• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

66 'vert - Big Block? MII front is already in!

  • Thread starter Thread starter mtbdoc
  • Start date Start date Mar 13, 2006
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 13, 2006
#1
  • Mar 13, 2006
  • #1
I have been going 'round and 'round. I really need to settle on an approach, as I need to get on with the work. As a brief synopsis of the car:

1966 Convertible: much chassis work already done w/ 9" rear, 12" tires under stock sheet metal; lots of structural steel; dual rollbars and no back seat.

R&C Motorsports front end mods DONE - enough room for turbos or a big block. 3" cowl hood allows room for intake tract.

I was going to use a Ford B50 331 + AFR 185's + KB blower @ 12psi...but I'm getting used to a LOT of power in my GTO, and believe this combo will do well w/ a road course suspension in the 2+2. So I've been exploring a stroked 351W + turbo(s). And that is where it gets complicated. There is a catch-22 to this horsepower race for the small blocks, as it becomes necessary to shell out >$2000 for an aftermarket block for >600hp. Those blocks are heavier, and adding turbos, intercooler, etc provide even more weight.

Now I have an offer of a stock 460 to stick in the car. I have been searching far-and-wide for other cars w/ a big-block + MII suspension conversion but no real info so far. Searching the 460 arena shows me that good heads/cam/manifold/carb can make a TON of streetable power.

So...I decided to drag some of you into my own little private obsessional pit! The MII is not the end-all for cornering, and the big block won't help. But I doubt there is that much weight difference from a turbo'd 351W (dart).

Please weigh-in with your thoughts
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Mar 13, 2006
#2
  • Mar 13, 2006
  • #2
If you had to go Dart, I'd say that it would be lighter than a 460 anyday. Stay small with an 8.2. You can still TONS of HP with a good ol' 302. Or a stroker if your going to spend the money on durable parts anyways. I think 500rwhp will be more than a track and slicks can handle. maybe not, there is a wastegate spring that is easy to change.
 
S

steel1212

Active Member
Jun 24, 2004
1,180
0
36
Frankfort, Ky
Mar 14, 2006
#3
  • Mar 14, 2006
  • #3
10secgoal said:
maybe not, there is a wastegate spring that is easy to change.
Click to expand...

Need more horsepower? Get a heavier spring lol.
 
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 14, 2006
#4
  • Mar 14, 2006
  • #4
Until the block goes split! Or, go back to the $5000 shortblock...and that is a tough sell on the homefront. Just realize that this leads down the 15-20,000 road...and that just isn't an option.

As I posted on the turbo thread, I am actually looking at a blown 408...negotiations are in progress!
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Mar 14, 2006
#5
  • Mar 14, 2006
  • #5
Always an option. but I LOVE my 3.25's. About 75% of the reason I went that route.
 

mdjay

Premium Sponsor
Dec 9, 2003
896
0
16
Las Vegas, NV
Mar 14, 2006
#6
  • Mar 14, 2006
  • #6
I just went for a ride in my friends 408 stroker and it's plenty fast with lots of torque. Supercharge it and you'll be breakin the sound barrier.
 

Dark Knight

Founding Member
Feb 1, 2000
2,578
0
0
Chandler, Az.
Mar 15, 2006
#7
  • Mar 15, 2006
  • #7
The 351w block can handle more than 500HP, it's the 302 that breaks..

You could also go with the M-6010-B58 block for the 351.. you can find them for $1200 or less if you look.. not a 4-bolt, but it will handle some HP..
 

Stangninjak

Member
Apr 16, 2004
324
2
19
Mar 15, 2006
#8
  • Mar 15, 2006
  • #8
yes I would have to say try a 351w block..then stroke it up to what floats your boat. The 351 is still light, and can handle the power you are looking for.

Also how hard is it to install that Mustang II front ? Is it really worth it, say over flaming river or a randles rack ?
 
5

5.0ina66

Member
Jun 6, 2003
664
0
16
Ohio
Mar 15, 2006
#9
  • Mar 15, 2006
  • #9
Stangninjak said:
Is it really worth it, say over a flaming river rack ?
Click to expand...
Anything is more worthwhile than that POS. IMHO, a Randall's rack and all of the opentracker mods will run circles around a MII setup.
 
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 15, 2006
#10
  • Mar 15, 2006
  • #10
5.0ina66 said:
Anything is more worthwhile than that POS. IMHO, a Randall's rack and all of the opentracker mods will run circles around a MII setup.
Click to expand...

And you have personally driven how many of these cars? And which setup(s)? Which control arms? Which shocks? What is your road racing experience? HPDE? Open track days?

Martz chassis is building some full-on road course cars with their version. Year One built an amazing car using the Martz parts. Call up Martz if you have questions about camber curves, roll center, etc, for his cars.

The MII setup is NOT the ultimate handling suspension and this 'vert was never designed to be. That is what my 2+2 is for. I wouldn't have set this car up with leafs inward to allow 12" tires under the rear wheels as a corner carver!!! I am looking for 650+ rwhp for this car. Front wheels in the air with hard launch. My daily driver is 500rhwp and this car will be a toy. A car show, cruising, straight line toy. Semi-capable in the twisties is fine.

I love the internet where everyone is an expert...so why am I even responding to this clown?
 

mdjay

Premium Sponsor
Dec 9, 2003
896
0
16
Las Vegas, NV
Mar 15, 2006
#11
  • Mar 15, 2006
  • #11
There's nothing wrong with the MII set-up. The tubular arm design preferred. It's actually a lower roll center in the front. You get the double wishbone design and a rack as well. It's a viable alternative.

The only complaint I've ever heard is the spindles are smaller??? I've never heard of one breaking them!

Most of the problems people have is they put something very heavy in there. It wouldn't matter what suspension you have if you are lumping a lot of weight, the car is going to understeer.
 
5

5.0ina66

Member
Jun 6, 2003
664
0
16
Ohio
Mar 15, 2006
#12
  • Mar 15, 2006
  • #12
mtbdoc said:
I love the internet where everyone is an expert...so why am I even responding to this clown?
Click to expand...
Whoa...way to jump off the deep end! What I meant to say was Flaming River rack = POS. I hope that's more clear. That said, I'd personally prefer a fully modified stock setup with a TCP or Randall's rack, but that's just me, no hard science, not trying to be an "expert", JMO.
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Mar 16, 2006
#13
  • Mar 16, 2006
  • #13
Doc, why try to twist that 'vert ? why not get stupid with a much more solid, lighter car ?
 
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 16, 2006
#14
  • Mar 16, 2006
  • #14
5.0ina66 said:
Whoa...way to jump off the deep end! What I meant to say was Flaming River rack = POS. I hope that's more clear. That said, I'd personally prefer a fully modified stock setup with a TCP or Randall's rack, but that's just me, no hard science, not trying to be an "expert", JMO.
Click to expand...

My apologies...I misunderstood what was the antecedant to your "anything"...and there are a LOT of people that slam the MII setups. But it's hard to argue when you want more room, r&p, and disc brakes. But my question still remains, and not just to you, but others: who has extensive experience driving several different suspension setups in these cars and can give VALID feedback. That is what is so hard in all of this. We are essentially buying parts based on what someone is trying to market to us. There is data in there, but certainly it is colored. When I first talked to RRS 2 yrs ago, they were trying to tell me about the superiority of their product, purely based on handling, not simply as a package with decent handling, good breaks, and easy install. One doesn't need to know that much to understand that strut setups are NOT as good as a well designed SLA. BMW's handle DESPITE their struts, not BECAUSE of it.

This thread is now superflous, at least for me. I have actually committed to a course of action for this car, the blown 408. I will have some real information down the road...

9.9sec [come on, you gotta think positively...get into the single digits!], I have gone back and forth on that front. The 2+2 will get built slowly, as there is a $$ issue. I've finished my GTO, have accumulated a LOT of parts for the 'vert, and somehow, it just seems cool to have a totally SMOKIN' convertible. And all of the power has got to have some rubber. I seriously doubt that the EVM rear suspension is going to allow 12+ inch tires, but I'm already there with the vert. As I have stated elsewhere, I envision my 2+2 as a road course car for open tracking [not going to go door-to-door in a classic...just can't see it!] utilizing the 331 sportsman block/AFR185/KB 2.2 blow-flow parts I have had for a couple of years [picking up deals whenever and wherever!]. That should net 500+rwhp w/ a FLAT torque curve...so it won't be slow. My wife's WRX is what feels slow since crossing the dark side and buying a GM[aussie] product, and then shoving a bunch of boost down its 10.9:1 compression throat.
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Mar 16, 2006
#15
  • Mar 16, 2006
  • #15
mtbdoc said:
9.9sec [come on, you gotta think positively...
Click to expand...
You cut me deep just then Doc, you cut me deep.
Well, it's unofficial, but it's a 10 sec car (on pump gas ) to me. 7 flats are border line. But the car WILL go 6.80's-6.90 once I get a transbrake, even if the traction still sucks as it does. Which is definetly 10's. But the tracks are to far away at this point to make a trip to get kicked out for no cage. so it is 9secgoal righ tnow, just haven't changed the name because I don't have the slip to make it concrete.
No pokes from me dude at all. Do what you gotta do. Just hate to see a nice vert end up twisted. But if you can stop it, kick some ass bass !!
 
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 17, 2006
#16
  • Mar 17, 2006
  • #16
All in fun!

I am trusting my fabrication guys that the structural work will do it's job. They really are good...but then again, this is a convertible.

My old pictures around here show the rear re-frame work.



The forward leaf-mount cross member piece is also used for the base of the roll bars above Then there is another tube going forward to the seat base torque box. Then there will likely be round tubing running along parallel to the base of the door, which THEN ties in to a under-dash bar/hoop...hope that makes sense. And also further tied to the front frame rails.

LOTS of steel, too much weight...but my engine builder is telling me >740 hp @ 12psi, so all of that weight can get moving.

I guess this info ought to be in a different thread as it has NOTHING to do with big blocks!
 

Cobra5.0Jeep

Member
Nov 4, 2005
159
0
17
Grass Valley, CA
Mar 17, 2006
#17
  • Mar 17, 2006
  • #17
mtbdoc,
do you have any pics of your MII install? can i see how you did under the hood to make more room? Did you put new sides in the engine bay after the towers were removed?

Also your running 12 inch tires in the rear, what did you do for that?

I have a 68 Fastback that i am going to put a MII front in it, redo the engine compartment so it looks like there never was towers, then i wanna put a 9" in the rear and run 12 inch or wider tires WITHOUT ruining the interior with a tub. I still want the backseat to be fully functional.

I plan on dropping a 600HP 428FE motor in my Fastback.
 

mdjay

Premium Sponsor
Dec 9, 2003
896
0
16
Las Vegas, NV
Mar 18, 2006
#18
  • Mar 18, 2006
  • #18
Cobra5.0Jeep said:
mtbdoc,
do you have any pics of your MII install? can i see how you did under the hood to make more room? Did you put new sides in the engine bay after the towers were removed?
Click to expand...

Doc, nice rear subs, but the underside of that car is really rough. I would change the whole darn floor...

Did a recent article on our MII install last year. One of the magazine co's have been sitting on this for some time. Hope it helps...
http://www.mustangdepot.com/graphics/RoomforMore.pdf
 

jbsteven

New Member
Sep 4, 2004
156
0
0
Mar 18, 2006
#19
  • Mar 18, 2006
  • #19
347 with 200hp shot of nos in mine. goes pretty good with a AOD.
 

Attachments

  • Dsc00231a.webp
    46 KB · Views: 150
  • P1010012b.webp
    37.6 KB · Views: 144
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 18, 2006
#20
  • Mar 18, 2006
  • #20
mdjay said:
Doc, nice rear subs, but the underside of that car is really rough. I would change the whole darn floor...
Click to expand...

Those are OLD pictures...lots of changes since then! Nice and shiny now.

jbsteven said:
347 with 200hp shot of nos in mine. goes pretty good with a AOD.
Click to expand...

Only when the bottle is full / heated / good pressure / armed / etc...which is my problem with NOS for a street car. You just never know when you may need to put the fear of God into someone [including yourself!].

Yeah, my flight of fantasy [stuffing a big block in this thing] only lasted a couple of days...>400 cubes small block + boost is going to be fun.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fox Build ideas for the 'Hudson Heap' (87 GT)
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Sep 19, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 27, 2023
MadSquirrelTech
Swap or Build?
  • Cammer429
  • Oct 10, 2020
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
3K
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Oct 18, 2020
weendoggy
9
Deletes and other mods while engine is out?
  • 995spdgt
  • May 19, 2019
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
701
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 19, 2019
995spdgt
9
  • Locked
“Doing stuff the wrong way for the right reasons”: A related stupid story.
  • CarMichael Angelo
  • Apr 26, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 27, 2020
a91what
K
Project Ideas (2006 S197)
  • Kitsune187
  • Apr 22, 2019
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
1K
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 22, 2019
Kitsune187
K
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?