The "Mustang II" IFS Real Info & Debate Thread

Discussion in 'Classic Mustang Specific Tech' started by reenmachine, Sep 17, 2007.


  1. CraigMBA

    CraigMBA New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Orange, CA
    For six large?

    I feel like that guy in the AT&T commercial -

    "They comped my room because I'm down fifty eight hundred."

    For that much, you can go to the griggs system and have a front end that actually works (no disrespect on the fat man product line).

    I don't hate on my stock style front end anymore since I got rid of the bumpsteer and put in the Global West control arms. I'm looking forward to driving it with the fully rollerized stuff. I don't need the room because I don't want a big block or a 4.6...........
     
    #141
  2. bnickel

    bnickel Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    i agree that it's no competition for the Griggs system, but as far as this thread is concerned it sloves a bunch of the issues that a few people, including myself, have brought up regarding a M-II style suspension, and the fat man system takes it even farther by adding struts like an RRS system or even Fat Mans other Strut conversion. this would be great for a high performance cruiser but not an all out canyon carver.

    BTW, i still prefer to keep my towers too and also plan on a rollerized suspension or maybe even a rollerized coilover conversion kit. i'll be talking to Opentracker about that specifically before too long, that's what i want for my 69 cougar, possibly with the CPP mini subframe lower A-Arm kit too, still trying to decide on that one. i think that would make a super front suspension system, CPP lower a-arm kit with opentracker roller upper arms and roller perches or roller upper arms and coilover kit. a lot of what happens on the front suspension will depend on the rear suspension as well, i'm planning on the TCP G-Bar rear suspension for the cougar and if i go that way i'm going to go with a coilover converision up front, if i have to stay with leaf springs out back then i'll just do the rollerized front stuff. i already have a TCP rack for it so i'm good to go there with whatever else i decide to up front.
     
    #142
  3. CraigMBA

    CraigMBA New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Orange, CA
    My point is the piece is six dimes.

    If you're going to spend six thousand dollars, are you inclined to run the Griggs stuff or the MII stuff?

    I think they've overestimated thier markets ability to pay for product.
     
    #143
  4. bnickel

    bnickel Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2002
    Messages:
    5,642
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    77
    Location:
    lubbock, texas
    i guess it depends, the griggs kit still uses the stock frame rails to attach everything to and that's one of the reasons i don't like the typical M-II kits, also the Fatman kit is really not an M-II kit so much as it is a bolt on late model strut kit, really only the crossmember is M-II like everything is straight off a Fox or SN-95 stang. for strength considerations i'd probably go with something more like the Fatman kit. i'm not a big of the Griggs system either, really, it's basically the same kind of thing as the Fatman kit, bolt on SN-95 stuff with an upper control arm instead of the strut, yes, it has slightly different geometry than the SN-95 suspension but not vastly different. personally, i don't think either one of them is worth $5 or $6 grand and i like my shock towers right where they are, thanks.


    i was simply pointing out another option for those that might be looking for something like this. again, the Fatmn kit would be more for the performance street cruiser than a real canyon carving machine, the Griggs system would be better for that but i still wouldn't use either one on any of my cars.
     
    #144
  5. mustbereel

    mustbereel Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Escondido, CA
    I just finished installing and testing all of my mods related to stiffening the chassis after doing the MII conversion. (see my thread on torsional rigidity) It took a lot of work, not too much money and added about 50lbs to the front end but result is a frame that is at least as strong as a modified stock style suspension.
     
    #145
  6. speed1972

    speed1972 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denver, CO - Buckley AFB
    bringing back one from the yesteryear. How is the Mustang II setup working for you guys? Is everything fine with just extra support bar run from the front of the frame to the firewall? I am just trying to get some ideas cuz the fastback I just bought has a Mustang II under it but no other support including the questionable aprons. I plan to cover the holes but I wanted to see how things are holding up with your modifications.

    thanks,
    LB
     
    #146
  7. 1970 slantroof

    1970 slantroof Founding Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Far S.E. Arizona
    Finally finished my 1970 fastback and I am very happy with the way it drives and handles. It has subframe connectors and front subframe stiffners to the cowl.
    No rattles and very stiff on our lousy roads. I used the Rod & Customs motorsport kit with my own subframe stiffners.
    No reason for me to spend anymore money than what I did.
    Howard:D
     
    #147
  8. reenmachine

    reenmachine Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Ventura, CA
    I've got tons of miles on MII setups at this point with zero complaints. Even early ones I did with no additional reinforcement beyond the substantial Heidt's pieces are cruising along beautifully. I've yet to see any real evidence (photos) of a modern MII kit failure. There not for everyone, but in certain situations (or if it's already in there), they're the right tool for the job.
     
    #148
  9. mustbereel

    mustbereel Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Messages:
    318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Escondido, CA
    My fastback with MII and SFC with no cowl bracing is without issue. The 67 coupe is not on the road yet.
     
    #149
  10. AlleyCat66

    AlleyCat66 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Showcase:
    8
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The OC, CA
    This thread is mis-named

    I've read the entire thread, and mainly it's been a compare/contrast discussion on chassis strength and rigidity. Selfishly, I'd like to hear from the road race/autocross veterans on how MII suspensions perform in relation to upgraded traditional suspensions in those venues.

    Let's assume for a moment that if either system were properly reinforced, what would be the better choice for this type of usage?

    I know the MII is outlawed in vintage racing, but certainly these two have gone head-to-head at an autocross, open track or club event at some point, right?

    As one who's looking to build a mainly autocross/open track car I'm really thirsty for knowledge on how the two stack up in terms of camber gain, roll center, motion ratio and so on.
     
    #150

Share This Page