Mustang II Front End

wazoo64 · May 18, 2008

I know there are a few folks here that have installed a MII front end. I am looking for some feedback on the install for this. What oil pan? any reasons why not to do it. etc. etc. By the way, I am not looking for feedback on magnumforce or alterk. I know these two options well but would like info on the standard MII only.

wazoo64 · May 19, 2008

Well it looks like we are going to go for the MII install. I spoke with Bill at RMS and he thinks it will work fine with my setup considering I want to keep the air ride. We are going to mock up a block this weekend to figure out which oil pan specs will work. The guys at kevco seem to think they can build me a pan that will work. Here is a list of parts that I will have available for sale. All these parts have less than 1000 miles on them.

Firm Feel Stage II Box
Firm Feel Sway Bar
RMS Tubular adjustable UCA
Stock LCA with Firm Feel plates
Cap Tubular Kmember
Tie Rods complete with adjusting sleeves from Just Suspension
Alloy Struts from Cap Auto

abodyjoe · May 20, 2008

take a ton of pics for us.

EP87 · May 22, 2008

Are you planning on using a actual Mustang II front end or a street rod type kit?

dgc333 · May 22, 2008

The geometry of a Mustang II front end is not very good, certainly no where near as good as your stock mopar front end. They are popular for street rods because they are compact and can be made to fit most any vehicle and those vehicles aren't expected to be great handlers.

If I was looking to upgrade my front suspension it would certainly not be with something based on the Mustang II design.

Chuckbizkits · May 22, 2008

Huh?! The tubular after market MII kits are FAR superior to the crappy stock early A Body pressed sheet metal front suspension in every way imaginable. Explain "geometry". How is stock better?

There might be some better suspension kits out there but stock is not one of them.

dgc333 · May 23, 2008

During the 60's and 70's the design of the mopar front suspension was a better design than any of the other big 3.

When I say the geometry is better than a Mustang II front end I am refering to undesirable changes in camber and bump steer as the suspension moves through it's travel. The Mustang II front end has short control arms and spindles which results in a lot of chamber change which does not allow the contact patch of the tire to remain flat with the road reducing the handling capability.

Tubular control arms do not make a front end a Mustang II front end. The Mustang II used stamped arms just like mopar the aftermarket Mustang II front ends quite often include tubular control arms. Aftermarket control arms are available for most all popular cars and they are either the stock geometry or have improved designs that correct inherent design issuses and/or add in more adjustability.

In general most aftermarket tubular control arms are lighter and stiffer than the stock stamped arms but the long term durability is not as good. You can get the same stiffness in your stock arms by boxing them but that adds more weight to an already heavy part but they will be bullet proof.

So there are lots of true upgrades that will make for an improved front suspension for your mopar but if it's based on the Mustang II geometry you are taking a step backwards in handling capability.

EP87 · May 24, 2008

dgc333 said:
During the 60's and 70's the design of the mopar front suspension was a better design than any of the other big 3.

When I say the geometry is better than a Mustang II front end I am refering to undesirable changes in camber and bump steer as the suspension moves through it's travel. The Mustang II front end has short control arms and spindles which results in a lot of chamber change which does not allow the contact patch of the tire to remain flat with the road reducing the handling capability.

Tubular control arms do not make a front end a Mustang II front end. The Mustang II used stamped arms just like mopar the aftermarket Mustang II front ends quite often include tubular control arms. Aftermarket control arms are available for most all popular cars and they are either the stock geometry or have improved designs that correct inherent design issuses and/or add in more adjustability.

In general most aftermarket tubular control arms are lighter and stiffer than the stock stamped arms but the long term durability is not as good. You can get the same stiffness in your stock arms by boxing them but that adds more weight to an already heavy part but they will be bullet proof.

So there are lots of true upgrades that will make for an improved front suspension for your mopar but if it's based on the Mustang II geometry you are taking a step backwards in handling capability.

I don't really agree with what your saying, I've driven a few rods and cars with a quality mustang II type suspension and the handling was great. I think the big draw to going to this type of suspension is dropping the torsion bars and steering box, and going with coil overs and a rack.
Richard

shortz · May 24, 2008

what dgc is saying (from what i read) is that FACTORY mustang II suspension wont be 100%, aftermarket mustang II type suspension such as alterk etc are completely different again. The aftermarket units are designed for our cars.

wazoo64 · May 24, 2008

shortz said:
what dgc is saying (from what i read) is that FACTORY mustang II suspension wont be 100%, aftermarket mustang II type suspension such as alterk etc are completely different again. The aftermarket units are designed for our cars.

That's what I figured. We are going to install a system built by RCMotorsports. It will be custom and seems to be doable at this point. The only two questions are oil pan design/clearance and wether I will have enough clearance for the air bags. Even if the air bags dont fit we will be able to get the coilovers in.
I still dont understand why people arn't going with a mustang II system with one crossmember. If it can be done on Falcons, Mustangs etc...you would think these Mopars would be doing it as well.

EP87 · May 24, 2008

fwaugh said:
That's what I figured. We are going to install a system built by RCMotorsports. It will be custom and seems to be doable at this point. The only two questions are oil pan design/clearance and wether I will have enough clearance for the air bags. Even if the air bags dont fit we will be able to get the coilovers in.
I still dont understand why people arn't going with a mustang II system with one crossmember. If it can be done on Falcons, Mustangs etc...you would think these Mopars would be doing it as well.

Thats what I'm thinking=D>=D>

moparmorris · May 25, 2008

I had seen a 67 Valiant on ebay a while back with a mustang II front end and air ride installed. It was very well done. The car was very nice. I think the starting bid on it was $55,000, maybe more.

abodyjoe · May 25, 2008

Chuckbizkits said:
Huh?! The tubular after market MII kits are FAR superior to the crappy stock early A Body pressed sheet metal front suspension in every way imaginable. Explain "geometry". How is stock better?

There might be some better suspension kits out there but stock is not one of them.

the after market systems such as the alter-k, or mag farce ,i don't really consider a mustang II system. only real thing they use that is mustang II is the spindles because they offer so many brake options. alter-k doesn't use a mustange II rack. not sure about the mag.

HemiMark · May 25, 2008

abodyjoe said:
the after market systems such as the alter-k, or mag farce ,i don't really consider a mustang II system. only real thing they use that is mustang II is the spindles because they offer so many brake options. alter-k doesn't use a mustange II rack. not sure about the mag.

The Alterkation and Mag Force units also widen the front wheelbase.
You will have to order custom wheels with deep back spacing to get the tires under the wheel wells.....

rjsjea · May 25, 2008

HemiMark said:
The Alterkation and Mag Force units also widen the front wheelbase.
You will have to order custom wheels with deep back spacing to get the tires under the wheel wells.....

True.....The BS required 5.75 (2) or so, which is a common size in custom wheels. This also varies with brake packages

There are a lot of variables for these universal type of front ends like a Heidt's......front wheel base being on of them

Mustang II is a very general term it seems

wazoo64 · Jun 23, 2008

On the initial mock up I am getting 3 inches of rebound before bottom out. I have plenty of compression but a little concerned about 3 inches of rebound. I will run a sway bar and should be a tight ride. Any thoughts?

wazoo64 · Jun 23, 2008

I am getting 3 inches of rebound. Does that work? I have a had couple sources tell me that's plenty but just want to make sure.

Chuckbizkits · Jun 24, 2008

Fwaugh, 3" on the downward movement of your suspension (front end going up) is more than enough travel, unless you're racing autocross. Then your limited camber curve might come into play.

How far along are you? How 'bout some pics?

MadScientistMat · Jun 27, 2008

fwaugh said:
That's what I figured. We are going to install a system built by RCMotorsports. It will be custom and seems to be doable at this point. The only two questions are oil pan design/clearance and wether I will have enough clearance for the air bags. Even if the air bags dont fit we will be able to get the coilovers in.
I still dont understand why people arn't going with a mustang II system with one crossmember. If it can be done on Falcons, Mustangs etc...you would think these Mopars would be doing it as well.

For one thing, the early Falcons and Mustangs used a truly attrocious front suspension design. You've seen some of the templates going around for how you can fix your camber curve on those with a hand drill? They're not very good suspensions and in that case even a stock Mustang II suspension can be something of an improvement.

Chrysler put a lot more work into getting good suspension geometry on A-bodies. The designed it to keep the wheels planted upright when the body leans, built it to keep the weight low and made 100% of the spring weight sprung, and you could even adjust the cross weight without a coil-over conversion.

There's still room for improvement in the suspension geometry, and things you can reinforce and gusset. But it's something a designer has to sit down and think about. Just about any "Mustang II" suspension worth installing on an A-body has little in common with a Mustang II except the spindles and rack. Putting an actual Mustang II crossmember and control arms in a Mopar would be a step backwards.

wazoo64 · Jun 27, 2008

I am still wondering if 3 inches of rebound is enough. Any of you suspension gurus out there have an idea?

MadScientistMat · Jun 28, 2008

It depends on how you drive it and your current spring rates. If the car rolls a great deal, three inches of rebound will make it lift the inside front wheel while cornering. It could also conceivably launch itself off a speed bump at high speeds. If it's a fairly stiff suspension that is not going to be driven off road I suspect it will be OK.

valiant67 · Jul 11, 2008

has anyone used a hiedts universal crossmember. what arms do you use.

2 Darts · Jul 22, 2008

I agree that if the springs and anti-roll bars are stiff, 3 inches of rebound should be enough on smooth streets. Suggest 7-8 inches total suspension travel for smooth street use. Here at the Edge of the World, 10-12 is better.
Mustang II/Pinto has shorter control arms which = more camber change though wheel travel.
Rack and pinion gives better steering feel than recirculating ball. Requires more muscle as speed drops or weight on front end increases.
Mopar TB has one of the lowest #s of unsprung weight in the industry. This makes for better ride and better control.