Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tyrannis on October 28, 2011, 03:04:38 PM
-
Dont like ford, or mustang, but i figured i'd post this here for the stang fans to see.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.
-
page not found...
-
Dont like ford, or mustang, but i figured i'd post this here for the stang fans to see.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.
LOL
-
page not found...
:huh strange.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html ?
-
do you see the difference between the links you posted?
-
do you see the difference between the links you posted?
yes, the HTML got cut off in my original.
-
Want.
Wonder if the 5.0 V8 and 6-speed manual of the current generation Mustang will fit in there....
It's all just wishfull thinking, though. :cry
-
$15,000 for a bare metal body...no thanks. i'll rummage around the junkyards.
-
I always thought it would be cool for the automakers to come back out with classics except with modern drivetrains.
Sax, I don't know about the newest 5.0 but the 5.0 Windsor (302) they used until the fourth generation has been (relatively) unchanged over the years meaning it could be installed with a minimum of modifications. They continued to use the 302 in the explorers (and mountaineers) up until the 2002 model year so it's possible to get a relatively modern drivetrain implanted from one of those.
I have no experience with the '10/'11/'12 5.0 engine but I suspect it's completely different altogether.
-
None of the late model dual overhead cam engines Ford has will fit in that Mustang due to the shock towers in the engine compartment. You cannot cut them down as they are integral to the structural integrity of that year model.
However, the old overhead valve 302 will fit just fine. The transmission tunnel on the first generation Mustang will be tight if you try to use anything other than a top loader (4 speed) or a C4 automatic. The manual Tremec transmissions used in the late model Mustangs is wider and longer.
-
If nothing else it ensures that there will be quality steel body parts if you want them.
-
None of the late model dual overhead cam engines Ford has will fit in that Mustang due to the shock towers in the engine compartment. You cannot cut them down as they are integral to the structural integrity of that year model.
However, the old overhead valve 302 will fit just fine. The transmission tunnel on the first generation Mustang will be tight if you try to use anything other than a top loader (4 speed) or a C4 automatic. The manual Tremec transmissions used in the late model Mustangs is wider and longer.
And Skuzzy hikes his leg and urinates ALL OVER my nefarious plans. Thanks Roy.
*scratches off of Christmas card list
-
Dynacorn has been doing this since 2008.....
Gimme the 68 Fastback body.
http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/classic2.html (http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/classic2.html)
I talked to them at length, at the 2009 Autorama here in Detroit. Great bunch of guys and very helpful. Topshelf product that is superior to the OEM body shells.
Oh yeah, they do Chevy Camaros/Chevelles IIRC.
-
Dynacorn has been doing this since 2008.....
Gimme the 68 Fastback body.
http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/classic2.html (http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/classic2.html)
I talked to them at length, at the 2009 Autorama here in Detroit. Great bunch of guys and very helpful. Topshelf product that is superior to the OEM body shells.
Oh yeah, they do Chevy Camaros/Chevelles IIRC.
Beat me to it- I've been looking into making a repro '69 Mach 1 myself. Would be a long project, but oh so worth it...
-
and has been in talks with Ford to remake the original body of the Ford Bronco.
I wonder what years?
-
I wonder what years?
I'd imagine the early, square body Broncos. 1966-77.
(http://www.carlustblog.com/images/2009/01/06/67bronco.jpg)
wrongway
-
Screw the '65
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2539/4421/31347210001_large.jpg)
Gimmee the '71 Mach 1
-
Screw the '65
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2539/4421/31347210001_large.jpg)
Gimmee the '71 Mach 1
Only mustang ive ever liked.
-
i think this is the mustang that should be rolled off the production line again.
(http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/i336/igotafro/boss-stang.jpg)
-
If nothing else it ensures that there will be quality steel body parts if you want them.
This. :aok
-
I seen this story today and my jaw dropped. I've wondered why auto companies haven't retooled for the older classic car designs....70 Cudas, 67 Novas and Chevelles and so on, for years now. The American auto industry ain't what it used to be and this could set them apart from the pack. They could make a killin' if they do it right! Our auto industry needs reinvented. What better way to do it then "reinvent".
I think 15 grand is a little steep for just the body and no frame though. But that's just my opinion.
Imagine going to your locale Chevrolet dealer and picking up your new 1955 Chevy 2 door hardtop kit. :rock :banana: :pray
-
I seen this story today and my jaw dropped. I've wondered why auto companies haven't retooled for the older classic car designs....70 Cudas, 67 Novas and Chevelles and so on, for years now. The American auto industry ain't what it used to be and this could set them apart from the pack. They could make a killin' if they do it right! Our auto industry needs reinvented. What better way to do it then "reinvent".
Imagine going to your locale Chevrolet dealer and picking up your new 1955 Chevy 2 door hardtop kit. :rock :banana: :pray
Dynacorn followed Dearborn Classics in terms of doing this. Also Broncograveyard procured many of the original molds for the 66-77 Early Broncos. This was one of the things I talked to the owner about.
-
Dynacorn followed Dearborn Classics in terms of doing this. Also Broncograveyard procured many of the original molds for the 66-77 Early Broncos. This was one of the things I talked to the owner about.
I've done business with dearborn back when I had a 67 Fairlane. I was amazed at the parts they had. If you have the money you can get about everything clean down to the engine stickers.
I've never heard of BroncoGraveyard but do know those little broncos go for big bucks....if ur lucky enough to find one. I'll have to check them out. I'm always looking for transfer case and rearend parts and fenders for the old Fords.
-
I've done business with dearborn back when I had a 67 Fairlane. I was amazed at the parts they had. If you have the money you can get about everything clean down to the engine stickers.
I've never heard of BroncoGraveyard but do know those little broncos go for big bucks....if ur lucky enough to find one. I'll have to check them out. I'm always looking for transfer case and rearend parts and fenders for the old Fords.
Broncograveyard.com
Wild Horses
Bronco Hut
James Duff will get you anything you need for an Early Bronco.
-
Dont like ford, or mustang, but i figured i'd post this here for the stang fans to see.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.
dead link....but here's another.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html
just remember...without the mustang, the camaro very well have never existed. it is the only pony car in constant production since 1964, and the only one still built in the good ole usa. :aok
-
dead link....but here's another.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html
just remember...without the mustang, the camaro very well have never existed. it is the only pony car in constant production since 1964, and the only one still built in the good ole usa. :aok
:huh strange.
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/ford-reintroduces-the-1965-mustang.html ?
-
Dynacorn has been doing this since 2008.....
Gimme the 68 Fastback body.
http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/classic2.html (http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/classic2.html)
I talked to them at length, at the 2009 Autorama here in Detroit. Great bunch of guys and very helpful. Topshelf product that is superior to the OEM body shells.
Oh yeah, they do Chevy Camaros/Chevelles IIRC.
67, 68 same basic body, with a couple different things on the outside. big differences in the interiors. having owned 3 67 coupes, and 2 68 coupes, i definitely like the 67's better. :aok
-
yea, i know....i did that before i saw that you corrected it. :bolt:
-
And how much do you want to bet that the parts don't quite bolt up to the originals...
-
And how much do you want to bet that the parts don't quite bolt up to the originals...
With Dynacorn, they do.
-
I think 15 grand is a little steep for just the body and no frame though. But that's just my opinion.
Imagine going to your locale Chevrolet dealer and picking up your new 1955 Chevy 2 door hardtop kit. :rock :banana: :pray
You realize that the mustang doesnt have a frame,it's a unibody platform. 15 grand isnt that bad,if you live in the salt belt your not likely to find anything worth fixing. doing the interior would be some task for sure though!
:salute
-
You realize that the mustang doesnt have a frame,it's a unibody platform. 15 grand isnt that bad,if you live in the salt belt your not likely to find anything worth fixing. doing the interior would be some task for sure though!
:salute
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Now you ruined the fun. :devil
-
Screw the '65
(http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/3/2539/4421/31347210001_large.jpg)
Gimmee the '71 Mach 1
while i love the looks of the 71 to 73's, i'd never buy one. they were big, fat, and slow. the very first REALLY good looking mustang since the 1970 fastback, is the 2010 coupe.
-
HEY!!!!
the 2000 convertible is an attractive machine.
-
You realize that the mustang doesnt have a frame,it's a unibody platform.
:salute
:o oh yeah forgot that part :lol My Fairlane was like that. I hate unibodies. I can see paying 10 but i dont know about 15. It does look like all steel though...............
-
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Now you ruined the fun. :devil
:neener:
-
:neener:
:furious
-
Wait things are still made in the united states?
-
while i love the looks of the 71 to 73's, i'd never buy one. they were big, fat, and slow. the very first REALLY good looking mustang since the 1970 fastback, is the 2010 coupe.
My first two cars were Camero's. The '78 LT was big, fat and slow too but I wasn't racing it. All it needed was good brakes. I could roll up to any girl and say, "Hey! Need a ride?" and I had a new seat cover.
Great looking, big, slow, fat muscle cars get the job done.
http://youtu.be/VI2L82eUoJU (http://youtu.be/VI2L82eUoJU)
-
I'll be more excited if/when they produce 1st gen Bronco frames/bodies. :rock
I hate unibodies.
Unibody works fine for street cars, but it does suck for off-road vehicles ***cough*cherokee*coughcough**** :bolt:
-
I seen this story today and my jaw dropped. I've wondered why auto companies haven't retooled for the older classic car designs....70 Cudas, 67 Novas and Chevelles and so on, for years now. The American auto industry ain't what it used to be and this could set them apart from the pack. They could make a killin' if they do it right! Our auto industry needs reinvented. What better way to do it then "reinvent".
I think 15 grand is a little steep for just the body and no frame though. But that's just my opinion.
Imagine going to your locale Chevrolet dealer and picking up your new 1955 Chevy 2 door hardtop kit. :rock :banana: :pray
Modern safety standards. Crash testing, passenger survivability, etc.
Before you start complaining about "regulation" think "lawsuit" instead.
Notice there is really no small aircraft industry anymore? It's not due to regulation. Crash once and the wolves come out looking for their $$$$.
Now if you build it yourself, it's your fault.
How would you register a built from the ground up classic? I've always wondered how custom motorcycle builders, especially in Cali, can get anything on the road legally or even if they bother.
wrongway
-
Well how is Ford getting away with selling the 65 Mustang now? I see your point but apparently FoMoCo has figured a way to get around the issues of goberment regulations. Maybe the buyer has to sign a disclaimer as they did back in the 60s for some of the old musle cars back in the day..i don't know, but i hope other American companies (mopar :D) follow suit.
-
Well how is Ford getting away with selling the 65 Mustang now? I see your point but apparently FoMoCo has figured a way to get around the issues of goberment regulations. Maybe the buyer has to sign a disclaimer as they did back in the 60s for some of the old musle cars back in the day..i don't know, but i hope other American companies (mopar :D) follow suit.
It is my understanding that they are selling the bare body only. Some assembly required. It may even be simpler than that. That they are endorsing the manufacturer of the bare body.
I really doubt you can walk into a Ford dealership and order a '65 Mustang.
On the other hand, you can order a '65 Shelby Cobra (http://www.shelbyautos.com/427sc.asp) from Shelby American Inc. (http://www.shelbyautos.com/)
:headscratch: I don't know.....
wrongway
-
On the other hand, you can order a '65 Shelby Cobra (http://www.shelbyautos.com/427sc.asp) from Shelby American Inc. (http://www.shelbyautos.com/)
:headscratch: I don't know.....
wrongway
I believe it has to do with how it is registered, vehicles registered as "antique" or "classic" or "custom" (it varies state by state) are not subject to the same safety and smog regulations of new cars. Not sure in the case of the actual Shelby cars, but I know that is how it usually works with the kits, (which would be the same as the Mustang body) you just need someone from the Highway Patrol to look at your car and sign off that it's road legal, then a safety inspection if it's required, then register it in the antique or custom or whatever category.
Of course this is state law, so it is probably a little different everywhere.
-
Modern safety standards. Crash testing, passenger survivability, etc.
Before you start complaining about "regulation" think "lawsuit" instead.
Notice there is really no small aircraft industry anymore? It's not due to regulation. Crash once and the wolves come out looking for their $$$$.
Now if you build it yourself, it's your fault.
How would you register a built from the ground up classic? I've always wondered how custom motorcycle builders, especially in Cali, can get anything on the road legally or even if they bother.
wrongway
actually, some of it, such as cessna's new lsa are outsourced to places like china.
-
actually, some of it, such as cessna's new lsa are outsourced to places like china.
Cirrus is owned by the Chinese government now, as is TCM and Epic... :noid they should change names to Chirrus, Chontinental and Chepic maybe.
It's not just GA planes either, look at transport aircraft... Chinese companies have been building what are basically rip-off copies of Antonov, Boeing, Airbus and Embraer designs for years. And of course the military stuff, with the Nanchang copies of Yaks and Migs, and now what seems to be an F-22 copy. The Chinese seem to be great at production, but not so much on originality.
-
actually, some of it, such as cessna's new lsa are outsourced to places like china.
Just searched google for "2011 Cessna".
Nothing but bussiness jets.
Anybody making private, light, recreational aircraft anymore?
No? Only kits?
wrongway
-
Just searched google for "2011 Cessna".
Nothing but bussiness jets.
Anybody making private, light, recreational aircraft anymore?
No? Only kits?
wrongway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162
-
Just searched google for "2011 Cessna".
Nothing but bussiness jets.
Anybody making private, light, recreational aircraft anymore?
No? Only kits?
wrongway
I think you greatly exaggerating.
Cessna currently still makes 162 (LSA), 172, 182 and 206 for single pistons.
As for other light recreational aircraft, since the creation of the LSA catergory there has been an explosion of new manufacturers. There are currently more cheap(ish) LSA planes on the market then you can shake a stick at.
Right now it is definitely a buyers market for light aircraft, just look on Trade a Plane, or Controller or Barnstormers. There are hundreds of used 2 and 4 seater piston planes in decent shape for under $35K right now.
-
I think you greatly exaggerating.
Cessna currently still makes 162 (LSA), 172, 182 and 206 for single pistons.
As for other light recreational aircraft, since the creation of the LSA catergory there has been an explosion of new manufacturers. There are currently more cheap(ish) LSA planes on the market then you can shake a stick at.
Right now it is definitely a buyers market for light aircraft, just look on Trade a Plane, or Controller or Barnstormers. There are hundreds of used 2 and 4 seater piston planes in decent shape for under $35K right now.
I didn't look at the Cessna sight closely enough.
Yes, they do still make five recreational light aircraft.
I missed the "propeller" drop down menu the first and second times I looked.
wrongway
-
I didn't look at the Cessna sight closely enough.
Yes, they do still make five recreational light aircraft.
I missed the "propeller" drop down menu the first and second times I looked.
wrongway
a 182 i think can be considered more than a recreational aircraft. we use em in cap, with the g1000 cockpits.
-
Just searched google for "2011 Cessna".
Nothing but bussiness jets.
Anybody making private, light, recreational aircraft anymore?
No? Only kits?
wrongway
Some of us are still doing scratch-builds :D
-
It's a good thing ford made so many cars on the same general unibody.
My first car was a 1966 ford fairlane.
I was overjoyed when I got my first job at a gas station a few weeks later and did an oil change on a ford granada.
They were identical underneath.
I found a granada ESS that had been spun into a pole and swapped over all the good stuff like super fat sway bars front and rear as well as braking bits and the steering box.
The steel wheels were also nearly 2 inches wider than the 5 inch wide stock rims of the fairlane.
Made the Fairlane much more capable on the streets.
Kind of wish I had saved a ESS granada.
(http://www.productioncars.com/send_file.php/ford_granada_ess_2d_white_1978.jpg)
Of course, I really want a shelby maverick.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JTKUofzU1vM/TWRDlCN4kCI/AAAAAAABdok/bW9M5zLc1PM/s1600/shelbydemexico2.jpg)
-
It's a good thing ford made so many cars on the same general unibody.
My first car was a 1966 ford fairlane.
I was overjoyed when I got my first job at a gas station a few weeks later and did an oil change on a ford granada.
They were identical underneath.
I found a granada ESS that had been spun into a pole and swapped over all the good stuff like super fat sway bars front and rear as well as braking bits and the steering box.
The steel wheels were also nearly 2 inches wider than the 5 inch wide stock rims of the fairlane.
Made the Fairlane much more capable on the streets.
Kind of wish I had saved a ESS granada.
(http://www.productioncars.com/send_file.php/ford_granada_ess_2d_white_1978.jpg)
Of course, I really want a shelby maverick.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JTKUofzU1vM/TWRDlCN4kCI/AAAAAAABdok/bW9M5zLc1PM/s1600/shelbydemexico2.jpg)
granada and 66 fairlane are 2 different chassis.
-
The Granada was different than the Fairlane. The 62-68 Fairlane, Falcon, Mustang, Ranchero, and Comet all shared the exact same underpinnings (and most of the mechanical bits as well). In 1969 the platform was changed.
-
Only thing with you Stang boys to remember. Camaro has beat Stang
out of factory every year, except 1
:cheers: Oz
-
Only thing with you Stang boys to remember. Camaro has beat Stang
out of factory every year, except 1
:cheers: Oz
negatory on that. camaro has always been [playing catch up. we've been through this before. do a search. :aok
now, had you said that dodge has wiped up the streets with every 60's mustang or camaro, you'd have been right.
-
Everything from the granada including sway bars bolted right onto my fairlane.
-
Front sway bars have floating ends, on Fords, so they will almost always bolt up, if the wheel track is about the same between the cars. Try the control arms, idler arm, or front spindles. There is no way those would work.
I worked at Ford for a number of years, in the parts department. I have a pretty good handle on what will swap with what.
-
My Mom's maiden name was Ford. :)
-
My Mom's maiden name was Ford. :)
betty? :noid :x
-
Front sway bars have floating ends, on Fords, so they will almost always bolt up, if the wheel track is about the same between the cars. Try the control arms, idler arm, or front spindles. There is no way those would work.
I worked at Ford for a number of years, in the parts department. I have a pretty good handle on what will swap with what.
The granada was built with a stretched Maverick platform.
I had both on a lift and most every suspension part measurement was identical.
Both the granada and the fairlane had 5 lugs as well.
-
later granadas were fox chassis. early granadas were still different than a 66 fairlane, which was different than a maverick.
-
The Maverick/Comet is a different generation (1970 - 1977) than a 1968 Fairlane. The 1970 model Fairlane (last year model for it, not many were made) was built on the same platform as the first generation Maverick/Comet/Granada would be.
The Granada came out in 1975 and used the same 1970 platform as the Maverick/Comet/Fairlane with some alterations to the attached mechanical bits (different rear end: first year for the aluminum housing, upper control arms...). In 1977 Ford switched to the Fox chassis, which is very different.
Drum Brakes (see note)(depends on the car as six cylinder cars had different brakes than a V-8 version would have, master cylinders were also different simply due to the f/r ratios althought mechanically they would swap) and steering box would have been the same (actually there were different internal steering ratios,...but mechanically they would swap out) for all of them.
NOTE: Granada's never came with front drum brakes. You would have had to migrate the entire from spindle assembly, tie rod ends, drag link, idler/pitman arm from the Granada to the 68 Fairlane. You would also need to replace the master cylinder as well. You could use the Granada one, but it was a power brake unit, so you would need to deal with the vacuum line (no biggy). The real problem is the ESS you took parts from had rear disc brakes as well which means the proportionging valve setup is wrong for a car with from disc and rear drums, so you would need an external proportioning valve if you wanted the brakes to work well together. With the Granada master cylinder you would have been locking up the rear drums in the Fairlane. You would also have to fabricate brakes lines as the fitting sizes between the calipers and drum wheel cylinders are different. The master cylinder fitting is also a different size.
Not saying it was not possible, but it cannot been as easy as you made it sound either.
-
The Maverick/Comet is a different generation (1970 - 1977) than a 1968 Fairlane. The 1970 model Fairlane (last year model for it, not many were made) was built on the same platform as the first generation Maverick/Comet/Granada would be.
The Granada came out in 1975 and used the same 1970 platform as the Maverick/Comet/Fairlane with some alterations to the attached mechanical bits (different rear end: first year for the aluminum housing, upper control arms...). In 1977 Ford switched to the Fox chassis, which is very different.
Drum Brakes (see note)(depends on the car as six cylinder cars had different brakes than a V-8 version would have, master cylinders were also different simply due to the f/r ratios althought mechanically they would swap) and steering box would have been the same (actually there were different internal steering ratios,...but mechanically they would swap out) for all of them.
NOTE: Granada's never came with front drum brakes. You would have had to migrate the entire from spindle assembly, tie rod ends, drag link, idler/pitman arm from the Granada to the 68 Fairlane. You would also need to replace the master cylinder as well. You could use the Granada one, but it was a power brake unit, so you would need to deal with the vacuum line (no biggy). The real problem is the ESS you took parts from had rear disc brakes as well which means the proportionging valve setup is wrong for a car with from disc and rear drums, so you would need an external proportioning valve if you wanted the brakes to work well together. With the Granada master cylinder you would have been locking up the rear drums in the Fairlane. You would also have to fabricate brakes lines as the fitting sizes between the calipers and drum wheel cylinders are different. The master cylinder fitting is also a different size.
Not saying it was not possible, but it cannot been as easy as you made it sound either.
i believe he was trying to say it was a direct swap.
hell.....even putting the 5.0 liter, 5 speed from my 89gt(fox chassis) into my 78 fairmont futura(fox chassis) wasn't that easy. it was, however VERY fun.
-
:o oh yeah forgot that part :lol My Fairlane was like that. I hate unibodies. I can see paying 10 but i dont know about 15. It does look like all steel though...............
It's the same price as a 67 Camaro body. $15K is the going rate.
-
mooolti post?
(http://kestas.kuliukas.com/MultiPass/leeloo_multipass.jpg)
-
The Maverick/Comet is a different generation (1970 - 1977) than a 1968 Fairlane. The 1970 model Fairlane (last year model for it, not many were made) was built on the same platform as the first generation Maverick/Comet/Granada would be.
The Granada came out in 1975 and used the same 1970 platform as the Maverick/Comet/Fairlane with some alterations to the attached mechanical bits (different rear end: first year for the aluminum housing, upper control arms...). In 1977 Ford switched to the Fox chassis, which is very different.
Drum Brakes (see note)(depends on the car as six cylinder cars had different brakes than a V-8 version would have, master cylinders were also different simply due to the f/r ratios althought mechanically they would swap) and steering box would have been the same (actually there were different internal steering ratios,...but mechanically they would swap out) for all of them.
NOTE: Granada's never came with front drum brakes. You would have had to migrate the entire from spindle assembly, tie rod ends, drag link, idler/pitman arm from the Granada to the 68 Fairlane. You would also need to replace the master cylinder as well. You could use the Granada one, but it was a power brake unit, so you would need to deal with the vacuum line (no biggy). The real problem is the ESS you took parts from had rear disc brakes as well which means the proportionging valve setup is wrong for a car with from disc and rear drums, so you would need an external proportioning valve if you wanted the brakes to work well together. With the Granada master cylinder you would have been locking up the rear drums in the Fairlane. You would also have to fabricate brakes lines as the fitting sizes between the calipers and drum wheel cylinders are different. The master cylinder fitting is also a different size.
Not saying it was not possible, but it cannot been as easy as you made it sound either.
What you see as impossible or improbable is only a small amount of extra labor and research to me and I've been doing it non-stop since 1978.
The fox body granada showed up in 1980.
The donor granada I used was a 4 door and it was not a fox body.
I sourced most of the brake lines from the ess granada and I don't remember it having rear disc brakes though being a 4 door might have had something to do with that.
I did not change anything on the rear end other than the rear cylinders which were bought new and I believe they had the same bore on both cars.
I pulled parts from several cars at the junkyard as I still do today when I swap engines into cars they were designed for.
The parts swapped were bolt-in except for slight differences in brake line routing but I still used the granada brake parts, power steering box (3 turns lock to lock replacing the fairlanes 6 turns), and sway bars......and they all bolted up.
There was no need to swap the entire suspension for the sake of swapping it so only what was improved by later production date got swapped in.
Most of the stuff I used was from the ess granada but not all of it.
Everything I sourced from the ess version granada bolted in.......why?......because I did my research before opening my wallet.
I finished fixing that cobra's built 347 but I still think it's a low quality kit...........count the lugs.
Before you finalize your cobra's configuration, definately take shifter location and angle into serious consideration as most I have driven are horrible.
This one had a tremec.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6236/6312361810_30b24b245e_b.jpg)
-
HOLY MULTI-POST BATMAN. :x
-
There is no way you could have migrated the disc rotors from the Granada without the spindles, which are not "brake parts" but part of the suspension. Once you did that you also had to migrate the drag link, idler arm, pitman arm, and tie rod ends as the tie rod ends for the Granada used a larger bolt end than the Fairlane did, and the drag link from the Fairlane could not have accepted the tie rod end from the Granada.
The Fox chassis for the Granada was first used in 1977 for the 1978 model year, not 1980. The 75-77 Granadas used the old Maverick/Comet platform from 1970 and onward. Most people assume the Fox chassis was first used in 1980 as that was the year the Granada was redesigned. It is a common misconception. The original Granada was designed to use the new Fox chassis, but the chassis was delayed due to various issues.
The heartburn I am having is you say you did not swap out any suspension pieces but did the brakes. There is no way you could use the Fairlane spindle (last time I checked the spindle was a suspension component) with the Granada disc brake rotors. Once you swap the spindle, you had to do the rest of the steering bits, unless you had some exotic machine work done to existing bits.
I am not saying you did not do it, I am just saying there had to be more to simply moving the disc brakes from the Granada to a drum brake equipped Fairlane.
As far as my shift handle on my Cobra goes, it is going to be placed where it fits me best, so I can rest my elbow on a pad on the tunnel keeping my forearm perpendiclur to the tunnel without extending my shoulder for shifts. To do that I will use the forward shifter location in the T56 Magnum.
-
while i like the fact that they are making bodies available for these cars, i think with my current situation(timewise) i'd much rather go with something like this for that kind of money.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ford-Mustang-?cmd=ViewItem&_trkparms=algo%3DPI.WATCH%26otn%3D8%26po%3DLCA%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D3961833335188284987&_trksid=p5197.m1374&item=190594271374
-
The price really does not seem that bad to me. When you consider it costs around $45,000.00 to get a Cobra kit car rolling, I think $15,000 for a new steel body is pretty sweet.
-
The price really does not seem that bad to me. When you consider it costs around $45,000.00 to get a Cobra kit car rolling, I think $15,000 for a new steel body is pretty sweet.
i fully agree with ya. my problem is that i'm working 6 days a week, anywhere from 8 hours(yeaaaaaa right!!) till whenever i run outta work. i wouldn't have the time to put her together........although thinking about it, i could've used the money i'm spending on my gt, and bought a decent cobra kit, and had a SWEET ride. but then there's that time thing again. the time lords are conspiring against me. :noid
-
The price really does not seem that bad to me. When you consider it costs around $45,000.00 to get a Cobra kit car rolling, I think $15,000 for a new steel body is pretty sweet.
From the cobra guys I have talked to they usually say around $60k. In any case it's time & money.
-
From the cobra guys I have talked to they usually say around $60k. In any case it's time & money.
Oh, you can spend as much as you want. How fast do you want to go? The average Cobra rolls for around $45K to $50K. I know one guy who rolled his for under $30K. I know another one who has $110K in his. It runs the gamut.
I'll spend less as I will not have the $8,000 to $12,000 in paint most have due to me being my own painter. I have most of a machine shop as well, so parts fabrication will come cheaper too. My single largest expense, outside of the kit itself, will be the engine. I figure to have about $15K in the engine when it is all done.
-
I cant wait tto see it done Skuzzy! :aok
BTW,your spot on with the fox platform and granada,I built fords back in 77. We changed over from the mav to the faimont/futura which is a granada with different side panels..... :rofl :rofl :rofl
The fox platform was used to make almost every small to midsize ford through the 70's on into the 90's. Once frontwheel drive took over things changed but from 78 model year to around 85 model year it was just a matter of what side panels were put on the floor to make the different fords and mercury's.
Atleast as far as rear wheel drive goes. I'd add for it being so long ago you still remember the parts catalog pretty good! I expect building the Cobra doesnt hurt remembering what goes where! :lol
:salute
-
Please tell me where I said I did not swap out the spindles.
That is implied when doing this swap because you cannot fit calipers to drum brake backing plates.
For the sake of skuzzy, I guess I should mention the specs. and measurements of every single bolt, cotter pin, pinion depth, brake stroke length, until a simple post mentioning a relatively easy upgrade becomes bloated to the point of being unreadable.
BTW.............I just performed a very similar upgrade to my 1967 fastback with 428 cobra lemans engine and top loader.
You're barking up the wrong tree of a resource that could help you greatly on your cobra kit since I have experience with factory 5, superperformance, 260 cobras, 298 cobras, 428 police interceptor cobras...etc....and build the fastest cars in the world for the people who can afford them.
My employers have been billing customers $160+ per hour for my services and have been since 2009.
Not a brag......just an indication as to where I am concerning skill level.
-
Icepac... It's probably your video card.
-
icepac, I am not challenging your experience nor expertise. If someone comes along and reads what you said and then they try to go out and do it based on what you wrote, they would be in for some surprises.
That is the only issue I ever had with what you were saying. I do not mind if you think I am pretty anal about these things, because I am anal about these things.
I envy you get to play with the high performance toys. It was always my first love. I just could never figure out how to make a living at it. My Cobra will be my 23rd build from the ground up. All of them are Lone Star Classics. My engine build will be number 102. All Ford small blocks. I also work with a team who participates in the Engine Masters competition.
With my new engine, I am fabricating my own intake manifold and fuel injection system. While the injectors are off the shelf, the controller is all mine and the camshaft is a custom grind. I am tossing everything I have learned about small block Fords into this one, and then some. I am not going for super high performance as much as I am going for the best efficiency and reliability I can manage.
-
Efficiency is the new "high performance".
It seems 95% of custom car shops ignore that aspect as well as emissions.
We use Motec and Big Stuff 3 engine management but I think carefully tuned factory ecus are the ticket except in extreme applications where you need peak and hold injection drivers and an idle pulse width narrower than a factory ecu cannot output.
Factory ecus have far more diagnostic capability and utility than most every aftermarket computer.
-
Efficiency is the new "high performance".
It seems 95% of custom car shops ignore that aspect as well as emissions.
We use Motec and Big Stuff 3 engine management but I think carefully tuned factory ecus are the ticket except in extreme applications where you need peak and hold injection drivers and an idle pulse width narrower than a factory ecu cannot output.
Factory ecus have far more diagnostic capability and utility than most every aftermarket computer.
100% agree. The only reason I am doing my own is so I try some things I have wanted to try but was restricted by the aftermarket and factory ecu's. The aftermarket is evolving in that area, and it really is starting to move well towards having solid products for the high performance builder.