69 nose in the air options?

69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in fender
are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my options to
get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is not a
good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be higher
than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems like
it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
thing for older mustangs.
any thoughts?

thanks,

I know the 65/66 had that nose up look. Seems to me that nearly all
the models up through about 72/73, and possibly later, had that nose
up look to some degree. I am not sure you can actually accomplish
"straight" because of the natural lines of the body. You can verify
the level down the length by measuring from the ground at different
points along the sides.... or using a level even. Not something I ever
gave much thought to doing.

I don't see a problem with dropping the nose an inch or two as long as
it does not interfere with safe operation and handling, since the
small alteration does not change things all that much. Filling up the
wells with more wheel/tire may also help reduce the visual effect.

In the 60s Shelby engineers did what is called the "Shelby Drop" which
dropped the nose about 1". A Negative Wedge Kit (available from such
vendors as www.npd.com, www.mustangsplus.com, www.summitracing.com ,
etc) does the same thing but in a somewhat different manner, and drops
the nose about 1 5/8" (think that figure is right). There are also
springs designed to do the same thing without the need for cutting
(see classic Mustang vendors).

Some aftermarket wheel vendors like Vintage Wheel Works say that
putting 16" or bigger wheels on an early model Mustang requires
installing a Negative Wedge Kit. True? I don't know. Apply to your
year? Again, I don't know. I know I have one installed on my 65 FB
(along with a Bump Steer Kit). Seems to do the job it's designed to
do.

I've also known others who raised the back end (for a different
reason) which gives the same general impression.

On 14 Mar 2005 11:20:17 -0800, wrote:

>69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
>i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in fender
>are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my options to
>get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is not a
>good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be higher
>than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems like
>it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
>body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
>thing for older mustangs.
>any thoughts?
>
>thanks,

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

RAKE IT!
Drop it on it's nose and put some nice fat meats on the back ----- OH YEA!


"Spike" > wrote in message
...
|I know the 65/66 had that nose up look. Seems to me that nearly all
| the models up through about 72/73, and possibly later, had that nose
| up look to some degree. I am not sure you can actually accomplish
| "straight" because of the natural lines of the body. You can verify
| the level down the length by measuring from the ground at different
| points along the sides.... or using a level even. Not something I ever
| gave much thought to doing.
|
| I don't see a problem with dropping the nose an inch or two as long as
| it does not interfere with safe operation and handling, since the
| small alteration does not change things all that much. Filling up the
| wells with more wheel/tire may also help reduce the visual effect.
|
| In the 60s Shelby engineers did what is called the "Shelby Drop" which
| dropped the nose about 1". A Negative Wedge Kit (available from such
| vendors as www.npd.com, www.mustangsplus.com, www.summitracing.com ,
| etc) does the same thing but in a somewhat different manner, and drops
| the nose about 1 5/8" (think that figure is right). There are also
| springs designed to do the same thing without the need for cutting
| (see classic Mustang vendors).
|
| Some aftermarket wheel vendors like Vintage Wheel Works say that
| putting 16" or bigger wheels on an early model Mustang requires
| installing a Negative Wedge Kit. True? I don't know. Apply to your
| year? Again, I don't know. I know I have one installed on my 65 FB
| (along with a Bump Steer Kit). Seems to do the job it's designed to
| do.
|
| I've also known others who raised the back end (for a different
| reason) which gives the same general impression.
|
| On 14 Mar 2005 11:20:17 -0800, wrote:
|
| >69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
| >i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in fender
| >are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my options to
| >get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is not a
| >good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be higher
| >than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems like
| >it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
| >body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
| >thing for older mustangs.
| >any thoughts?
| >
| >thanks,
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

Are your rear springs worn out? Putting larger tires on the rear can lift it
up a little and help the visual aspect.

Carl


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> 69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
> i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in fender
> are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my options to
> get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is not a
> good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be higher
> than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems like
> it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
> body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
> thing for older mustangs.
> any thoughts?
>
> thanks,
>

The thread was about the appearance of a car... NOT "anyone's" home
life.... raking the yard and doing WHAT?????? LOL


On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:19:04 GMT, "SVTKate"
> wrote:

>RAKE IT!
>Drop it on it's nose and put some nice fat meats on the back ----- OH YEA!
>
>
>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>|I know the 65/66 had that nose up look. Seems to me that nearly all
>| the models up through about 72/73, and possibly later, had that nose
>| up look to some degree. I am not sure you can actually accomplish
>| "straight" because of the natural lines of the body. You can verify
>| the level down the length by measuring from the ground at different
>| points along the sides.... or using a level even. Not something I ever
>| gave much thought to doing.
>|
>| I don't see a problem with dropping the nose an inch or two as long as
>| it does not interfere with safe operation and handling, since the
>| small alteration does not change things all that much. Filling up the
>| wells with more wheel/tire may also help reduce the visual effect.
>|
>| In the 60s Shelby engineers did what is called the "Shelby Drop" which
>| dropped the nose about 1". A Negative Wedge Kit (available from such
>| vendors as www.npd.com, www.mustangsplus.com, www.summitracing.com ,
>| etc) does the same thing but in a somewhat different manner, and drops
>| the nose about 1 5/8" (think that figure is right). There are also
>| springs designed to do the same thing without the need for cutting
>| (see classic Mustang vendors).
>|
>| Some aftermarket wheel vendors like Vintage Wheel Works say that
>| putting 16" or bigger wheels on an early model Mustang requires
>| installing a Negative Wedge Kit. True? I don't know. Apply to your
>| year? Again, I don't know. I know I have one installed on my 65 FB
>| (along with a Bump Steer Kit). Seems to do the job it's designed to
>| do.
>|
>| I've also known others who raised the back end (for a different
>| reason) which gives the same general impression.
>|
>| On 14 Mar 2005 11:20:17 -0800, wrote:
>|
>| >69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
>| >i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in fender
>| >are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my options to
>| >get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is not a
>| >good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be higher
>| >than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems like
>| >it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
>| >body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
>| >thing for older mustangs.
>| >any thoughts?
>| >
>| >thanks,
>|
>| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
>| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
>| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
>| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

> wrote
>sometimes it seems like
> it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
> body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
> thing for older mustangs.
> any thoughts?

Sounds like your REAR end is the problem, not the front end. How old are the
leaf springs?
--
Scott W.
'66 Mustang HCS 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57

Dang Spike, an old coot like you should remember THAT.

*sigh*
In the 70's, that was the thing to do. raise the rear, drop the nose.


"Spike" > wrote in message
...
| The thread was about the appearance of a car... NOT "anyone's" home
| life.... raking the yard and doing WHAT?????? LOL
|
|
| On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:19:04 GMT, "SVTKate"
| > wrote:
|
| >RAKE IT!
| >Drop it on it's nose and put some nice fat meats on the back ----- OH
YEA!
| >
| >
| >"Spike" > wrote in message
| .. .
| >|I know the 65/66 had that nose up look. Seems to me that nearly all
| >| the models up through about 72/73, and possibly later, had that nose
| >| up look to some degree. I am not sure you can actually accomplish
| >| "straight" because of the natural lines of the body. You can verify
| >| the level down the length by measuring from the ground at different
| >| points along the sides.... or using a level even. Not something I ever
| >| gave much thought to doing.
| >|
| >| I don't see a problem with dropping the nose an inch or two as long as
| >| it does not interfere with safe operation and handling, since the
| >| small alteration does not change things all that much. Filling up the
| >| wells with more wheel/tire may also help reduce the visual effect.
| >|
| >| In the 60s Shelby engineers did what is called the "Shelby Drop" which
| >| dropped the nose about 1". A Negative Wedge Kit (available from such
| >| vendors as www.npd.com, www.mustangsplus.com, www.summitracing.com ,
| >| etc) does the same thing but in a somewhat different manner, and drops
| >| the nose about 1 5/8" (think that figure is right). There are also
| >| springs designed to do the same thing without the need for cutting
| >| (see classic Mustang vendors).
| >|
| >| Some aftermarket wheel vendors like Vintage Wheel Works say that
| >| putting 16" or bigger wheels on an early model Mustang requires
| >| installing a Negative Wedge Kit. True? I don't know. Apply to your
| >| year? Again, I don't know. I know I have one installed on my 65 FB
| >| (along with a Bump Steer Kit). Seems to do the job it's designed to
| >| do.
| >|
| >| I've also known others who raised the back end (for a different
| >| reason) which gives the same general impression.
| >|
| >| On 14 Mar 2005 11:20:17 -0800, wrote:
| >|
| >| >69 coupe. everyone always asks me why the front end sits so high.
| >| >i cant decide if it actually does or if the wheel openings in fender
| >| >are just higher. whether its supposed to or not, what are my options
to
| >| >get rid of that goofy look. Ive heard that cutting the springs is not
a
| >| >good idea. if i got lower springs i dont want the back end to be
higher
| >| >than the front. I just want it to be straight. sometimes it seems like
| >| >it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
| >| >body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
| >| >thing for older mustangs.
| >| >any thoughts?
| >| >
| >| >thanks,
| >|
| >| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| >| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| >| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| >| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| >| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16
| >
|
| Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
| 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
| Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
| Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
| w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

I have noticed that many of the 70's Mustangs look like that, and never
liked it a bit. They seem to look as it they are a bout to leave the runway
like a jet plane.
If it were mine, I'd change it too. The nose it too high on them - IMO -

i agree most older mustangs with the nose up look are actualy low in the
rear. stand next to the car place your hand flat across the tread of the
tire. your wrist shouldn't touch the wheel lip.. if it does try a pair of
kyb shocks(PN KG-4517 not the low pressure ones) if that doesn't do it then
springs are in order.
"66 6F HCS" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>>sometimes it seems like
>> it just seems like its the angle you are looking at it and that the
>> body is actually parrallel to the ground. ive heard this is a common
>> thing for older mustangs.
>> any thoughts?
>
> Sounds like your REAR end is the problem, not the front end. How old are
> the leaf springs?
> --
> Scott W.
> '66 Mustang HCS 289
> '68 Ranchero 500 302
> '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
> ThunderSnake #57
>

i got some new PST leafs a couple years ago. in hind site i probably
really didnt need to at the time. but its done now. So i guess i will
try the least expensive stuff first. im positive i need new rear shocks
so will try that first. then maybe bigger rear tires.