Ron,
Are you going to stick with the same wheels or go with the factory steel wheels ?
Dave
1972 VIN Decoder
Are you going to stick with the same wheels or go with the factory steel wheels ?
Dave
1972 VIN Decoder
72 Ford Torino BB
- Thread starter Ron Earp
- Start date
Ron Earp
Admin
No, not keeping the old wheels. I sold those last year. I've got new black Aero 15" wheels for the car that I like. In case you missed it earlier, this is definitely NOT a restoration. I'm trying to build a hot car like a dude in could have done back in the day by using parts available at the time (mostly). If fact, there were no BB 72 Torinos produced with four speed as it wasn't offered at that time, only the C6. Only the 351CJ engine, which I had, was offered with the four speed. The BB four speed is certainly not original but could have been built at home.
No six pot Brembo bolt on brakes for larger brakes, but instead the larger rotors and brackets for calipers from the Ford Thunderbird. No billet 18" wheels. No billet rear lower control arms but I boxed the factory units in. About the only thing that won't be from the era is a modern MSD box and the serpentine front dress with small accessories, but it'll have to have a modern AC system anyhow.
I think it'll be possible to get this thing to handle and stop decently. I'll never be a GT40, that is for sure, but I bet with some work it'll do alright.
No six pot Brembo bolt on brakes for larger brakes, but instead the larger rotors and brackets for calipers from the Ford Thunderbird. No billet 18" wheels. No billet rear lower control arms but I boxed the factory units in. About the only thing that won't be from the era is a modern MSD box and the serpentine front dress with small accessories, but it'll have to have a modern AC system anyhow.
I think it'll be possible to get this thing to handle and stop decently. I'll never be a GT40, that is for sure, but I bet with some work it'll do alright.
Ron,
It look's OK to me. Not too many left up here. Had a friend with a Montego of the same year. They were the days of rusty panels. Your's being a southern car it escaped the salt on the roads. My neighbor's mother drove a 67 Galaxy 500 convertable red with white top and red interior. It was powered by a 390 and would go like snot. She had that car for 20 years and it was mint. It would be a nice one to have today. I being a GM guy would compare it to a red 64 Impala SS convertable with a 409 I saw in Florida many years ago. Look's like your having fun. I guess it's something to cruise in when you do the "Drive In" curcuit.
Dave
It look's OK to me. Not too many left up here. Had a friend with a Montego of the same year. They were the days of rusty panels. Your's being a southern car it escaped the salt on the roads. My neighbor's mother drove a 67 Galaxy 500 convertable red with white top and red interior. It was powered by a 390 and would go like snot. She had that car for 20 years and it was mint. It would be a nice one to have today. I being a GM guy would compare it to a red 64 Impala SS convertable with a 409 I saw in Florida many years ago. Look's like your having fun. I guess it's something to cruise in when you do the "Drive In" curcuit.
Dave
Last edited:
Ron Earp
Admin
Question on the front suspension:
As some of you know this car has an upper arm that is anchored with two pivot points and a lower arm that has one pivot point inboard and a tension rod that located it on the outboard side. I've attached a couple of pictures.
With the upper and lower arm attached to the upright, the spring in place, shock mounted it appears that the caster angle of the upright is more or less about zero. But, when I try to put the tension rod in place it is quite clear it forces the lower arm BACK to the rear of the car resulting in a negative caster angle. Not only that, it seems to put a lot of stress on the inboard pivot point so that I think that bushing, even though hard polygraphite stuff, would be deformed.
The rod is a stock tension rod and locates on two holes in the lower arm. It attaches to the front frame via a large hole in the frame and two large bushings get located on the rod and will sandwich the frame amongst themselves. So, the rod can pivot up and down with the lower arm, a bit I suppose but it is certainly imperfect.
I have both stock rubber and aftermarket poly bushings. Both of them seem to push the rod too far aft and thus create a negative caster angle. Is there something I am not understanding about this suspension design that I'd want a negative caster angle? Does a rear steer application use negative caster to reduce steering forces maybe? Please bear in mine I've not done my research on this yet so don't burn me at the stake.
The first picture attempts to show how the rod attaches to the frame. The second picture shows where the rod is lying on top of the lower arm because the bolts don't line up with the holes. One has to pull the arm back about 1/2" to get the holes to engage (the same for both sides, the frame seems square by my cross measurements).
As some of you know this car has an upper arm that is anchored with two pivot points and a lower arm that has one pivot point inboard and a tension rod that located it on the outboard side. I've attached a couple of pictures.
With the upper and lower arm attached to the upright, the spring in place, shock mounted it appears that the caster angle of the upright is more or less about zero. But, when I try to put the tension rod in place it is quite clear it forces the lower arm BACK to the rear of the car resulting in a negative caster angle. Not only that, it seems to put a lot of stress on the inboard pivot point so that I think that bushing, even though hard polygraphite stuff, would be deformed.
The rod is a stock tension rod and locates on two holes in the lower arm. It attaches to the front frame via a large hole in the frame and two large bushings get located on the rod and will sandwich the frame amongst themselves. So, the rod can pivot up and down with the lower arm, a bit I suppose but it is certainly imperfect.
I have both stock rubber and aftermarket poly bushings. Both of them seem to push the rod too far aft and thus create a negative caster angle. Is there something I am not understanding about this suspension design that I'd want a negative caster angle? Does a rear steer application use negative caster to reduce steering forces maybe? Please bear in mine I've not done my research on this yet so don't burn me at the stake.
The first picture attempts to show how the rod attaches to the frame. The second picture shows where the rod is lying on top of the lower arm because the bolts don't line up with the holes. One has to pull the arm back about 1/2" to get the holes to engage (the same for both sides, the frame seems square by my cross measurements).
Attachments
Ron Earp
Admin
Hmm. Suspension is at full droop now and the upper arms are angled slightly back, so, it'll pull the upright back when the suspension is compressed. How much I'm not sure. Even so, I don't like pushing the lower arm back as that can't be good for the bushing or range of motion down there.
Ron,
You may want to rethink the poly bushings for the strut arm. On Mustangs there is a history of broken/failed struts from using poly bushings due to increased stress on the arm where the threads end and transisition to the round portion of the arm. The stress caused by the strut having to deform the hard poly as opposed to the softer rubber bushings seems to be the issue.
Here is the issue talked about over on the Boss 302 forum:
Reproduction Strut Rods
You may want to rethink the poly bushings for the strut arm. On Mustangs there is a history of broken/failed struts from using poly bushings due to increased stress on the arm where the threads end and transisition to the round portion of the arm. The stress caused by the strut having to deform the hard poly as opposed to the softer rubber bushings seems to be the issue.
Here is the issue talked about over on the Boss 302 forum:
Reproduction Strut Rods
Most Fords also need the inner end of the top w/bone lowered to improve the camber curve & especially to get some negative camber on the outer wheel on turn in to a corner. Also agree with using original rubber bushes on the tension strut @ front end... maybe shorten up the steel tube sleeve that dictates how tight those bush's can be compressed, but most important is that with the top & bottom w/bones jigged up in the ride height position the two studs of the tension strut should drop straight in... the load imposed by the coil spring might be throwing you a curve ball here at moment..
Also remember not to tighten the inner lower pivot bolt until the car is at the desired ride level. Many people think the lower bushing pivots on the through bolt when in fact, the bushing "twists" on the rubber sleeve between the inner and outer sleeves.
If the bushing is tightened before mean ride height, the bushing will be twisted and loaded in one direction, jounce or rebound.
And Jac, you are right about lowering the upper arms, the old "Shelby" trick for the Mustangs. However the design of the Torino and all of the later 60's/70's body on frame Fords places the upper arm shft on top of the tower thus making lowering the arm a major surgical operation. On the Mustangs/Falcons early Fairlanes it only requires drilling new mounting holes.
If the bushing is tightened before mean ride height, the bushing will be twisted and loaded in one direction, jounce or rebound.
And Jac, you are right about lowering the upper arms, the old "Shelby" trick for the Mustangs. However the design of the Torino and all of the later 60's/70's body on frame Fords places the upper arm shft on top of the tower thus making lowering the arm a major surgical operation. On the Mustangs/Falcons early Fairlanes it only requires drilling new mounting holes.
Now that I've had a decent look at the pic's, I would be looking at moving the the two bolts where lower arms attach to chassis upward approx 1" along with some short front springs to get the camber curve, roll center & anti dive all in the ballpark, car would be low, real low 
, but could be returned to stock configuration with current front springs & bolts in original holes, & probably require similar efforts @ rear to get it to hook up as well. Probably not legal in normal sanctioned series, but in Young vs Earp anything goes!!
, but could be returned to stock configuration with current front springs & bolts in original holes, & probably require similar efforts @ rear to get it to hook up as well. Probably not legal in normal sanctioned series, but in Young vs Earp anything goes!!
Ron Earp
Admin
Thanks Rick and Jac Mac. I have also been reading over on the MN12 and Torino sites and it seems that nobody likes hard bushings in the rod for the reasons cited.
I think I'll wait and attach these after the motor is sitting in the chassis and the body is on. They're easy to put on so I don't need to do it right now. The car can still roll and move around for what I need it to do.
I've never examined the camber curve on this suspension but just looking at it in the garage you guys are likely correct. And it'd be pretty easy to modify the lower arm mounting, but the upper arm is a different matter. However, for now it'll need to stay as it is and get moving again. Fortunately the suspension on the car is extremely easy to access.
Man, looking around and seeing what is available on the aftermarket for say, a Chevelle, wow. Those guys can lots of custom/revised front suspensions for not a lot of coin. Whether they work or not is another matter. These 72+ Mid and full size Fords are just not supported.
This car frame was built on 5/12/72. The car was custom ordered for the Ford assembly worker that bought it, an R Gonzalez on an A Plan. I don't have a build date of the car or a delivery date as neither are list on the invoice.
Looks like Mr. Gonzalez paid $3094 for the Gran Torino Sportsroof 2dr and added $1309 in options including $309 for the Cleveland, $402 for the "Selectaire" AC, and $64 for the AM radio. And, to top it off he buggered it up by adding a $92 vinyl roof.
Go to the oval track suppliers and get yourself the adjustable upper ball joints. You can then set up your uca angle where ever you want. We have built these chassis up as dirt modifieds in the past so a lot of handling help is out there.
Ron Earp
Admin
These are great sources for building. I've already been eyeing Southwest Speed and Chassis Fabrication for tri links, watts linkages, and panhard rods for the 9". In general these places are cheaper for fab stuff than the typical car outlets and far cheaper than road racing places. For example a bag of shock mount gussets with holes from SWS is like $6.99 for a bag of four, at Pegasus they are like $5.99 each.
Ron,
Don't end up "out-tricking" youself. Unless you replce the entire chassis and suspension on the Torino, you will always be limited by what Ford built.
It will NEVER handle like the Lola and indeed, you will probably never push it that hard. Upgrade the handling and go for as much brake as you can get and call it a day.
Now you could add the "Hydroboost" power steering pump powered disc brakes from the Lincoln Mark or a Thunderbird (same platform as the Torino) which makes boost assist easy to modulate with a hydraulic pressure valve.
Does your car have the gauge package with the tach? If not, worth looking for.
Don't end up "out-tricking" youself. Unless you replce the entire chassis and suspension on the Torino, you will always be limited by what Ford built.
It will NEVER handle like the Lola and indeed, you will probably never push it that hard. Upgrade the handling and go for as much brake as you can get and call it a day.
Now you could add the "Hydroboost" power steering pump powered disc brakes from the Lincoln Mark or a Thunderbird (same platform as the Torino) which makes boost assist easy to modulate with a hydraulic pressure valve.
Does your car have the gauge package with the tach? If not, worth looking for.
Ron Earp
Admin
You are correct about the handling. But, we'll do what we can with it, using sort of the same concepts folks would have done back in the day. I bet it will work well. Jeff got is Charger doing very nicely by modifying the steering, that was a huge difference. I doubt it'll get anything more than the stiff springs, large roll bars, and stiff springs but we'll see.
I've got the Thunderbird rotors/calipers but nothing else. I think I'll just leave it a straight boosted brake system and modulate the rears using a valve. I am putting rear dics on the rear, again courtesy of raiding the Ford parts bin, and will see what that nets me. Actually doing that today since the chassis is a roller now.
Yes on the gauge package. This car was a GTS 351C from the factory and had the "good stuff" in that regard. Bad news is I don't plan to use it. I plan to put a panel in that area and use some proper gauges, not the Ford "on/off" gauges. Not sure why Ford did that while GM generally continued to put working gauges in their cars. I understand the general public, not alarming them, and all of that, but for whatever reason GM didn't see it that way.
Ron
i can not tell form the pics, but is there any chance you swapped incidentely the left and right upper A-arm and thus having the wrong caster ?
It also may be worth to listen to the video i ´ve linked in my post regarding the cars color. There Steve from PUREVISION explains the modification he has done to the tension rod. Other than that he is also using the stock front suspension.
That´s some pics of the mods he has done to the chassis.
TOM
i can not tell form the pics, but is there any chance you swapped incidentely the left and right upper A-arm and thus having the wrong caster ?
It also may be worth to listen to the video i ´ve linked in my post regarding the cars color. There Steve from PUREVISION explains the modification he has done to the tension rod. Other than that he is also using the stock front suspension.
That´s some pics of the mods he has done to the chassis.
TOM
Last edited:
Ron Earp
Admin
Hey Tom,
Thanks for the heads up. I'll check that out. The Purevision car is very stock looking from the front half of the chassis, but the rear half of the chassis is 100% custom. They seem to have retained a four link suspension but I am not too sure it is really much better than the stocker. Clearly has more chassis re-enforcement though.
Upper control arms are universal on the car though so no issues there. I got the tension rods bolted up with some stock rubber and by changing the sleeves and compression seemed to get them to be neutral for bolt up. I'll see what the Purevision guys did. Do you have a link for the interview? I scanned the site quickly but didn't turn one up.
The chassis is now a roller. Brake lines run, steering gear in, etc. Should be able to accept the body later this week.
But, I need some 9" assistance. Jeff and I worked on the rear end for a bit but got stuck.
We took the axles out of the rear so that we could start bolting up some disc brakes. One thing that has to be done to finish this job is to remove the outer bearings, put a spacer on, then reinstall some new bearings.
The Ford manual says to use a cold chisel and smartly strike the bearing retainer a few times and then it'd come off.
1. Striking the bearing retainer had no effect on it coming off. However I did manage to score the retainer with the chisel a bunch of times and so it was was machined to fit into a recess it'll not seal well now.
2. When I called a parts house about a new bearing retainer they knew nothing about one and didn't show one in their diagrams.
3. The bearings retainers on my axles are of difference sizes left to right.
I'm going to take the axles to a friends' shop and have him press the whole mess on and off. But I'm not sure of a source for bearing retainers.
Any hints with the 9" here?
Thanks for the heads up. I'll check that out. The Purevision car is very stock looking from the front half of the chassis, but the rear half of the chassis is 100% custom. They seem to have retained a four link suspension but I am not too sure it is really much better than the stocker. Clearly has more chassis re-enforcement though.
Upper control arms are universal on the car though so no issues there. I got the tension rods bolted up with some stock rubber and by changing the sleeves and compression seemed to get them to be neutral for bolt up. I'll see what the Purevision guys did. Do you have a link for the interview? I scanned the site quickly but didn't turn one up.
The chassis is now a roller. Brake lines run, steering gear in, etc. Should be able to accept the body later this week.
But, I need some 9" assistance. Jeff and I worked on the rear end for a bit but got stuck.
We took the axles out of the rear so that we could start bolting up some disc brakes. One thing that has to be done to finish this job is to remove the outer bearings, put a spacer on, then reinstall some new bearings.
The Ford manual says to use a cold chisel and smartly strike the bearing retainer a few times and then it'd come off.
1. Striking the bearing retainer had no effect on it coming off. However I did manage to score the retainer with the chisel a bunch of times and so it was was machined to fit into a recess it'll not seal well now.
2. When I called a parts house about a new bearing retainer they knew nothing about one and didn't show one in their diagrams.
3. The bearings retainers on my axles are of difference sizes left to right.
I'm going to take the axles to a friends' shop and have him press the whole mess on and off. But I'm not sure of a source for bearing retainers.
Any hints with the 9" here?
Attachments
Ron Earp
Admin
Wally, so just keep beating the s*&t out of them with the chisel? I scored them but didn't keep after it. They seem hard.
Retainer ring, its usually fairly soft, so either use a thin 1mm cutting disc in your disc grinder to cut it 90% of the way or drill it part way thru then split it with cold chisel.
Bearing, I usually set the bearing of the axle on the blacksmith anvil, chuck a bag over it & hit with sledgehammer
**** [ Make sure no one is around, the bearing can shatter & head in all directions, hence the bag!!!!!]***
, this takes care of outer ring & sometimes splits the inner as well....., if not use that 1mm cutting disc again to cut approx 90% thu about which time it will self split & can be punched off easily.
When fitting the 'new bearing & retainer' ...DO NOT... forget the plate that holds it altogether in the axle housing, that really ruins your day or night...
Bearing, I usually set the bearing of the axle on the blacksmith anvil, chuck a bag over it & hit with sledgehammer
**** [ Make sure no one is around, the bearing can shatter & head in all directions, hence the bag!!!!!]***
, this takes care of outer ring & sometimes splits the inner as well....., if not use that 1mm cutting disc again to cut approx 90% thu about which time it will self split & can be punched off easily.
When fitting the 'new bearing & retainer' ...DO NOT... forget the plate that holds it altogether in the axle housing, that really ruins your day or night...
