|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
You are not logged in. Would you like to login?
Offline
on May 22, 2010, 12:23 pm, Daze wrote:
I don't think Ford took ackerman in to consideration on the first generation Mustang, or they did and it is not nearly as important as I thought it was. I measured a 65 V8 spindle I have and the arm is 7.25" from center of ball joint to center of tie rod hole. however the steering arm hole is only 1" inboard in comparison to the ball joint hole which makes the arms angle only 8º (rounded up for real world application actual result was 7.982º) so that would make the correct wheel base for that ackerman angle 170.77" which as we know is 62.77" to long. So at this point I am at a loss. I am thinking ackerman is not as critical as I first thought. what do you think??
Offline
Don't know about that Forget about granadas and falcons for just a minute. The catalog that I have states that there are 2 spindles (different P/N's) for 65-66 mustang. One for 6 cyl and one for 8 cyl. What if the ackerman on the the two spindles is different?? Why would they do that ... don't know. I do know they were using parts from other cars to build the mustang and maybe these were just different by design and thats what got put in ??
Thread StarterOffline
I know why there are different #s the 6 cyl spindle had a smaller snoutbecause it used smaller bearings and smaller brakes and 4-lug drums. The steering arms were slightly different, due to different steering components, but not by much.
I know you like hard fact rather than vague ramblings,and I totally get that so how does eye witness testimony from an extremely reliable source work for you??
My 64.5 started life as a 6 cyl car so I had the privilege of having both types of spindles side by side and have seen where they differ.
Also In 67 they began using the same spindles for both the 6cyl and V8 cars
Thread Starter
1 of 1