1968 Leaf Spring engineering numbers

[franklinair]

I don't understand why Ford would put the doublers & welding on the shock towers for small block models.

Neil

 

[teamlo]

I could never quite understand why they used a 9" rear end with a J code GT. The engine (all 230 hp) certainly didn't make enough power or torque to stress even an 8" rear end.

 

[robert campbell]

I might disagree with the power and torque thing when you introduce the 4 speed to the equation. Years ago I gave my friend a 3.8 open 8 inch rear that he installed in his 1967 Mustang GT with a 289 and 4 speed combo. He was running it a full potential on the street in front of my house and banged 2nd gear right in front of my driveway. BLAMO, the rear end spit the pinion right out of the case. Car came to a stop and the front of the case and u joint were still connected to the driveline..... Laying in the road...

A basic stock 289. It would be interesting to see a 1967 Mustang with the 271 HP motor (very rare). To see what rear end and whether the shock towers were welded also? As all 1967 Shelby GT-350's had the 271 HP motor it would be fun to look at one of them. There is one in my area.

Rob

 

[CougarCJ]

I could never quite understand why they used a 9" rear end with a J code GT. The engine (all 230 hp) certainly didn't make enough power or torque to stress even an 8" rear end.

I think that it is a carry over from when the K code 289 was offered.

 

[dalorzo_f]

This brings another factor to evidence of a real GT car in 1968.

?

Have a 68 S code convertible and 68 S GT coupe, shock tower welding is basically the same.

 

[CougarCJ]

?

Have a 68 S code convertible and 68 S GT coupe, shock tower welding is basically the same.

Pretty sure that the welded shock tower comparison was only for J code 302-4V Mustangs, with or without the GT option.

 

[robert campbell]

Scott is correct. It "seems" to occur on the 1968 J code cars with the GT option added.

Rob