Post pics of mustang II front ends
- Thread starter 1sick65
- Start date
wicked93gs
15 Year Member
bad design, frame rails cant take the load, blah blah blah, what a bunch of B/S usually coming from people who have never done the conversion..whatever, anyway, some pictures of mine
by the way, if you can complete a MII conversion, you can make your own tranny crossmember easily enough...personally I took a SN95 tranny crossmember and welded brackets to attach it to the frame...but I also used a t45
by the way, if you can complete a MII conversion, you can make your own tranny crossmember easily enough...personally I took a SN95 tranny crossmember and welded brackets to attach it to the frame...but I also used a t45
RogerC62
Founding Member
I think most MII kits have made improvements over the original MII set up. Having said that, there are features of the Heidts and Rod & Custom kits I don't like. Not all MII kits are created equal. Personally I prefer my control arms anchored in double shear where the car will be used in any performance situation other than street cruising.
What I'm going to use.
brh66cobra,
Hit "enter" between your pics, it stacks them so you don't have to scroll across the screen.
rusty428cj
10 Year Member
wicked93gs
15 Year Member
you know, I have to ask...have you ever installed one of these? the only difference structurally between a MII and stock setup is you lose the triangulation provided by the export brace(s) the stock setup has, thats it...and the factory didnt even put the export braces in there to triangulate the firewall to the frame anyway, they installed them to prevent the shock towers from sagging together, which isnt an issue with the MII setup...I will be the first to admit that any installation should include extra bracing for triangulation and possibly some bracing to allow the installation of some type of export brace and monte carlo bar...however it isnt strictly needed and lacking it would not make the car any weaker
as for the geometry, it really isnt that bad...actual Mustang IIs can pull 1G on the skidpad with relatively minor modifications(and handle pretty well to boot) the main issue s the UCA mounting slots...they can be lengthened however to increase negative camber, the only real issue with the setup is as racer x stated, the UCA mounting leaves a lot to be desired....however the updated heidts superide kit has taken care of that issue...as for those of us with the older Heidts kit(and presumably those with the R&C kit as well) retrofitting some new UCAs and double shear brackets would seem to be the answer and it doesnt seem as if it would be too difficult, although there would be less toe in and toe out adjustability, so correct alignment of those brackets would be critical
I think most MII kits have made improvements over the original MII set up. Having said that, there are features of the Heidts and Rod & Custom kits I don't like. Not all MII kits are created equal. Personally I prefer my control arms anchored in double shear where the car will be used in any performance situation other than street cruising.
What I'm going to use.
brh66cobra,
Hit "enter" between your pics, it stacks them so you don't have to scroll across the screen.
RacerX, what setup is that? I don't think I've seen this one before.
RogerC62
Founding Member
S&W Racecars extreme duty MII style set up.
http://www.swracecars.com/Files/pdf/CATpg25.pdf
They're primarily drag stuff but this kit looks beefy enough for some serious street/track duty. I downloaded the assembly manual and read through it and think its durable enough.
you are right, I have never installed a MII. When i decided to upgrade my 65 falcon suspension, I looked at every kit out there. I studied as much suspension geometry analysis as i could. The original mounting points for a MII are just horrible. So if the companies modify the MII to get better geometry i have not found one company to post up their analysis. What kind of camber gain, roll center.....etc. Also if i was to take a MII and modify it i would try to avoid calling it an MII. If you are not running a full frame then of course you need some added structure. Im not trying to prove my point just give my opinion incase the OP did not know some of the downsides of the MII.
Coleman
New Member
wicked93gs
15 Year Member
oh, I certainly agree that the suspension pickup points arent optimal, but I dont think they are horrible either...the design suffers from poor negative camber gain(unless the length of the adjustment slots is increased, or another mod with the same effect is applied) however, it is a very compact suspension with a lot of other benefits(rack and pinion, disc brakes, optional coilovers, blah blah) true, for a real track car, I would much prefer opentracker stuff, but for a street car, the suspension is fine, I dont even believe extra bracing is really needed, I'm sure it helps and is a good idea...but no, I dont think its actually needed. I will be adding it to mine at some point before I am done, but as the car sits now I believe its just as strong as stock...the stock shock towers attach to the frame rail...all load goes down to the frame rail whether its the stock setup or a MII setup...there is no load carried by the flimsy fender aprons
http://streetrodtechnology.com/gall....DownloadItem&g2_itemId=393&g2_serialNumber=2
when you get to this stage, you can wiggle the fender aprons by just slightly leaning on the top of any of them...the whole thing bows and pops...until you weld (or possibly bolt) the patch panels back in...in effect the suspension pickup point is on the frame rails regardless...people seem to think the shock towers magically transfer the pickup point to the unibody structure...this is simply not true...the fender aprons are way too flimsy....if you dont believe me take a spot weld cutter and cut the spot welds holding the shock towers to the frame rails while leaving the fender apron spot welds intact and see what happens when that car is driven down the road(disclaimer: dont really do this, its just a point I am trying to prove)
http://streetrodtechnology.com/gall....DownloadItem&g2_itemId=393&g2_serialNumber=2
when you get to this stage, you can wiggle the fender aprons by just slightly leaning on the top of any of them...the whole thing bows and pops...until you weld (or possibly bolt) the patch panels back in...in effect the suspension pickup point is on the frame rails regardless...people seem to think the shock towers magically transfer the pickup point to the unibody structure...this is simply not true...the fender aprons are way too flimsy....if you dont believe me take a spot weld cutter and cut the spot welds holding the shock towers to the frame rails while leaving the fender apron spot welds intact and see what happens when that car is driven down the road(disclaimer: dont really do this, its just a point I am trying to prove)
Hey guys, sorry to butt into your forum, but your site popped up at the top of the list for the answer to my question. And my wife also owns a '68 6cylinder coupe that my son disassembled and gathered all of the suspension parts to convert it to a V8, but since lost interest if that helps.
So, does anybody know the center of upper ball joint to center of lower ball joint dimension on your Mustang II front suspensions? I am looking for a dropped spindle that might be able to be crafted onto the control arms on my '72 Volvo 1800. I am looking at Wilwood’s dropped spindles and am drawing it up on AutoCAD software.
About all that I know right now is that the spindle is about .775” taller, and that the Wilwood spindle's 11deg. inclination in place of my Volvo’s 8 deg., along with the taller spindle and increased upper control arm angle will be kind of close to working, assuming my ball joint centers are about 9.7” apart. This should give me a nicer camber gain as well as allowing me to get the lower control arms up to a more horizontal direction and raise my roll center more than 1.75” above the ground.
I would be welding in new Pinto style screw-in ball joint sleeves and ball joints from Stock Car Products.
Thanks for any replies.
So, does anybody know the center of upper ball joint to center of lower ball joint dimension on your Mustang II front suspensions? I am looking for a dropped spindle that might be able to be crafted onto the control arms on my '72 Volvo 1800. I am looking at Wilwood’s dropped spindles and am drawing it up on AutoCAD software.
About all that I know right now is that the spindle is about .775” taller, and that the Wilwood spindle's 11deg. inclination in place of my Volvo’s 8 deg., along with the taller spindle and increased upper control arm angle will be kind of close to working, assuming my ball joint centers are about 9.7” apart. This should give me a nicer camber gain as well as allowing me to get the lower control arms up to a more horizontal direction and raise my roll center more than 1.75” above the ground.
I would be welding in new Pinto style screw-in ball joint sleeves and ball joints from Stock Car Products.
Thanks for any replies.
wicked93gs
15 Year Member
I believe on willwood's site they have technical drawings with all measurements of their new 2" drop spindle...not sure whether they have the original height one as well...but i believe I saw an old thread around here a year or so ago that did
Yes, I have that diagram. I can't remember if they said how much taller their spindle is off hand though. What I need to know is the distance between the ball joint pivots. I searched for about 30 minutes on this site, but came up with nothing yet. I will do a google search of this site when I get a chance.
E-mailing these spindle retailers never works, I never get a reply, maybe I shouldn't use the word Volvo in my sentence?
Maybe somebody really nice with a MII front end could just measure them for me?
E-mailing these spindle retailers never works, I never get a reply, maybe I shouldn't use the word Volvo in my sentence?
Maybe somebody really nice with a MII front end could just measure them for me?
Similar threads
