Messages

IMHO from left to right 1-4 appear to be wood working router bits, 5 Can't tell actually on my computer it looks like a worn out tap, 6 Large wood working router bit used with HD routers in router tables also maybe used in a shaper again wood working, 7-9 appears to be a knurler of some kind, 10 countersink probably for wood, 11 Not a clue but it looks to leave a flat bottom, 12 I have one of these and don't know either, 13 & 14 wood bits for a brace and bit which I believe is a hand powered drill for woodworking, 15 On my monitor it just looks like a regular bit but the shank is blurry so I'm assuming it is maybe like a tap base which means I have no clue.

Here are the most recent developments.

The 11 1/4" 70 Mustang bolts up but still hits the lower control arm even after I did some delicate massaging of the tip of the lower control arm. The primary reason for this is the increased thickness of the rotor which is a plus but in this situation it becomes a negative due to the clearance issues. After consideration I will not use this rotor. Minimal gain and I never really did figure out how to gain the clearance needed. Possibly an inner bearing spacer that is used on the Mus II spindle when running the GM rotor would solve the problem but it may space the grease seal to far out.

The 12 1/8" Expedition rotor while it is the same height, it does not have the same bearing spacing and the inner bearing would require a special but available bearing. The outer bearing would have to be sunk and I have not been able to find a grease seal that would fit. I'm sure that the grease seal could be addressed by a press in adapter to the rear of the rotor. It probably would require machining to the rotor but if you have to sink the outer you could get it done all at the same time. The final straw here is the 5 x 135 mm bolt pattern. It would probably require a special rear axle to have a matching bolt pattern. A plus is that the rotor would give you the same track width as the Granada rotor. It also has a Big problem that it shares with the Thunderbird rotor and I will address in the next section. Due to the excessive adaptation needed I will not use this rotor.

The 11 3/4" 70-71 Thunderbird rotor is the top contender. It bolts up and uses the OEM bearings and seals. There is STILL some minor clearance issues but I believe they are resolvable. Tonight I need to check were the oils seal rides on the spindle. It looks a little close so I'll check it and report. It will require the outer bearing to be sunk apx. 1/4" and originally I was hesitant to do that but now this project has * me off and I realize that I will never drive this truck enough to wear out a rotor so I'm going to continue to concentrate on this rotor and treat it as a Money Pit. Now there is one big problem with it. It is apx 1.15" thick and the 99-01 Mustang caliper was designed for a one inch thick rotor. My solution to this is to mill whatever is required, probably .075, off of each pad. I now that that will make them not last as long but I believe I have addressed that.  I'll get three sets done at the same time and probably pass them on to whoever inherits this project after I leave this world. No I'm not dieing but let's face it I have been working on it for about five years and I still haven't painted the frame and I'm no spring chicken. I think that I can make a jig and do the pads with a router table after all it is just a high speed mill that is up side down and they do make carbide bits for them. I'll try it with an old pad first and see.

If y'all are following this let me hear your comments.

I used their bearing detective and received a reply last night. They have a bearing with the correct ID and OD but it is a hair narrower. Pretty sure I can deal with that. This is the one to use the 12 1/8" Expedition rotor. I may pick one up and try it tonight.

The numbers for the original setup are inner BR13 and outer BR12. The Expedition uses an inner of BR11 and the same outer BR12. I tried the website but it is a bit difficult to navigate and I don't have an interchange to the Timken Number.

I have some numbers now. I need an inner ID of 1.3775 and an outer ID of 2.4803. If anyone can match that up I'd appreciate it.

I have been studying the NAPA catalogs and have found two rotors that interest me. The first is a 70-73 Mustang. It is only logical that it should fit as Ford didn't deliberately go out of it's way to reengineer the 74 on items they didn't have too. Same bearings and seal and only a little taller than the Granada rotor BUT it is 11 1/4" AND it is thicker than the Granada which is a plus as the 99' caliper was for a 1" thick rotor. The 70-73 Mustang is .944 where the Granada is .888 inches thick. I checked it tonight and it fits the spindle with no problems But it still barely hits the lower control arm. The larger inner diameter of the rotor face did help BUT I still need a little more clearance.

The second is from a 70' Thunderbird and again it has the same bearings and seal BUT it is 11 3/4" and (the bad part)I believe it will require sinking the outer race. I do believe that if it fits the spindle it will not hit the lower control arm. At this point I do not know the thickness yet. I will try to get one tomorrow and check it.

I have one wild card. A 12 1/8 inch rotor off of a 97-02 Ford Expediton. The height is perfect and will not require sinking the outer bearing. It has the same outer bearing but a different inner one. I don't know what the difference is yet. With all that said one person said he tried to duplicate what I'm doing (from Woody's Fairlane site) and it simply wouldn't work due too interference between the caliper and the control arms both upper and lower. I believe that the larger the rotor the better my chances are of adapting the caliper without interference.

Tom I did get logged on but they said those picture were not available. Still like to see them although I'm trying to hold out for not messing with the powder coat.

Tom I'd really like to see those pictures Unfortunately it requires a login. I don't have time right now but I'll try to get one later today.

Thanks to all who have replied especially those with the pictures. I'm picking up a different rotor today to try something. If I get this working I'll post pictures and details.

It looks like I was not the lone ranger out there. I'm starting to hear from quite a few who had to grind theirs. I'm not sure if posted it here or not but I did locate a rotor that is 11 3/4" off of a Torino, about 1971 I think, that would work. You would have to sink the outer bearing race about 1/4" for it to fit. Now I'm wondering if that extra circumference would translate to a larger inner circumference and not require me too bend/grind my powder coated lower arms. Hey you can't have brakes too big right. LOL I'll do some measuring next week and get back with the results. Thanks to all for responding.

Thanks Denny,

I guess I'll find out how flexible this powder coat is! I'm always the exception to the rule and #2 says it clearly.

I know that there are a few guys that have used stock Mus II upper and lower control arms and spindles. I am currently adapting the 99-01 Mustang twin piston aluminum caliper to the Mus II spindle. My work so far has consisted of mocking it up by attaching a piece of angle iron to an engine stand and mounting the spindle to the angle by either the lower ball joint hole or the tie rod end hole. Using the latter hole I decided to install the lower control arm to check for caliper interference. To my surprise I had interference with the rotor touching the very tip of the lower control arm. The contact occurred on the inner circumference of the rotor face about 1/4" into to path that the pads squeeze. Hope that is clear. This totally blindsided me as it is pretty much accepted that there is no interference there. I know that somebody has the stock II lower arms and Granada rotors on your frame. Did you have this problem? As far as I know a spacer is used only when using GM rotors. I had the control arm in a near level position in relation to the spindle being plumb. That should be where the suspension sets on a fully built truck or car for that matter. Can anyone running this setup look and see how close the tip of the lower control arm comes to your rotor? Has anyone else encountered this or heard of it?

KustomLincolnLady,

I should have known that in this crew you'd be the coolest. It doesn't hurt that you have a cool name "Lincoln". Definately part of the Blue Oval Tribe. My wife and I will do our best to continue the youngest with the oldest relationship.

Clean metal + flux (non acid) + good mechanical joint + good solder + proper soldering technique = good electrical joint.

I flux prior to the mechanical joint so that I have flux everywhere. I do not rely on the flux in the solder. Use a separate quality flux. Heat the connector but make sure the wire is what is melting the solder. That will insure good solder flow. Let it fill the pocket of the connector leaving no voids. Use a closed end connector that will stop fumes and acid from entering the finished joint.

As Enjenjo said use Amp brand shrink. It has a inner liner that acts as a sealant and glue. Do this and you will have a air tight seal.

Enjenjo,

R&P = Ring and Pinion. LOL I wonder what else it could stand for?

There are different bearings for the pinion and I THINK that there are several pinion shaft diameters to correspong with the different bearings. It may just be a larger OD though. Enjenjo knows. We just need to identiufy the proper R&P.

For some reason every time I try to do a small engine I always need a part that cost more than a new engine. LOL I'm always told that the machine work and parts makes it too costly. I took my tiller in last week and cranked and run it prior to doing this. THey called me yesterday and said the carb is completely corroded and it won't run at all. I smell something. I'm going to look at the carb tomorrow. This is three year old engine stored inside.

Yeah but if you used a screw you could calibrate it and it would be easier to duplicate settings.

That depends did you date her in high school? LOL We'll give you partial credit and a A for trying.