xoxbxfx said:
make what jokes you want, but if you looks stock type setups (TCP/Global West/Fat Man) are way better for handling. THe MII
suspension setup is weak all by itself. It was origionally designed to ahve struts and still have the same type concept as our classic stangs. The new strutless
suspension setups are much weaker and cannot handle waht an upgraded stock setup could. I personally ahve seen damaged MII setups where the crossmembers give and leave you sitting on 1/2 your frame. Im not a total idiot. Mustang II suspensions are great with a strut. People went to strutless to convert hotrod old school suspensions into somethign more modern and stronger. When I say stronger, Im talking 30's
suspension technology, not 60's.
If you decide to do a MII swap, talk to fostang... do the extra bracing like he did on his
suspension. He knows as well as I why you need the extra support.
xoxbxfx, Thanks for seeing my humor.
I disagree that the TCP/Global West/Fat Man suspensions will handle better. Especialy the Fat Man kit or any other kit that replaces a double A-arm
suspension for a strut.
Strut suspensions exist for only one purpose...they are cheap to design and build. Again with a strut
suspension you get poor camber gain. Ask any serious road race fox body owner and they will all tell you the front
suspension sucks. The only way to gain negative camber is to set static camber high...which causes tire wear and again is a compromise. Ironicly Fox body owners pay $uper big buck$ to convert to a MII esque double A-arm setup. (See Griggs racing.)
Now in the same breath you claim the TCP/Global West/Fat Man suspensions will handle better, but your arguement is that the MII suspensions are weak. Your arguement adds no weight on weither or not the stock
suspension configuration can handle better then an MII
suspension. These are unfortunately two completely differant arguements.
I can agree, and have seen problems where the
LCA (lower control arm) rear mounting point has failed, But NOT on a Mustang. You also have to understand these kits are installed on trucks weighing almost twice as much as our Mustangs and live quite well.
In the one failure that I have seen it was a bad batch of bolts and not the crossmember at all.
The potential weakness in the crossmembers will be most prevelent in the Hiedt's and in the R&C kits 105 and 106.
http://www.heidts.com/heip32-2.htm
http://www.rcmotorsports.net/page4.html (105)
http://www.rcmotorsports.net/page5.html (106)
The reason these kits are more prone to failure is because the
LCA bias is to the rear and they use the middle of the crossmember as the front mounting point. See Heidts and R&C 105 (discontinued and no longer available from R&C)
The 106 is a superior design over the 105. With both
LCA mounting points mounted on the OUTSIDE of the crossmember. However the 106 still uses a modified/stock
LCA geometry and is biased toward the rear of the car. If you currently own or purchase any of these kits, do as Fostang has and gusset the rear
LCA mounting point from several angles.
If you look at the R&C's kit 107 there will be no problem in this area.
http://www.rcmotorsports.net/page6.html
The 107 kit has an A-arm that is centered on the crossmember and the extentions are only one inch on either side.
Most MII setups will have an extension on the rear of the crossmember that can be as far as four inches away from the crossmember. As you can imagine there is alot of torque that is applied to this small area. If you hollow out the center of the crossmember, you are only left with a thin metal ear to resist most of the torsion!
If A-arms make you uncomfortable, then look to Martz chassis for a strut version of the MII
suspension for classic Mustangs.
http://www.martzchassis.net/mustangfrontinstall
Martz uses a strut rod in almost the same position as the stock Mustang, and locates the
LCA using a double shear mounting points like stock.
Facinating fact; did you know that the stock Mustang engine mounts and
lower control arms are only held by six spot welds??
Most of the negative comments you will hear about MII suspensions are echos of media and company propaganda and are unsubstantiated.
Anyway, my point in this very long reply is to reduce some of the generalizations people assume with MII suspensions.
