The ULTIMATE 62 falcon drum 4 lug to disc 5lug

[herrieelectric]

im new to this program . i just signed up in fact ... I owned my 1 st 62 falcon since 1990 and i love it very much... So much that i now have another one ,only its a 1960 its a complete drag car . But the 1962 has been converted by myself to 5 lug disc...After 17 years of readin everything and listening to everyone who ever even knew anything about falcons to people that owned 10 falcons... I came to my very own idea ...first of all mustang 2 spindles bolt right on with only makin sure you have 63 falcon upper and lower ball joints. Then with the basic conversion plates for mustang 2 (11 ") rotors and also the 11" rotors all this bolts on directly .then you get a new center link in there also from a 63 all thats left is going from the center link to your spindles with the correct sized tie rod ends ..thats where my custom made ,basically bump steer tie rod sleeves with correct sized spherical ends or tapered sleeves which are in fact tie rods with bolts going through them i put my own together in about 10 minutes and about 50 bucks later ...my car sits perfect and brakes work great im goin to sell these things for a 125. a pair

[yank with ute]

So you are taking front spindles from a car with a wheelbase shorter then the Falcon, were there any problems with wheel alignment because of the increased Akerman angle? Or did the person aligning the car even check the angle of the tires when the wheels were turned?

Just curious, NOT trying to start a debate.

[herrieelectric]

actually the allignment went well all though like you said while the wheels are turned they do lean slightly .But it never occured to me that this may be a problem..what do you suggest i do to check the akerman angle? or could there be other issues now ?one more thing ,that is a very intelligent observation ....Thanx for the input.

[yank with ute]

Way to complex subject to cover on a board. I just sit here and wrote 30 minutes worth of info only to have it dumped by the board (claimed I wasn't logged in). I suggest that those interested do an internet search on the subject of automotive alignment in order to grasp the complex gelometry involved.

A good aligment shop (Read: A shop that can pay the people with the knowledge to align cars with a good idea as to how and why the geometry works) should have the angular measurements for the stock Falcon.

VERY BACICALLY when the front wheels are turned the two spindles turn at different angles from each other as the inner wheel needs follow a different radius then the outside wheel. If they don't then one wheel will drag/slide sideways.

That is not what you want, you want each wheel to have the same traction effort. And then there is stress on the mechanical parts, structure of the car at the suspension atachment points, excess tire wear, etc., etc., etc.

Add to that when the car corners the body will roll towards the outside of the corner and that means the geometry of one side of the front end will be different then the other, etc. Even the mounting point locations of the rear spring (in leaf spring cars like the Falcon) have an effect on steering (over/under steer)!

So here is an experiment to help give you a better understanding:

Draw a "T" with each short leg equal length on either side of the long line. At the end of those two legs are your PIVOT POINTS of the front tires (under ideal conditions), not the pivot point of the ball joints. (That's why your tires appear to lean when turned, it keeps the pivot point under the center of the tire at the ground).

Draw a line from each pivot point to the end of the long line (which is the center of the rear axle). The correct Ackerman angle of the hole where the tie rod ends pivot in the steering arms (NOT the physical angle of the arm but the angle of that hole in regards to the ball joint location compared to the spindle) MUST BE ON THAT LINE!

If not one wheel will turn at the wrong angle when going round a curve. Usually the outer wheel turns at a larger angle then the inner.

Now, draw a new triangle with a longer or shorter center line. These represent the longer/shorter wheelbase of the Granada/Pinto(and early Mustang) compared to the original drawing which represents the Falcon wheelbase.

You will note that the Ackerman angle is different. This automatically means if the spindles of one wheelbase are used on a different wheelbase the spindles won't turn the correct angles. One tire will slide on the steepness of the angle, traction, etc.) going round a corner. That in turn means a loss in traction/decreased handling, etc., etc.

Scary? Should be. However, I can't tell you how much is too much or not enough. Granted, many have installed Granda spindles on early Mustangs without major death and destruction so people are "getting by". Falcon's have shorter wheelbases and the problem increases, but how much?

I'm NOT a know-it-all, just someone who has a background in the mechanics/geometry involved. But if you are planning to market your idea it would be in your interest to investigate as law suites can be expensive.

[yank with ute]

Got to thinking after writing the above, I'll be blunt:

The Falcon front suspension has been in the public's hands since september, 1959

The Pinto front suspension has been marketed since 1971, the Mustang II since 1974

Yet here it is 2008 and you are the first to put Pinto/Mustang II spindles on a Falcon?

Most be a reason no one else has "discovered" that it could work,

OR, you are overlooking something.

I think what I wrote in the other post is "Apples and Oranges" in regards to the real problem. Measure the Pinto/Mustang II spindle across the ends (where the ball joints attach). It seems to me the Falcon has a taller spindle. I got to thinking that you meant the wheels leaned over when the wheels were turned meant something not connected to the Ackerman Principle.

While you can physically bolt the later spindle onto the Falcon control arms the geometry may be so far off you'd not be able to control the vehicle.

WAY TOO MUCH detail to cover in a post, check "Instantanious Center" (sp) through a search engine or find a book covering the design of mechanical linkage, or,auto suspensions for an explination. Basically speaking the lower control arm (or "link" since it has a pivot point on each end), spindle ("upright"), and upper control arm (also a "link" since it has two pivot points) form a triangle. Draw a line through each pair of pivot points and you will see the triangle.

Notice the point of this triangle (the "instantanious center") is located on the backside of the spindle/upright (for a left spindle the triangle's point is toward the right side of the car, right side points to the left).

If you shorten the upright (spindle) but do not relocate the inner pivot mounting point/keep the links the same length the triangles reverse and point outside the vehicle. Build a quick model of these triangles out of card stock and thumb tacks and you will see why it doesn't work.

The idea of an independent front suspension is to keep the front tires as vertical as possible throughout the entire travel range of the front suspension. While that is physically impossible with the Falcon (works on the "sliding pillar" of the Morgan and "trailing arms" of the VW beetle) the Ford engineers did the best they could.

Using a shorter upright destroys the geometry.

Again, this is IMHO and others may disagree.