how to lower the stance? - Revell 65 Mustang fastback

[eran_k]

i'm in the process of building this kit, and before i move forward with assembly id like to lower the car a little, nothing to radical but it seems to sit a bit ti high.

any tips or ideas for this specific kit?

[Mark]

For the front, it's probably easiest to just shift the wheel mounting stubs to relocate them in a lower position relative to where they are now.

For the back, it's either trim the shackles at the ends of the leaf springs, flatten the springs a bit, or cut the axle from the spring and insert material in between to relocate the axle relative to the springs.  I'd first look at photos of 1:1 Mustangs to see how much of the leaf spring is visible, then see if the kit is similar in that respect.  If you can see more of the spring below the car on the model, then you'd want to alter that in order to make it look more like the actual car.

[DJMar]

I've got the original Monogram issue of this kit on my bench at the moment. I think it sits a wee bit to high in the front for a stock Mustang, and certainly too high for a proper street machine. The rear seems fine to me for stock, or if you want a bit of forward rake or to fit a taller tire in the back. 

As Mark said, the front is easily lowered by moving the wheel mounting tab up. Simply cut and glue. With a little extra styrene, you can get almost 4mm of drop this way without touching anything else on the front suspension. It's a pretty big change, so test this first with the wheels/tires you're planning to use to be sure everything clears.

The back end is a little more complicated, because of the one piece molded leaf springs and rear axle. There's really not much material to take off the spring shackles. You can try flattening the leafs a little, but you've got very little wiggle room, unless you want the rear mounts to hang off the frame. Maybe you can get a millimeter or two this way, and that might be all you need.

Personally, I would remove the rear end from the leafs and drop it by shimming accordingly. The one challenge to this method is keeping everything square, but if you drill some locating holes first and use the chassis as a jig, you can get everything glued back up without too much trouble.

 

[NOBLNG]

This is how I did it on a ‘64 GTO. Looks was all I was after…not 1:1 realism.

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, NOBLNG said:

This is how I did it on a ‘64 GTO. Looks was all I was after…not 1:1 realism.

However...it's the same basic concept.

Raising the spindles relative to the rest of the suspension is exactly the same functionally as installing 'dropped spindles' in a real car.

Models in general can benefit from the builder having real-world knowledge of how things work, no matter the genre.

On the other hand, building models is a great way to learn  how things work in the real world.  

[RancheroSteve]

In the real world, you'd cut the coil springs (or use shorter/stiffer) springs to lower the front on a Mustang, Comet, Falcon, etc. but this would be kind of a nutty undertaking in scale, so go with the dropped spindle approach and it will look fine. 

The most common method of lowering the rear is using lowering blocks, so this is exactly what cutting the rear end away from the leaf springs and shimming is doing.

Good luck!

[Radretireddad]

I simply grind off the two raised and pinned mounting pads on the top side of both lower control arms but you’ll have to glue the cross brace back on. It removes just enough material to close up the gap between the top of the spindles and the upper control arms.

Edited October 7 by Radretireddad

[Ace-Garageguy]

On 10/4/2025 at 3:06 PM, RancheroSteve said:

In the real world, you'd cut the coil springs (or use shorter/stiffer) springs to lower the front on a Mustang, Comet, Falcon, etc. but this would be kind of a nutty undertaking in scale, so go with the dropped spindle approach and it will look fine. 

Dropped spindles are available for these...

https://opentrackerracing.com/shop/1965-66-v8-mustang-1960-65-v8-falcon-comet-large-bearing-1-5-inch-drop-spindles/?srsltid=AfmBOooHw9SGkCD-OTqKDdY4pV7WfCbP26QUMbZYfE6oECeVlsN83bhA

[Mark]

The dropped spindles would be better on a 1:1 car; they wouldn't limit the up/down movement as shorter springs would.

[Ace-Garageguy]

6 minutes ago, Mark said:

The dropped spindles would be better on a 1:1 car; they wouldn't limit the up/down movement as shorter springs would.

Exactly. Nor would they contribute to an excessively hard ride, as short springs often do.

Short springs can induce unwanted camber as well, often requiring relocated A-arm pickup points to compensate.

AND...stiff springs generally work the best on very smooth race tracks.

Bring in a little bumpiness, like on the street, and you can end up with a car that can't generate high lateral G forces because the tires are skittering over the surface and losing contact. This can make a car unnecessarily difficult to control on uneven pavement.

In very general terms, the optimum street setup (and race setup too), is often springs on the softer side that allow easy wheel travel over pavement undulations, with firm shock valving to control excessive rebound...but too stiff valving in one direction or the other causes its own problems.

Before all the suspension setup experts dogpile on me, as I said, these are very general terms, and suspension tuning and component matching for each application and use condition is critical to get the best handling.

Back to the OP's question: dropped spindles (as replicated above in model form) would be the best real-world solution, and a realistic one, as the parts are available in 1:1.

[RancheroSteve]

All good points, Bill. I guess we're really getting into the weeds (so to speak) here, especially for a post about model cars, but I should mention the set-up I have on my Ranchero. I'm using the Global West Negative Roll upper a-arms, the installation of which involves re-drilling the mounting points (even lower than the Shelby drop) and changes the camber curve quite a bit. It also requires a shorter spring - it doesn't require a stiffer spring, but it works better with one. The original Falcon springs are notoriously soft. The improvement in handling was immense, but I will admit that it's nicer on a smooth road.

While I'm at it, I should mention that a common misconception about the Shelby Drop is that it changes the ride height - it doesn't, the real purpose is to change the roll center.