Strut rods..

[Blue Thunder]

Those annoying rods that connect the lower control arms to the subframe, seriously reduce the header/exhaust pipe space. It's the bottleneck that prevents larger tube headers from passing down around the engine, like most other cars do.
So I was checking out a 70s Thunderbird the other day, and I noticed they also have the strut-rod setup, but instead of going back like on the Mustang II, the rods attach FORWARD of the lower control arm. This gives me an idea. I'm thinking about cutting off the strut rod mounting plates from my MII, along with that bolt-on bracket that runs under the bellhousing and ties them together, and unbolt those rods from the control arms, switch them around,(left to right, and vice versa) so they face forward, and bolt them back on. Then take those strut-rod mounting plates, and weld them in place on the front frame rails, with a new fabricated bolt-on bracket that will tie them together. This will not only clear out the bottleneck in the subframe so that large headers can be fabricated to run back next to the motor, but it will eliminate that annoying bracket under the bellhousing, too! I'm thinking it will shed a few pounds in the process.
Can anyone spot any short-comings of such a mod, or has anyone here already done such a mod to their MII?

 

[78CobraII]

The forwarded mounted strut rod was also used in the early Mustangs (through 1973?).

Before I moved the strut rod to the front, I'd investigate the tubular lower A-arms that don't use a strut rod. They instead use a larger triangulated base to support the rearward forces on the lower arm. They do take up more space than the stock lower, but maybe less than the required strut rod.

 

[kcobra302]

you might want to consider something like this eliminator kit. the cost of something like this will probably outweigh the engineering and time to do the project your looking at.

maybe use this as a basis for you own design

seems easy enough to install
http://www.macgyvers.com/mustang.html

 

[Blue Thunder]

you might want to consider something like this eliminator kit. the cost of something like this will probably outweigh the engineering and time to do the project your looking at.

maybe use this as a basis for you own design

seems easy enough to install
http://www.macgyvers.com/mustang.html

Hey, cool, I never saw that eliminator kit before, thanks!

 

[Blue Thunder]

The forwarded mounted strut rod was also used in the early Mustangs (through 1973?).

Before I moved the strut rod to the front, I'd investigate the tubular lower A-arms that don't use a strut rod. They instead use a larger triangulated base to support the rearward forces on the lower arm. They do take up more space than the stock lower, but maybe less than the required strut rod.

I did see those triangular lower control arms before, but it looked to be more difficult to fit to the stock crossmember, (They're designed for use with their own custom crossmembers) than relocating the strut rods to the front. Thanks for the input, though.

 

[perce111]

If you decide to use one of the eleminator kits I would suggest looking at beefing up the frame and crossmember as they were not designed to take the new loading that will be imparted on them.

Later

 

[78CobraII]

I have heard of at least one MII owner installing the strut eliminator lower arm. It would be interesting to look at the back of the crossmember where the new mounting bracket is welded and check for distortion.

The triangular strut eliminator lower takes up more space than the stock lower arm. This strut eliminator kit is similar in size.

The new Lincoln LS front end uses a cast "L" shaped lower that doesn't require a strut rod. I understand that the 2005 Mustang uses something similar with a coil over spring and shock. Might make a neat custom front suspension.

 

[Blue Thunder]

If you decide to use one of the eleminator kits I would suggest looking at beefing up the frame and crossmember as they were not designed to take the new loading that will be imparted on them.

Later

That crossmember is a pretty hefty piece, no doubt much stronger than it's factory-intended purpose. Even so, I agree with what you said, because I don't like to gamble on critical(!!) parts. So I came up with a simple means of strengthening it.

A length of 1/8" thick angle steel, welded to the rear face of the crossmember and also welded to each strut eliminator gusset that comes with the kit. So the two strut rods will be pushing against each other, along the length of the angle piece.

See my hastily constructed diagram below:

Yellow = Reinforcing angle piece.

 

[THE COBRAMAN]

Seems like I recall reading that the strutless lowers were specifically labelled as NOT for use on the stock crossmember on one of the vendors' sites.

The whole bracketry (flying toilet seat was the Ford in-house name) was designed to reduce the NVH problems that were inherent in the Pinto's rigidly mounted rods.

 

[Xanax]

I agree