Topic: Suspension Detailing Guide

[Anghelrestorations]

I've been working on putting together a suspension detailing guide that covers all the suspension pieces from 65 to 73.  Will do this in sections and keep adding to the same document here so its easier for us to share and comment.  The goal is to clear up alot of confusion and questions that seem to come up over and over again and hopefully uncover some new things.  Looking forward to comments and questions. 

This first section here is just the spring perches and the lower crossmember that was there from 65 to 70.

http://anghelrestorations.com/uploads/3/5/1/2/35122002/65_to_73_suspension_guide_v1.5aa.pdf

[Bob Gaines]

Great article so far.

[J_Speegle]

Going to be a really large (lots of pages) article once done.

Look forward to more information.

Might consider adding a picture in the close up of the FoMoCo stamped cross member to show where it can typically be located. Since space is a concern maybe superimpose it over one of the upper corners of the current close up with an arrow of the stamping's general location. Just a thought

[67gtasanjose]

The article seems accurate to the best of my understanding.
I noticed the spring perch date change-over date is sited as being in mid-November 1966, well into the 67 model year though the Title of the perches are "65 and 66" or "67 to 73".
Would it be splitting hairs to note the (estimated) changeover date in the titles?
BTW, my Nov. 2, 1966 carrys the early "MS" marked perches, originally tack welded, no crimp, early bushings with Rockford  fine threaded bolts, exactly as described in the article. I did restore the bolts to phosphate and oil because I saw no signs they were zinc or cadmium...I may be in error on that detail.

[bgp429]

Link is blocked by Microsoft as unsafe?

[carlite65]

works ok for me.

[Anghelrestorations]

Yes, will change and add some additional photo so everyone understands where that FoMoCo stamp on the cross member actually is.  Good input.

As far as model year and dates I try to keep the information as easy to understand as possible.  I dont really want to confuse things too much by adding that in the actual title.  But for anyone who reads thru deeper the information is there. 

[jwc66k]

Marcus,
I was told, years back by a 66 Shelby owner, that the tack weld on the 66 bushing was a HP exclusive (ref your pg 4). Comments?
Jim

[Bob Gaines]

Marcus,
I was told, years back by a 66 Shelby owner, that the tack weld on the 66 bushing was a HP exclusive (ref your pg 4). Comments?
Jim

Not Marcus but my point of view is that you did not receive accurate information . The tack weld is not Shelby or Hipo exclusive based on my observations and background. There are too many tack welded bushings found on generic examples to support that Shelby/Hipo only hypothesis.

[J_Speegle]

One of the challenges I've always had with the detail and options was that I had seen them (tack weld between bracket and bushing) added by alignment shops when replacing the bushing

[Bob Gaines]

I have found more times then not that alignment and general maintenance shops will replace a entire spring perch rather then going to the trouble and time to replace just the bushing. That adds to the confusion.

[Anghelrestorations]

For sure the tack welded bushings are not a Shelby or HiPo thing at all.  I have a stack of original spring perches that did not come from Shelbys.  It was more of an issue with the design of the early bushings and exactly why they changed the bushing and started crimping in the C7 version. 

As far as shops tack welding them, Im sure thats possible, but, the ones I have are not sloppy and very well done.  Not what I would see typical in a shop....and I agree that its way easier when getting paid by the hour to just replace the entire assembly.  Its too much effort to just change a bushing....trust me I know.
 

[Anghelrestorations]

Updated the link in the first post with the latest updated version.   

[1966KGT]

LINK TELLS ME IT'S NOT SAFE, I KNOW IT HAS TO BE, SUGGESTIONS? JANUARY 70 DEARBORN 351C MACH1

[jwc66k]

LINK TELLS ME IT'S NOT SAFE, I KNOW IT HAS TO BE, SUGGESTIONS? JANUARY 70 DEARBORN 351C MACH1

Yes. Lower case please, and the file downloaded just fine. It may be your "system".
Note to Marcus: V1.1 is 37kb smaller.
Jim