The Joys of Aftermarket Parts, or How Do I Fix This?

Easiest if you watch my 4 minute video to understand what is going on. https://youtu.be/roBHZ9D7080

This is a photo of a typical Ford Mustang/Falcon/Fairlane UCA mount point. The two studs you see on the arm in the video go through these holes. The studs are then held by nuts on the opposite side of the shock tower.

What is happening is, when I attach the nuts and tighten the studs at all, the pivot area of the arms shown in the video contacts the shock tower/apron. When the nuts are tight, the contact is so severe the arms will not pivot. At all. This is because of the extra material the new arms have that I show in the video. There were no shims behind there when taken apart, and adding shims would move the UCA outward, creating positive camber. 

More baffling than how to fix this is why I am apparently the only person on the planet to have had this issue? Google searching came up with nothing. I'm stumped on where to go from here.

I'm going with "incorrect catalog listing". That new UCA is probably from a bigger platform, Fairlane maybe? The UBJ attachment is different from OE, as is the shape of the big cutout. Try a different supplier, or replace bushings and UBJ in original arm.

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

Gonna agree.

Moog got sold semi-recently and I've heard their parts quality has taken a nose dive

And here I thought modifying maintenance parts to make them actually work was uniquely a British car problem

If you can't find one that fits, don't rule out trimming those flanges back a bit rather than switching to tubular control arms. If you can keep some of the curved part around the edge you'll retain a lot of the strength. You might also be able to gain some room by massaging the shock towers for a bit more clearance.

While adding shims on the UCA will push it out and add positive camber, it may be that there is enough adjustability in the LCA to retain the proper camber setting (for a street car).  The pivot on the LCA includes an eccentric that moves the arm in and out, offsetting the effect of the shims on the UCA.  I don't think I have ever seen an early Mustang front end that didn't have some shims on the UCA.

In reply to stukndapast :

That is because the "frame rails" twist over time, the shock towers deform, etc and the end result is you wind up with way more negative camber than you want.

Ford made an art of folding stamped steel to make structural members that would last long enough for you to buy another new car.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to stukndapast :

That is because the "frame rails" twist over time, the shock towers deform, etc and the end result is you wind up with way more negative camber than you want.

 

Ford made an art of folding stamped steel to make structural members that would last long enough for you to buy another new car.

Truth.  However, the OP has an old car which has probably been subjected to said deformation, so it increases the possibility of using shims on the UCA, providing the needed clearance to articulate, and still achieve a suitable camber setting by making the appropriate adjustment on the LCA using the eccentric.  It is worth a try, it's easy to mock up and see if a reasonable camber can be reached with the shims on the UCA.

In reply to stukndapast :

Indeed, I'd run it and see what it does.

I say this, not being the person who has to fight the spring saddles 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to stukndapast :

Indeed, I'd run it and see what it does.

I say this, not being the person who has to fight the spring saddles 

Again, truth.  There are few times in my life where I have been afraid of losing said life than when installing springs in the front end of an early Mustang.  I did discover the joys of double roller-bearing spring perches from Open Tracker, but while they operated quietly and smoothly, they were still damn scary to install.  That whole spring on top of the arm/shock tower/strut rod design was definitely not one of Ford's "Better Ideas" that they bragged about back in the day.  The unequal length A arm design that GM used on the Camaros and such was far superior, I'm sad to say as a "Ford guy".

Mr_Asa said:

In reply to AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) :

Gonna agree.

Moog got sold semi-recently and I've heard their parts quality has taken a nose dive

Approximately how long ago?
I got some end links that just did NOT fit. Ive tried reaching out to them with little success.

And I was outside my return window with RA

This is pretty standard protocol for aftermarket stuff these days :(

In reply to hybridmomentspass :

At least 2015 or so?

https://www.suspension.com/blog/where-are-moog-parts-made/

If you want to see more incorrect moog parts for Ford upper control arms check out the bottom of page 10 https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/build-projects-and-project-cars/the-bean/178827/page10/

I also called and was told they must be a miss boxed part... 7 boxes later I cut bait and modified to fit.

I already got the wrong catalog parts. Those are the 64-65 arms I threw the boxes away for and can't return. 

These are essentially the only stamped arms that exist. Being that I am 99% certain Dorman and Moog buy them from the same factory in Taiwan there is no point in ordering a third set.

The ball joint difference was actually a running change FoMoCo made back in the 1970s, going from the 4 rivet BJ to a 3 rivet. 

That shock tower looks to have been visited by a person with a welded in the past. The area is subject to rust and fracture, so perhaps there is a clue there.

That is not my shock tower. Generic photo from the interwebs.

BTW, I have ditched the original springs for coil overs. Or I would, if I had an upper control arm to install.