Classic Mustang guys

[Vertnut]

How did she work out? Does she run good? Sounds like a nice set-up.

[46Tbird]

I have 13" cobra disks on the back, 11.65" cobra vented disks on the rear, a mustang 8.8, T3550 and a 302, and it was all pretty close to bolt up. There's very little actual "fab" that was done, aside from taking brackets off the 8.8 and welding perches on.

Danny, you're one of THEM!!

You have a '69, dummy. Totally different ball game.

[dee]

You have a '69, dummy. Totally different ball game.

Their a lot more friendly to mods. I wanted a 67-70 as I want to stick a carbed 5.4 DOHC in one and they have a good bit more room in the engine bay.

[Baron Von Crowder]

How did she work out? Does she run good? Sounds like a nice set-up.

It works. Im in the final stages of being done mechanically, and then just getting the A/C working and interior done.

You have a '69, dummy. Totally different ball game.

Totally? Not really. That's like saying the 93 Gt was a totally different ball game than a 94 GT.

I used an SN95 width rear, but a fox length would work in the early cars. The front is essentially the same. Hell a 65-68 has more parts availablity and cheaper on most things.

[Vertnut]

It works. Im in the final stages of being done mechanically, and then just getting the A/C working and interior done.


Totally? Not really. That's like saying the 93 Gt was a totally different ball game than a 94 GT.

I used an SN95 width rear, but a fox length would work in the early cars. The front is essentially the same. Hell a 65-68 has more parts availablity and cheaper on most things.

Wait...whoa! There's quite a difference between the early format and the '67-'70's.

[Chas_svo]

Lots of good info in here. I always wanted a 65 FB, but modded in many ways. What Danny says is sound.

I have a buddy that has hundreds of 1st and 2nd gen Stangs. Pm me if you want his contact info.

[46Tbird]

Totally? Not really. That's like saying the 93 Gt was a totally different ball game than a 94 GT.

No, it's not. It's like saying a '59 Galaxie is a whole different ball game than a '64 Galaxie...... which it is.

I used an SN95 width rear, but a fox length would work in the early cars.

Right. That's the easy part. Hell, I just put a Fox body 8.8 in my '57 Chrysler, no big deal. Fitting disc brakes to an SN95 rear is zero work, since that's what they came with. Putting them on a Fox, along with 5-lug, is easy and straightforward but still more involved.

The front is essentially the same.

Nah, they're not even close. The '67+ cars were designed from the outset to fit an FE. That meant major changes to steering, suspension, brakes, and engine comparment. Fitting a Windsor (with power steering!) into a tiny '64-66 engine compartment is quite a trick.

Hell a 65-68 has more parts availablity and cheaper on most things.

All the resto parts, sure.

[Baron Von Crowder]

No, it's not. It's like saying a '59 Galaxie is a whole different ball game than a '64 Galaxie...... which it is.


Right. That's the easy part. Hell, I just put a Fox body 8.8 in my '57 Chrysler, no big deal. Fitting disc brakes to an SN95 rear is zero work, since that's what they came with. Putting them on a Fox, along with 5-lug, is easy and straightforward but still more involved.


Nah, they're not even close. The '67+ cars were designed from the outset to fit an FE. That meant major changes to steering, suspension, brakes, and engine comparment. Fitting a Windsor (with power steering!) into a tiny '64-66 engine compartment is quite a trick.


All the resto parts, sure.

What do you consider major changes Danny? Sure, there are some differences, but the general design is the same. Can you tell by looking at these two what years they belong to?

[Z06killinsbf]

Bottom is 65-66

[Baron Von Crowder]

Bottom is 65-66

http://www.cjponyparts.com/starter-front-steering-and-suspension-kit-8-cylinder-manual-steering-1965-1966/p/SUSK42/

[01yz2nv]

Those early cars are pretty sweet when done mild and tasteful.

Damn thats perfect!

[Z06killinsbf]

http://www.cjponyparts.com/starter-f...1966/p/SUSK42/

Damnit

[Baron Von Crowder]

What is your plan for the car: drag racer, cruise around town, etc?

Are you looking to keep it with a smaller, more period correct wheel, or are you wanting to run a 17"?

If you are thinking of a 5speed, it will be much easier to run a t5 than a tko or 3550, just due to tunnel size alone. If an auto, an AOD would get you an overdrive, if you want to cruise the highways with other traffic.

As stated, a 351 is a tighter fit than a 302 will be.

Ive done a ton of research on what options are out there for the early mustangs, let me know what you are thinking and Ill see if I can find some links to what I've found.

[Z06killinsbf]

I'll sell you a good running 289/c4 combo. Put my car at a 13.9 with 2.80 gears.

[dee]

What is your plan for the car: drag racer, cruise around town, etc?

Are you looking to keep it with a smaller, more period correct wheel, or are you wanting to run a 17"?

If you are thinking of a 5speed, it will be much easier to run a t5 than a tko or 3550, just due to tunnel size alone. If an auto, an AOD would get you an overdrive, if you want to cruise the highways with other traffic.

As stated, a 351 is a tighter fit than a 302 will be.

Ive done a ton of research on what options are out there for the early mustangs, let me know what you are thinking and Ill see if I can find some links to what I've found.

Mainly cruise but the possibility of a run down the strip on occasion (a few times a year at most).

Not sure on wheels was thinking 16-17" but that was just to clear any half ass decent brakes.

The trans isn't a big deal I have a fresh T5 but if I go 351 I want the added insurance of a tremec. From everything I've looked at so far the headers are the main concern with the 351 and power steering. I looked briefly at the conversions that run a rack and pinion but haven't done any research in depth. It may not be needed to much though as either motor will have aluminum heads so the weight will be similar to a 289.