My final stance.

Discussion in 'General Maverick/Comet' started by scooper77515, Mar 19, 2014.

  1. Dave B

    Dave B I like Mavericks!

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,931
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Location:
    Parts Unknown......
    Vehicle:
    3 Grabbers
    No stops? That's kinda crazy...
     
  2. 71gold

    71gold Frank Cooper Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,456
    Likes Received:
    2,835
    Trophy Points:
    978
    Garage:
    1
    Location:
    MACON,GA.
    Vehicle:
    '73 Grabber
    :hmmm:...that's what I have with...2" drop spindles...no rub or hitting...:huh:

    how wide are your front rims?
     
  3. Crazy Larry

    Crazy Larry Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,557
    Likes Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    Wichita, Kansas
    Vehicle:
    '73 Maverick 2-door, 302, manual trans
    I used to run 235/60-14s (which is 25 inches tall) with 14x7" wheels (4-1/4" backspace) on the front of my Maverick and they never rubbed.

    Granted, it was a stock suspension and you've seriously modified yours, but something just doesn't seem right about it.

    Come to think of it, I met a young guy several years ago who had 245s on 18-inch wheels on the front of his Maverick.
     
  4. scooper77515

    scooper77515 No current projects.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,672
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Issaquah/Grand Coulee, WA
    Vehicle:
    Fresh out of Mavericks
    15X7 rims.

    Honestly, I DO think my new setup has something to do with it. I am willing to bet that the hubs I have are thicker than the stock hubs, pushing the front tires out 1/4-1/2". No way to prove that now that I don't have the stock hubs anymore.

    The mustang II hubs have the disks, lugnuts, and all in one piece. You don't slide the disks onto the hub and over the lugs like you do on stock setups.

    Like these...

    [​IMG]
     
  5. groberts101

    groberts101 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,166
    Likes Received:
    535
    Trophy Points:
    297
    Garage:
    1
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Vehicle:
    1971 Comet GT
    I also find it odd that the front of the tire is so damned close to the valance.

    Sorry to ask.. I know you said "stock settings" somewhere.. but I don't know what that is. What castor setting did the alignment tech give you?
     
  6. mav1970

    mav1970 Bob Hatcher

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    10,633
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    398
    Location:
    Mountain Top Pa
    Vehicle:
    69.5 Maverick 393 Cleveland Stroker

    I thought that too - I never had a predetermined point of install on my Mustang II front suspension cradle, as an R & C kit would give you, but I know my Mustang II lower ball joints are within an 1/8 of an inch from where my Maverick ones were - now you set the top of the spindle rearward for some positive caster and the tire moves back away from the valence - it's got me perplexed (I like using that word LOL) :p
     
  7. blugene

    blugene Senior member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,756
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    283
    Garage:
    1
    Location:
    Marietta, OK
    Vehicle:
    73 Comet GT, 72 Comet GT, 2008 "Comet" (our boxer)
    I am thinking setting the top back is negative..
     
  8. mav1970

    mav1970 Bob Hatcher

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    10,633
    Likes Received:
    322
    Trophy Points:
    398
    Location:
    Mountain Top Pa
    Vehicle:
    69.5 Maverick 393 Cleveland Stroker
    I haven't done alignments since I gave up my stock car building days back in 04 so you did have me thinking that I forgot so I double checked and positive is angled back :)
     

    Attached Files:

    • th.jpg
      th.jpg
      File size:
      15.8 KB
      Views:
      23
  9. blugene

    blugene Senior member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Messages:
    10,756
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    283
    Garage:
    1
    Location:
    Marietta, OK
    Vehicle:
    73 Comet GT, 72 Comet GT, 2008 "Comet" (our boxer)
    :oops: Yup. You are correct.. Been a little while for me also.
     
  10. Lzoesch

    Lzoesch Levi Zoesch

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    1969 Maverick & 1972 Chevy El Camino SS
    The reason why I believe the tire is so close to the valance is because he has installed a R&C Cross member, so he could have been off by a 1" or so from his center wheel line.

    That is the only thing that I can think of as to why.

    Scooper, did you get a 56 1/2" kit? or ??
     
  11. Dave B

    Dave B I like Mavericks!

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    Messages:
    16,931
    Likes Received:
    214
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Location:
    Parts Unknown......
    Vehicle:
    3 Grabbers
    Looks fine in this picture:
    [​IMG]
     
  12. scooper77515

    scooper77515 No current projects.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,672
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Issaquah/Grand Coulee, WA
    Vehicle:
    Fresh out of Mavericks
    That picture where it is almost touching the valence...post #14. That was with the stock maverick suspension and 215/60r15 tires. BEFORE I cut out the suspension and put in the rack and pinion kit.

    Now, like post #26 above, it is nowhere near the valence.

    And stock specs are same for the Mustang II kit and the stock maverick setup 1971-1974. It was already in his computer.

    Caster -1/2 +/- 2 degrees max variation between wheels of 1 degree
    Camber +1/4 +/1 1 degree max variation between wheels of 1 degree
    Toe in 7/32" +/- 5/32"
     
  13. groberts101

    groberts101 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,166
    Likes Received:
    535
    Trophy Points:
    297
    Garage:
    1
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Vehicle:
    1971 Comet GT
    Makes sense now.

    PS. I looked at my car several times on my way in and out today. My wheels are stock 14" Torino's and my 6.5" rim BS is so far back that I can fit full hand widths in there. Without a motor in it.. perspective can obviously be substantially skewed. However.. I have turned my tires through lock to lock with 4 people on the radiator support to get an idea if they will fly. Also had enough busted "too broke to fix" and parted out junk to be a fairly decent judge of clearances before the engine weight gets set back in the chassis. Seen hundreds of motors in and out with my dirty hands on many of them.

    My tires are 70 series 225mm BFG T/A's with 26.5" diameter. I believe that your rims may be a tad too wide and.. pun intended.. your offset is off.

    As for the factory numbers.. I don't give a squat whether such allowances make an alignment tech's job easier or not.. that's a large variation allowance in my book. You'll pay the same price whether they give you whatever "average cookie cutter settings" they decide on?.. or if you spec it yourself.

    What did your printout actually show for the finalized adjustment spec's?
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  14. scooper77515

    scooper77515 No current projects.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    14,672
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    233
    Location:
    Issaquah/Grand Coulee, WA
    Vehicle:
    Fresh out of Mavericks
    Something like this...
     

    Attached Files:

  15. 71gold

    71gold Frank Cooper Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,456
    Likes Received:
    2,835
    Trophy Points:
    978
    Garage:
    1
    Location:
    MACON,GA.
    Vehicle:
    '73 Grabber
    from someone that owns their own...alignment machine...:bouncy:
     

Share This Page