69 nose in the air options?

Yeah... My first wife didn't like my 72 'stang, so she found a 72 Nova
hatchback, w/12" steering wheel w/deep dish chrome reverse, mag
fronts, graphic equalizer in the glove box, 14" wide rear skins, air
shocks, lifter bars, dual outside exhaust, etc, etc, etc. The owner,
Pepe, sold it to her cheap 'cause it had a leak in the air shocks.
That was about the time my next door neighbor, Cindy, got herself a
passion wagon and invited both of us to go try it out with her. Early
70s with some leftover 60s... LOL

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:39:30 GMT, "SVTKate"
> wrote:

>Dang Spike, an old coot like you should remember THAT.
>
>*sigh*
>In the 70's, that was the thing to do. raise the rear, drop the nose.
>
>
>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>| The thread was about the appearance of a car... NOT "anyone's" home
>| life.... raking the yard and doing WHAT?????? LOL
>|
>|
>| On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:19:04 GMT, "SVTKate"
>| > wrote:
>|
>| >RAKE IT!
>| >Drop it on it's nose and put some nice fat meats on the back ----- OH
>YEA!
>| >
>| >
>| >"Spike" > wrote in message
>| .. .
>| >|I know the 65/66 had that nose up look. Seems to me that nearly all
>| >| the models up through about 72/73, and possibly later, had that nose
>| >| up look to some degree. I am not sure you can actually accomplish
>| >| "straight" because of the natural lines of the body. You can verify
>| >| the level down the length by measuring from the ground at different
>| >| points along the sides.... or using a level even. Not something I ever
>| >| gave much thought to doing.
>| >|
>| >| I don't see a problem with dropping the nose an inch or two as long as
>| >| it does not interfere with safe operation and handling, since the
>| >| small alteration does not change things all that much. Filling up the
>| >| wells with more wheel/tire may also help reduce the visual effect.
>| >|
>| >| In the 60s Shelby engineers did what is called the "Shelby Drop" which
>| >| dropped the nose about 1". A Negative Wedge Kit (available from such
>| >| vendors as www.npd.com, www.mustangsplus.com, www.summitracing.com ,
>| >| etc) does the same thing but in a somewhat different manner, and drops
>| >| the nose about 1 5/8" (think that figure is right). There are also
>| >| springs designed to do the same thing without the need for cutting
>| >| (see classic Mustang vendors).
>| >|
>| >| Some aftermarket wheel vendors like Vintage Wheel Works say that
>| >| putting 16" or bigger wheels on an early model Mustang requires
>| >| installing a Negative Wedge Kit. True? I don't know. Apply to your
>| >| year? Again, I don't know. I know I have one installed on my 65 FB
>| >| (along with a Bump Steer Kit). Seems to do the job it's designed to
>| >| do.
>| >|
>| >| I've also known others who raised the back end (for a different
>| >| reason) which gives the same general impression.
>| >|
>| >| On 14 Mar 2005 11:20:17 -0800, wrote:
>| >|
>| >| >69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
>| >| >i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in fender
>| >| >are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my options
>to
>| >| >get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is not
>a
>| >| >good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be
>higher
>| >| >than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems like
>| >| >it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
>| >| >body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
>| >| >thing for older mustangs.
>| >| >any thoughts?
>| >| >
>| >| >thanks,
>| >|
>| >| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>| >| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>| >| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>| >| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>| >| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>| >
>|
>| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Take a look at a P-51 Mustang aircraft sitting on the deck... it has
the same nose in the air stance....

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:41:13 GMT, "SVTKate"
> wrote:

>I have noticed that many of the 70's Mustangs look like that, and never
>liked it a bit. They seem to look as it they are a bout to leave the runway
>like a jet plane.
>If it were mine, I'd change it too. The nose it too high on them - IMO -
>
>
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Ahhhhh.. those were the days!

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
| Yeah... My first wife didn't like my 72 'stang, so she found a 72 Nova
| hatchback, w/12" steering wheel w/deep dish chrome reverse, mag
| fronts, graphic equalizer in the glove box, 14" wide rear skins, air
| shocks, lifter bars, dual outside exhaust, etc, etc, etc. The owner,
| Pepe, sold it to her cheap 'cause it had a leak in the air shocks.
| That was about the time my next door neighbor, Cindy, got herself a
| passion wagon and invited both of us to go try it out with her. Early
| 70s with some leftover 60s... LOL
|
| On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:39:30 GMT, "SVTKate"
| > wrote:
|
| >Dang Spike, an old coot like you should remember THAT.
| >
| >*sigh*
| >In the 70's, that was the thing to do. raise the rear, drop the nose.
| >
| >
| >"Spike" > wrote in message
| .. .
| >| The thread was about the appearance of a car... NOT "anyone's" home
| >| life.... raking the yard and doing WHAT?????? LOL
| >|
| >|
| >| On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:19:04 GMT, "SVTKate"
| >| > wrote:
| >|
| >| >RAKE IT!
| >| >Drop it on it's nose and put some nice fat meats on the back ----- OH
| >YEA!
| >| >
| >| >
| >| >"Spike" > wrote in message
| >| .. .
| >| >|I know the 65/66 had that nose up look. Seems to me that nearly all
| >| >| the models up through about 72/73, and possibly later, had that nose
| >| >| up look to some degree. I am not sure you can actually accomplish
| >| >| "straight" because of the natural lines of the body. You can verify
| >| >| the level down the length by measuring from the ground at different
| >| >| points along the sides.... or using a level even. Not something I
ever
| >| >| gave much thought to doing.
| >| >|
| >| >| I don't see a problem with dropping the nose an inch or two as long
as
| >| >| it does not interfere with safe operation and handling, since the
| >| >| small alteration does not change things all that much. Filling up
the
| >| >| wells with more wheel/tire may also help reduce the visual effect.
| >| >|
| >| >| In the 60s Shelby engineers did what is called the "Shelby Drop"
which
| >| >| dropped the nose about 1". A Negative Wedge Kit (available from such
| >| >| vendors as www.npd.com, www.mustangsplus.com, www.summitracing.com ,
| >| >| etc) does the same thing but in a somewhat different manner, and
drops
| >| >| the nose about 1 5/8" (think that figure is right). There are also
| >| >| springs designed to do the same thing without the need for cutting
| >| >| (see classic Mustang vendors).
| >| >|
| >| >| Some aftermarket wheel vendors like Vintage Wheel Works say that
| >| >| putting 16" or bigger wheels on an early model Mustang requires
| >| >| installing a Negative Wedge Kit. True? I don't know. Apply to your
| >| >| year? Again, I don't know. I know I have one installed on my 65 FB
| >| >| (along with a Bump Steer Kit). Seems to do the job it's designed to
| >| >| do.
| >| >|
| >| >| I've also known others who raised the back end (for a different
| >| >| reason) which gives the same general impression.
| >| >|
| >| >| On 14 Mar 2005 11:20:17 -0800, wrote:
| >| >|
| >| >| >69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
| >| >| >i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in
fender
| >| >| >are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my
options
| >to
| >| >| >get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is
not
| >a
| >| >| >good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be
| >higher
| >| >| >than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems
like
| >| >| >it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
| >| >| >body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a
common
| >| >| >thing for older mustangs.
| >| >| >any thoughts?
| >| >| >
| >| >| >thanks,
| >| >|
| >| >| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| >| >| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| >| >| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| >| >| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| >| >| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
| >| >
| >|
| >| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| >| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| >| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| >| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| >| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
| >
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

My point exactly. The CARS are not suppose to look lile they are ready to be
airborne.

*TSK*

Men!


"Spike" > wrote in message
...
| Take a look at a P-51 Mustang aircraft sitting on the deck... it has
| the same nose in the air stance....
|
| On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:41:13 GMT, "SVTKate"
| > wrote:
|
| >I have noticed that many of the 70's Mustangs look like that, and never
| >liked it a bit. They seem to look as it they are a bout to leave the
runway
| >like a jet plane.
| >If it were mine, I'd change it too. The nose it too high on them - IMO -
| >
| >
| >
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Hey!
Take some before and after photos, and let us see what you did

Kate

> wrote in message
oups.com...
|i got some new PST leafs a couple years ago. in hind site i probably
| really didnt need to at the time. but its done now. So i guess i will
| try the least expensive stuff first. im positive i need new rear shocks
| so will try that first. then maybe bigger rear tires.
|

SVTKate wrote:
> Hey!
> Take some before and after photos, and let us see what you did
>
> Kate
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> |i got some new PST leafs a couple years ago. in hind site i probably
> | really didnt need to at the time. but its done now. So i guess i will
> | try the least expensive stuff first. im positive i need new rear shocks
> | so will try that first. then maybe bigger rear tires.
> |

After the "Kate tastes good" portion of that other thread, and now this
one, I'm beginning to wonder just what goes on offline with some of you
guys... =)

Generally speaking about RAMFM, some of these things reveal themselves
over time, and some are best left as they are, I guess.


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

Absolutely NOTHING goes on off line..... not even any personal
communicating offline.... why, we'd probably never speak to each other
if we met on the street... right Kate? By the way....

the steaks are marinating
and the beer is cold...
spa is hot...
and life's good as gold!
So grab yer ol' man
and make a plan
across the nation to roam
and mosey back home....


LOL : D

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:18:29 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:

>SVTKate wrote:
>> Hey!
>> Take some before and after photos, and let us see what you did
>>
>> Kate
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> |i got some new PST leafs a couple years ago. in hind site i probably
>> | really didnt need to at the time. but its done now. So i guess i will
>> | try the least expensive stuff first. im positive i need new rear shocks
>> | so will try that first. then maybe bigger rear tires.
>> |
>
>After the "Kate tastes good" portion of that other thread, and now this
>one, I'm beginning to wonder just what goes on offline with some of you
>guys... =)
>
>Generally speaking about RAMFM, some of these things reveal themselves
>over time, and some are best left as they are, I guess.

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Faust wrote:

> i got some new PST leafs a couple years ago. in hind site i probably
> really didnt need to at the time. but its done now. So i guess i will

> try the least expensive stuff first. im positive i need new rear
shocks
> so will try that first. then maybe bigger rear tires.

Shocks do not affect static ride height. Bigger tires are not cheap.
Cheapest thing is to cut the springs. Yes it will increase your spring
rate slightly, and you also will be subtracting camber, maybe even
enough to require a new alignment job. But the cutting itself requires
only a spring compressor (rentable from Kragens for $5, free from
Autozone) and a hacksaw. (Actually I use a wimpy little Dremel tool,
but if you don't own one they cost about $50.)

Just don't cut too much. I'd say two inches equals off the tip of the
spring equals about a quarter inch drop.

180 Out

Spike's right NUTHIN goes on.
This our story and we're sticking to it.

You got it sweetie...

But I betcha I see you here before you see me there!
Only 5 more weeks!

K.
(nice little prose ya scrawled out there Spikie!)

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
| Absolutely NOTHING goes on off line..... not even any personal
| communicating offline.... why, we'd probably never speak to each other
| if we met on the street... right Kate? By the way....
|
| the steaks are marinating
| and the beer is cold...
| spa is hot...
| and life's good as gold!
| So grab yer ol' man
| and make a plan
| across the nation to roam
| and mosey back home....
|
|
| LOL : D
|
| On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:18:29 GMT, Wound Up > wrote:
|
| >SVTKate wrote:
| >> Hey!
| >> Take some before and after photos, and let us see what you did
| >>
| >> Kate
| >>
| >> > wrote in message
| >> oups.com...
| >> |i got some new PST leafs a couple years ago. in hind site i probably
| >> | really didnt need to at the time. but its done now. So i guess i will
| >> | try the least expensive stuff first. im positive i need new rear
shocks
| >> | so will try that first. then maybe bigger rear tires.
| >> |
| >
| >After the "Kate tastes good" portion of that other thread, and now this
| >one, I'm beginning to wonder just what goes on offline with some of you
| >guys... =)
| >
| >Generally speaking about RAMFM, some of these things reveal themselves
| >over time, and some are best left as they are, I guess.
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Therein lies the biggest problem... it's not so much the cutting as it
is the proper amount of cutting... and, as I recall, to make sure the
springs are lined back up properly.

There are springs specifically made for this task, which maintain the
correct spring rate, etc. I'd almost guarantee Mustang's Plus and
National Parts Depot has them, and likely other vendors who carry mod
parts in addition to resto.

Your method "may" be correct, but it is a guess which may require
removing, cutting, and reinstalling, only to find it necessary to
remove, cut , and reinstall again... That's IF too much was not cut
off in the first place, in which case the springs would have to be
replaced anyway.

In the end, it could prove costly, and possibly very unsafe if it
isn't done right.

On 15 Mar 2005 16:32:44 -0800, wrote:

>Faust wrote:
>
>> i got some new PST leafs a couple years ago. in hind site i probably
>> really didnt need to at the time. but its done now. So i guess i will
>
>> try the least expensive stuff first. im positive i need new rear
>shocks
>> so will try that first. then maybe bigger rear tires.
>
>Shocks do not affect static ride height. Bigger tires are not cheap.
>Cheapest thing is to cut the springs. Yes it will increase your spring
>rate slightly, and you also will be subtracting camber, maybe even
>enough to require a new alignment job. But the cutting itself requires
>only a spring compressor (rentable from Kragens for $5, free from
>Autozone) and a hacksaw. (Actually I use a wimpy little Dremel tool,
>but if you don't own one they cost about $50.)
>
>Just don't cut too much. I'd say two inches equals off the tip of the
>spring equals about a quarter inch drop.
>
>180 Out

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16