CaliforniaSpecial.com -- Message Boards -- 1968 California Special Limited Edition Ford Mustang GT/CS
D I S C U S S I O N . F O R U M
COMMUNITY
1968 GT/CS & HCS
2007+ GT/CS
1966-1967 HCS

Vote!

Old 08/17/2011, 12:27 AM   #1
Wild Willie
 
Wild Willie's Avatar
 

Location: San Jose, CA
Joined: Sep 09
Posts: 32

Front end sit higher than back end of GTCS

anyone know why my GTCS has always had the front end sit higher than the rear end? I'm not aware of any srping additions or changes causing this and still see the condition even after replacing the shocks, lower control arms and steering suspension. Any thoughts? Attachment 13890
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC03964.jpg
Views:	25
Size:	131.4 KB
ID:	13891  
Wild Willie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 12:34 AM   #2
davidathans
My Car Details
 
davidathans's Avatar
 
Best e.t. : 11.042, Fastest speed: 124.08, Best 60' : 1.615, 0 to 100 in 6.98

Location: San Fernando Valley, California
Joined: Jul 04
Posts: 703

yes, i had the same problem with my car. Cut 1/2 a coil out of each spring and she'll sit like she's supposed to :)
davidathans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 04:49 AM   #3
Mosesatm
 
Mosesatm's Avatar
 

Location: Spokane, Washington
Joined: Jan 05
Posts: 7,384

For some reason that's how it came from the factory. The front was 1.3" higher than the rear, but you can level it out and still be within tolerances.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://californiaspecial.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6889

Ford specs for ride height

Here are the Ford specs for ride height.

Ride heights are measured from the ground to the highest most point of the wheel well opening (which should be though the center of the wheel).

For Mustang with standard suspension:

Front - 26.68 tolerance +1.00 and -0.70
Rear - 25.39 tolerance +1.00 and -0.75

For Mustang with GT and Special Handling Package:

Front - 26.49 tolerance +1.00 and -0.70
Rear - 25.49 tolerance +1.00 and -0.75

All dimensions are for Mustang with:

Full tank of fuel
All engine fluids at full
Spare tire with wheel in design position
Front seat at rearmost position
Jack and components in design position
Tires inflated to 24-psi front and rear (for ride height evaluations only)
6.95-14 tires

Adjustments for other tires:
E70-14 subtract 0.10
7.35 x 14 add 0.20
F70-14 add 0.30
FR70-14 same as 6.95-14

All dimensions in inches
Mosesatm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 06:31 AM   #4
390cs68rcode
My Car Details
 
390cs68rcode's Avatar
 
Have you driven your CS or Cobra Jet today?

Location: Houston Texas
Joined: Dec 04
eBay: jbsteven1
Posts: 2,864

My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidathans View Post
yes, i had the same problem with my car. Cut 1/2 a coil out of each spring and she'll sit like she's supposed to :)
Exactly what I did. Works perfectly.

2005 Ford GT (2000hp)226.2 mph in the standing mile, 2008 Superleggera UGR X Version (2000+hp),2014 S63, 89 IROC 30k miles, 150 shot NOS
390cs68rcode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 06:48 AM   #5
franklinair
My Car Details
 
franklinair's Avatar
 

Location: Franklin, NC
Joined: Mar 07
Posts: 3,877

My Garage
In the photo, the front appears to be OK. The rear seems to squat. Measure the heighth as per Arlie's references. (The rear leaf springs may very well be tired & weak.)
I opted for 5 leaf rear springs for mine to give the stance I prefer (and supposedly better handling). Mine measures: Front fenders= 27", rear fenders= 28"

Neil
franklinair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 08:23 AM   #6
NosAvrenim
 
NosAvrenim's Avatar
 

Location: Burke, VA
Joined: May 10
Posts: 103

Send a message via AIM to NosAvrenim
My Garage
Agree with Neil.

I recently replaced the rear leaf springs with Eaton GT comp rated and it made a huge difference (both in ride height and drive quality). The old springs were only ~6yrs old but had become sprung. I know it can be a PITA to check out them out, but would definitely suggest that as a starting point -- particularly before cutting into or replacing the front coils.

~Nate
NosAvrenim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 08:55 AM   #7
rvrtrash
 
rvrtrash's Avatar
 
So many cars, so little time!

Location: Post Falls, Id.
Joined: Apr 03
Posts: 3,445

My Garage
+1 for rear springs. My rear springs were shot because the engine had been stored in the trunk for 25 years. I bought the Eaton GT springs and it leveled the car out. With that being said, I like lowered front ends for the handling benefits, but a lowered front and worn out rear don't really help you.

Steve

The wannabe formerly known as an owner.
rvrtrash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 09:53 AM   #8
CougarCJ
My Car Details
 
CougarCJ's Avatar
 
Spaceman Spiff

Location: Beautiful Willamette Valley
Joined: Jul 06
Posts: 1,821

My Garage
Yup, 1965-68 Mustangs and 1967-68 Cougars were tail draggers from day one.

Scott Behncke
1968 GT/CS 302-4V Honors flysis income beezis onches nobis inob keesis
West Coast Classic Cougar A good source for Mustang mechanical parts too.
CougarCJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 10:04 AM   #9
GT/CS S Code
My Car Details
 
GT/CS S Code's Avatar
 

Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Joined: Dec 07
Posts: 867

My Garage
Wink It only makes sense ...

Oh come on guys, there is an easy answer for this one! They were "California" cars so of course they came from the factory with a "California Rake" ...

(... at least that is what we used to call it around here when hot rods were "raked" higher in the front end and lower in the rear end ...)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	California Rake.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	15.7 KB
ID:	13892  

I may have passed my "best before" date, but I haven't reached my "expiry" date!
GT/CS S Code is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 11:41 AM   #10
calspcl
 
calspcl's Avatar
 

Location: Seattle, Wa
Joined: Nov 04
Posts: 156

I just replaced my rear springs with NPD GT spec springs (GT car) . It did raise the rear up a little but the front end is still higher. Time to cut a coil or buy 1" drop fron coils.....

1968 390-4speed GT/CS "Acapulco blue is beautiful"
2001 F-350 diesel dually flatbed hauler
1970 bronco
calspcl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 01:40 PM   #11
NosAvrenim
 
NosAvrenim's Avatar
 

Location: Burke, VA
Joined: May 10
Posts: 103

Send a message via AIM to NosAvrenim
My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by calspcl View Post
I just replaced my rear springs with NPD GT spec springs (GT car) . It did raise the rear up a little but the front end is still higher. Time to cut a coil or buy 1" drop fron coils.....
PO swapped out front springs with 1" lowering 600lb springs (big block engine). When I combined with the same leaf springs you put on, it achieved a much more balanced rake.

~Nate
NosAvrenim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 07:51 PM   #12
Mosesatm
 
Mosesatm's Avatar
 

Location: Spokane, Washington
Joined: Jan 05
Posts: 7,384

Wow, compared to Neil's mine is really low at 24.75 front and 25.5 rear. On the rear the GT springs I used raised the car so high I then added 1" lowering blocks.
Mosesatm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/17/2011, 11:38 PM   #13
Wild Willie
 
Wild Willie's Avatar
 

Location: San Jose, CA
Joined: Sep 09
Posts: 32

Great feedback, spec and comments.... glad I asked as I thought that maybe a dumb question.... once I get the car back from upholstry I'll measure the heights as suggested to see where I'm at. Best Regards....
Dennis
Wild Willie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08/18/2011, 01:19 PM   #14
admin
Administrator
My Car Details
 
admin's Avatar
 
Just your friendly neighborhood webmaster...

Location: Phoenix, AZ
Joined: Aug 02
Posts: 1,755

My Garage
+2 (or is that +3) on the rear springs being worn. Several years ago I took mine in to a shop and had them rebuilt. Less than 2 yrs later they were already back to sagging. Perhaps I just used a poor shop, but my recommendation would be new springs rather than rebuilt.

BTW, shocks should not affect your ride height, front or rear (unless they're air shocks, which I actually had on my first Mustang!) The shocks should not be supporting the weight of the car at all. Just dampening the travel of the suspension.

admin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  CaliforniaSpecial.com Forums > GT/CS and HCS Forums > GT/CS and HCS Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1968 - front end alignment logue636@comcast.net GT/CS and HCS Discussions 5 10/20/2010 10:36 AM
1968 - Does anyone have any suggestions for front end alignment specs for a big block? GT/CS S Code GT/CS and HCS Discussions 4 07/26/2010 07:43 AM
2007+ - looking for a bra to fit the GTCS front end. 2007texasgtcs GT/CS and HCS Discussions 7 04/16/2010 07:03 AM
1968 - Rebuild Front End 68P51 GT/CS and HCS Discussions 5 09/07/2009 01:35 PM
question about lifting front end dragonkff GT/CS and HCS Discussions 5 05/22/2008 09:37 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.


This site created, owned and maintained by Jon Hanna - Copyright 1996-2011
All rights reserved. CaliforniaSpecial.com is not affiliated with Ford Motor Company

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.