FatMan Front Ends & Similar - Educate Me

OK - Been on here a while, a lurker long before that - never set out to be a hot rod guy, I've always been a 'restoration' guy. Not to say I don't want to be a hot rod guy, but that's just the history I have.

I've got one '55 Olds that I'm considering doing a 'resto-mod' on and on most build threads for cars of this era, the first thing everyone does is a new front clip or IFS.

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, the reasons - or even the options for that matter - aren't 100% clear.

I'm thinking of complications with remounting sheetmetal, bumpers, fender wells - not to mention the engine mounts etc. And if you use a Mustang II kit aren't you now married to Ford wheel bolt patterns for the front discs?

Are these conversions mostly done for handling? For parts availability? For disc brakes? For power steering (Racks)? All of the above?

I drive a '55 Olds daily on the OE kingpins and power steering and, yeah - it's not a corner hugger, but it safely travels highway speeds and goes where I point it. I have a disc brake kit on the original uprights and could lower the stance with the available ones to accomplish the lowering aspect if I wanted.

Given the fact that FatMan (and others) is a successful company, I'm sure I'm in the minority when I say that I don't 'get it' - but that's the reason for this post...maybe I will.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

 

you can have ANY bolt pattern you want on a Mustang II front end

 

All of the above, and in many cases to solve engine swap issues. The newer suspensions usually aren't as 'tall' and you can get those large frame spring pocket 'knuckles' out of there for exhaust clearance.

 

Ditto. There's a reason MII is so popular, you don't hack your frame and lose all the mounting points (typically).

 

Again, at the risk of sounding like a fool, I thought you had to cut away your old frame (forward of the firewall anyways) and replace with the new MII assy? That's what I've inferred from what I've been reading / watching (videos)

 

how heavy of a car can you use the MII on? My 49 packard with a large straight eight which weighs alot, will the MII be stout enough?

 

Anymore, the MII swaps come in two flavors. Bolt-in or weld-in. Either one attaches to the original frame unlike the 'old-school' days where you had to use the original Ford crossmember and adapt it to your frame. The new ones are engineered to install easily.
I had one done to a '49 Chevy of mine and helped out installing one in a '48 Chevy. Both were slick installations.
There are many advantages to this type of IFS. Better ride and parts availability are a couple along with disc brakes. I had 11" Chevy discs on my '49 and a Chevy bolt pattern, but it could have been a Ford bolt pattern if I chose. The rack and pinion steering is a good improvement over the older style box, too.
Take a look at the original frame. Most of the old cars have the cross member riveted in or even bolted in. Either way, it's a snap to remove the original one and place the MII. Just keep your level and tape measure handy throughout the process.
r

 

Yes bubblesbacon the mll would be perfectly fine in your car. and olds dad, it is a frame stub for your car which you do have to cut your frame off just infront of your firewall. but fatman gives you clear directions how to install this kit. all front sheetmetal is mounted off radiator support, motor mounts are optional aswell. steering is pretty easy to do aswell. I work at gambino kustoms and we are one of fatmans biggest dealers. if you have anymore questions you can call me at 209 814 1431. thanks, jonny

 

If I had a big car like yours and was keeping it stock, I'd leave the factory setup and just rebuild it. But being a hot rodder, If I modified the engine and other power train pieces, I'd run a Fatman Mustang II setup. From what I've seen, they look very well done and you can't beat the newer technology.

 

Some you do, some you don't. A lot of the mid-fifties cars where the spring pockets are a integral part of the frame, yeah you have to clip them at the firewall and replace everything forward. I believe some of the kits now come with radiator supports, etc already engineered and furnished for specific cars, but on some you'll still have to do the fab work.

But for anything with reasonably straight/level framerails in front, you can usually just remove the OEM suspension mounts back to the bare rails, install the M2 crossmember and be good to go. For forties or older cars, it's usually just a matter of knocking the front crossmember out. They're also popular with the sixties Ford guys to get rid of the shock towers.

Not always THE answer for every project, but can definitely be less trouble than trying to adapt stuff to what's there.

 

The original suspension is a very good system, very long control arm and plenty of suspension travel. Staying with an Olds motor upgrading with disc, rebuilding, adding dropped spindles and a heavy sway bar for both the front and rear would give a great ride and good stopping. Draw back is the stock steering/power steering remains, getting enough positive caster to keep it from wandering can be an issue with some and better shocks.

 

Fatman builds a stub for this car, not a bolt-in/weldin Stang 11 style x-member

 

Your replies have been very helpful.

A couple of questions / clarifications if you don't mind

Confirmations / clarifications:

- I would be able to obtain rotors with the factory bolt pattern to keep my wheels the same (obviously modifying to accomodate disc set up as reqd)

- I assume that the factory PS pump would be fine and fittings to mate with the MII rack are reasonably available

- The sheet metal is supported mostly by the radiator support, which is accounted for in the new front stub assembly

- THe Olds motor (supported only in the front, and at the rear trans x member) is easily accomodated

- A kit for this car (55 Olds) would have the correct track width and center the front wheels in the same location as the car originally had

And...finally, questions:

I would like to retain the OE steering column - obviously would require cutting and use of the available U-joint systems - is this feasible with this setup?

And, outside of the obvious skillset required (welding, measuring, common sense & directions reading) - any signficant obstacles that I should consider outside of what I've listed here?

You guys are great & your replies are convincing me this may be the way to go.

 

Rebuild the stock setup and add disc brakes and you will love it.

 

This is an ongoing debate. I for 1 think Mustang 2 stuff is way Wrong. It is Not a fits all unit for everything even though you can buy a Kit. Think about what it was built for to start with then compare it to what you want it under. I know I could have put 1 under my 51 Ford but I also have driven the Fat Man unit under one of them. I'd throw rocks at it if it were mine. I ended up with a Nova clip and it will out drive my buddys with the M-2 unit. He has even said he wished his drove as nice as mine. Yes it's a lot of work but isn't a better driver why we do this or is it to be like everyone else? In 1976 I owned a 50 Olds 2d Fastback. I put a 70 Olds cutlas sub frame under it with a 455 in it. Drove well, steered well, stopped well. Ran like Jack the Bear. You have options. Up Grading just what's there is also not a bad idea. Just a different outlook from an Old Fart. M-2 is not a fix all.
The Wizzard

 

Your stock wheels will not fit the disc brakes on a 5 on 5 bolt patern , an after market wheel will work if set up correctly and you use a smaller caliper .

Fittings to adapt your PS to the rack are available .

The new stub will have a raidiater suport in it .

Your fine with the stock olds motor .

Track width is the same and the front wheels will be in the same location .

You can modifie your stock colume , cut down to correct size , bearing installed at the end and ether machine the shaft end to a DD , tig a DD piece at the end of the shaft .

None , and were a dealer if you deside to go this route ....

 

I would just rebuild the front suspension,it is a far cry from the pin and link earlier suspensions,,add disc and improve braking and enjoy driving the car. HRP

 

Hello, to reply to your post,I worked a FAT MANS and have used many front ends that he makes. I have a 55 olds with a mustang 2 under it and it drives great.I also have one under my 32 ford roadst and 51 ford coupe.

 

Check out a thread here by ElPolacko about putting a jag Xj6 front end under a '57 olds and the one Z-man did eons ago with a '55 Buick, please. I am one of the greatest PROPONENTS of Mustang IIs, but they have to be under the right car. I also am one of the biggest OPPONENTS of "revised geometry" Mustang II which your targeted brand is the major offender of. The Jag components are of a matching weight vehicle, similar use vehicle, have modern camber curve and actual caster, a rack and pinion, are of a cassette nature which means everything bolts to a cross member as unit, and are common as flies at a dairy farm and cheap in wrecking yards. You canmake your install as technical as ElPolacko's if your skills are up to it, or as simple as Z-mans if your a little less confident. With Z-man's method your frame is actually never completely severed, so everything mounts as it should and where it should. Please, I'm beggin' ya, take a look at these installs before going with Fat Man stuff...

 

I looked at both of those threads...may be a notch or 2 above my skill set -

I'm certainly not married to FatMan - just a brand that I thought was knowledgable.

What do you mean by the "revised geometry" MII setup?>..and why is it a bad thing?

Thanks again

 

I did not want a Mustang II under my 41 Plymouth....I did install fatman fab dropped uprights.... and sent my stock spindle out to Brake Tech Solutions.. in NC.. They did all the machining, and set them up with an 11 chevy rotor..... But I had my choice of a few..... Since I switched to Discs in the front, I had to change my master cylinder..... I used ECI's bellcrank to keep the pedal in the same position, and same with the new Master cylinder.... It amplified the rod..... It really was affordable... I think I had about $700 into it all....

My bet is Brake tech has a setup for you..... Elpolacko is the man though...

 

I'll second that. I've got a PO-installed M2 front under my '47 Ford, and while much better than the original transverse spring/I-beam, I won't say that I'm all that impressed with it. Would it be better than the mid-fifties olds? Yeah, probably. For sure in terms of handling/braking, but maybe not so much for ride quality. Remember, the M2 started out in Pintos and was used because it was compact, plentiful, and cheap at the time, but it's still based on a Pinto....

I'm looking at swapping the full Jag suspension (front and rear) into my '47 and fully expect a big improvement in both ride and handling (I own Jags, so know how they drive; great suspension system, too bad the rest of the car is such a POS). Yeah, you won't get any 'instructions' for a Jag swap, but they mount at only four points if you use the OEM mounts (recommended). The only real issue is if you're trying to get the car real low in the front, you may have to do some frame notching. If you use the Jag rubber mounts, be sure to use the Jag steering joint at the rack as aftermarket ones won't allow for any forward/rear movement.

 

Our 54 Chevy has rebuilt stock stuff, cut coils and rides nice. I upgraded to a dual MC but kept the drums. Stops on a dime. I say rebuild what you have.

 

Rebuild your Olds. You got pwr. Stg. Already. You got disc brakes installed. No hassle to make the front sheet metal all line up. Your done and on the road.

 

Word - and there's a tech info group right here on the Hamb for those who understand the beauty of the Jag suspension. Paid $600 for a low mileage IFS AND IRS setup. Those who really know their stuff - and ElPolacko and need louvers are way up there at the top of the knowledge tree - know that this is a great and economical way to go. $300 clams gets you a complete front subframe with one of the best riding and handling setups out there, with power rack & pinion vented discs and 4 piston aluminum calipers plus you get the GM 5 on 4 3/4 bolt pattern too....

www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/group.php?groupid=855

 

"Revised geometry" Has been used as an actual advertising blurb in the not too distant past with Mustang II stuff. What actually happens with MOST of the kits out there is the manufacturers are not shy about moving critical dimensions away from a standard specified Mustang II geometry, seldom for the better!

The most common I can think of involves the spread of the upper and lower A-arm inner pivots. !0" is right at where they sit on a standard Pinto cross member. I just walked out into 110 degrees to double check my memory. On a frame with deep side rail, say 5", that gets really hard to package when installing - so let's open that up to 11" - what's the harm, right? the harm is the camber curve AND the roll center go whacky! Not enough you can't drive the car mind you, it just never stops feeling "nervous" especially in hard corners no matter how many times you have them aligned or checked.

Another is width. 56" hub to hub to narrow? Hell, just make it 2" wider - Wait, lets put this thing under a truck... Make it 4" wider!!! Roll center drops off the charts. Bad deal. Plus, later on after the project has been passed along, we see threads here on the H.A.M.B. whith questions like, "My rack is to narrow, can I just extend the tie rods out? NOPE! You need the correct rack extenders, on the proper sides. "Why?" 'cause your rack pivots will be way out of their pivot range with out.

Another quickie. It's easier to make a kit without anti-dive involved. Just get rid of it when designing, right? What can it hurt? Great, now your end user car hops like a cha cha bingo when you tag the brakes real hard!

The last one is weight. I have personally run a Mustang II in a car up to about 3400-3500 pounds. It worked okay, but it did go through suspension bushings fairly quickly. Was it optimal? NO. Safe? Ya. Better stuff out there for that particular purpose? Hell yes. In my 2800 pound '48 Plymouth avatar, my stock cross membered '80 Pinto front suspension is absolutely tits! I would say after ElPolacko's and my obsessing about this crap, and using my car as a test mule for the last twenty years, you would be hard pressed to find a better handling hot rod out there. It has shown it's tail to some very exotic sporty car stuff over it's street career, but then it's in the correct car to do it's job well.

The other that, I would point you towards be a G.M. '78-'87 A or G body clip. They were designed as radial tire became the norm when engineers figured out how to make camber curves work to their advantage, and are the proper width for your car. I'd still much rather do the Jag, though. Soooo much easier.

 

Yep, that's one of the things I don't like about mine. Not to the point of being scary, but you get the feeling you really need to be paying attention when steering. Mine also feels 'choppy' on some bumps in the road, very weird.

As to rebuilding the stock suspension, I always remember reading a vintage Popular Mechanix (circa '56) where they reviewed the current model Fords/Chevys/Plymouths. One photo showed a Ford heeled over in a turn (any more and you could have seen the undercarriage) with the front tire turned about 15 degrees more than the curve the car was doing (massive understeer) and the caption is 'Handling is above average'.... LOLOL!!!!

 

Thank you need louvers (and all the other repliers) for the time in answering this - it is a lot clearer now. I think I need to read up on a few more Jag suspension swaps and get a better feel - perhaps this is the way to go.

 

^^^Great - hopefully another convert - be sure to join the Jag IRS/IFS tech/social group - lots of info and help there. I posted the link on #25 - just click on it....

 

Will be watching this discussion.