I was recently in a discussion with another SA enthusiast and on his car he'd installed approx 1/2" spacers in-between the upper shock mount and the tower bracket. I've also seen OVC Mustang's replica r-models with this mod. This enthusiast stated it was a Phil R. mod for r-models but it's something I haven't seen documented anywhere in the past.
I can see the benefit of moving up the shocks, if you've lowered the car, to restore them to their optimal operational range and prevent bottoming out but I'm more interested if it was a mod done in the 60s or something created recently.
Thanks!
Brent
Some were/are concerned about the shock "bottoming out and damaging the valving due to the upper control arm lowering of 1". Too much additional spacer runs the shock into the hood so less than 1" is often used. Bud Moore felt the whole bracket should be raised for improved strength and made aluminum plates to go under the shock bracket itself.
Randy
I have two (2) each of Bud Moore spacers (copies) in both 1/4" and 3/8" I'll be selling when I return to my NY home second week next month. Along with a number of other "spring cleaning" items.
I'm keeping a set for myself and selling the second set (both thicknesses).
Cheers,
~Earl J
ps the pic is one of the sets on my car.
I'm surprised you eagle eyed guys didn't catch them last year when I posted a photo for a different topic.
~E
Once you paint them black they disappear.
Well just because we didn't say anything doesn't mean we didn't notice them? Do I ask you who cut your hair?
Spacers? Bud Moore? No one told me? Sell me a set.
Above or below, whats the difference?
Some feel spacing the whole bracket up is stronger and more stable. I am one of those people.
+1
I don't remember seeing any spacers like that used back in the day. Maybe some of the later (69/70 )TA cars ? Input on usage back in the day appreciated. I agree that they appear to be more stable from a function standpoint.
Bob,
Late '68 IIRC designed by Mitch Marchi (rip) of Kar Kraft. Before that it was washers or tubular spacers as shown in the original post. Drag cars used flat plates to keep the shock from topping out under extension.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on February 14, 2019, 10:42:10 AM
Some feel spacing the whole bracket up is stronger and more stable. I am one of those people.
Makes sense
Quote from: gt350hr on February 14, 2019, 02:52:44 PM
Late '68 IIRC designed by Mitch Marchi (rip) of Kar Kraft. Before that it was washers or tubular spacers as shown in the original post. Drag cars used flat plates to keep the shock from topping out under extension.
Randy
Randy, you're an incredible well on knowledge!
Quote from: gt350hr on February 14, 2019, 02:52:44 PM
Bob,
Late '68 IIRC designed by Mitch Marchi (rip) of Kar Kraft. Before that it was washers or tubular spacers as shown in the original post. Drag cars used flat plates to keep the shock from topping out under extension.
Randy
I had only seen the washers or tubular spacers on vintage B production or TA comp cars is why my question.
Thanks for the historical and functional clarifications everyone!
Considering this wasn't done on '65 GT350's with both the Konis and the lowered mounting points, how significant is this modification?
Doug,
The spacer does NOTHING except keep the shock from bottoming out ( possible valve or seal damage) on a lowered front end.
Quote from: gt350hr on February 15, 2019, 10:23:50 AM
Doug,
The spacer does NOTHING except keep the shock from bottoming out ( possible valve or seal damage) on a lowered front end.
Understood but my question remains. The 65 GT350 has the lowered upper a's and Koni shocks. Is that combination the criteria necessary to raise the shock to protect it from bottoming out?
I'm not arguing. I'm just curious. I never heard of this before this posting.
Is this something that only racing showed an overlooked need for?
Quote from: gt350hr on February 06, 2019, 12:48:00 PM
Some were/are concerned about the shock "bottoming out and damaging the valving due to the upper control arm lowering of 1". Too much additional spacer runs the shock into the hood so less than 1" is often used. Bud Moore felt the whole bracket should be raised for improved strength and made aluminum plates to go under the shock bracket itself.
Randy
I'm curious as to why SA installed the "special" upper shock attaching bolts (with the thinned-out heads) if there is adequate spacing to allow for "riser" plates to be installed. I was under the impression that it was for hood clearance. Any thoughts?
Frank
Quote from: OldGuy on February 15, 2019, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: gt350hr on February 06, 2019, 12:48:00 PM
Some were/are concerned about the shock "bottoming out and damaging the valving due to the upper control arm lowering of 1". Too much additional spacer runs the shock into the hood so less than 1" is often used. Bud Moore felt the whole bracket should be raised for improved strength and made aluminum plates to go under the shock bracket itself.
Randy
I'm curious as to why SA installed the "special" upper shock attaching bolts (with the thinned-out heads) if there is adequate spacing to allow for "riser" plates to be installed. I was under the impression that it was for hood clearance. Any thoughts?
Frank
The Koni-specific bolts weren't for hood clearance, they were used because the "fork" on the upper attachment point of the Koni shocks had less contact surface than the Ford shocks they replaced. The later 66 GT350s with the Ford (Gabriel) shocks did not receive these special bolts, only 65 and pre 6S900? cars did. Photos from VCM.
Quote from: shelbydoug on February 15, 2019, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: gt350hr on February 15, 2019, 10:23:50 AM
Doug,
The spacer does NOTHING except keep the shock from bottoming out ( possible valve or seal damage) on a lowered front end.
Understood but my question remains. The 65 GT350 has the lowered upper a's and Koni shocks. Is that combination the criteria necessary to raise the shock to protect it from bottoming out?
I'm not arguing. I'm just curious. I never heard of this before this posting.
Is this something that only racing showed an overlooked need for?
Doug ,
We're good . Sometimes I do caps to highlight important things , not yell at you! Though "I" never experienced it ( being a drag racer ) many "corner benders" added spacers to keep from damaging the shocks on lowered road race cars.
Randy
Quote from: BrentW on February 15, 2019, 12:32:11 PM
Quote from: OldGuy on February 15, 2019, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: gt350hr on February 06, 2019, 12:48:00 PM
Some were/are concerned about the shock "bottoming out and damaging the valving due to the upper control arm lowering of 1". Too much additional spacer runs the shock into the hood so less than 1" is often used. Bud Moore felt the whole bracket should be raised for improved strength and made aluminum plates to go under the shock bracket itself.
Randy
I'm curious as to why SA installed the "special" upper shock attaching bolts (with the thinned-out heads) if there is adequate spacing to allow for "riser" plates to be installed. I was under the impression that it was for hood clearance. Any thoughts?
Frank
The Koni-specific bolts weren't for hood clearance, they were used because the "fork" on the upper attachment point of the Koni shocks had less contact surface than the Ford shocks they replaced. The later 66 GT350s with the Ford (Gabriel) shocks did not receive these special bolts, only 65 and pre 6S900? cars did. Photos from VCM.
+1 the attaching bolts were below the "eyelet" of the shock , regardless of make of shock.
Randy
Quote from: OldGuy on February 15, 2019, 12:12:42 PM
Quote from: gt350hr on February 06, 2019, 12:48:00 PM
Some were/are concerned about the shock "bottoming out and damaging the valving due to the upper control arm lowering of 1". Too much additional spacer runs the shock into the hood so less than 1" is often used. Bud Moore felt the whole bracket should be raised for improved strength and made aluminum plates to go under the shock bracket itself.
Randy
I'm curious as to why SA installed the "special" upper shock attaching bolts (with the thinned-out heads) if there is adequate spacing to allow for "riser" plates to be installed. I was under the impression that it was for hood clearance. Any thoughts?
Frank
As others have said the Fork on the head of a Koni shock is wider then a Ford shock. If you used a Factory Mustang front shock bolt on a Koni shock you will see very little bolt head contact with the sides of the Koni fork. The Special Shelby wide head bolts are not for hood clearance but they do offer hood protection. I could imagine a improper Ford bolt being used on a Koni shock and under harsh conditions the bolt would be forced through the wider fork allowing the head of the shock to slam up against the bottom side of the fiberglass hood on the next bump. I have seen and heard of that happening on some track cars although I can't confirm what hardware was used or the cause.
I think also the spacers keep the lower control arm from dropping too far and allowing the coil spring from coming unseated from the spring perch. More of a issue with lowering springs that have been cut.
Quote from: gt350hr on February 15, 2019, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: shelbydoug on February 15, 2019, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: gt350hr on February 15, 2019, 10:23:50 AM
Doug,
The spacer does NOTHING except keep the shock from bottoming out ( possible valve or seal damage) on a lowered front end.
Understood but my question remains. The 65 GT350 has the lowered upper a's and Koni shocks. Is that combination the criteria necessary to raise the shock to protect it from bottoming out?
I'm not arguing. I'm just curious. I never heard of this before this posting.
Is this something that only racing showed an overlooked need for?
Doug ,
We're good . Sometimes I do caps to highlight important things , not yell at you! Though "I" never experienced it ( being a drag racer ) many "corner benders" added spacers to keep from damaging the shocks on lowered road race cars.
Randy
Never thought that you were yelling at me at all. I was just wondering if these spacers are even necessary unless as Bob suggests, to keep cut springs from popping out?
I am using cut springs but found the car way too low in the front with them and it necessary to shim them up. I'd have to look at what is going on in there in my case to assess the need in my application?
I can see with the cut springs why Moore used a skid plate built into the oil pan. The car is so low, the pan could use caster wheels on it. A skid pad would be the next best thing?
I have the Canton pan which tucks in behind the front anti-sway bar.
A lot of what I've seen Bud Moore do seems almost like it was to just be different from what Shelby's team did?
Not that he should have been but he was always hush lipped to me as in contrast to the Woods brothers who were very friendly and sharing.
I know that the Daytonna Coupes got tricky and lowered the engine in the chassis 1". They even used a special oil pan to accommodate that engine lowering. I never saw that detail on the R models but wouldn't be shocked if the team cars did that. Do you know anything about that?