mustang II spindles

I'm not sure I understand the concern about needing a taller spring to clear the fender, but I had already rolled the fender lips to fit the 17x8" wheels. As you can see I'm using my own design control arms (very close to the RMP design) and the upper arms had to be taken in all the way to bring the tire comfortably inside the wheel well. I have my car lowered about 1 3/4".

The hub I'm using now is Wilwood part number 270-9320. It's designed to be used with a hat. The old Wilwood hub I was using stuck out further and also had to have a half inch spacer to make the wheel clear the upper ball joint.

The machine shop has told me for 3 weeks now that my caliper brackets would be ready next week. I'm starting to think he's just messing with me. I need to stop by tomorrow to see what's going on. Until everything is bolted together and I've actually swung it through the entire range of motion both up and down and lock to lock, I won't make any claims as to how well everything works. I had to have several parts re-machined because they didn't fit right. I paid for the re-work, so I don't think he has any reason to be upset with me, but I think that's when he lost his enthusiasm for my project.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


ace_xp2

New Member
Aug 29, 2009
28
0
1
Well, the concern is just that the 2" drop spindle is more like 2.8" as compared with a stock vintage spindle. So if you want to keep the suspension in its geometric range,with say a 1" lowering spring, you'd end up nearly 4 inches lower.

Now my springs are of an unknown age, but four inches on my 65 puts the tire up near the accent crease. I'd have to make fenders unless I really pulled in my tires, which isn't what I'm going for.

Hope that machinist gets the work done. Sucks when you're waiting on someone else like that.
 
OK, I understand how the stock suspension would create a limitation. I'm using AFCO coilover shocks with a 7" stroke and 12" open springs. That's huge compared to a stock shock/spring arrangement. That allows plenty of room for adjustment.

I don't know how you came up with a 2.8" actual drop. It didn't take much adjustment of the spring to maintain the ride height I wanted, so I'd say 2.0" was pretty accurate.
 

ace_xp2

New Member
Aug 29, 2009
28
0
1
I worked out the stock lbj to be about 1.22in. long when mounted, based on that at an 11 degree angle you go down 1.18in vertical. The wilwood spindle has its lbj mount at 2.3in. down from the spindle line. That gives you 3.48in. versus the measurement for the stock one which I have as 2.77in.

Then the 2" drop is at 5.48 vs. 2.77, which is a 2.71in. difference.
Keep in mind the second decimal place is not likely accurate in any but the wilwood measurements.

Helmantel made this and some other comparisons here:
http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/7989062-post139.html

Now .7" isn't the end of the world, however from what I've read this geometry is actually in a better range 1" lower than stock, which puts it all a long ways down from factory. But admittedly, while my car seems tall it's difficult to tell how kind time has been to my springs, so it's kind of tough to tell where It'd actually be at 1" down from stock.
 

projim64

New Member
Sep 9, 2007
3
0
0
Interested in info on this subject

I am building a drag only 65 Mustang and would like info on using the Mustang II spindles for rear steer. Does anyone have any pictures or info on this ? The car will be drag only. I have some tubular uppers and am making tubular lowers. Will it be an issue mounting the calipers on the front side of the spindles and does that effect braking at all? I will probably be using Areospace brakes. The car will have a 25.5 chassis and will see times in the 8 second range at over 150 mph. Thanks for any info. Jim.
 

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
I am building a drag only 65 Mustang and would like info on using the Mustang II spindles for rear steer. Does anyone have any pictures or info on this ? The car will be drag only. I have some tubular uppers and am making tubular lowers. Will it be an issue mounting the calipers on the front side of the spindles and does that effect braking at all? I will probably be using Areospace brakes. The car will have a 25.5 chassis and will see times in the 8 second range at over 150 mph. Thanks for any info. Jim.

why do you want to run MII spindles? What advantages are you looking for? I think trying to make an MII spindle fit is not worth the trouble. The main thing will be the custom steering arms needed to obtain some reasonable ackermann.
 

rbohm

SN Certified Technician
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
551
204
tucson,az
why do you want to run MII spindles? What advantages are you looking for? I think trying to make an MII spindle fit is not worth the trouble. The main thing will be the custom steering arms needed to obtain some reasonable ackermann.

if he is building a drag only car, then the ackerman doesnt matter, and he can use lighter front brakes since he will likely be using front runner tires. most of the braking power will come from the rear.
 

5280/4

New Member
May 21, 2009
201
0
0
if he is building a drag only car, then the ackerman doesnt matter, and he can use lighter front brakes since he will likely be using front runner tires. most of the braking power will come from the rear.
i understand that its a drag car. I am also building a 65 mustang drag car. Check out the thread another coilover by Bryce.

but light weight brakes are available for the stock spindles.











Posted via Mobile Device
 

ace_xp2

New Member
Aug 29, 2009
28
0
1
Not only that, but I would guess the stock spindles to be lighter than the wilwood ones. And from the little I know about drag cars, I don't think dropping the front end is an advantage.
 

wicked93gs

15 Year Member
Sep 30, 2006
1,189
222
93
Nashville TN
Time to dig this thread up from the graveyard I think. What I am doing is attempting to use aftermarket MII drop spindlesspindles on aftermarket early mustang control arms in a front steer application. This is what I have:

20221008_150501-1-jpg.863031


There are of course a number of issues I have to solve to make this work...but I need to start with basics. In this case the ball joints. Everything I read said they were essentially the same between the MI and the MII, and indeed, the taper itself does seem to be the same, but the diameter of the stud seems to be different. The stock spindle sat about 3/8" lower(and higher) on the ball joints than the MII spindle. The amusing thing is the spindle height difference between the 2 is 3/4" so regardless of which spindle is used, the RCA stays the same...at least using these ball joints. These are aftermarket Moog "problem solver" ball joints that screw in. I was hoping someone could point me to the part numbers I need for ones that will fit a bit better. The other big problem here is steering arm height...but that may well change since the crossmember I am using to hang the rack has not reached final fitment yet. I am hoping a bump-steer kit will be enough to take care of it.
 

MustangIIMatt

Easy there, this ain't a dating site.
15 Year Member
Mar 7, 2002
9,311
5,223
224
Time to dig this thread up from the graveyard I think. What I am doing is attempting to use aftermarket MII drop spindlesspindles on aftermarket early mustang control arms in a front steer application. This is what I have:

20221008_150501-1-jpg.863031


There are of course a number of issues I have to solve to make this work...but I need to start with basics. In this case the ball joints. Everything I read said they were essentially the same between the MI and the MII, and indeed, the taper itself does seem to be the same, but the diameter of the stud seems to be different. The stock spindle sat about 3/8" lower(and higher) on the ball joints than the MII spindle. The amusing thing is the spindle height difference between the 2 is 3/4" so regardless of which spindle is used, the RCA stays the same...at least using these ball joints. These are aftermarket Moog "problem solver" ball joints that screw in. I was hoping someone could point me to the part numbers I need for ones that will fit a bit better. The other big problem here is steering arm height...but that may well change since the crossmember I am using to hang the rack has not reached final fitment yet. I am hoping a bump-steer kit will be enough to take care of it.
Why not simply get one of the various Mustang II-based kits that are already out there to do this?

 

wicked93gs

15 Year Member
Sep 30, 2006
1,189
222
93
Nashville TN