|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
You are not logged in. Would you like to login?
Offline
on May 19, 2010, 1:58 pm, Daze wrote:
I would love to know the actual tolerances Ford used when they built the Mustang 45 years ago Well my side brackets are welded up solid and mounted in the car. I have not yet welded the shackle plates to the side mounts and I am thinking I my just leave them as a bolt on, will see. Any way the two side brackets are identical to within a 1/32" When I bolted them up in the car I discovered that the original frame rail mounts are not identical. On the drivers side (side I took the measurements from) the shackle plate are at a perfect 90º in relation to the back half of the side bracket, but on the passengers side the same shackle brackets are a couple of degrees off of 90º. I don't really think this is an issue other than the fact that it really bothers me also (may be due to differences in the rear shackle mount) the passengers side bracket sits about 3/32" closer to the frame rail at the top of the frame rail arch. The good news is that the side brackets are still level at the top section front to back for both sides, and the side brackets are still level in relation to each other, and since the car is currently level, I know that I can proceed in spite of the differences, but the side of me that strives for perfection sure wishes the car was a little more accurate.
As an aside, Kermit, this is exactly why I do not want to make and sell a "bolt in" kit. there are to many differences between cars of the same make model and year
Offline
It suprises me that your frame rails are that close to being equal. These cars were assembled while moving down an assembly line and workers hustling to keep up and finish each of their jobs before the next guys station.
My rails were out about a 1/16 in that same area.
Thread StarterOffline
Ford engineering As I was formulating my measurements for ackerman angle I was thinking ... I wonder if Ford engineers even knew what ackerman angle was (probably) but more importantly did they do anything to address it (who knows?). After all it was a $2000 car.
Your discovery brings up some interesting questions ... when I did my mock up I assumed that the ford rear end mounted with leaf springs was a given ... precise. If that is not the case then what do we use to ensure that the Jag IRS is mounted correctly ??
Thread StarterOffline
Klaus Arning was the main suspension designer on the mustang and I have no doubt that he took all that in to consideration including ackerman. he was an exceptional engineer and really new his stuff.
as far as your other question, that is a big one. in my case, I am not worried about it because I know the car sat level with the original suspension so I know that by using the original mounting locations I should be fine. The other thing is I took so many measurements that I know where things need to go even it it means... fudging it a little one direction or another. Those were bitter words in my mouth. its really no different then the deck I just built on my house. I made it square, plumb, and level unfortunately those same accuracies were not taken as closely when the foundation of my house was pored, so I had to make a few small adjustments to get things to line up properly. the trick was to take lots of measurements from lots of different places and come up with the best over all fit in relation to the house.
The same is true of my IRS install. There are some points like the front leaf spring mounts that are accurate, the car is level, and as it stands my side brackets are level and identical so I can use those reference points to properly locate everything.
Thread Starter
1 of 1