svt 65 stang

[SN65]

Originally Posted by 907rs

Tight gaps are good!

Hi 9,

Tight is nice, but consistant is the key.

When all is said and done, this is one of if not THE key area when building any project car. Fit is critical.

I have seen so many cars that would have been breathtaking if they had spent more time on the fit. It is by far the most time consuming, back breaking, tedious and un-glorified aspect of any build, but it is what separated the men from the boys.

Who in their right mind would assemble and dissassemble a car over and over and over and over again just to get the gaps and fit perfect. Because, if done right, when finished, no one should notice. They should see the color, the finish, the engine, the interior, the wheels, etc, etc, etc...

If they notice the gaps and fit it is most likly because they rushed through this phase and they stand out like a sore thumb.

Bob

[Musclerodz]

I would allow 3/4" to 1" for movement purposes. Between engine movement, chassis flex, (if you have any at all), it will move some. I would rather be safe then sorry.

Mike

[SN65]

Hi All,

Here is our current problem

No the problem isn't Wayne. The problem is the width of the front track.

If we leave things exactly as they are, we will end up with a front wheel flares that stick out about 2 1/4", while the flares on the back stick out about 2". If we do this the car will have a rather strange appearance where the front track looks wider than the rear. To resolve this issue we need to shift the front wheels inboard about 1". This will give us a 2" rear and 1 1/2" front flare, which should look more appealing. We were giving consideration to resolving this issue by using front and rear wheels with different backspacing. We didn't really like this idea because we want the wheels to look identical on all 4 corners and a 1" diff in backspacing would be pretty obvious.

So, we called our friends at Maximum Motorsports and asked them if they could make us a custom lower control arm that would be 1" shorter than stock. They recommended that we use a fox control arm which is 3/4" shorter than the SN95 piece.

Wo Hoo!!!

This will solve a number of issues we were having all across the board.

Well, back to work on the fenders, hood and front end.

Catch ya’ll l8r.

Bob
Come see this WIP at
Julian's Collision Center
http://www.julianscollisioncenter.com/

[67Fastback]

Well you could not have changed the backspacing with those wheels anyways. I had a similar issue with the same set of wheels and there is not enough material to machine off the mounting face to get them to shift inward.

Are you concerned with the narrow track width? I know its not a race car, but thats going to put it off-par of the 03/04 cobra chassis. Hopefully the weight difference will help balance that out

Jeff

[rockdogz]

No the problem isn't Wayne.

Hah, Bob you're hilarious!
The only thing better than looking at pics of your awesome project is reading your comments! You're a gifted storyteller... Keep the updates coming!
Thanks,

[SN65]

Originally Posted by 67Fastback

SNIP...

Are you concerned with the narrow track width? I know its not a race car, but thats going to put it off-par of the 03/04 cobra chassis. Hopefully the weight difference will help balance that out

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Actually, I am not really concerned with narrowing the track. And I will tell you why and you can tell me if I am full of it.

Yes the track at the front will be about 2" narrower than the 03, but (on the other hand) the track will be considerably wider than a 65. Also, the wheel base has been extended 7" which should shift the center of gravity (in relation to the wheels) back quite a bit. I will not know how much until I can actually weigh the beast, but on a stock Cobra the center of the front wheel was right between the 2nd and 3rd cyl. Now the CL of the front wheel is actually in front of the 1st cyl. Ya think that might help a bit with front to back weight distribution???

Bob

[SN65]

Originally Posted by rockdogz

Hah, Bob you're hilarious!
The only thing better than looking at pics of your awesome project is reading your comments! You're a gifted storyteller... Keep the updates coming!
Thanks,

Hi RD,

I don't know about "storytelling", but, if you ask Wayne, I think the term "smart a$$" might come up.... Once or twice.... If not more.

Bob

[67Fastback]

...pulls out scientific calculator.....scratches head....shrugs....

We went from front track width to front/back weight distribution - I'm definately over my head.

Jeff

[B Schein]

The only thing that will be affected buy using wheels with more back spacing is you scrub radius. All other geometry will stay the same.

Brian

[SN65]

Originally Posted by 67Fastback

...pulls out scientific calculator.....scratches head....shrugs....

We went from front track width to front/back weight distribution - I'm definately over my head.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

When evaluating the suspension, imagine this as a modified 65 fastback, not a modified 03 Cobra.

That being the case, the differences from stock 65 are....

1) Wider track both front and back (just look at the flares used and you will get a good idea as to how much).

2) McPherson strut front sus with power rack and pinion (not as good as unequal "A" arms, but much better than the 65 stuff especially with the Maximum Motorsports mods).

3) IRS rear (not the best IRS, but much better than the 65 rear especially with the Maximum Motorsports mods).

4) Much, MUCH stiffer chassis.

5) Better weight distribution (the 4.6 sits back farther than the typical Windsor small block).

I hope this helps

Bob