AMT '67 Mustang/GT350 Stance Question

[Joe Handley]

I've got one of the AMT '67 GT350 kits that I'm planning on starting soon and while researching colors, I keep seeing 1/1 GT350 and GT500 pics where the cars seem to sitting a bit nose high. Is that just how these cars look even if they aren't, do they all sit nose high normally, and does the kit have that appearance as well?

[Ace-Garageguy]

This is as-delivered new.

[Casey]

5 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

This is as-delivered new.

In fairness, that image was not taken when the car was new. Who knows what changed since '67 on that one. 

Here are some vintage images, but I would not consider any of these "nose high". Maybe a one or two finger gap between the wheel arch and top of the tire:

[afx]

[Joe Handley]

Must be how I'm seeing the front 3/4 views of the car then. That view seems to give the car a slight "Gasser" or maybe more like a "full throttle" nose higher than the rear stance to me.

[TarheelRick]

It's a Mustang, it is "rearing" to go.  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

[afx]

The upper body panel line ascends upward toward the front of the car, gives the illusion that the nose is higher. 

[mrmike]

Of all the stock '67/'68 Mustangs that I have seen, they seem to be just a little nose high, but not too much.  Maybe this was a design idea using a sort of "gasser" approach to help the back of the car "squat" under acceleration.

[Joe Handley]

3 minutes ago, TarheelRick said:

It's a Mustang, it is "rearing" to go.  Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

That is always a possibility too, I can see that being on purpose!

3 minutes ago, afx said:

The upper body panel line ascends upward toward the front of the car, gives the illusion that the nose is higher. 

That what I was thinking might be going on, but wasn't sure if I was seeing things.

3 minutes ago, mrmike said:

Of all the stock '67/'68 Mustangs that I have seen, they seem to be just a little nose high, but not too much.  Maybe this was a design idea using a sort of "gasser" approach to help the back of the car "squat" under acceleration.

Had that thought too, but since tbis is going to be more of a mild ProTouring build, the front end needs to come down some.

[Ace-Garageguy]

This is the image to take to the bank (blue car).  

Note that the stance in the factory literature closely matches the stance I showed in the first photo (white car, though its nose is just a tick down).

When photographed square from the side, the top curve of the front tire is tangent with the curve of the wheel opening on the fender.

Many things can affect how a car's static stance appears. A car photographed going uphill (as the red car above); a full tank of fuel; rear springs weakened and sagging over time (common on these cars, even "unrestored stock"'); steering angle of the front wheels (which can raise the nose slightly); cars photographed under acceleration, as are several of the examples above (and the source of much of the misunderstanding of "gasser" stance); cars photographed from any angle other than square from the side (unless one is VERY familiar with the subject, it's almost impossible to get useful data from a 3/4 shot as far as exact stance goes); front springs replaced with higher-rate units, and ride height not correctly dialed in to compensate (which, on these cars, can require trimming partial coils from the springs, which requires spring removal, sometimes several times to get it right...and is often neglected as being too much like actual work); misinterpreting a rising body line (as mentioned by AFX)...and it should be remembered that the line of the rocker panel relative to the pavement is what determines nose-high or otherwise.

A point about "pro touring": Cars worthy of the name are built on entirely upgraded suspension systems, often with engine setbacks to improve weight distribution, and often lowered to further improve handling as well. Stock stance has nothing to do with it, and no professional car builder who understands vehicle dynamics 101 will ever let a nose-high car leave the shop.

[Force]

1967 was the last year Shelby American was involved with the Shelby Mustangs and I know they did the "Shelby Drop" on the 1965-66 cars to lower the center of gravity and change the geometry in the suspension some for better handling on the track, I'm not sure about the 67 but I think they did it on them too.
To do the Shelby drop on a 1967-70 you drilled new holes and mounted the upper control arm one inch higher so it would lower the stance some from a stock Mustang and the Shelby sits slightly lower.
1968-69 and 70 the Shelby's were all built by Ford in house and I don't know if Ford did the drop.
One thing I can say is that I think the 1967 Mustang and Shelby model kits stance is a bit too nose high and the tail drags a bit too much.

Edited January 3, 2020 by Force

[Joe Handley]

4 hours ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

This is the image to take to the bank (blue car).  

Note that the stance in the factory literature closely matches the stance I showed in the first photo (white car, though its nose is just a tick down).

When photographed square from the side, the top curve of the front tire is tangent with the curve of the wheel opening on the fender.

Many things can affect how a car's static stance appears. A car photographed going uphill (as the red car above); a full tank of fuel; rear springs weakened and sagging over time (common on these cars, even "unrestored stock"'); steering angle of the front wheels (which can raise the nose slightly); cars photographed under acceleration, as are several of the examples above (and the source of much of the misunderstanding of "gasser" stance); cars photographed from any angle other than square from the side (unless one is VERY familiar with the subject, it's almost impossible to get useful data from a 3/4 shot as far as exact stance goes); front springs replaced with higher-rate units, and ride height not correctly dialed in to compensate (which, on these cars, can require trimming partial coils from the springs, which requires spring removal, sometimes several times to get it right...and is often neglected as being too much like actual work); misinterpreting a rising body line (as mentioned by AFX)...and it should be remembered that the line of the rocker panel relative to the pavement is what determines nose-high or otherwise.

A point about "pro touring": Cars worthy of the name are built on entirely upgraded suspension systems, often with engine setbacks to improve weight distribution, and often lowered to further improve handling as well. Stock stance has nothing to do with it, and no professional car builder who understands vehicle dynamics 101 will ever let a nose-high car leave the shop.

I should have said that more like "ProTouring", I'm going to use the Pegasus 17" aluminum barrels and tires with the kit Shelby wheels to get the low profile look as well as painting the engine with "Aluminum" paint to give the impression of one of these engines?

https://www.shelbyengines.com/products/shelby-289-engine

I'm also debating on getting some rmodern seats vs stock seats  and get some Alcapulco Blue like below,

But use the silver kit stripes as a nod to the Santa Fe Blue with Silver graphics from the Shelby Charger.

[MrObsessive]

When I built my AMT '67 Mustang, I remember that was one of the things I had to correct......the tail dragging stance. Part of the problem I learned is that the interior sail panels are not tall enough letting the rear part of the body sit too low to my eyes. I added some plastic to the sail panels to make them taller so that when it was time for final assembly, the car sat the way it should.

Here's a pic of a "stock" '67...........

And the model before final assembly............

After, with some mods done to the sail panels......

The '67 Shelby since it's based off essentially the same tooling, suffers from this malady also. Easy fix and it definitely helps the stance when done.

[Plowboy]

Something else that needs to be addressed on the '67 Mustangs is the line between the quarters and the tail light panel. The full scale Mustang doesn't have a panel line from top to bottom in that area. Fill the line and scribe new lines for the quarter panel caps and rear valence. It's a small improvement that makes a huge difference!  

[Force]

Yes you are absolutely right, the line on the kits are too far forward and too long,  here is how it should look.

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Force

[Plowboy]

12 hours ago, afx said:

I have a set of wheels very similar to those. They came in the first issue of an MPC Jeepster kit. I'll have to dig them out and check them out a little closer. I'm guessing those are Hurst mags?

Edited January 4, 2020 by Plowboy

[afx]

55 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

I have a set of wheels very similar to those. They came in the first issue of an MPC Jeepster kit. I'll have to dig them out and check them out a little closer. I'm guessing those are Hurst mags?

They are wheel covers.

 

The Revell Z-16 has a set without the Shelby center of course.

[Plowboy]

Thanx JC! I thought they kinda looked like wheel covers. But, it was hard to tell for sure in the photo. I checked the covers from the Jeepster and they are almost identical.

Another small issue I forgot to mention with the '67 is the headlights are too small. They should measure 7" in scale. Easy remedy is the reflectors and lenses from a Revell '69 Camaro and of course, making the opening larger.

[Snake45]

1 hour ago, Plowboy said:

Another small issue I forgot to mention with the '67 is the headlights are too small. They should measure 7" in scale. Easy remedy is the reflectors and lenses from a Revell '69 Camaro and of course, making the opening larger.

If you're talking about the Shelby (not the stock '67), I believe the smaller headlights are correct. After all, they converted these cars from dual lights (7") to quads (5"). Look at pics of a real '67 Shelby and you can see a filler rim around the headlights. 

BTW, anyone else noticed that Ford pretty much copied the late '67 Shelby front end for the quad-headlight '69 Mustang? 

[Joe Handley]

On 1/3/2020 at 3:14 PM, MrObsessive said:

When I built my AMT '67 Mustang, I remember that was one of the things I had to correct......the tail dragging stance. Part of the problem I learned is that the interior sail panels are not tall enough letting the rear part of the body sit too low to my eyes. I added some plastic to the sail panels to make them taller so that when it was time for final assembly, the car sat the way it should.

Here's a pic of a "stock" '67...........

And the model before final assembly............

After, with some mods done to the sail panels......

The '67 Shelby since it's based off essentially the same tooling, suffers from this malady also. Easy fix and it definitely helps the stance when done.

Thanks Bill, never knew that was an issue! Think it would be possible to maybe trim something on the body or interior to effectively channel the front of the body over the chassis?

On 1/3/2020 at 4:04 PM, Plowboy said:

Something else that needs to be addressed on the '67 Mustangs is the line between the quarters and the tail light panel. The full scale Mustang doesn't have a panel line from top to bottom in that area. Fill the line and scribe new lines for the quarter panel caps and rear valence. It's a small improvement that makes a huge difference!  

 

On 1/3/2020 at 5:10 PM, Force said:

Yes you are absolutely right, the line on the kits are too far forward and too long,  here is how it should look.

 

Thanks on this guys, that area seemed off but couldn't figure out why!

[Plowboy]

A simple way to raise the rear is add a little more arch to the springs by bending them slightly at the rearend. Or you could simply add blocks between the springs and frame. But, if you're building a pro touring Mustang, you need to lower it and not worry about the stock stance. 

[Joe Handley]

51 minutes ago, Plowboy said:

A simple way to raise the rear is add a little more arch to the springs by bending them slightly at the rearend. Or you could simply add blocks between the springs and frame. But, if you're building a pro touring Mustang, you need to lower it and not worry about the stock stance. 

Yup, my initial thought was to raise the axle peg on the spindle to act like a dropped spindle, but if the body can be channeled a bit up front, might try that, if not both!

[MrObsessive]

7 hours ago, Joe Handley said:

Thanks Bill, never knew that was an issue! Think it would be possible to maybe trim something on the body or interior to effectively channel the front of the body over the chassis?

I'm not sure about that Joe as a lot of what I do is trial and error anyway. I do know that making those sail panels taller in the interior made a difference in getting the rear to rise up just a bit.

You may not want to change too much on the front end if at all. Remember, you'll have the windshield to worry about and its thickness, as well as getting the cowl/firewall to not make interference too if you're going to be changing things.

[Joe Handley]

2 hours ago, MrObsessive said:

I'm not sure about that Joe as a lot of what I do is trial and error anyway. I do know that making those sail panels taller in the interior made a difference in getting the rear to rise up just a bit.

You may not want to change too much on the front end if at all. Remember, you'll have the windshield to worry about and its thickness, as well as getting the cowl/firewall to not make interference too if you're going to be changing things.

Ok, thanks again Bill!