Nice PhotoShop Restyle

78CobraII

Moderator
Jul 31, 1998
1,806
1
37
Birmingham, AL
I found this 'shopped image of a MII convertible here (http://forums.subdriven.com/zerothread?id=4668542&page=1) by Merc63.

His description:

"If you look closely at the pshop I did of the convert, notice what I did with the wheelwells... the rears are raised about 2", the fronts raised about 4" and moved forward about 4" which requires cutting the front suspension mounts out of the "frame railes" and welding them in 4" farther forward. Fairly easy to do, and about the same process as putting the MII suspension in a hot rod or, as is often done, in an early Falcon or Mustang...). Then the bumpers were moved in about 3" (there is a design line on the stock bumper about an inch and a half back from the leading edge and about 3" from the back. This bumper is trimmed to that point and mounted on shortened hydraulic rams, a cheap and easy mod that I've done on countless A1 VWs). it still retains the MII basic identity, but with al the proportions tweaked to math the earlier (and new) Mustangs.

The other benefit of moving the front suspension forward 4" is that it effectively moves the engine farther back in the chassis for better balance along with better stability. Add modern shocks/springs/swaybars and the pictured 16" wheels and tires, and the car would handle quite well indeed. You could do the same on a fastback MII and have a pretty decent ride for very little money."

He's pretty much the only MII supporter in a thread of haters, but he represents the II pretty well.

I've had some of the same thoughts about moving the front suspension crossmember forward by 4 inches, but given the multi-layer construction that Ford used, it's probably harder than it looks.

I had never thought about raising the wheel well arches, but he has a point there, the wheels do seem to disappear excessively when the MII is lowered.
 

Attachments

  • Merc63_MII_Mod.jpg
    Merc63_MII_Mod.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 204
  • Sponsors (?)


I like the whole thought process, no roof, raised & flared wheelwells, thinner bumpers, reworked nose...I'm only planning 15" wheels though.

RII
 

Attachments

  • II_3D_4-9.JPG
    II_3D_4-9.JPG
    129.1 KB · Views: 166
  • II_3D_back_4-9.JPG
    II_3D_back_4-9.JPG
    87.1 KB · Views: 153
front flares are cut out of late 80's escort fenders and most of the back flares are cut out of 80 something AMC eagle fenders. All's been but welded together.
The back flares are the second set on it, I cut the first hand formed ones off because they just looked too big.

What was done to the flares in the photo shop pic is about the right size for the wheels in my eye. Now if we could only do something about the bumpers.

RII
 
Merc63 found a couple of changes (extending the front wheel by 4 inches and raising the wheel flare almost to the beltline on the side) that really modernize the design when used with a lowered stance and larger wheels.

These changes look good even without the convertible chop.

The large bumpers are more of a function of the 5 mph Federal bumper standard than of any design asthetic. Doing the bumper tuck that Welder did helps a lot, while cutting the bottom off of the bumper (under the trim line) would help even more. Especially if they could be made of aluminum square tube.

Raising the wheel arches could be done without doing the wheelbase stretch. Hmm...maybe my spare fenders...

Too bad that someone is not making fiberglass front fenders currently, they would be a lot easier to modify than steel fenders would.

It might be interesting to find out why the designers at Ford chose the wheelbase for the MII. They were already stretching the Pinto wheelbase (from 94 in. to 96 in), so they could have conceivably gone another 4 inches to the Fox 100 in. wheelbase. Maybe there was some reason the chassis or suspension would not work in that wheelbase?

One possible reason was that Lee Ioccoca wanted the Mustang II to compete against the imports such as the Toyota Celica which had a 97 inch wheelbase.

Its hard to believe that the 1965-1970 Mustangs had a 108 inch wheel base, the '71-'73 Mustangs were 109 inches, but the current 2010 model is only 107 inches!
 
Raising the wheel arches could be done without doing the wheelbase stretch. Hmm...maybe my spare fenders...

But raising them four inches... even with 2-inch drop spindles, you've got another two inches to get the car back down. I think pushing the crossmember forward would be even harder to overcome because the rack is so close to the front sump. :shrug:

d
 
He might be off on raising the front wheel flares by 4 inches...maybe 2 inches. I'll have to get my tape measure out...

I had expected to have to go to the Fox "rear sump" 5.0L oilpan. Its close to 4 inches, but you would have to place the motor to know for sure. The 3.8L V6 was available with a rear sump oilpan and I think I remember it had a front drive oilpump...maybe that would be useful? Or you could just dry sump the 302? :shrug:

Its easier with the 2.3L as you could use the late-model rear sump pan, and if you were swapping a 4.0L in for a 2.8L, its also available with a rear sump.

Some of these rear sump installs might require modification of the "toilet bowl" brace under the engine...maybe replace part of it with structural tubing?

Once you start fabricating a new front suspension location anything is possible!
:lol:
 
It might be interesting to find out why the designers at Ford chose the wheelbase for the MII. They were already stretching the Pinto wheelbase (from 94 in. to 96 in), so they could have conceivably gone another 4 inches to the Fox 100 in. wheelbase. Maybe there was some reason the chassis or suspension would not work in that wheelbase?


This is something I've looked at allot and some day I'll get off my dead ass and do 'it'.

I've always had a problem with the visual of how far back the front wheels sit. And there is the thing about the engine sitting out in front of the spindle line. Hmmm, ...

If the suspension was slid forward 4 inches the cross member would be about centered under the engine making for a really small sump. Rear sumping could have made it a real PITA to install the engine especially on the assembly line.

Moving the suspension forward could have caused engineering considerations is the strength of the frame rails. And the radius arm brackets.

I've been looking at sliding the suspension so far forward the steering gear (rack) would be somewhere under #1 main. About what? 8"? More?

And I keep looking at it too .... :rlaugh: