 10" brakes and rear axle as the 302 V8. He has a 65, which had tiny spindles, nothing like yours.
There was no Ford product with 9" brake 5-bolt wheels that could be used on a 65.
There is no need to change to 5-bolt to put disc brakes on a six cylinder.
is this a power set-up? where I find all the parts to do this switch.
We often forget/overlook that the Mustang was mostly a styling exercise. Most of the significant mechanical components/assemblies existed in Falcon and Fairlane. The Falcon started as a small economy car with a small 6. Much of the 6 stuff didn't need re designing it was used as is! Even the K hi po 289 wasn't a special Mustang engine it was used previously in the Fairlane, Falcon and others.
Sometimes a better, higher performance part or assembly is actually cheaper. The total cost engineering, tooling, production set ups etc. makes it worthwhile to use the lesser thing. If the company started with a clean slate, no existing design, tooling etc. many things would be different!
You can't just look at a part with 4 holes and say "how much did they with 4 rather than 5?" These parts/designs already existed!
I worked for Evenrude for a while. Their higher performance V4 was cheaper to produce than the older lower performance design. They made a profit on each, just a lot more on the higher perf one. In most products the market sets the price. Often there is a distinct leader. For many years in the 40s and 50s Chebby was the price leader for low price full size cars. When other brands like say Studebaker lost money trying to compete with Chebby prices they merged and gradually went out of business. Some say the evil big company wanted more profit! Believe me they went broke! I worked for Allis Chalmers for 10 years. The price leaders in power stuff were GE, Westinghouse and Seimans. Allis Chalmers went broke.
Blah blah blah!
Slim
By the way several times over the years Ford was on the verge of going broke. In the late 50s McNamera came to Ford (scary thing is from politics) to cut costs. We often talk of "Henry being cheap". He was trying to keep from going bust!
__________________
My '64 1/2 vert. Ordered May '64. D code 4 speed, handling package, caspian blue, accent group, Ford blue manual top.
'68 vert. driver. Owned since '77. C code AT, AC, PS, P disc B, PT lime gold, standard black interior and top. NOS RF fender and left quarter.New top and folding glass.
The simple answer to your question is demand, that's why nobody make 4 lug disk hubs for the 1st gen mustang.
Given what you've said about your car, you could simply go with a few cans of 'fix a flat' type stuff.
That might sound strange at 1st, but I've heard that some new cars DON'T have spare tires !!
One thing that bugs me is why Ford made these 4/5 lug setups from the start. Example, My 200 6 uses the same starter as my 428 FE. Why not just make ALL small/med cars have the same as what the med size cars would have? Too much weight? For the very small cars, make stuff just for it, otherwise ALL mustangs could get the same rear/hubs/rims etc...
The point is, some suggest the $5 X 500,000 cars... well, what about the separate production costs? The 7.25" vs 8" rear, for example, what are the overall costs of making TWO different rears? Are you saving anything by either building/running a separate line for the 7.25? Would it be cheaper to just stock the parts (u-joints/gears/etc...) for the 8" rear and drop the 7.25?
Same could be said for starters, alts, batteries, etc... the production cost of keeping all these different parts vs weight saving/cheaper spindle/rear/etc... costs?
Look at trannies... the C6 comes in FE/351C/351W/ etc... why not make them all the same? GM has a T400, it fits SB/BB...
This whole thing costs the company, consumers, parts suppliers, etc... Imagine if the world had 3 starters that fit ALL cars, Small/Med/Large... that's it... No more $300 starters for Honda... All starters would be $19.99 Did the world REALLY need a 7 lug rim? We have 6 lugs and 8 lugs, and Ford puts out a 7 lug rim, WTF??
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
).
