FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => Non-FE Discussion Forum => Topic started by: fairlaniac on August 29, 2023, 08:55:00 AM
-
Ok, I don't make a habit of doing burnouts in the street but occasionally it happens. My '66 Fairlane used to have a mild 390. I still have "Cal-tracs" and KYB gas shocks on the car from those days. The occasion street burnout seemed ok. Now I have my 427/484 stroker and the other day after I left a car show I found a secluded country road surrounded by cornfields to jump on it. My street BFG's didn't hold much traction and I blew through first, second and third rapidly but each gear was wheel hopping. The marks on the road are about 18 inches of rubber, a foot of space and more rubber. It looks like two dashed lines on the road. I don't want to shake the shit out of my car and break things. If I'm going to do a street burnout I'd like a nice and easy smooth patch. I have the Cal-trac adjusted to just touching the spring. No pre-load. Are the gas shock junk for this? I have basically stock leaf springs and have no need or desire for mono-leafs. Any idea on how to tame the wheel hop? I never got the hop from the 390.
thanks!
-
First, don't do it anymore until you fix it. That rapid loading and unloading breaks all kinds of stuff from the front to the back of the car
I would look at your pinion angle first, it may need to be more nose down to counter the stock spring wrap-up. I do believe Caltrac preload could counteract it to some extent, but still need to see, if it goes over-center it will always try to snap back
-
First, don't do it anymore until you fix it. That rapid loading and unloading breaks all kinds of stuff from the front to the back of the car
I would look at your pinion angle first, it may need to be more nose down to counter the stock spring wrap-up. I do believe Caltrac preload could counteract it to some extent, but still need to see, if it goes over-center it will always try to snap back
Thanks Ross! FYI - None of this was done from a standing stop, no launches, rather I'm rolling along and nail it while in first then through the gears.
-
maybe clamp the springs.
-
Just be careful, think of the acceleration and load changes when that car was airborne, which it is when it gave you no rubber marks. Engine goes from pushing 3000+ lbs during acceleration to free wheel, then back to a shock load.
Ironically, the hoppiest car I have ever worked on was a 67 Fairlane. I was young and didn't know much back then, as Shady said, we clamped the springs and added slappers, (not inferring Shady's advice is bad, but just a reference to me back then) and it was good enough for a healthy small block, but I think the real issue is the long-ish front run of the spring and pinion angle changing as that spring wraps on a stock setup. We had never known to measure though
Easy to measure pinion angle on 4 jackstands or a 4 post lift, but where it should be to prevent wheelhop is a bit of a technique and trade-off. If you have bendy springs (technical term LOL) you need more static pinion angle, but that means when they aren't wrapped, you may have dissimilar planes from tranny to pinion, at extreme cases that causes vibration or u-joint wear.
I know you didn't want them, but that's the beauty of the Calverts. Beefy leading front section, and flexible rear section prevents the total wrap up but still rides nice.
I'd say get some numbers, it's all relative angle, crank centerline/tranny, driveshaft, and pinion all together will tell you where you are.
-
Could also be those '66 springs, now what, 57 years old have given up the ghost. Still OEM or.....
-
Could also be those '66 springs, now what, 57 years old have given up the ghost. Still OEM or.....
Springs are 5 year old Eaton's.
-
Can you run a tight pinion snubber with Cal-tracs? I used to have one that was built up about 3 inches on my Galaxie, ala the old Mopar setups, and it worked pretty well. The Gal has 7 leaves (up from the 406 6 leaves) and clamps
-
Just be careful, think of the acceleration and load changes when that car was airborne, which it is when it gave you no rubber marks. Engine goes from pushing 3000+ lbs during acceleration to free wheel, then back to a shock load.
Ironically, the hoppiest car I have ever worked on was a 67 Fairlane. I was young and didn't know much back then, as Shady said, we clamped the springs and added slappers, (not inferring Shady's advice is bad, but just a reference to me back then) and it was good enough for a healthy small block, but I think the real issue is the long-ish front run of the spring and pinion angle changing as that spring wraps on a stock setup. We had never known to measure though
Easy to measure pinion angle on 4 jackstands or a 4 post lift, but where it should be to prevent wheelhop is a bit of a technique and trade-off. If you have bendy springs (technical term LOL) you need more static pinion angle, but that means when they aren't wrapped, you may have dissimilar planes from tranny to pinion, at extreme cases that causes vibration or u-joint wear.
I know you didn't want them, but that's the beauty of the Calverts. Beefy leading front section, and flexible rear section prevents the total wrap up but still rides nice.
I'd say get some numbers, it's all relative angle, crank centerline/tranny, driveshaft, and pinion all together will tell you where you are.
Ross,
Here is a sketch showing my angles. The car has a front to rear rake/angle of 3*
Crank is 3.5* to the floor
Driveshaft is parallel 0*
Pinion is 1.5*
Sketch, front is to the left.
http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg (http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg)
-
Can you run a tight pinion snubber with Cal-tracs? I used to have one that was built up about 3 inches on my Galaxie, ala the old Mopar setups, and it worked pretty well. The Gal has 7 leaves (up from the 406 6 leaves) and clamps
Didn't the higher performance Mopars also have a longer supporting leaf or additional leaf on the pass side
-
Yep, they had it pretty scienced out
-
Yep, they had it pretty scienced out
Yes..they called them super stock springs..Put lots of them in my brothers Darts..I believe it was 6 leaves one side and 7 on the other side
-
The nice thing about the MoPar leaf springs, was they were designed with a short, stiff front section, ahead of the center bolt, with long section behind, which kinda acted like a built in traction bar. That said, most modern Stock Eliminator MoPars are now using the Calvert monoleaf springs with Cal Tracs. Concerning your Fairlane, does it still have the factory rubber "ISO clamp" setup that has rubber pads between the housing spring perches and leaf springs, with a metal surrounding them? If so, I would remove that stuff, it was meant for a softer, smother ride, but are not a good thing for performance. I am having a similar situation with my 428 CJ 4 speed 59 Ford 2 door sedan, it will wheel hop pretty badly with street tires, even with new stock style leaf springs, and a set of Lakewood "slapper" bars. In both our cases, I believe the stock type springs are too soft and "flexy" on hard acceleration, so I am going to try some clamps on the front section of the leaf springs, and see if that helps. Not sure if gas shocks are as good as an old style hydraulic shock for this style of driving. I can say that this is the first time that I have heard of a car wheel hopping with a set of CalTracs, although I believe that they are designed for use with the Calvert mono leaf springs. But I have no personal experience with Cal Tracs. On my 59, at the dragstrip, it will wheel hop badly with the street tires, (275/60R15 BF G T/A radials) as well, but not with a set of drag slicks, which I assume is due to the thinner sidewalls and lower air pressures, which better absorbs the impact of sudden throttle, but that is more of a crutch, and obviously not a solution for your street only car. Have you tried lower tire pressures, to see if that helps at all?
-
Doug, you won’t get to have all the possible fun with that car if you don’t commit to the rear end components. The engineering Calvert put into their systems is proven over and over. I tried fresh factory springs with their bars and had mixed results. After switching to the split mono it was a new car, ( at the track) . On the street the leaf set up is noisier than stock as the insulators go away. So as always there is a trade off.
I have a fresh set of the Caltrac rear leafs. I bought a second set with more arch in them for tall tire clearance and to raise the rear end for the look I like. You would just need the front sections. I don’t know if they sell the fronts separately.
As far as your immediate problem you could experiment with tire psi. I have seen old, hard, rubber behave like that too.
Oh yeah, you’ll have to buy new shocks for the rear, and then new front shocks, and then new front coils, and then, etc, etc.
-
I'd toss the KYB's in the bin. Stock original oil dampers are better than KYB. Great marketing though.
QA1 adjustable are an excellent choice as are Viking.
Koni has some nice shocks.
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyD1gYP1/burnout.jpg)
-
Here is a sketch showing my angles. The car has a front to rear rake/angle of 3*
Crank is 3.5* to the floor
Driveshaft is parallel 0*
Pinion is 1.5*
http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg (http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg)
Note that the appropriate greater downward pinion angle deviation, that from the engine's crankshaft and transmission mainshaft center-line, is something that is established in testing (but mostly proves to be assumption), and is based of the amount of pinion-climb/axle-rotation that takes place under the greater torque applications instances in the specific chassis as powered. So, the more the power/torque applied, particularly on the "leave" the greater the pinion-angle deviation needs to be, this particularly of issue on a leaf-car. But only to a point, as particularly on hard braking (top-end shut-down) the torque reversal causes the axle to rotate the opposite direction which could lead to excessive u-joint angles, which may lead to if only excessive vibration, but up to possible premature failures. :o
So with that caveat said, if I'm understanding your drawing correctly, your depiction states that you have approximately 2° of pinion-down-angle deviation (note: the floor, nor the drive-shaft positions, though handy references, matter), which with the O.E.M. leaf-spring suspension, is generally considered insufficient. But, as you stiffen the axle attachment fixturing (thru "clamping", and/or strong-arming), this further limiting its' deflection, then a lesser value would be suitable. :)
But now, is any of this really going to change your concern at hand of excessive "axle-wrap-up"? :-\
Scott.
-
F
-
Just be careful, think of the acceleration and load changes when that car was airborne, which it is when it gave you no rubber marks. Engine goes from pushing 3000+ lbs during acceleration to free wheel, then back to a shock load.
Ironically, the hoppiest car I have ever worked on was a 67 Fairlane. I was young and didn't know much back then, as Shady said, we clamped the springs and added slappers, (not inferring Shady's advice is bad, but just a reference to me back then) and it was good enough for a healthy small block, but I think the real issue is the long-ish front run of the spring and pinion angle changing as that spring wraps on a stock setup. We had never known to measure though
Easy to measure pinion angle on 4 jackstands or a 4 post lift, but where it should be to prevent wheelhop is a bit of a technique and trade-off. If you have bendy springs (technical term LOL) you need more static pinion angle, but that means when they aren't wrapped, you may have dissimilar planes from tranny to pinion, at extreme cases that causes vibration or u-joint wear.
I know you didn't want them, but that's the beauty of the Calverts. Beefy leading front section, and flexible rear section prevents the total wrap up but still rides nice.
I'd say get some numbers, it's all relative angle, crank centerline/tranny, driveshaft, and pinion all together will tell you where you are.
Ross,
Here is a sketch showing my angles. The car has a front to rear rake/angle of 3*
Crank is 3.5* to the floor
Driveshaft is parallel 0*
Pinion is 1.5*
Sketch, front is to the left.
http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg (http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg)
I don't understand all of your drawing, let me do a little read back
You have 3.5 degrees tail down at the tail shaft, when compared to the driveshaft at zero, that is also 3.5 degrees difference. This has nothing to do with wheel hop, but typically, 3 degrees is considered max for long-term u-joint life. Zero is bad as the bearings don't roll much, but eventually you work that joint more as you have a steeper angle, just FYI. To fix that, you'd have to drop the tail of the tranny or raise the engine a little
Zero for the driveshaft as the car was setting there...got it, it's just comparative for angles.
Pinion angle looks odd to me, but I may be misunderstanding, if you drew a long straight line out of the tranny (at your 3.5), during acceleration the pinion should move up to match that straight line at 3.5 or 3.0. At rest, it would be some value more than 3.5 that points the yoke toward the pavement.
Question - Is your rear yoke, steeper than the transmission, less steep?
-
My uneducated opinion is you need to get the Cal-trak split mono springs. Their bars are basically a poor mans 4 link and when combined with a stiff stock front leaf spring the whole thing goes into a bind situation under acceleration. All other suggestions here are also valid but with the mono spring, the front 1/2 of the spring can flex and let the bars do their job.
That said, I've had wheel hop at the track with all the good parts installed and it comes down to tire (slick) pressure and shock settings. Wheel hop also seems to be a stick car only thing unless something else is way out of whack.
-
The easiest thing to do would be adding 1/4-1/2 turn of preload and that is free! My 67 comet has the complete Calvert rear suspension it has worked good for me Calverts adjustable shocks are a good addition too.Try giving it some preload and remember you have two holes for the bar maybe try the upper hole it is supposed to hit harder. On a good day I have gotten a 1.46 60ft.But I have fighting traction issues since I installed a bigger(502 460 based) engine in my car .But I have been getting good results with playing around with different settings.Good luck.Doug
-
Just be careful, think of the acceleration and load changes when that car was airborne, which it is when it gave you no rubber marks. Engine goes from pushing 3000+ lbs during acceleration to free wheel, then back to a shock load.
Ironically, the hoppiest car I have ever worked on was a 67 Fairlane. I was young and didn't know much back then, as Shady said, we clamped the springs and added slappers, (not inferring Shady's advice is bad, but just a reference to me back then) and it was good enough for a healthy small block, but I think the real issue is the long-ish front run of the spring and pinion angle changing as that spring wraps on a stock setup. We had never known to measure though
Easy to measure pinion angle on 4 jackstands or a 4 post lift, but where it should be to prevent wheelhop is a bit of a technique and trade-off. If you have bendy springs (technical term LOL) you need more static pinion angle, but that means when they aren't wrapped, you may have dissimilar planes from tranny to pinion, at extreme cases that causes vibration or u-joint wear.
I know you didn't want them, but that's the beauty of the Calverts. Beefy leading front section, and flexible rear section prevents the total wrap up but still rides nice.
I'd say get some numbers, it's all relative angle, crank centerline/tranny, driveshaft, and pinion all together will tell you where you are.
Ross,
Here is a sketch showing my angles. The car has a front to rear rake/angle of 3*
Crank is 3.5* to the floor
Driveshaft is parallel 0*
Pinion is 1.5*
Sketch, front is to the left.
http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg (http://www.fairlanet.com/images/pinion-angle-fairlane.jpg)
I don't understand all of your drawing, let me do a little read back
You have 3.5 degrees tail down at the tail shaft, when compared to the driveshaft at zero, that is also 3.5 degrees difference. This has nothing to do with wheel hop, but typically, 3 degrees is considered max for long-term u-joint life. Zero is bad as the bearings don't roll much, but eventually you work that joint more as you have a steeper angle, just FYI. To fix that, you'd have to drop the tail of the tranny or raise the engine a little
Zero for the driveshaft as the car was setting there...got it, it's just comparative for angles.
Pinion angle looks odd to me, but I may be misunderstanding, if you drew a long straight line out of the tranny (at your 3.5), during acceleration the pinion should move up to match that straight line at 3.5 or 3.0. At rest, it would be some value more than 3.5 that points the yoke toward the pavement.
Question - Is your rear yoke, steeper than the transmission, less steep?
Here is a simplified sketch.
On my "Cal-Tracs" these are a set that I reverse engineered from a picture in 2002. I then build my own that are about 99% alike. In 2003 I got my fingers slapped (phone call or email, I forget?) from Calvert. I agreed to never discuss or show pictures. That said is one reason I'm not interested in a mono-spring. It may not work or fit based upon my reverse engineered parts. I've contemplated getting cal-tracs but have not pulled the trigger yet. There is nothing wrong with my parts so for now I'm just going to work with them. I'm also not setting the car up for drag racing. I may take it to the strip on occasion but I'm not a racer.
http://www.fairlanet.com/images/driveline-angles.jpg (http://www.fairlanet.com/images/driveline-angles.jpg)
-
Interesting a couple guys mentioned Fairlanes being bad. My ‘66 (460/Toploader) will do it at a roll too, and if you throw a passenger in it gets worse. Was thinking of clamping the front of the springs, it’s just a street car so wasn’t looking at CalTracs
-
Wheel hop is the result of the front half of the spring wrapping up. The old "slapper" bars used to work great to eliminate this. As Rory mentioned, the Mopar's worked great without any aids because they had a shorter and stiffer front half that gave up ride quality but hooked anywhere. The S/S springs were and upgrade for higher HP cars.
A Caltrac bar won't stop this because it doesn't support the spring. Other previous suggestions like clamping the front half of the spring, isolator removal if you have them or adding an extra 1/2 leaf to the front stack will help. Expensive double adjustable shocks will also help but not in most peoples street budget.
-
The KYB's are the worst shock you can use. The shock is always in hard rebound. Pushing the rod out.
It makes the car pogo with big power and a clutch.
Stock oil shocks at a modest price will help stop the pogo. Air pressure, tire selection.
Fairlane's have wheel hop. The spring is long and the axle is set back almost in the middle.
If it still has the rubber isolators they really help the wheel hop.
What works on the Mustang is not exactly the same as the Fairlane. Close but the Fairlane is much more shock
sensitive I have found over the years.
Do you have a sway bar? It helps also.
-
You have a couple things going on here in my opinion
1 - Although not related, your front joint, at 3.5 degrees angle, relative to the driveshaft, is considered above the 3 degree most companies like to see. That being said, a little weight in the car, a little squat, it likely a little lower angle. Has nothing to do with hop though
2 - At 1.5 degree nose up for the rear, but above the plane of the driveshaft, it has me thinking. Normally, we see the two planes of the pinion and engine with the pinion slightly lower. I'd likely talk to a chassis guy, but it seems that when you put power to it, the pinion will wrap and make the two angles pretty close. That is good for vibration, however, what I just don't have the experience with is if it matters that when loaded the pinion is pointing up.
Mechanical engineers or chassis guys please chime in . The reason I am stuck is gyroscopic effect should try to straighten those joints out as speed rises, which will try to straighten the spring out in this case, which should unload the wrap up, but I think could drive the load unload and hop, not really a good thing.
At this point, I'd likely add some preload, and I may even see if I could put a couple buddies, or some weight in the car. Then see what your angles are. If nothing else, the preload will stabilize the rear a bit and change instant center a bit to load things differently
The drag racers can talk shocks better than me, but I personally would rather see some mechanical control of the wrap up, I just don't have the experience to tell you what shock changes do
-
Your overthinking the pinion and u-joint angle theories as relating to wheel-hop; these devises and their relative positioning have more to do with their mechanical survivability, not at leveraging the rear differential in an attempt in damping unappreciated movement. ;)
As stated by others, the u-joint manufactures want some angle deviation in order to create rotation of the rollers, this so as to induce movement of the lubricant and to resist the tendency for the rollers to state the cross-trunnions. Generally this being something of the range of 1° - 3°; greater value sums in the 3° - 5° are still generally considered acceptable with as expected lifespans of in-service usage; but after something approaching 7°, or more, anticipate a reduction in service life.
Applied torque loads are better handled with lesser angles, so in high load applications the straighter the drive-line is to the out-put shaft and pinion gear stem the lesser are the forces on the u-joint and lesser are the drive-line parasitic losses in performance delivery. Therefore, generally the intention is to have the drive-line in the straightest alignment possible at the highest torque loading instance, this being of when the vehicle has loaded the rear axle "on-the-leave", as this is the most abusive period for these parts.
Now, there are considerations for pinion-angle relating to aiding in loading the rear suspension and increasing the "bite" (tires), but this mostly is of greater concern, and reeling results in lighter vehicles, particularly suspensioned Altered and Dragster cars.
"Shocks" would probably be better understood if we in America would utilize the proper vocabulary in their identification, this being "Damper". This as they are intended to "dampen' motion; they are not intended to "arrest" motion completely. the later is better made the responsibility of that which is intended to locate the axles' position, and let the shocks do that for which they were intended as a suspension motion control devise. :)
And "some" weight in the car, shouldn't change the pinion angle in its' relationship to the mainline of the power-plant & transmission dramatically, as this is generally a consideration by the O.E.M., but it will change the driveshaft and u-joint angles.
Scott.
-
I have Caltracs on two of my Fairlanes and don't recall ever experiencing wheel hop with them, regardless of spring type. One pulls the wheels hard, runs 9s. Both currently have Calvert mono-leafs, but no issues before changing out factory multi-leaf springs.
I always use a bit of preload, even if only as much as you can get by hand-tightening them when loaded. It might ride a bit stiffer, but it takes the slop out of the suspension.
Why in the world are you still running street BFGs? Dangerous with the power you're car is making and with the TKX. Swap them for a pair of M/T Street Radial R 275s and you'll find them to be a game changer. They will also last a remarkably long time so long as you don't do long smokey burnouts.
Did you remove the factory rubber isolators from your springs and mount the pad directly onto the spring? Also, pad must be braced at the back and should be using 1/2" U-bolts.
-
Your overthinking the pinion and u-joint angle theories as relating to wheel-hop; these devises and their relative positioning have more to do with their mechanical survivability, not at leveraging the rear differential in an attempt in damping unappreciated movement. ;)
As stated by others, the u-joint manufactures want some angle deviation in order to create rotation of the rollers, this so as to induce movement of the lubricant and to resist the tendency for the rollers to state the cross-trunnions. Generally this being something of the range of 1° - 3°; greater value sums in the 3° - 5° are still generally considered acceptable with as expected lifespans of in-service usage; but after something approaching 7°, or more, anticipate a reduction in service life.
Applied torque loads are better handled with lesser angles, so in high load applications the straighter the drive-line is to the out-put shaft and pinion gear stem the lesser are the forces on the u-joint and lesser are the drive-line parasitic losses in performance delivery. Therefore, generally the intention is to have the drive-line in the straightest alignment possible at the highest torque loading instance, this being of when the vehicle has loaded the rear axle "on-the-leave", as this is the most abusive period for these parts.
Now, there are considerations for pinion-angle relating to aiding in loading the rear suspension and increasing the "bite" (tires), but this mostly is of greater concern, and reeling results in lighter vehicles, particularly suspensioned Altered and Dragster cars.
"Shocks" would probably be better understood if we in America would utilize the proper vocabulary in their identification, this being "Damper". This as they are intended to "dampen' motion; they are not intended to "arrest" motion completely. the later is better made the responsibility of that which is intended to locate the axles' position, and let the shocks do that for which they were intended as a suspension motion control devise. :)
And "some" weight in the car, shouldn't change the pinion angle in its' relationship to the mainline of the power-plant & transmission dramatically, as this is generally a consideration by the O.E.M., but it will change the driveshaft and u-joint angles.
Scott.
Scott, I disagree with angles of 5 degrees being acceptable. Build it if you want, and some low speed, short wheelbase crawlers may be forced to live with it, but not for a 50+ inch shaft. I have not seen Spicer or anyone else recommend anything like that. I do agree the primary purpose for the degree of angle is durability and proper movement of the rollers, with parallel operating planes planes under load for efficiency and smoothness, but it is not the only factor. However, I do agree and thought that me mentioning that 3.5 had no bearing on wheel hop made that clear
Second, weight in the back shouldn't change things at the pinion, I agree, but often it does. Very hard to believe you think that Ford got this right for a 500+ HP engine in a likely lowered car, as no OEM I know has gotten it right in that era, coil or leaf spring. Regardless, my recommendation was looking at all angles with the car loaded, not just pinion angle instead as a response to the 3.5 degree angle he reported at crank centerline. You stated as do I, it will change and HAS to if the rear axle rises. Will the pinion angle change? maybe, but it definitely twists under load.
Additionally, that angle can matter, as "how hard it hits" can contribute to "how hard it loads and unloads"
Finally, of course the primary force causing wheel hop is torque wrap up and unload, however, there are forces call secondary, tertiary, or even better just call them contributory. There are other forces at play, one of which is gyroscopic. Nowhere did I say it is primary, nor leverage, but it does exist
Now, after a little wasted time bantering. One thing I would look at are the spring perches, especially if this is new behavior. Aftermarket housings are far less susceptible, but stock perches are not too great, and more often than not, broken when you get any real power. It would not be unreasonable to believe one or both could be broken, but held together with the U-bolts. I can't be sure it would hop, but it sure wouldn't launch right, and worth checking for no other reason that the hop could have hurt them
In the end, without seeing what is happening, my assumption is the main leaf is the culprit, but not only the front, I have seen clamped front springs wrap in the rear as well and open between leaves to look like a bird spreading it's feathers. If the perches are good, potentially verifying all spring clamps are good and in the right position to mitigate some of the movement as well.
I am still not convinced that your angles are right under load, but given this response I have to be clear that I do not think that is the cause of hop
-
I worked through this many, many, many years ago.
When I was working through my nitrous "habit"...
Stickyish street tires will try to hook - then "loose it" and try again to rehook - basketballs the tire and spring.
Better shocks will help.
But....
Clamp the forward spring segment.
At the last point before I went to ladder bars I had an extra forward leaf "half" welded to the axle spring mount.
The spring mounts were heavy duty Mopar parts welded and gusseted to the axle.
And we had an adjustable pinion snubber.
And the whole kibosh had clamps every four inches or so.
Car would move around a fair amount under power but was always smooth and controllable.
As you are right now, the car is not in contact with the ground during rebound - pretty easy to find a ditch or guardrail or curb if it comes down weird.
-
also get good shocks and make sure your spring purches are not rounded and loose.one trick i did on my 68 fastback,was to use clamps on the front of the leaf springs.they worked really well,but also had stiff springs as well.didnt need any traction devices but that!
-
Here are my home made 67 Fairlane springs.
I did lots of burnouts on these. I might try again.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYnyx29t/IMG-20230902-192130885.jpg)
-
It would be easy to add a 1/2 leaf you can find single leafs at summit they are availabe to add height or lift on trucks .You just need to find one the same 21/2" width as yours .I had a spring shop make such a set of springs for my 66 comet . They (Landrum springs) built my springs with a 1/2 leaf going forward almost to the spring eye .Worked for me . I dont understand why you just dont try adding a bit of preload 1/4 turn wont hurt you .Doug
-
I'd toss the KYB's in the bin. Stock original oil dampers are better than KYB. Great marketing though.
QA1 adjustable are an excellent choice as are Viking.
Koni has some nice shocks.
There is a Koni for 66 Fairlanes? Nothing on their website. Do you know which ones?
-
Koni's The picture shows a Koni 82-1389 and KYB 5517.
They both fit in my 67 Fairlane using my home made springs. The KYB is a tube of gas. And feels like it.
The Koni is a heavy duty tube of oil and feels like it.
The Koni has 3 settings soft, med and hard. You have to take them out to adjust them.
Med is kind a like a 50/50 drag shock.
You can get front Koni's they are 82-1698. Special order.
Mustang front Koni's can be adapted.
Worth the price of admission.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NF2qMDw7/IMG-20230903-162808231.jpg)
-
Thank you all for your input. I have some additional questions.
I think I'll start with a pre-load adjustment and the leaf spring clamps. My springs currently have the "anti-squeak" pads between the leaf springs and a sheet metal clamp at the front. I've ordered some 2-1/2" clamps from Jegs. Should I leave in the anti-squeaks? Two of them are partially dislocated and sticking out the side.
Again, I am not making this a full out drag car. A street car with occasional trip to the strip.
Ref. - My rubber isolators (the hat shaped isolators at the pin) have long been gone.
Thanks,
-
the pads at the end of your spring leaves sure are telling you what is going on--and why they are falling out-- CLAMP ALL THE LEAVES-- good oil filled 50/50 shocks will cure most of what is going on -- you can stagger the shocks (428 mustang) I have owned 66/67 fairlanes from late 66 to present! in 67 my fairlane was 2x4/crane cam/jardine headers/al flywheel/427-made good power---saw many 4000/5000 starts twisted some input shafts and had to weld straps to spring pads to axle as trying to bend/rotate --- tires were biggest 15 inch re caps I could get-----but no wheel hop--later used bars like the t-bolt deeper gears (4.57s) as main leaf tried to bend by front spring mount---still have my old 66 body with 3-4 inch long cracks at rear window/post from good old 427/toploader abuse--2x like Barry said --also used twist in wedge in front spring to load right rear-- 90/10 front shocks to help transfer weight-still put 1000s of highway miles on ride seemed OK for twenty something back in the day!!! john oldiron
-
There is some pretty informed discussion here, at the opposite end of the spectrum, and not a track car but an overpowered pickup with severe axle wrap causing wheel hop, another member here told me about these:
-
There is some pretty informed discussion here, at the opposite end of the spectrum, and not a track car but an overpowered pickup with severe axle wrap causing wheel hop, another member here told me about these:
The over rider type. Early Shelby's had over rider bars. I've not driven a car with over riders.
Nice springs, good shocks, some type of traction bar and good tires. It all works together.
-
In the end, without seeing what is happening, my assumption is the main leaf is the culprit, but not only the front, I have seen clamped front springs wrap in the rear as well and open between leaves to look like a bird spreading it's feathers. If the perches are good, potentially verifying all spring clamps are good and in the right position to mitigate some of the movement as well.
I actually (somewhere..) have a picture of my car doing "just that" in the 1980s. At one point I removed all the rear clamps. Although it looks funky, it actually worked pretty well, in that the rear segment is not limiting the suspension travel. Let it really crush the tire into the track back before the stiff sidewall slicks became "the thing".
-
Has anyone looked at ute springs/Ranchero springs I use Australian falcon ute springs in my 66 fairlane they are a heavy duty spring over here i would think a ranchero spring should be the same heavy duty spring. I still run cal trac's as well i also run koni shocks on the rear set to medium setting.
-
Koni's The picture shows a Koni 82-1389 and KYB 5517.
They both fit in my 67 Fairlane using my home made springs. The KYB is a tube of gas. And feels like it.
The Koni is a heavy duty tube of oil and feels like it.
The Koni has 3 settings soft, med and hard. You have to take them out to adjust them.
Med is kind a like a 50/50 drag shock.
You can get front Koni's they are 82-1698. Special order.
Mustang front Koni's can be adapted.
Worth the price of admission.
(https://i.postimg.cc/NF2qMDw7/IMG-20230903-162808231.jpg)
Are your Konis old? Looking on their website I only see gas charged shocks for '60's Mustangs. Which would be fine but still gas charged?
-
Are your Konis old? Looking on their website I only see gas charged shocks for '60's Mustangs. Which would be fine but still gas charged?
They are not that old, and they show in stock at Summit.
If you take the VIA Rail in Canada the cars bogies have Koni shocks.
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/kon-821389/make/ford/model/mustang/year/1968
-
Update! I got some Koni shocks (oil) and installed them in favor of the KYB's (gas). Also on the date of my original post it was suggested to clamp the leaf springs. I figured pretty cheap and simple. I placed an order on Jegs and said it would ship 8/31/23. I had not received anything so today I called and they are on back order with a possibility of 12/8/23. $54 for four clamps I decided to cancel the order and make my own. I got some 1-1/4" wide x 1/4" bar. I ordered 1/2" u-bolts, might be overkill? Best I could find anywhere are 3" inside u-bolts. Try to find 2-1/2" inside u-bolts. I couldn't so I got these. I knew I'd have space where they might move around so I made some delrin sleeves to take up space. I still need to cut them to length. However after mocking them up I find I don't have much space from the inner tire wall to the edge of the bolt. About 5/16" I still need to fit my strap which would be at least another 1/4" from the inside hole edge to outside of strap. That leave 1/16" tire clearance. So this is a no-go. Even if I use 3/8" u-bolts it still wouldn't be enough space. I have 275/60/15 tires with back space that only has about an inch of clearance between tire wall and leaf spring edge. So I can only place one clamp on each leaf set and it will catch the top and next leaf. Seems I'd really need to catch 2 & 3 from top together to make this possibly work.
I enjoy making my own stuff but I may be S.O.L. and need to reluctantly get a mono leaf?
http://www.fairlanet.com/images/leaf-ubolt.jpg (http://www.fairlanet.com/images/leaf-ubolt.jpg)
(http://www.fairlanet.com/images/leaf-ubolt.jpg)
-
Doug, some OEM clamps were merely bent-up sheet metal steel pieces that had a tab on the inside. No u-bolts needed. The formed steel pieces were slipped over the leafs and the inside tab (facing away from the tire) was bent to clip into itself (tough to describe here). Yet, I don't know if anyone sells them today.
These pretty much look like the ones I've tried to describe: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/slf-00250?srsltid=AfmBOopdHFYKaVkJxPgERDH_eAXB37gycPxWSg6NRgcxl_qX-3gtM_gFWj4
-
Doug, some OEM clamps were merely bent-up sheet metal steel pieces that had a tab on the inside. No u-bolts needed. The formed steel pieces were slipped over the leafs and the inside tab (facing away from the tire) was bent to clip into itself (tough to describe here). Yet, I don't know if anyone sells them today.
These pretty much look like the ones I've tried to describe: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/slf-00250?srsltid=AfmBOopdHFYKaVkJxPgERDH_eAXB37gycPxWSg6NRgcxl_qX-3gtM_gFWj4
Thanks you! I was under the impression that the leaves needed clamped so they don't slide or move around? the leaves currently have a stock sheet metal clamp but the leaves can slide in them? Some old picture I've seen were people using for example a 3/8" dia. square u-bolt with a clamp plate and clamped tight?
Thanks again!
-
Doug, some OEM clamps were merely bent-up sheet metal steel pieces that had a tab on the inside. No u-bolts needed. The formed steel pieces were slipped over the leafs and the inside tab (facing away from the tire) was bent to clip into itself (tough to describe here). Yet, I don't know if anyone sells them today.
These pretty much look like the ones I've tried to describe: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/slf-00250?srsltid=AfmBOopdHFYKaVkJxPgERDH_eAXB37gycPxWSg6NRgcxl_qX-3gtM_gFWj4
Thanks you! I was under the impression that the leaves needed clamped so they don't slide or move around? the leaves currently have a stock sheet metal clamp but the leaves can slide in them? Some old picture I've seen were people using for example a 3/8" dia. square u-bolt with a clamp plate and clamped tight?
Thanks again!
The stock clamps do (or did) allow the leaves to move laterally (parallel to the leaf itself) a bit. You'll see this when jacking the car up. One can add more of these sheet metal clamps where needed or desired. Yes, many in the day did add the square u-bolt clamp yet your close clearance prevents there use here. Btw, the famed Dodge & Plymouth "Super Stock" factory rear leafs also solely used this style of clamp to great effect on early factory drag cars. See Mancini's link here and zoom in on those factory re-boots of the original leaf springs and you'll see only sheetmetal clamps.
https://www.manciniracing.com/mopecolespri.html
-
Update! I got some Koni shocks (oil) and installed them in favor of the KYB's (gas).
Did you get the rear Koni 82-1389's and the front 82-1698's like tunnnelwedge posted? I'd like to hear what you set them at and what you think.
I currently have kyb's (po installed) in my 66 and loved the Konis in my 66 mustang I used to have so I'm super interested in what you think about them in your fairlane.
-
My last leaf-spring car used a 4-link kit with roller mounts for the leaves. I made clamps on the fronts of the leaf springs by blacksmithing 1/4-inch thick strap that I formed to be tapped in place from the outside inwards. Bolts through the extended inner ends pulled them tight. The rear axle was a brand new Lincoln Versailles with the 9" center and factory disc brakes. Clearance on the outer ends of the clamps was just fine.
The car was a '72 Pinto with a 466 CID engine built from a 429 SCJ. It was a project car for Super Ford Magazine. I got the very first pair of aluminum heads that came out the door from the Smith Brothers experimenting, before they sold out to Summit. The car weighed 2260 with 1140 on the rear wheels. The engine was set back under the original dash space and the seats were mounted on the back seat foot space. Entire front clip, doors and rear quarters were fiberglas. Top was chopped four inches. We used a full length 2X3 ladder frame integrated into the floor pan and an 8-point cage. Konis at all four corners. Traction was excellent with Pirelli 345-35X15 P zeros at the rear and 285-40s on the front.
KS
-
Update! I got some Koni shocks (oil) and installed them in favor of the KYB's (gas).
Did you get the rear Koni 82-1389's and the front 82-1698's like tunnnelwedge posted? I'd like to hear what you set them at and what you think.
I currently have kyb's (po installed) in my 66 and loved the Konis in my 66 mustang I used to have so I'm super interested in what you think about them in your fairlane.
I did get the Koni's and installed them. I did get the p/n's you mentioned. I went for one short cruise last week. That wasn't enough time to assess them. Hopefully I can some decent mileage on them before winter?
-
Please update this thread once you have an opinion on them! Also where did you end up ordering them? The 82-1698's seem to all ony be for sale in Australia and other countries.
-
Thanks Doug, Please update this thread once you have an opinion on them! Also where did you end up ordering them? The 82-1698's seem to all ony be for sale in Australia and other countries.
-
Please update this thread once you have an opinion on them! Also where did you end up ordering them? The 82-1698's seem to all only be for sale in Australia and other countries.
We use them all the time over here in Australia our falcons and fairmonts xr xt xw xy 1966 to 1972 they are a direct fit for 66/67 usa fairlane i would think they would fit the usa falcons too 66/70
-
Please update this thread once you have an opinion on them! Also where did you end up ordering them? The 82-1698's seem to all ony be for sale in Australia and other countries.
I only purchased the rears at this time. Amazon around $300.