Then why did a Falcon 6 cyl get a belly bar and the V8 Falcon didn't? A 6 cyl car has about the weight on the front tires than a V8 because the V8 sits farther back in the engine bay taking its extra 65 pounds of weight with it toward the rear axle. Add power steering and A/C to the 6 then the 6 out weighs the V8 without these options. Both 6 and V8 will benefit with a belly bar.
Then why didn't the 69.5 mav get one? The first rendition of the maverick was basically a re-skinned falcon.Was there just enough design differences between the two,that it wasn't needed?
That is a very good question and can be looked at a couple of ways. On one hand anything you can do to stiffen the chassis to minimize flex will benefit you. Thus the installation of the belly bar, sub frame connectors, roll bars etc... On the other hand there have been countless I6 cars that have been converted to V8s that have been ran without them with no ill effects to the car. I had a 71 drag car with a 351W, C6, sub frame connectors, 8 pt roll cage and no belly bar. It ran 1/8th miles at 7.37 @ 94MPH with 60' times of 1.62. I ran the car for 3 years and put it on the alignment rack just to check it. It was spot on. The shock tower braces are however a different story. When I was young and not thinking things through all the way I raced a 77 with a mildly built 302 and C4, it ran 1/8th miles of 8.40s. I figured that removing the added weight of the shock tower braces, stabilizer bar and a few other things would make the car go faster. Well I was correct, it did go faster but the end result was after about 6 months of racing I noticed the hood was rubbing the finders and the spark plugs were a bit harder to get to. The top of the shock towers had moved inwards about 1/2 a inch. Bad news. So I guess the gist of this is.............. If you can come up with one install it, if not then you would probably have no problems running it without one. As always its just my opinion and you will get other replies. In the end you will be able to make a decission.
Did the falcons get shocktower braces? To be honest, who cares about the falcons, we are talking mavericks here It was the first year of the maverick, it was a test car
Do 69.5 cars have the mounting holes in the frame? My 70 does, and I always found that interesting that the engineers at Ford specified the belly bar mounts. I agree that all cars, regardless of engine can benefit from a belly bar. Anything to help stiffen up the unibody.
Most 6 cyl cars were designed to be economy cars and they got the cheap parts or not enough parts as far as the 4-lug suspension or belly bar. The Falcon being Fords first unibody most likely got what the engineers though was needed. I’m sure the design was a learning curve for both the engineers and bean counters because things changed over the years. Some of these were changing were for the good and some was taking a step backwards. The 6.75” four lug rear end couldn’t handle the power of the 170 and ended up being a 7” and later a 7.25”. The spring perch with brass bushings ended up being rubber injected bushings. The part number of the 71-77 Maverick belly bar is D0DZ 5025-A so the part was made in ‘70. The mounting hole is there on the frame rail on an early Maverick. Why the part wasn’t used had to be a last minute idea to save money in production cost. If you think about it…the Falcon belly bar looks a lot stronger in size and design than a Maverick/Mustang belly bar. Having 6 bolts to mount the bar instead of one bolt on each end. With one bolt to hold the end to the frame rail what will keep the bar from acting like a hinge. You wouldn’t want to stud a wall with one nail on each end of the 2x4. Was this another way they saved money? Yes the Falcon had shock tower braces. Matter of fact they were welded in instead of bolt-in. This gave them more strength than being bolted to a layer of sheet metal at the firewall. Again I think it was cheaper/faster for Ford to go with a bolt-on support than working around the brace when the car was rolling down the assembly line. As far as what this has to do with a Maverick and the Maverick being a test car…the Maverick was designed on the Falcon platform. It is just a re-skinned Falcon under the sheet metal.
My 69.5 has the holes and a later model bar bolted right in. the v8 trans crossmember is another story.
That is neat Jeff. I did not recall that about the Falcon bar. 60's Mustang and Cougars used the same style 1 bolt bar as the Maverick (just longer for the wider frame rails)
I've got a '71 250 car that had a 351w put in w/o the belly bar. And driven hard.. Right framerail was pulled in and cracked behind the a-frame.
