Register now to get rid of these ads!

How to Mustang II, Deux!

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by ELpolacko, Sep 10, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ayers Garage
    Joined: Nov 28, 2002
    Posts: 1,382

    Ayers Garage
    Member

    I certainly wouldn't ever attempt to answer for Steve, I'm just a mechanic with much less knowledge of suspension than him. But, I ran a normal width MII under my 54 Chevy and it was no where near too wide and I would not have wanted it any narrower.

    This is with some fairly offset wheels under the front to get the track width out to where I liked it. With the stock offset wheels, it looked plenty narrow. I can't imagine it being any further narrowed.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. tiredford
    Joined: Apr 6, 2009
    Posts: 560

    tiredford
    Member
    from Mo.

    Just what I was thinking!!!
     
  3. johnwd98
    Joined: Jul 21, 2010
    Posts: 74

    johnwd98
    Member
    from Minnesota

    Thanks for your replies! I'm trying to learn what's best for my Fleetline. I guess what I don't understand is why vendors for MII advertise varying widths. If its Mustang II they should all be the same.
    Ayers Garage, what brand MII did you use?
     
  4. Ayers Garage
    Joined: Nov 28, 2002
    Posts: 1,382

    Ayers Garage
    Member

    I used the fatmans ultra low with stock spindles
     
  5. need louvers ?
    Joined: Nov 20, 2008
    Posts: 12,903

    need louvers ?
    Member

    That's part of what the MustangII stuff has become. The origunal hub to hub width is 56 1/2". The hub to hub to hub on one with the Granada rotors is right at 58". Different manufacturers have started to offer kits in various widths to fit different applications. Once again, you start widening or narrowing kits and not goemetrically compensiting for those changes the whole thing goes out the window. Just my opinion, but if you have to widen a MustangII set up, it's time to look at other options.

    Your car is one of the easiest on the planet to do the MustangII deal on. Matter of fact, back in the old days Steve and I used to transplant them into those with a stock crossmember from a MustangII or Pinto in just an afternoon or so. go back and read what he was talking about at the very first couple of paragraphs of this thread about kit types as being either Heidt's type or Fat Man type and read the discription. Look for a Heidt's type kit and you'll be golden.

    My '48 Plymouth has a stock Pinto crossmember with Granada discs and I run a 205/60-15 on a 7" 4" backspace wheel. It's a bit narrower than your Fleetline and I still have plenty of tire clearence even at my car's low ride height. Following similar guidelines you'll do fine on yours.
     
  6. Mr48chev
    Joined: Dec 28, 2007
    Posts: 33,983

    Mr48chev
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Boy howdy, thanks for digging this back up. It's exactly what I need to get my head straight on how to deal with my "universal" crossmember.
     
  7. concreteman
    Joined: May 25, 2008
    Posts: 1,171

    concreteman
    Member

    Great post -Thanks for all the hard work putting it together- I have a Mustang 2 in my all steel 34 -runs great -drive the shit out of it - have not been arrested by the police yet :eek:
    Shit when I think about it my wifes Redd wheel car is on the GG event shirt
    :eek::eek::eek: always running from the law:D
     
  8. johnwd98
    Joined: Jul 21, 2010
    Posts: 74

    johnwd98
    Member
    from Minnesota

    I've read this thread from the beginning and learned the differences between the Fatman style and the Heidts style. Makes sense to me to go with the Heidts style and add the extra support to the rear of the lower control arm. Also I'm wondering if I couldn't just make some large 3/16" washers for the t-bolts that hold the upper control arm in place instead of doubling up the thickness of the upper spring mount (top hat)?
     
  9. carlos
    Joined: May 2, 2005
    Posts: 1,387

    carlos
    Member
    from ohio

    I am with you Elpolacko I am not a fan on the wider lower control arm I am for the strut style with the bushings like the original style Ford Motor MII design.Actually using the stock crossmember from a MII I feel is best
     
  10. mxman35a
    Joined: Jan 18, 2013
    Posts: 2

    mxman35a
    Member
    from utah

    So first off this info was amazing my question is I'm want to get a 60 inch hub to hub wheel base as long as I equally move out all mounting points including shock tower I will still be able to keep the correct geometry... also I see that fatman has made rack and pinion extenders that extend it from the inner pivot point inorder to keep the correct geometry as well will this work? Thank you
     
  11. Chunkstyle
    Joined: Feb 22, 2012
    Posts: 1

    Chunkstyle
    Member

    Hi guys --


    I'm a newcomer here, and have been very interested in this thread. El Polacko really seems to know his stuff, and I appreciate him sharing his knowledge here. I'm hoping to possibly adapt a MII front suspension for use under an old VW-based Sterling kit car body from the 1970's, as part of a fabricated chassis I'm trying to plan out. I'm trying to learn all I can about these front suspensions.


    As a newcomer to chassis design, I was wondering if anyone could take a look at these sketches & let me know if I'm understanding the part of Steve's instructions, shown in his drawing #4, in which he talks about the typical "sleeve-welded-on-both-sides-of the-crossmember" lower A-arm pivot being too weak & suggests adding a bracket behind the arm to strengthen it.


    Is this (below) a correct understanding of what he means on that point? In post #13 of this thread, user "50CHEVY" asks what I believe is the same question, but I'm so dumb I need to sketch it out to visualize it. I'm kinda dense about stuff sometimes, and just wanted to be sure.


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    Thank you!


    And one other stupid question, if someone could please answer: I'm gathering, from Steve's info & drawings, that the anti-dive built into the pivot mount for the upper A-arm is tilted so that the BACK end (toward the rear of the car) of the pivot shaft is lower than the front end. Is this correct? The guys at Welder Series also have a sketch of the anti-dive tilt in their catalog, but it doesn't show which way is front. It appears that, since the upper spring seat is tilted along with the upper pivot shaft, the coil spring would end up being compressed slightly unevenly (slightly more compressed at the side of the spring toward the rear of the car). Is that part of what the anti-dive's about -- uneven loading of the spring? Or is the tilted upper spring seat just an unintended side effect of that design, and unimportant? In other words, is anti-dive all about the tilt of the upper pivot & has nothing to do with any slight oddity in how the spring's compressed?

    And Steve also seems to be planning for the upper ball joint to be about 1/2" behind the vertical CL of the crossmember, with the offset slots in the upper spring perch assembly he shows? Apparently, this provides needed caster? And the front suspension needs both -- the anti-dive AND the caster? Am I getting this right?

    Sorry if these are idiotic questions, and for trying to resurrect an ancient thread. Very new to this stuff, and trying to understand it properly.


    Thank you for any insight anyone could offer.


    Drew Joseph
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.