Front Suspension and Disk Brake Upgrade

[OX1]

From this thread here

http://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=100071#poststop

Take a look at this pic - the blue line represents the amount of distance away from the spindle center line at the top. You can see the '77 Tbird spindle (and probably other full size Ford spindles) would stick out further at the top than Tbird or Granada spindles.

It would appear I have the 77 Bird spindles/brakes.



What is odd is that setup was on the 60 I got for parts,
and that car saw upwards of 6K miles when it was
all together. It did not appear to have severe
camber problems when I picked it up and tire
wear sure does not appear to be heavy on the
positive camber.



That car did have some kind of aftermarket spring,
so I'm wondering if a lowered ride height pushed the
lower control arm more flat and outward. Couldn't of
been that low as he had a 235 width, 15" tire on them
and no clearance problems.

So now I'm not sure how I want to proceed. I sand blasted
all the parts, but hate to start powder coating if I can't
use this stuff. I would stuff all the parts back on the
parts car with out the springs, but I already removed
upper control arm bushings.

[scumdog]

It would appear the '77 Tbird bottom balljoint hole is also further in, i.e. it looks like is going to put the spindle at the same angle more or less as the squarebird one.
Only it will put the wheel further out from the centre of the car.

[OX1]

It would appear the '77 Tbird bottom balljoint hole is also further in, i.e. it looks like is going to put the spindle at the same angle more or less as the squarebird one.
Only it will put the wheel further out from the centre of the car.

I agree, just going off of what DKheld tried with his setup, which he fixed with the Granada stuff. Guess I'll put it in and see what happens. Worse case I have to swap knuckles and I do have Granada knuckles also.

[Joe Johnston]

Only it will put the wheel further out from the centre of the car.

This is also the result when Granada spindles are used on 55 - 57's as well. It works, but looks odd from the stern unless different wheels are used to compensate.

[OX1]

This is also the result when Granada spindles are used on 55 - 57's as well. It works, but looks odd from the stern unless different wheels are used to compensate.

You mean when you use the 77 stuff, as the Granada knuckle should be farther inboard? Unless you mean that is what looks weird due to being farther inboard?

[Joe Johnston]

The Granada set up puts the (same) wheel about 1" out further from the center of the car. Looks odd because the front wheels and rear wheels do not follow in the same track going down the road.

[OX1]

The Granada set up puts the (same) wheel about 1" out further from the center of the car. Looks odd because the front wheels and rear wheels do not follow in the same track going down the road.

So the 77 T-bird stuff must push the track out even
further, unless the rotor (wheel mount surface)
is farther inboard.

Well I dug out the Granada parts and set them
next to the 77 bird stuff.






Bottom line is T-bird stuff is about an inch farther
inboard, ball joints holes vs WMS (over the
Granada stuff). The T-bird stuff also has the
upper ball joint hole about 1/4 inch farther
inboard (vs lower) than the Granada setup,
which could cause to much pos camber like
DKheld got. Tie rod hole is also about 3/4
inch farther inboard also.

Overall, I think I could fix track issues, if
any, with wheel backspacing. I'll have
to check that further as I want to use 14"
wheels, so they probably need less
backspacing to clear calipers (vs stock
wheels anyway).

My mom had a 77 Granada (hence where the parts
probably came from, since my dad found them
in his basement). My brother dropped a 302 in
it after he got it, and tooled it around for a
while. I don't remember the brakes being all
that great on it, and it was only 3200ish lbs.

[Joe Johnston]

Overall, I think I could fix track issues, if
any, with wheel backspacing.

Yes that will work.

[DKheld]

Yep - that's my pic of the comparison.

I had no idea what Granada spindles looked like at the time as was told that's what these were. Of course I was also told they would bolt right on (which they did) but after removing all the shims from the top A-Arm I could see there was no way to set the camber correctly. The top of the tire stuck waaay out and the bottom arm is not adjustable.

Bet the track could be fixed using those spindles - maybe use a different upper A-Arm (Galaxie?) or have one made but I was looking for a bolt in type system and didn't want to go down that road. Plus - it was about 12 years ago and there was very little info. Even fewer folks that had an operating conversion. In fact the ONE guy that said he had a disc system on his car never replied after I asked for some pic's so I could just follow what he did.

I sold those spindles to a guy with a Galaxie so I bet the A-Arms are different enough that they will work on the Galaxie - just a guess though.

Here's a comparison pic of the drivers side of the car with a standard spindle and the pass side with the 77 Tbird spindle plus all the alignment shims at the top A-Arm removed.





I haven't had any problems with my Granada setup other than alignment. Got lucky and had a shop that would work with me - he would set it - let me drive it a week or two to see how it felt - then go back and tell him how it felt and he would see if he could adjust to make it better. Unfortunately the shop went out of business before I could go back for the last time - he was going to print out the final settings for me.

Stopping power is fine - even on mountain roads and I only have the small original type Bendix booster with a Lincoln front to accept the modern style master cyl.





I did find it necessary to use a banjo style brake line because the Granada line was too short and looked like it would hit the upper spring mount at a full turn. Took me a while to find the right thread banjo bolt - no idea what the part number is. I found it by searching for the right length, diameter and thread pitch.



You also need to have the Granada spindles machined to fit the lower Tbird ball joint correctly. Basically a new taper.

Although a great set-up and it has been very reliable as well as easy to get parts if needed - by the time you get the alignment set - it would probably cost about the same as using the Squarebird brackets that were not available 12 years ago. Unless of course you can set the alignment yourself.

Hope to have my car to an alignment shop one day to get the settings t post but just don't have the time right now and likely won't take it out again until a good rain washes most of the winter salt off the roads.

Good luck on your conversion - you'll love the discs.

Eric

[OX1]

Yep - that's my pic of the comparison.

I had no idea what Granada spindles looked like at the time as was told that's what these were. Of course I was also told they would bolt right on (which they did) but after removing all the shims from the top A-Arm I could see there was no way to set the camber correctly. The top of the tire stuck waaay out and the bottom arm is not adjustable.

Eric

I'm confused, you had problems with camber on the
Granada setup also??

What is strange is the parts I'm calling "77 T-bird" parts,
(not sure what they really are, but they look like your
77 T-bird parts) came on my 60 parts car. Not sure
how that was aligned, but it was fine before I pulled
them off that car. I will probably attempt to use them
just for that reason alone.

As for alignment, I recently bought my own used Hunter
4 wheel alignment system. I already had a 4 post lift,
and I had the alignment system calibrated by my local
Hunter rep when he dropped it off. It came from a
Mercedes dealership that was upgrading to the latest
Hunter stuff.

One thing I noticed why aligning my dads fox body
LTD (which is strut front susp, not double wishbone
like SB's). Camber changes decently just from a driver
getting inside the car. I'm sure no one does alignments
with the driver in the car though.

[DKheld]

The pictures are after I installed a 77 Tbird spindle (thinking it was a Granada spindle) on the passenger side and removed ALL the upper alignment shims. The fellow that sold those spindles to me was less than honest.

I finally found a picture of what Granada spindles looked like and realized what I had were different and of course they couldn't be returned. I didn't know what the first ones were either just that I was told they would work.

The fellow that bought them from me at a car show told me they were 77 Tbird. Probably a series of years and cars but that's what I was told anyway.

The Granada spindles were set for 0 deg camber as a starting point but the car was very unstable on the interstate (believe that is the correct setting for the original Tbird alignment) - at any rate - we had to start somewhere.

The best setting for all driving conditions with my particular tires and Granada spindles definitely has some negative camber. These tires were 10+ years old and about 20K miles. You can see the wear to the right side which is the inside (bubble is a broken belt so I replaced all the tires). Wish we were closer and I'd bring mine by for you to check on your alignment machine - very nice.



The Coker Classics in the EXACT same size as my Diamond Back Radials don't handle as well. Lots of wiggling around on grooved interstate roads where as the Diamond Backs were so nice I could drive with one had on the wheel. It's probably all tread design - even though they were very similar. The Diamond Backs were Dayton brand tires, I would only buy another set of Coker Classics as a last resort (as in they were the only thing left on the entire planet).




Don't have a really good pic from the front straight on - but the negative camber is not enough to be noticed.







Eric

[OX1]

OK, thanks. I would probably start with at least some
negative camber. The only thing I set straight up zero are
wide (12.5 or wider) offroad truck tires, as they
are too expensive to get any wear from camber.

Don't think I would ever go for Coker or similar, just
insane money that I can use elsewhere on this project.
I got Hankook 1" whitewalls for under $300 that go down
the road nice and smooth (and that was my top criteria).
These cars handle so bad stock, not sure any tire is going
to matter that much.

Will be fun to get alignment heads on the rear I suspect.
The heads normally mount on edge of rims like this



and need to be rotated 360 to calibrate, not even sure
that is going to work with the skirts removed.

I also got a set of tire clamp adapters for nice alum rims that
won't mess up edge of rim. They mount like this.



with bumpers on rim edge instead of the clamps that
dig into inside edge of rims. Doubt those would fit
between rear 1/4 and tire when you calibrate head.

Heck, I had to jack up body and let axle droop just
to get tire/rim off, but my rear springs may be droopy.
They look in good shape, but are probably original.

The best setting for all driving conditions with my particular tires and Granada spindles definitely has some negative camber.

The Coker Classics

Don't have a really good pic from the front straight on - but the negative camber is not enough to be noticed.

Eric

[OX1]

I had discussed getting these metal punches in another
thread, but finally got them in the mail. I ordered them
back in Nov.

Anyway, appears they are US made and seem much
better than some of the china junk steel quality
(which overall, china stuff does seem to be improving).
One pic shows color change from temper, I assume.

Had to punch each letter twice, but that was probably
due to my size and strength (or lackthereof ).
Last pic shows letter heads after punching with
no wear on letters themselves.

Not sure if lettering will be covered over by
powder coating, but at least I know which end
is which up until that point. Not sure if it
even matters on this part, especially since
they came out of a different car.

[OX1]

So back to the brakes. I had asked about
booster size in this thread

http://www.squarebirds.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=105616#poststop

It seems lower shifter arm and valve cover
are the main culprits (with factory AC
coming in 3rd for many).

After reading 15 threads on disk brake
conversions, it seemed no one has solved
the issue of fitting a larger booster than
an 8" dual diaphr.

My first thought was redesign the shifter
arm, but even with that, the MC is almost
inline with the edge of valve cover (on 430
at least).

Buddy gave me this dual diaphr 9" booster,
so I was curious how it fit. It doesn't, unless
you move it over to the drivers side.

I started thinking why not. It could kill
2 (possibly 3) birds @ once. My idea is
why does the MC rod and booster rod
have to be in the same plane laterally.
(or athwartship for you Navy guys).

Couple pics of the booster where it easily
fits, could probably go to a 10" if desired.
Also, a real ugly sketch of my proposed
bracket assembly. Even with 9" booster,
it appeared I would only have to raise it
up about 2.5-3" since it is now offset
from shifter linkage.

So , aside from a totally custom
bracket/fulcrum, what am I missing??

[scumdog]

and need to be rotated 360 to calibrate, not even sure
that is going to work with the skirts removed.

.

Uh, the rear wheels don't need calibrate/aligned!