Click Here -> Please Consider Making a PayPal Contribution to the FordSix Forum!
2018 Contributors:
StarDiero75, curts56, DannyG, B RON CO, wsa111, Captainslow42, falconcritter
Econoline, THE FRENCHTOWN FLYER, 95FordFleetside, turbo6, Max_Effort, WorldChampGramp
cr_bobcat, C.S.Designs, pmuller9, gus91326, rwbrooks50, rocklord, drag-200stang, Big64my79Effie, CNC-Dude, gb500

2019 Contributors:
NJwpod, 1strodeo, mightynorseman, maxtrux, 6d7coupe, broncr, Phase3, 68Flareside240, bmbm40,
mustang6, WorldChampGramp, justintendo, BigBlue94, ags290, motorsickle1130, Rooster, ousooner919, ethanperry

Unknown->> M.Ketterer, T.Smith, J.Myers, P.McIntire - Please PM me (1966Mustang) and lemme know who you are!

Mustang engine bay VS. Falcon engine bay

Moderator: Mod Squad

RogueS

Mustang engine bay VS. Falcon engine bay

Post #1 by RogueS » Sun Mar 07, 2004 1:52 am

I always thought that the falcon's engine bay was 1" less wide than the mustangs and that none of the braces, monte carlo bars, sway bars were interchangible. Was just wondering if this is true, my car is a 65 and I am looking for sway bar, crossmember, and monte carlo bar for falcon and all of the falcon ones seem to be alot more than the mustang ones.

User avatar
xctasy
VIP Member
Posts: 6835
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:40 am
Location: PO Box 7072 Dunedin 9011,South Island, NEW ZEALAND
Contact:

Post #2 by xctasy » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:25 am

Tell me about it. I had trouble fitting 14X8 inch wheels on the front of my 1984 XE Falcon. I decided to use ealier 1972-1978 Falocn brakes and uprights , because they had a 60 inch track, not 61.5 like my later Falcon. Got it all swapped over, and then found the track was still 61.5".

I then measured the shock towers. Pin to pin, the 72-78's were like 78 inches, while my 84 was 79.5 inches. Fords body shop is able to space the chassis and rail pressings wherever it likes to suit the designers needs.


The Mustang used some of the Compact 62- 65 Fairlane pressings, not the total Falcon underbody. Post 1966, Fairlanes got wider, so did 1968 Stangs, so did the 66 Falcons. The 67 Cougars used the 64.5-66 Mustang underbody. The Mavericks used the earlier 64.5- 66 Mustang bits in the front.

You just need to know one thing. The stock track, and the distance between the shock mounts from pin to pin. Everything else will vary in width according to those dimensions. The Mustang was a scramble of parts from two lines of vehcile, thats why nothing fits...
Image
XEC Ltd ICBE's Inter Continental Ballistic Engines-
FAZER 6Bi (M112 & EEC5) or FAZER 6Ti (GT3582 & EEC5) 425 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
FAZER 6V0 3x2-BBL Holley 188 HP 3.3L/200 I-6 or 235 HP 4.1L/250 I-6
X-Flow Engine Components Ltd http://www.xecltd.info/?rd=10

Guest

Post #3 by Guest » Sun Mar 07, 2004 9:00 am

Mustang and Falcon sway bars will interchange. My 1" bar is for a 64-66 Mustang. I went on Addco's website to check the part numbers. They are exactly the same for Falcons and Mustangs.

RogueS

Post #4 by RogueS » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:37 am

so only the sway bar will fit, not the monte carlo bar, or the 'belly bar'?

User avatar
rbohm
Assistant Admin
Posts: 5695
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:00 am
Location: Tucson, AZ
Contact:

Post #5 by rbohm » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:53 am

8) i dont know about the belly bar, but the monte carlo bar will not fit. the falcon compartment is about an inch or so too wide for the mustang bar. oddly the falcon engine compartment is wider but shorter than the mustang compartment. i know this cause i have both cars.
64 falcon
66 mustang
05 grand marquis

my mind is aglow with whiriling
transient nodes of thought
careening through a cosmic vapor
of invention

Mustang196t8

Post #6 by Mustang196t8 » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:47 pm

The Falcon bay is wider? I thought it was wider, my buddy had a '64 Comet(should be the same as a Falcon, right?) w/ a 289 and we put the Shelby style tri-y headers on it... it was a real pain, we had to lift the engine up just to put one of the bolts on (it had to be pushed through the flange to be threaded so it could clear the tube, and the wasn't enough room to pull the header away from the head)... Another friend of mine had a '65 Mustang FB, with the same headers, and never had this problem..

Also, I dunno if it was just the way the firewall was on the Comet, if it came down more, and maybe the later ones tapered back, or if it was closer to the front... but those top 2 bolts on the bellhousing were a pain in the A** to get to, since those cars were designed around the old V8 bellhousing(5 bolt) and the motor that was in his car was a '66 (6 bolt bell).

I know the centerlinks don't interchange between Mustangs and Falcons either, I believe the Falcon one isn't as wide..


Now that I think of it, the Falcon bay is wider, like from inner fender to inner fender, but not shock tower to shock tower... I tried to fit a MC bar I got from my '68 on the Comet, and if I remember right it was too short... but around the shock towers on the 289, it sure seemed to have less room than the Mustang (65-66)

MustangSix
Assistant Admin
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:15 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Post #7 by MustangSix » Sun Mar 07, 2004 10:18 pm

It's not really wider, it's just the way the stamping have to be made to support the fenders and rad support. From the shock towers up, the Falcon is taller, making it wider at that point.
Jack Collins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest