Mustang II Suspension question

[68FBJJZ109]

I am seriously considering selling my stock style suspension components for a Mustang II style suspension for the added room with in the engine bay. I would like the extra room for the turbo kit and possible a modular swap in the future. I very pleased with the Treadstone kit I have on my fox body.Not to mention its is over 1k cheaper then having one custom made for my mustang.

I have read a decent amount about the newer style Mustang II suspension and alot of the improvement that have been made.

Custom Mustang II Suspension - Product Information & Design - Rod and Custom Magazine

I do not know if all companies have made the changes Chassiworks has on there setup though I will try and find out.

I plan on using my car for primarily as a street car, though I want to be able to take it to open track events at road courses and preform well. Although I will not be racing the car formally, rest a sure I will drive the car very hard, its been built to be beaten like a red headed step child.

I have read often that people do not recommend the set up for competition or racing use. Why is this? From what I have read at least the Chassis works version has had a lot of R&D done to the suspension in improving its performance and eliminating the need for strut rods. ( I would assume the other brands would mimic there setup though we all know what happens when you assume...)

I plan on running bars from my roll cage through the fire wall to tie into both the frame rail and the Shock mount point. If there is clearance with the turbo plumbing I would triangulate the upper portion of the shock mount to the cowl because that point also ties into the under-dash bar.

Though I am hesitant to commit to a suspension type or plan because of the her say about the Mustang II suspensions performance in competition environments.

Has any one auto crossed or raced a Classic Mustang with a Mustang II set up?

 

[wicked93gs]

I have yet to finish my project, but I plan on taking it autocrossing from time to time, the reason people tend to stay away from the Mustang II for performance is simply because a modified stock suspension can be made to handle better...presumably anyway...the problem lies in the fact that most of the kits negative camber gain is poor, -.5 degrees at best...this comes from adjustment slots really not being deep enough for more....easily modified, with longer slots more negative camber is possible....theres a mustang II over in the mustang II forum that has pulled over 1g on the skidpad with a similar mod, and some other minor mods(and very good R-compound tires) he also won a competition where he went up against high dollar suspension builds on some vintage car face-off...so if a mustang II can do it, I dont see why we cant, that car's performance matches a 1st gen mustang with full global west suspension. That being said, the way my kit came from Heidts, there's no way it would do very well...better than a stock 1st gen suspension maybe, but not by a whole lot, however if I slot the holes and can manage -3 degrees of negative camber gain and add some R-compound tires...well, that changes everything

 

[68FBJJZ109]

I found the car you where referring to, although not a mustang II fan myself that's a sharp little car. I found pictures (I believe you posted them) of the Slots in the MII cross member. I know a rather broad and uninformed question, but is the MII chamber gain the only issue people have with it in regard to handling performance?

I feel I have good set up currently, though building the Turbo setup within the confines of the our engine bay is troublesome, though far from impossible 10secgoal kit is very nice. I have considered his set up though, that still doesn't address of a suspension that could accommodate a DOHC Modular motor in the future.

Thanks for the information I appreciate your help.

 

[mustbereel]

Read this thread:

http://forums.stangnet.com/720194-mustang-ii-ifs-real-info-debate-thread.html

 

[68FBJJZ109]

Read this thread:

http://forums.stangnet.com/720194-mustang-ii-ifs-real-info-debate-thread.html

I have read that thread lots of good information there, that what really made me consider the Mustang II suspension because I had heard such horrible rumors in the past about it.

I just realized you can search over at CC.com without being a member, so I plan on researching it more over there, because i think I have exhausted the threads here.

Thanks for the link though

 

[Psydwaze]

Additional information on the Chassisworks g-Machine Crossmember System that was discussed in the Rod and Custom article.

In regards to your possible plans for open track use, this is same front suspension (minus the bolt-on subframe) that is used on the RCR Series 3 Camaros built by Richard Childress Racing.

Chassisworks g-Machine Camaro Subframe System

RCR Series 3 Camaro Specs

 

[0to100to0]

i looked into the chassisworks parts because i am using their rear four link and it looks amazing. but also way expensive, i think over 4 grand complete, but this was a couple of years ago when it was first coming out, but check it out.
matt

 

[68FBJJZ109]

From what I have heard and the way there products appear Chassiworks stuff seems to be very high quality.

I am sure that camaro handles very well, I just wish i could find facts on how its preforms. I'am having a hard time finding any thing about the MII setup up on corner carvers, which seems very odd to me. Though I have no luck when it comes the search button, or i am not using the correct terminology...

Thanks for your input guys.

 

[wicked93gs]

thats why I wouldnt bother looking for MII conversion info, look for mustang II cars instead...in all honesty the heidts kit...and R &C, and TCI, all of them are performance suspensions based off the stock design...so in reality they should actually handle better under similar circumstances...other than the negative camber issue there is really no reason they cant be made to handle as well...possibly the ackerman issue, but I doubt that the ackerman is really much different in a 1st gen than in a II. I havent had any luck trying to find anyone with a MII suspension running it on the track...its hard to find because most classic mustang owners who do the conversion do it for the engine bay space....and that means they are more likely to take it to the strip....and then there are tons of owners who dont have any interest in pulling Gs...and those that do have tons of products to chose from based on the stock stuff, so the only car you will find modified for heavy G use using that suspension is the car it came on

 

[68FBJJZ109]

I couldn't agree more, Though even finding information on Track oriented Mustang II is proving challenging. I am sure the suspension if fine for Street and Open track use, though I would like a little more information before I invest more money into my vehicle.

Thanks for your help in getting information about the set ups, if I find any further information on Mustang II's track performance or even better a 65-70 mustang using a Mustang II setup up on the track I'll be sure to let you know.

 

[Wart]

thats why I wouldnt bother looking for MII conversion info, look for mustang II cars instead...in all honesty the heidts kit..

The Conundrum ....

It really irks us II owners when we see a restorable II butchered and turned to junk.

OTOH I know where a II is sitting, minus fenders and windows, with a solid front, in a scrap yard waiting to be crushed. And I've seen IIs rot to an unusable state.

I guess getting the front end hacked out is better than rot or crushing with nothing being saved. (Plus the more that are destroyed the rarer mine become )

I have 2 IIs, no room to save more. Damn.

>>>>

Heres a LINK to the Popular Hotrodding story on Alcinos 1g II.

The topics of tubular 'A' arms and coil overs has been a subject of II owners for a while. My feelings are that if your going to go to a tube lower you might as well go with a aftermarket setup. When the radius arm/strut is eliminated the charmiong physics of the MII front end are pretty much gone. People who have installed tube lowers have mixed reviews.

There needs to be a bunch of reinforcing done to use coilovers.

A downside of the stock II front end is, I hope you don't have a thing for late model wheels. Without spacers late model wheels tend to rub the suspension unless spacers are used, and I'm too damned Old School to want anything between the hub and rim but the brakes, or to run a rim that does not shoulder on the hub.

OP, you state your going to use this in a performance application involving other than straight lines ... I guess that means you won't be leaning towards rims with deep back space so rubbing the suspension shouldn't be a problem.

But you will need brakes, and stock II brakes suck. Well, their great for trailer queens and street rods, sufficient for use in grocery getting, for more than cruising, forget it. Most 5 lug rotors using stock calipers are redrilled 4 lugs, affordable 5 lug set ups use Chevy parts and have their own issues, and then there are those set ups that are $$$$.

 

[68FBJJZ109]

Oh I am not trying to cut up a Mustang II for its parts I am trying to find out how the Mustang II conversion fares for open track/racing use.

Where having a hard time finding information about how these kits perform. Therefore we have turned our results to actaul Mustang II's used in road/ open track events.

I read the article 1976 Ford Mustang II Cobra Alcino Azevedo Jr. - Popular Hot Rodding Magazine
There is good information there, though I would say its a bit easier to get a light small car with R compound tires to handle well. I expect my car to weigh in at about 3500 lbs.

If only i could get my Shelby Clone down to what my Notch weighs 2949...

I plan on running reinforcement from my cars roll cage through the fire wall into the front frame rail while ting into the coilover mount.

I have Wilwood Six piston 13'' brakes, though I believe ill need an different adapter.

If i can remember correctly my front wheels are 4.5'' BS.

 

[wicked93gs]

3500? my coupe should weigh in at roughly 2800-2900lbs by the time I'm finished...didnt realize the fastbacks were that much heavier...but then mine is a 66 too..personally I dont need a race-car...but something that can hold its own against most modernish cars would be nice

 

[68FBJJZ109]

Yeah, thats what i am guesstimating... a 1967 GT 350 with a paxton weighs 3200 pounds. That fairly close to what I am building though, I have a full rol lcage, TCP SFC's, a Martz Four-link and big breaks all the way around, with larger tires and wheels. I still want to add a little more reinforcement from the roll cage through the fire wall into the frame rail and have it tie into the shock mounts.

I figure with taken out the back seat, no stereo, no leafs, that things would some what balance out, though I have added a significant amount of weight...

Its hard to gauge what the car will actually weigh, though with those modifications the car should perform much much better, I though about replacing the FB window with a Lexan piece, to add in weight reduction. The interior is going to be very plan minus the Brushed aluminum dash with the Shelby badges. I figured race panels with a leather strap to close the door, and maybe getting rid of the roll up mechanism in favor of a system like Military HMMWVs have. They just slid up on down a rail with four spots to lock the window at a certain height. Though I haven't gotten to that portion of the build and will hash out the details once I am there.

 

[kttrucks]

I had this same internal debate, and read tons of reviews and some of the incredibly well though out and explained viewpoints on this site as well as my own experience and settled on this option.

MuscleUp Performance and Rod Shop

This is the same system Jeff Schwartz is marketing with great success... both companies are fantastic to deal with and will answer any and all questions over the phone.... in my opinion, this chassis answers and the questions I had, and solves the problems I was worried about with front and rear suspension systems and the issues with tying them together for rigitidy. You still have to cut up a car, which is not good for a rare or significant vehicle, but my 66 was a rusty 6 cyl turd destined to be a parts car. It's not the only option, but in my opinion, it's a good solution to the handling issues we face when trying to update our early cars.

Hope this helps.

KT.

 

[68FBJJZ109]

Ah yes I stumbled on this on another thread, and wished I didn't already do so much to my car. I have no issues cutting up my car to make it better though I have invested to much money and time into the current set up that it would be such a waste at this point do use that chassis in my car. Maybe the Next mustang I build will get that set up. If the offered a kit like the heidts of chassiworks I would defiantly consider it.

 

[68FBJJZ109]

Why looking through some ebay pages, I came across a wreck C6 Corvette rolling chassis for sale. I was looking at the Engine cradle/K member. I cant see why I couldn't implement/graft a or possible build a Cradle into my car then bolt the Corvette Arms and spindle to my car..

I figure there is no question how the Corvette suspension handles and the parts used are not that expensive. I know a couple Mechanical Engineers, and I have a friends who are also good at fabricating. I think it is a viable option to have a great performing setup and still be able to go to napa and get parts for it.

I know how some people get about GM motors in fords and 9 inchs in GM's ect... but frankly that doesn't bother me it will still be a Mustang, and its no different the putting some other after market companies stuff on your car.

Its just and Idea, i havent had time to research it and see if it is in fact a viable option as I feel it is. Just throwing out there to see what everyones opinion here at stangnet is.



EDIT - 57hemicuda : photos : Mustang : OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA - powered by SmugMug

I found this on cc.com

 

[Grabber70Mach]

Inbreeding is wrong no matter how its done. But you know what they say to each his own.

 

[68FBJJZ109]

Inbreeding is wrong no matter how its done. But you know what they say to each his own.

Oh its only some control arms and there relative position to the frame hardly inbreeding lol. Its about Life Liberty and the pursuit of speed.

 

[Psydwaze]

Someone is working on a similar C5 chassis with Mustang body track car project. The Corvette track width is substantially wider thant the early Mustang and requires large fender flares.

Muttstang - Corner-Carvers Forums