I will admit the standard brakes are a little sub-par on my '59 but i'm sure a power booster is really all you need for something decent but you may still have some brake fade, i'm considering long term mabey adapting aluminum drums. (i daily mine stock and run it pretty hard)  For handling, the right set of shocks will go a long way, i'm really suprised how well my '59 handles as stock, i've had 60's cars with radials that i felt worse than this.  It depends on what you want, a race spring rate could be easily ordered out of the MOOG catolog too. One thing on my to do, list is to junk the stock idler arm assy and go a bearing setup(i'll just make one, but they are sold) I just cant get the little bit of slop out of mine even with a brand new arm.

Also i daily bias, nothing wrong with it except when you hit grooves in the road it kinda wants to follow them.

Steve, you said "2) Move the lower ball joint / A-arm ahead to correct the caster to something a bit more stable. Mid fifties Fords steer like a tricycle and don't follow "center" like more modern geometry" can you explain this in more detail or provide a link. Thanks Pete

Could the extra caster be achieved with the shims? DaveV

SE Wis

I can’t speak for Steve, but he helped me on the front suspension modifications on my 55 bird. I’m going to assume the 57’s are similar. I know they’re not the same.

Often these old cars won’t put enough caster in to get the car to track like a modern car. The bias plies took more effort to turn (at least the one’s on my roadster did), speeds were lower, and straight line stability took a back seat. On the birds you can get a litttle more caster by shifting the lower A arm forward. My bird wouldn’t get to more than 2 degrees caster before the shims started to screw up the camber. It’s not that apparent with stock width wheels and tires, but as you start to increase rim width and tire size you feel it more. Any bump steer also becomes more apparent.

The angles of the upper and lower control arms also contribute to increasing understeer from body roll in hard corners. The “Shelby drop” solution from the original GT350 isn’t that easy on the earlier cars. There’s a way around that also, but it’s pretty OT for this post

miker
55 bird, 32 cabrio F code
Kent, WA
Tucson, AZ

I don't know where to start......... I have always wished my 'bird steered and handled more like a sports car and less like a tippy '55 sedan. Wanders like crazy on a perfectly straight highway with new parts and a factory alignment - steers and corners like a kids wagon. So, while I had the front end stripped apart I "reverse engineered" the A-arms and spindle upright positions. I'm not an automotive engineer - mining equipment is my usual occupation - I found some useful software on the internet to analyze the arcs of motion. NASCAR has some super stuff they use - this wasn't it - but it soon showed some serious problems. The caster wasn't even close to modern dual A-arm systems - and the spindles had the opposite camber required when the springs were deflected - tipped out at the top of the wheel!

I had previously restored a '67 Cougar and it had much better alignment spec's than the 'bird . It really got "with it" after I converted the front suspension to be like the Shelby/ Bud Moore TransAm racing cars of the era.  So I looked up the Shelby alignments - and went looking for a way to duplicate them by relocating the A-arm and ball joint positions. First thing you find is the early design does not have anything close to the amount of caster required to naturally "center"  and maintain stability at high speed. Look at the alignment spec's for a 1989 T'bird - they had tons of it - my wife had one and it would literally go from Casper to Shoshone, Wyoming at 85 and rarely need correction in a horrible crosswind. To get this sort of correction on the '56, the upper ball joint needed to go back or the lower forward - by a lot, not within the factory adjustment travel at all.

The business of the spindle upright deflecting out at the top is caused by the A-arm being tipped down at the outside when the car was at static ride height. This was factory design circa 1955 - but in fact, to move the tire interface with the road as the spring deflects for a curve, it needs to start with the upper ball joint center at the same elevation as the inner pivot. Many racing cars use screw-in ball joints that are derived from the big car Chrysler joints of the mid-sixties - very popular at the track today and a very rugged design - and the upper has a taper that matches the Ford uprights. A company called Howe makes these joints for racing applications - and offers them in extended lengths that alters the elevation of the upper pivot position. The upper A-arm of the Ford '55,'56,'57 'birds (and the sedans) has an upper joint that bolts into a "C" shaped opening. So if you use that mounting arrangement - and adapt it to a Howe joint with a 1 inch extended stud - you can have much improved handling - and not do too much alteration to the car.
. 
MikeR had a race shop fit these parts to his outfit and then reset the alignment, mine is still in development. He says it now drives more like his Miata - and will make an early Vette look like a "little red wagon" in a cornering contest.

This is a 1971 Mustang drum brake upright - refitted with a 12 inch diameter, 1.25 thick rotor. It will "out stop" a late model Vette. The upright is easily adapted to my T'bird by refitting the lower taper. This development of the front end has been going on for a while - and I still haven't found a steering set-up to suit me. 



 
 Steve Metzger       Tucson, Arizona

Steve explained that way better than I could, and managed to find the picture I sent him that I couldn’t. The credit for that mod goes to Steve, and a couple of very serious and experienced vintage racing guys. It did make an amazing difference in cornering, and really brings the front end to near the level of the tri 4 bar in the rear.

miker
55 bird, 32 cabrio F code
Kent, WA
Tucson, AZ

A random thought on the issue of mid 50s Ford steering not returning to center well & tending to wander some. Was the problem just poor engineering, or was there a logical reason?  Many cars of that period, probably the majority, did " not" have power steering. If they were engineered to return to center harder, would they not have been even harder to steer, particularly when parking etc?..    


Paul

There was a logical reason. Since most cars had manual steering the gear ratio was pretty low to ease tight maneuvering such as parallel parking (a dying art). In comparison to modern vehicles, yes, the steering required more input, hence the moniker "Armstrong Steering". When the geometry is in spec and the system properly maintained the steering effort really isn't all that bad, it just needs a shipload of turns lock to lock. If the wheel doesn't return to center when left to its own devices then something is amiss, probably caster. Also, the system was designed for bias ply tires, they are easier to turn at low speeds than radials. Early power steering systems mostly consisted of a hydraulic system superimposed on the manual system. To me they always felt overboosted yet somehow numb. 

The Borgeson box for '57 Ford works so good, no need to go to any of the exotic stuff.

I did the Borgesson on a '57 RanchWagon recently combined with Granada Spindles and it truly drives as good as a modern car.  It was so easy to do and I was able to connect the stock column shift with the AOD trans with just a few modifications.  I did add 13" Baer brakes to the spindles so it stops as fast as a new car too, but 11' Granada discs would be fine for most.

I had the front end aligned to modern specs with additional caster.    I did add a thick washer under the lower control arm rear bushing in front of the crossmember to add a little more caster.  There was plenty of room for adjustment with some shim on the upper control arm.

I feel totally comfortable on any road with my family .  Others have that have driven it can't believe how stable it is at any speed.

Most think you need to trash the original stuff, but with new control arm bushings, new tight idler arm(critical), and The Borgeson box you are there for much less effort than experimenting with a bunch of geometry or fabrication.

Pat Fleischman

Pat -
Personally, I like the idea of using the Borgeson steering box - I have had troubles with steering racks in our family vehicles. Don't know how "quick" the Borgeson will steer - haven't looked at the ratios at all.
What alignment specs did you finally end up with? And how much washer thickness behind the lower control arm to get it? I have a layout drawing where I was experimenting with the caster effect of the lower washer/spacer - but the upper ball joint pivot wasn't up where I needed it to be when using the shorter Mustang / Granada upright. They are about 1/4 inch shorter than the earlier uprights - which has a detrimental effect when looking at the camber curve. 

 
 Steve Metzger       Tucson, Arizona