Hmmm...well lets' see now...I've installed the Granada setup on (1) '65 Mustang, (2) '66 Mustangs, (1) '67 Mustang, (1) '68 Mustang --my own, and on (1) '69 Mustang.

Of all these, the ONLY one that had problems was on one of the '66 Mustangs. I installed the Pro Motorsports Neg. Wedges on it, and had a terrible problem with the tires wearing out on the inner edges. Ended up taking the wedges out and returning the UCA's back to their stock location to stop the excessive tire wear issue.

My '68 is lowered 1" and I cut 3/4 of a coil off the front springs and I made and installed 1½" lowering blocks in the rear. All Mustangs will have some degree of bumpsteer in its stock form, but the Granada conversion did not add any more to the bumpsteer in my '68.

http://www.ultrastang.com/Images/Main.jpg

The red '68, pictured in the link above, is my car (my high school car --owned it for 22 years). I installed the Granada front discs and Granada 15/16" front swaybar on it in 1992. The Blue '65 belongs to a friend. I installed the Granada front discs on the '65 in 1996. Have had no problems with either one of them.


The main problem some experience with Granada discs on a '65/'66 Mustang is its narrower track width. --They are two inches narrower than the '67-'70/'75-'80 Granadas/Monarchs, and the Granada spindles have a little different geometrical configuration from the stock, early ('65/'66) Mustang spindles.
[/b][/quote]

It sounds like you have had a lot of fun with your cars You know from first hand experience that the Granada swap itself can work, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. You mentioned that your '68 was lowered 1", and you had lowering springs. It sounds like you lowered the UCA, and lowering the UCA vice using lowering springs has a greater effect on bumpsteer. On my previous '69 I used these same Granada spindles without lowering the upper arms and also had no problems even at 94 mph.

On my current '69 I lowered the arms about 1 3/8", and installed the Granada conversion from my old car. Perhaps there is an exponential increase in the toe-in as the arm is lowered beyond 1"? The tires wore out too fast, and the bumpsteer was outright dangerous at 80 mph. I don't have stock 67-73 Mustang spindles to compare too, but I imagine that either would get worse as it is lowered.

There are other considerations for why one car handles bettter than another with the same mods, and one is the tires. A tall and narrow tire will have a much greater slip angle than a shorter stiffer sidewall. I was running P255s on 15" rims at the time. All of my (early) Mustangs have been 69-70s, so I have no experience with the 65-66 cars, and they had significantly different suspension and steering geometry (narrower track, wider centerlink, different angle between the upper and lower arm pivots). I know they had smaller wheel wells, so I would guess you had smaller tires on them, which would help mask the bumpsteer.

I'm not trying to be a smart a##... with real data we can see what works and what doesn't. Where are the limits with lowering the upper arms, tire size, and the change in Ackerman from Granada spindles, and how that translates into increased bump steer? I know from my own first hand experience that there is a limit to lowering the stock suspension and using Granada spindles.

 

It sounds like you have had a lot of fun with your cars You know from first hand experience that the Granada swap itself can work, and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. You mentioned that your '68 was lowered 1", and you had lowering springs. It sounds like you lowered the UCA, and lowering the UCA vice using lowering springs has a greater effect on bumpsteer. On my previous '69 I used these same Granada spindles without lowering the upper arms and also had no problems even at 94 mph.

On my current '69 I lowered the arms about 1 3/8", and installed the Granada conversion from my old car. Perhaps there is an exponential increase in the toe-in as the arm is lowered beyond 1"? The tires wore out too fast, and the bumpsteer was outright dangerous at 80 mph. I don't have stock 67-73 Mustang spindles to compare too, but I imagine that either would get worse as it is lowered.

There are other considerations for why one car handles bettter than another with the same mods, and one is the tires. A tall and narrow tire will have a much greater slip angle than a shorter stiffer sidewall. I was running P255s on 15" rims at the time. All of my (early) Mustangs have been 69-70s, so I have no experience with the 65-66 cars, and they had significantly different suspension and steering geometry (narrower track, wider centerlink, different angle between the upper and lower arm pivots). I know they had smaller wheel wells, so I would guess you had smaller tires on them, which would help mask the bumpsteer.

I'm not trying to be a smart a##... with real data we can see what works and what doesn't. Where are the limits with lowering the upper arms, tire size, and the change in Ackerman from Granada spindles, and how that translates into increased bump steer? I know from my own first hand experience that there is a limit to lowering the stock suspension and using Granada spindles.
[/b][/quote]



I didn't feel like you were trying to make an attack on me, so everything's cool. I've been tinkering and modifying on these cars for 26 years now. I got bitten by the Mustang bug when I was 13 (1979). I got my first Mustang two weeks before I turned 16 (1982) --the '68 that's shown in the picture from my previous post. It was my high school car. The blue '65 also shown in the photo belongs to an old classmate/friend of mine. He's owned it nearly as long as I've owned mine, and it was his high school car too. I'm 38 now, and still just as 'crazy' about Mustangs as I've always been


This is the latest project I'm working on --('94-2004) SN-95 Mustang rear disc brakes adapted to the Ford 8- & 9-inch rear end housings. This SN-95 10½", solid rotor design is a etup I adapted to another friend's '65 fastback. --Just have to figure out the parking brake cable now, and it'll be complete.

http://img177.exs.cx/img177/4066/dsc002702ma.jpg


--Well...I said this was my latest project. That's not totally true. I've just finished a bracket design to adapt the other SN-95 rear disc brake version to the early Ford rear end housings --the '94-2004 "Cobra" rear discs, which measures 11.65" in diameter and has a ventilated rotor. I plan to put this SN-95 rear disc version on my '68.





http://www.ultrastang.com

 

You're correct, of course. I've accuately measured the positons of the mounting points on all types of spindles from 65-73. Although there are differences in the size of the outer tie rod mounting stud holes, the mounting geometry of the spindles from 67-73 and Granada are identical. The mounting position of the outer tie rod on the 65-66 spindles are about 1/2" different (outboard, backward, and downward). I suspect that the major cause of the problems that people have with this swap are related more to the other suspension mods that they do at the same time, than to the swap itself.

 

Of course it has to do with the mods done in conjunction with the grenada swap. That's what has been being said. On a stock suspension 65/66 there is going to be a slight increase in the bumpsteer but nothing too significant. Now combine those spindles with lowered springs and/or lowered control arms and you have one heck of a mess.