Printable View
Sorry if this has been asked and answered before, but I couldn't find it via the Search function.
Will the MONTE CARLO BAR CURVED BLACK 1965-1966 from CJ Pony Parts $22 - http://www.cjponyparts.com/monte-carlo-bar-curved-black-1965-1966/p/MCB2/ work on my 64 Sprint or is there a specific Falcon one (FalconParts.com http://www.falconparts.com/ford-falc...-8-18p1084.htm) that costs $38 more that I have to use?
Thanks.
Those are both the same, but the price. I have a straight one and it fits and works fine...jh
Are we sure the Mustang part and the Falcon part are the same? I think the Mustang width - apron to apron - is a little wider. Not 100% sure, but I know the drag-link is wider on a Mustang compared to Falcon. I'll have to call my friend Bill, with the 65 Mustang, and have take a measurement.
Here's some information I just found:
https://fordsix.com/forum/viewtopic....=12691&start=0
That sure didn't seem very definative to me. Maybe I missed something or didn't understand? I read that thread as conflicting info depending on who was answering. Is the conclusion: You pays yer money and takes yer chances?
There was a guy, about 3 from the bottom, who owns both a Falcon and a Mustang. I assumed because (I was told) the width of the frame rails is wider on a Mustang that it was also wider up-top. But this guy confirmed (because he had both) just the opposite - that the Falcon was wider. Then the last guy in the last post indicated this was because the Falcon aprons were taller. I think that's true because I used a 64-66 Mustang apron patch for the battery tray to mount the battery width-wise in the Flarechero.
Where everything is at between the shock towers, or where the belly bar would mount, nobody knew for sure. Nor do I.
Hmmm.... Maybe I'll take my chances and get a new sway bar for a Mustang.... They list for a lot less $$$ than for a Falcon.
Sorry, I guess I didn't look close enough and thought they were both for falcons, mine was about $38.00 a few years ago...jh:WHATTHE:
I'm running the curved bar from Falconparts.com. It fits perfectly.
Great, I'll give you $22 for it! :D
Sorry but no. That won't cover the extra $225 for having it chrome plated.Quote:
Originally Posted by 64SprintV8
The Mustang curved bar does not fit the Falcon. They are a different width. I purchased the one from Falcon Enterprises also. Took it to Tucson with me. Got it chrome plated for $90.00 but I didn't have to ship it. Badbird / Larry
I am going to re-build my front end with new upper and lower control arms, tie rods, etc., and am debating adding a monte carlo bar and/or under engine brace into the mix. For you guys that have installed these, would you strongly recommend them? Or are their benefits offset by negatives?
The downsides include: (a) Increased expense and weight. (b) The pieces would get in the way while doing maintenance. (c) The under engine brace would decrease ground clearance and maybe get in the way of removing the oil pan. (d) They would detract from the original appearance of the car. (e) They might be unnecessary appendages.
On the plus side, they would push the suspension components back into their original positions if they have sagged inward over the years. This would help in setting and holding the front end alignment. Plus, they are not very expensive.
Here is a picture of Jay Leno's 1963 Falcon Spring with a 302 V-8. His monte carlo bar looks like it is just screwed into the sheet metal of the inner fenders. Is that where it is supposed to go? It doesn't look very strong. Is there any kind of structural support there?
Attachment 4063
Is a curved or straight rod better? The straight rod ($41) looks like it would be stronger. Does the curved rod ($60) fit better somehow? How much do they weigh?
Attachment 4061
Attachment 4060
There is also an "adjustable" rod available ($170). How/why does it adjust? Does it pivot? How necessary is that? It does not look very strong,
Attachment 4062
The the U-shape of the under engine ($62) brace makes me wonder if it would really be very stiff when pushing inward from the tips and if it would be worth the bother. Does decrease ground clearance? How much does it weigh?
Attachment 4064
Dennis, the falcons are prone to flex at the shock towers. The Monte Carlo bar and the Z bar are both intended to eliminate that flex. Some bars goes to the shock towers direct, and some bolt right to the inner fenders. I made my own setup wich is probable way overkill unless you plan to race your falcon.
Sway bars are good, the Z bar is good. I think Kenny has a straight bar that I coated for him he could let you know how his car handled with and with out it.
Here's a pic of what I did. HTH
Dennis, I've recently done similar research regarding what I wanted to do under my hood. First, I have to say that my situation is different than yours as my car is in the restomod category.
My first consideration, other than "bling", is that I cannot imagine anything more intrusive under the hood than the factory export brace! So, replacing it with a smaller, stronger item is advantageous , and using a easily removable (pull a pin) piece even more so.
Secondly, though I'm not any kind of racer, I feel that anything I can do that may improve the handling, I'm gonna do. I have already added a larger sway bar (1") and lowered the front & rear ends appx. 2". I feel an improvement in the handling doing just those two mods. The export brace/monte carlo bar (which I already have) from www.mpgheads.com are my upcoming winter project. I'm going to add the under engine brace also. I'll probably add a rear sway bar. too, as my rear tires touch the fender infrequently.
Short of installing a rack & pinion as others have done, this is probably about the best I can do.
I can't say for sure it made a difference on it's own as I also replaced the stock sway bar with a 1-1/8" one at the same time. But either one of them or both of them made a big difference! Doesn't dive into corners like it used to for sure. I also replaced the strut rod bushings (rubber) and went with poly end link bushings.
Just too many things were done at once to pinpoint which component made the most difference.
Hey, guys. Thanks for the input.
Right now, my front end is completely worn out. The twenty year old shocks are not doing anything. The sway bar link bushings are worn out and the stock sway bar is flapping around and not doing anything. The ball joints are worn out and the front wheels are out of alignment, etc., etc.
And despite all of that, the car still tracks straight and is fun to drive. :o
There will be a dramatic difference in ride quality and steering and handling after replacing all the worn out parts and getting everything back to original base line stock. I'll wait to see how satisfied I am with everything then before I start changing anything else (stiffer sway bars, engine braces, etc). I may be happy with it as is and not need to do any further changes.
If I were to change everything all at once, I won't know what did what. It would be like Kenny said: "Just too many things were done at once to pinpoint which component made the most difference."
Dennis,
I think it's pretty well known these cars were weak in these areas. I just did both parts in my Ranchero, which was a 6'r gone V8 and is lacking the torque boxes your car has (and Kenny's lacks as well). I can say, in my case, it was substantial the difference it made. Yours may be less noticable, but considering I got a "bundle deal" for buying both, I took the savings and did them both at the same time. I also added a new 1 1/8" sway bar, but have yet to see much curves yet - going in for the front-end alignment tomorrow finally. I'd consider them proactive parts to keep the car nice and stiff where they're known not to be.
Hello, Roger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luva65wagon
I read that the six cylinder convertibles were the first to have torque boxes. Ford had to do something to make up for the loss of stiffness from getting rid of the roof. The hardtops also got torque boxes because the lack a ceiling cross piece that goes from center post to center post on the coupes and sedans. So, the torque boxes compensated a loss rather than being an addition. It was maybe a break-even as far as overall stiffness.
I did come across this bit of information: "A solid sway bar one inch in diameter and 37.5 inches long would weigh about 8 lbs."
See: http://www.stockcarscience.com/blog/index.php/swaybars
That means that a stock 11/16" sway bar would just weigh four pounds. The one inch sway bar would only mean a four pound increase and that would be insignificant.
My stock sway bar has been non-functional do to worn out end links. When I would take a tight U-turn my wife would freak out and say
"You're gonna roll the car over!! Ahhheeeiiggghhh!!!!" :WHATTHE:
Attachment 4088
Maybe things will be a bit less dramatic once I get the suspension up to snuff. Well, at least the motion of the car will be less dramatic.
Have any of you guys installed a rear sway bar? Fits: 63-65 Ford Falcon, 63-65 Mercury Comet, 64-66 Ford Mustang
See: http://www.andysautosport.com/products/addco__914.html
The Monte Carlo bar made a HUGE difference in my Sprint. My wife was so scared before I put it in she refused to ride with me because the car was to squirrely. After I put in the MCB she took a ride and thought, it wasn't that bad at all. I think mine cost $55 or so and it was money well spent.