Yes, that occurred to me. Somewhat like a 4 link.  Which way did you have to adjust yours after the initial issue?  Longer or shorter?  Thinking I could introduce that bias before welding the bracket on and then if I still have issues I could take them off and put an adjustable end on it...

Those replacement springs? I believe all 3 Customs I stripped and my convertible all had 4 leafs instead of 6.  The only 6 leaf units I have run across have been retractable springs, though I suppose wagons and Rancheros probably had them too..

My thought is that by design, i.e., the length of the spring in front of the compared to the rear and the shackle design is intended to allow the axle to move up and down perpendicular to the ground. the longer the traction bar is the less it conflicts with that motion since it doesn't bend and it moves in an arch. Just guessin'.

Me too, but I get the impression looking at it that if the traction bar front pivot is very far from the vertical plane of the leaf spring eye bolt that it has to produce some bind whether the bar pivot point is ahead (longer) or behind (shorter) that vertical plane. 

And the further ahead or behind the leaf pivot the less suspension movement will be before any binding should occur.  All assuming the rear of traction bar pivot point is directly below axle center, which these bars are. As has been mentioned, keeping both distances close to equal is probably the main thing.

But when power is applied the distance  between the upper pivot points of the leaf springs move apart a little at least due to spring arch declining. Probably what led to the development of slapper bars and adjustable rather than fixed traction bars.

Every part is putting up a battle (when I can even find the part). Lost brass axle brake T fitting is different than retractable, different than 63 Ford, different than 76 Torino, different than 58 Custom, different than 65 Fairlane, can't find the empty 57 housing which may have one or not.  Finally modified a 65 Fairlane T fitting that should work reversed. Fairlane line from the front was on left frame rail rather than center like convertible.

New expensive retractable E brake lines have return springs inside the drum much longer than originals and have to cut little coil by little coil to shorten both of them to fit in there. Very time-consuming.  They cannot be swapped with original return springs I have cuz of the lead slug on the end prevents removal. Retractable and convertible are supposed to be the same cuz X frame...

Now that I have shocks on and shackles in stock position I could not get tire off w/o letting out air, even with bottle jack between spring and frame. Once I got the tire off the brake drum fought coming off. Tried backing off adjuster. Stuck solid. Forced drum off and it still looks like it did when turned. Wheel cylinder stuck also, but swapping for retractable 15/16" ones anyway.

Otherwise all the new hardware and brake shoes in there look like they did the day I put them in 20 odd years ago.

One step forward and two steps back...

Longer or shorter...too long ago to remember.  My guess would be to shorten the right side, but just a little.

I have never added a traction device without a tradeoff...ride height, noise, ride quality, bind...

Four link...parallel with panhard bar or triangular are the best.  A lot of work and money but great weight transfer, no binding, no noise, weight reduction and great ride.

If memory serves me correctly, the bolt that holds the brass Tee fitting to the rear axel also serves as a breather.

Yep, threaded hollow bolt with a loose metal cap for a breather on the end.  The 65 Fairlane axle had the same diameter hollow bolt, but had a nipple on the top end to attach a hose up to the frame. 

I think I will be OK with using the original capped bolt which was still on the axle unless I have over a foot of water.. I must have put the brass fitting from the 57 in a really good place after I removed it and cleaned it up.

Probably need to take a couple days and inventory the semi trailer and put the tons of stuff on pole building floor away on their assigned shelving sections. Been putting that off since I hauled half dozen trailer loads from the farm sold last year and the mess is disorienting.  Chances are I will find more 57 parts that I forgot I had.

Finally got the rear passenger side brakes back together with new E brake cable and new wheel cylinder. Started on driver side rear and since I lost track of my good valve stem remover, I used a plastic one and it sheared the top off. Cannot get the remains out so now I will have to cut the stem off and put a new one in. And I am out of that size valve stem, of course...

Should have the back brakes re-done by the 4th of July at this rate.

Well I got my new longer spring eye bolts and installed them. I was wrong about length of the original bolts. They are 3 1/2" ? 5/16", rather than 4" x 5/16".  Luckily I ordered extra grade 8 bolts while I was ordering so got it done anyway.

It was fun trying to keep the eye bolt hole in frame and spring aligned with the axle fully installed (less welding of sway bar and traction bar mounts, waiting til ride height established).  Spring eye wanted to go up, down and forward while bolt was out. I even cut the threads off an overly-long 5/16" bolt and put a small 45 degree bevel on the end to use knocking out the original length replacements so it would remain in position.

But, even with weight off the axle the leaf eye still wanted to go off one way or another. Ended up having to simultaneously attach a comealong to center of convertible X frame, loosen shocks and put a small crowbar above leaf eye to get it close enough to get the replacement bolts started and knock my modified locating bolts back out again.  Fortunately did not screw up any threads getting the new bolts tapped in.

Brakes on the driver side came apart easier too, for installing the E brake cable and new wheel cylinder.  Made new lines from the copper nickel alloy stuff to connect axle T fitting to wheel cylinders. So, rear brakes are essentially done up to and including new rubber hose up to frame.

So, before continuing to run the rear line to the front I figured I might as well install MC and valve assembly in order to end up in the right place with the front to rear line.

Dragged out my clutch and brake hanger, took it apart and cleaned it up again. Two of the bolts for the front of the pedal hanger bracket were now too short also, so had to find some replacements. Found some more hardened bolts in my collection that all matched each other and worked. Got it all including stock KH booster) hung on the firewall along with MC.

Before I continue running new lines, it occurred to me I had not bench-bled the MC.  Not sure I should bother taking it off again to do that. The logic escapes me as to how bleeding it horizontally gripped in my vise differs from doing it on the car? On the car it mounts horizontal, is securely fastened and I can just push the brake pedal. On the vise I can screw up the MC finish and diddle around with some kind of makeshift pushrod. How is that a better approach?

My MC rod is also a tad short. Since the Swift Sure pedal sits real close to the floor as it is, when I devise a way around that am I on the right track thinking I need a rod that has very close to zero play before the MC begins compressing?

I thought the stock MC pushrod was a fixed length and it is, but there is an eccentric mount bolt that attaches on the Swift Sure pedal arm that looks to provide about an inch of adjustability to how far the pushrod extends into MC. Mine was still too long though and profile of the end was reverse from the MC piston contact point. Spent yesterday working that all out.

My front disk brakes were rebuilt 1971 Lincoln Mark 3 (spindles and all). They fit right on to the tapers and thickness of the 57 ball joints and tie rods. I have the new Lincoln hoses on and they have integrated frame brackets now attached to the 57 frame. The hoses go to the front just as most including Granada swaps do.

Would be interested in seeing how those of you with front disk brakes have routed your hard lines for the front brakes. Looks like I can route it around lower inside of frame upper A arm mount to get from behind the driver side wheel to ahead of it and probably utilize the original routing on the engine crossmember to get across the engine bay and do the same thing over on the passenger side. Other ideas?

I had lightly painted the rotor surfaces being I knew it was gonna sit for a while and paint is a lot easier to remove than rust. So, will have to pull the rotors anyway to clean the paint off. Probably also have to disassemble the rebuilt calipers too though, being both rebuilt rear wheel cylinders had become stuck while the car has been sitting inside all these years.

For now I can run my hard line from the back to the front anyway and both the clutch and brake pedals are finally remounted in the car and functioning like they should. Though I am not fond of the clutch pedal sitting quite a bit further off the floor than the Swift Sure brake pedal does... 

My sense of symmetry is offended by that. I may have to consider hydraulic clutch linkage instead to lower the clutch pedal, or some way to raise the power brake pedal. Or both... Ideas?

Great to hear about that sort of progress.

As to "leveling" the pedals, myself, I would heat and bend one pedal's arm. It's low carbon steel, no big deal. The usual precautions of course.

But, would there be enough clutch travel if it's lowered?
Would the brake pedal still be fast and easy to hit if it's raised?

The clutch pedal arm is probably just mild steel, but the Swift Sure power brake pedal assembly arms look forged or cast to me. All the manual brake 57-58 brake pedal arms I have look like they are mild steel too, but look like they won't work with the KH booster.

So, the clutch pedal would seem easier to modify, but then as you say it likely would not have enough travel for the stock mechanical linkage. Maybe have to leave that until the engine and transmission are in to see what might work.

On cars I have driven with hydraulic clutch linkage though, they don't seem to require as much travel and certainly less effort. But maybe that is partially in the clutch release arm and distance in the pivot points on that. My 73 Mustang  Mach clone does have a higher clutch pedal than brake pedal height that appears to be designed in though. But it looks more out of place in a 57 I think.

Been reading with puzzlement on old swap motor mount threads.  I have the Butch's Rod Shop triangular swap mounts left over from another project. 

351c sits too high, about 2 1/2" oil pan clearance, lots of manifold to 58 steering box clearance (400M manifolds). Firewall is about 1/2" clearance on driver side, an inch on the passenger side. So, it seems OK as to firewall clearance but everything else seem like it should be lower in the chassis by at least an jnch, maybe more..

In summary per old threads, the early 63-64 Galaxie mounts reputedly sit too low and require shimming to correct, the Mustang mounts tend to sit high, the 70's pickup mount might work with frame holes opened up and  Butch's mounts sit high.

Currently looking around for the set of Galaxie mounts I know I have somewhere, though they look kind of weak. Or find a thinner polyurethane bushing to shorten the Butch's mounts and see how that looks.

Find it odd to read so many threads about inadequate clearances and except for the firewall I appear to have too much clearance.

More pics..