Steve Magnante's 1001 Mustang Facts. Steve Magnante

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ unit’s piston-within-a-piston design delivered a non-linear (hard-soft-hard) pedal feel that confused many rental customers. About 400 MICO-equipped cars were delivered before all parties agreed to return to the standard Shelby manual disc brake setup. Those Hertz-spec GT350H Mustangs remain the only pre-1967 cars factory equipped with power front disc brakes.

      90 Headaches plagued the GT350H brake program. Because the MICO master cylinder’s triangular mounting flange differed from the Mustang’s four-stud firewall mount, Shelby was forced to fabricate an adapter bracket from two pieces of formed sheet steel. The early units were thin and flexed visibly during firm pedal application. Shelby hastily made a thicker replacement and installed them under a recall program.

      91 The MICO brake master cylinder didn’t have a separate brake booster unit. Rather, its internal dual-piston construction served as the force multiplier. This is why novices who expect to see a big vacuum booster on Hertz Mustangs are confused when they see them at shows. Aside from its square reservoir (Mustang reservoirs are round), the MICO unit resembles a basic manual brake master cylinder. One ray of light was the MICO’s cost. At $39.58 per unit ($50 less than early projections), the 400 units purchased saved the GT350H program some $20,000. Today, original MICO units are extremely rare and highly sought after among GT350H restorers.

      92 After the decision was made to stop using the MICO master cylinders and return to standard manual disc brake components, the hard brake pedal pressure required to effectively activate (cold) Shelby brake pads triggered the creation of a specific foil dashboard sticker warning drivers to be cautious. It reads, “This vehicle is equipped with competition brakes. Heavier than normal brake pedal pressure may be required.” Cars built after the MICO termination received the sticker and they were also sent to Hertz rental outlets for field installation. This special gold foil sticker has become a key element of the GT350H mystique.

      93 The brake drums fitted to 6-cylinder Mustangs were 9 inches in diameter and offered 131 square inches of lining area. V-8 cars received an upgrade to 10-inch drums with 154.2 square inches of area. When the vacuum-assisted power booster was ordered, the drums remained unchanged, although pedal pressure was reduced about 30 percent for less strenuous application.

      94 The Mustang’s optional front disc brakes were made by Kelsey-Hayes and featured 9½-inch-diameter rotors and four-piston cast-iron calipers. Although their lining area measured only 114.3 square inches, the exposed braking surface rejected heat far better than did shoes trapped inside conventional drums. The swept area was 212 square inches. A January 1965 Motor Trend road test of a 1965 2+2 with the optional manual discs went from 60 to 0 mph in 150 feet. A drum brake test car covered 172 feet in the same test, “the difference between having an accident and avoiding one,” according to story author Bob McVay.

      95 The stock Mustang steering ratio was either 27:1 (manual) or 22:1 (power assist, $84.47). For $30.64, Ford offered a Special Handling Package, part of which was the faster-ratio 22:1 power steering box, installed minus the hydraulic-assist ram and its pump. To speed things up even more for the GT350, Shelby’s team added longer (by 1 inch) steering and idler arms. The effect was an increase in tire movement for the same amount of steering wheel rotation.

      96 Another 1965 Shelby GT350 handling trick was the relocation of the upper suspension A-arms to 1 inch higher on the frame rail/spring tower surface. This lowered the nose of the car (and the center of gravity) while also improving the roll center. This modification was time-consuming: it necessitated suspension disassembly and a total re-alignment. It was no longer performed on 1966 Shelby Mustangs after the first 252 cars were completed (they were built on leftover 1965 bodies).

      97 The firm Koni adjustable shock absorbers selected by Shelby caused their share of complications. Because they lacked internal extension stops, extreme suspension rebound could pull them apart. At the front end, mechanical limits imposed by control arm geometry prevented the threat. But the rear leaf springs could exceed their safe extension range. To prevent rear shock absorber failure, all 1965 GT350s were fitted with a pair of eyebolts above each end of the rear axle housing near the leaf springs. A steel cable was looped around each axle tube and aluminum crimp connectors finished the job. The rough riding Koni shocks were phased out as part of the GT350’s gentrification in 1966 and replaced with Gabriel-made adjustable shocks with internal jounce and rebound safety stops.

      98 The wheels installed on the vast majority of 1965 Shelby GT350s were plain pressed steel items measuring 15 × 6 inches. Not to be confused with the base Mustang V-8 14 × 4.5–inch rims (that differed in many respects), the GT350 rims were made by Kelsey-Hayes and came painted a very light champagne color. Notable features included three hubcap retainer bumps and non-rolled spider slot edges. Similar (if not identical) rims were also installed on 1962–1965 full-size Fords with the 406/427 engine option. So scarce are correct 1965 GT350 rims that many restorers “take the easy way out” and install 1966-spec cast-aluminum Shelby 10-spoke rims, despite their smaller 14 × 6–inch size.

       What did the GT350 have in common with a 427 Galaxie? See Fact No. 98 for the answer.

      99 I have heard numerous reports that Kelsey-Hayes also supplied its 15×6 steel wheels (as used on the 1965 GT350) to manufacturers of industrial trailers. One rumor holds that older Lincoln welding trailers rolled on these desirable rims. Although I haven’t run into any on mobile welding rigs, a 2014 summer visit to Bandimere Speedway revealed their presence on a track-owned soda-vending trailer. With 1965 GT350 restorers paying a reported $1,000 per wheel, I was tempted to leave with more than a Coke that day!

NUMBER CRUNCHING AND PRESS COMMENTARY

      100 The 1965 Mustang’s instant popularity broke numerous records and shocked the industry. Ford had hoped for 100,000 first-year sales, but nearly seven times that amount were purchased (680,989). With an average base sticker price of $2,470.60 (excluding any optional equipment), Mustang added $1,682,451,423.40 to corporate coffers. By contrast, the Mustang’s spiritual successor, the two-seat 1955–1957 Thunderbird “Baby Bird” sold 53,166 units in its three-year run. With an average base sticker price of $3,167, the Baby Bird brought in a “paltry” $168,376,722. Put another way, first-year Mustang sales brought in more than 10 times the revenue of the Baby Bird’s entire three-season existence.

      101 Iacocca’s “foot-long option list” strategy for Mustang paid off. The modest 1965 base retail price ($2,320.96 hardtop, $2,557.64 convertible, $2,533.19 fastback 2+2) pulled prospective buyers through the door. The real profits came from adding optional equipment. On average, every 1965 Mustang left the dealer with just slightly more than $400 in optional equipment, depositing another $272,395,600 in the Blue Oval bank.

      102 The logistical problem of modifying and storing 561 GT350 Mustangs in 1965 forced Carroll Shelby to move from a tiny shop in Venice, California, to a 12½-acre facility on Imperial Highway adjacent to Los Angeles International Airport. Even so, when 1966 output more than quadrupled (2,378 GT350s of all varieties were built that year), even the LAX spot was stretched to capacity. To ease the strain, rather than have the San Jose, California, Mustang feeder plant crank out 2,000-plus cars in a row, roughly two dozen 100-car runs were made, weeks apart, to give everybody some time to settle down.

      103 Mustang’s uniqueness attracted buyers who might have otherwise ignored it out of sheer brand loyalty. A full 53 percent of the vehicles traded in for new ’65 Mustangs were non-Ford products. Carmakers love these so-called “conquest” sales. The hope was that buyers would replace their Mustang with another Ford offering when it wore out. Without that first “conquest,” the relationship couldn’t occur.

      104 “Long awaited as ‘Ford’s sports car,’ the new model, which goes СКАЧАТЬ