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

Anyone Seen this before?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve69
  • Start date Start date Mar 23, 2006
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
S

Steve69

Member
May 11, 2005
233
0
16
Mar 23, 2006
#1
  • Mar 23, 2006
  • #1
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Must...4624904957QQcategoryZ6236QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
 

68torinogt

Hey guys, guess what--I have a bi-pass!!!
Mar 21, 2006
0
0
53
Welcome my son, welcome to the machine
Mar 23, 2006
#2
  • Mar 23, 2006
  • #2
nope but if it works its a good start to a nice car
 

Sundance

Founding Member
Mar 5, 2002
172
0
0
UT
Mar 24, 2006
#3
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #3
Great idea, but I see alot of flaws in the design!
 

2nd Mustang

Founding Member
Feb 24, 2002
2,488
0
46
Southern California
Mar 24, 2006
#4
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #4
"That's all you have to do."

I don't trust that line.
 
S

Steve69

Member
May 11, 2005
233
0
16
Mar 24, 2006
#5
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #5
Price seems a little high also.
 
5

5.0ina66

Member
Jun 6, 2003
664
0
16
Ohio
Mar 24, 2006
#6
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #6
2nd Mustang said:
"That's all you have to do."

I don't trust that line.
Click to expand...
Famous last words......
 

69Rcode_Mach1

Active Member
Apr 20, 2004
1,473
1
37
Salt Lake City, Utah
Mar 24, 2006
#7
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #7
Could be better, especially for that price tag.
 
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 24, 2006
#8
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #8
Wayne Due is building frames for 1st gen Camaros. I have also seen this frame, and tried to get more info. Art Morrison also does some frames.

The basic idea was something I wanted to look into when I was first doing my convertible, figuring that a serious chassis would be a good starting point for a performance convertible. I wasn't thrilled with what I found [this was >2 yrs ago] for the cost, and thus we started cutting and welding.

The Ring Brothers had a custom frame [Art Morrison IIRC] for their 'vert.
 

1320stang

Founding Member
Nov 13, 1998
4,329
23
89
Edmond, Oklahoma
Mar 24, 2006
#9
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #9
Shoot, I'd go to US Body Source and get a 'glass '67 body to put on it and avoid the rust. Granted, now your dealing with subpar 'glass, but it ain't rust and a 'glass body would be cheaper to start with.
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Mar 24, 2006
#10
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #10
Sundance said:
Great idea, but I see alot of flaws in the design!
Click to expand...
Care to share? Steering looks like there is not enough travel for the long looking steering arms on the spindles.
 

Sundance

Founding Member
Mar 5, 2002
172
0
0
UT
Mar 24, 2006
#11
  • Mar 24, 2006
  • #11
brianj5600 said:
Care to share? Steering looks like there is not enough travel for the long looking steering arms on the spindles.
Click to expand...

Well, to note a few problems;

The front swaybar looks like it may have ground clearence issues?

The upper A-arm heim joints are a little smaller then I would like, and the fact that every suspension point is solid would suck for a street car.

The worst thing I see is the upper and lower rear shock mounts are single sheer and stick way out. They look way weak.

The rear suspension is a satchel link four bar setup. If I was going to go to that much trouble to make a chassis like that I'd use a three link, or a properly designed parallel four link.

The rack and pinion input shaft looks like it would be a pain but other wise the nice long lower a-arms look good.

Good point about the spindle arms...guess its about on par with TCP stuff that everyone is gonzo about.
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Mar 25, 2006
#12
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #12
Man, I can't use it.

It says I have to cut off my front torque boxes first, but I don't have front torque boxes...

Other than that, I can't help but wonder how hard it really is to put a full frame under a unibody car.
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Mar 25, 2006
#13
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #13
If it functions good, seems damn good to me. Basically a built rear, and MII front end, and full frame for only 3k ? Gonna spend that on the MII
 
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 25, 2006
#14
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #14
10secgoal said:
If it functions good, seems damn good to me. Basically a built rear, and MII front end, and full frame for only 3k ? Gonna spend that on the MII
Click to expand...

It's not going anywhere near $3000!!! Notice the 'reserve not met'? That WOULD be a great price, no doubt. I'd look towards adapting it for an earlier model [likely do the TCP-type push-the-fender-sheetmetal-out trick].
 
M

mtbdoc

New Member
Nov 2, 2003
245
1
0
Mar 25, 2006
#15
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #15
Sundance said:
Well, to note a few problems;

The front swaybar looks like it may have ground clearence issues?

The upper A-arm heim joints are a little smaller then I would like, and the fact that every suspension point is solid would suck for a street car.

The worst thing I see is the upper and lower rear shock mounts are single sheer and stick way out. They look way weak.

The rear suspension is a satchel link four bar setup. If I was going to go to that much trouble to make a chassis like that I'd use a three link, or a properly designed parallel four link.

The rack and pinion input shaft looks like it would be a pain but other wise the nice long lower a-arms look good.

Good point about the spindle arms...guess its about on par with TCP stuff that everyone is gonzo about.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tutoring! Helpful to read and then look at the pics.
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Mar 25, 2006
#16
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #16
Hehe, didn't even look that the reserve wasn't met.
 

kmterrill

kill joy
Jun 10, 2005
2
1
29
Redford, MI
Mar 25, 2006
#17
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #17
Sundance said:
The rear suspension is a satchel link four bar setup. If I was going to go to that much trouble to make a chassis like that I'd use a three link, or a properly designed parallel four link.
Click to expand...

A question. I thought the Satchel was better since it got rid of the Panhard bar?
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Mar 25, 2006
#18
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #18
I thought a satchell link angled the lower bars? I thought that is a triangulated four link.
 

Sundance

Founding Member
Mar 5, 2002
172
0
0
UT
Mar 25, 2006
#19
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #19
kmterrill said:
A question. I thought the Satchel was better since it got rid of the Panhard bar?
Click to expand...

That is the reason a Satchel is inferior, because it does not have a Panhard or Watts. With the additional lateral link you can adjust the rear roll center.

It could be argued that a Satchel link suspension could be made to do the same, but a Panhard would allow more adjustment and be easier.
 

kmterrill

kill joy
Jun 10, 2005
2
1
29
Redford, MI
Mar 25, 2006
#20
  • Mar 25, 2006
  • #20
Sundance said:
That is the reason a Satchel is inferior, because it does not have a Panhard or Watts. With the additional lateral link you can adjust the rear roll center.

It could be argued that a Satchel link suspension could be made to do the same, but a Panhard would allow more adjustment and be easier.
Click to expand...

But by adding a watts or panhard bar you're just adding weight to the car? How much adjustment do you need on a properly designed suspension?
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Hello all, I am new to this forum
  • Maddog 302
  • Dec 19, 2025
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
2
Views
209
The Welcome Wagon Dec 20, 2025
nickyb
S
Vendor Request
  • Steve Lietzow
  • Jan 15, 2026
  • Feedback Area | Testing Zone
Replies
0
Views
117
Feedback Area | Testing Zone Jan 15, 2026
Steve Lietzow
S
D
First post 289 rebuild question!
  • Ddyer2868
  • Nov 24, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
3
Views
233
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Dec 5, 2025
rednotch
W
New here, 1967 getting an efi 348 stroker.
  • Weeman348
  • Mar 27, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
122
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Mar 27, 2026
Weeman348
W
S
Mustang questions…
  • sox2005
  • Dec 8, 2025
  • 2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk
Replies
0
Views
178
2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk Dec 8, 2025
sox2005
S
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?