Lower control arm hits Granada rotor on stock Mus II suspens

Darkman · July 14, 2006, 03:47:53 PM

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?

phat46 · July 14, 2006, 04:12:02 PM

I have a stock MII suspension, crossmember abd all under my '46.I put Granaga rotors on it with no probs. It was years ago, if i remember correctly I did have to use a different bearing, but not because of an interferance issue.

Dave · July 14, 2006, 06:18:16 PM

Quote from: "Darkman"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?

If i remember right and i may not

I had the sme problem on my 34 ford when i put the MII on it. I think I ground some off the lower control arm so it didnt rub. I doesnt take a lot .
Dave

rooster · July 14, 2006, 06:47:20 PM

I had no problems with mine. I did have to do a bit of triming to get the 14" wheels over the calipers though! I have a reference to what your concerns are , you may have some intrest, read # 2.

Darkman · July 15, 2006, 07:32:37 AM

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.

Crosley.In.AZ · July 15, 2006, 09:33:37 AM

mine rubbed too.

I ground the area back.

then welded in a small plate to add strength... the extra plate was probably not needed.

Darkman · July 15, 2006, 05:59:21 PM

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.

36vicky · July 16, 2006, 10:42:43 AM

I had to grind about a quarter inch off the "nose" of the stock MII lower control arm too. I don't have a close up picture. I am using the same Wagner rotors listed by Rooster. I hesitated to grind anything on my own, until Frank (Enjenjo) advised me that was the correct fix. He really knows this stuff.

When I started the brake upgrade, I had in mind to copy what was done on this fairlane site. http://www.woodyg.com/fairlane/finfo/discs66.html I bought the dual piston calipers and then found that I had clearance problems with the stock MII upper control arms. Steering clearance too if I remember right. So I fell back to the good old proven big GM calipers. I'm not on the road yet, but everything seems to have fit together nicely. And I have 14X6 Americans on the front and they fit fine. I don't think 14's would fit over the dual piston calipers.

Good luck, send pics if you get the dual pistons working. Tom G.

Crosley.In.AZ · July 16, 2006, 10:56:40 AM

here R photos of what I did.

mayb they give you idears?

glad to help. keep up the efforts

36vicky · July 16, 2006, 03:46:17 PM

I found a few pictures of my setup. Hope these help. Tom G.

36vicky · July 17, 2006, 12:57:57 PM

I'll try those pictures again this way.

http://www.kodakgallery.com/PhotoView.jsp?collid=58250062410.12862209410.1153155039506&photoid=91862209410&folderid=0&;

Hope these help. You can see about a quarter inch diff in the bearing back space between the new and old rotors. I only ground off the rolled lip of the lower control arm, none of the vertical surface to not sacrifice strength.

Tom G.

Darkman · July 17, 2006, 02:27:07 PM

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.

Darkman · July 18, 2006, 12:46:43 AM

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.

river1 · July 18, 2006, 01:39:41 AM

Quote from: "Darkman"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.

if you know the bearing numbers you can check the dimension here

http://www.alliedbearings.com/downloads/BrgDimenIndex-Chap4.pdf

then you can find another with the same outer dimension (of bearing A and the correct inner dimension (of bearing B)

later jim

Darkman · July 18, 2006, 10:05:35 AM

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.