Front end geometry help needed (new pics added 7/28)

Listen to Steve (El Polacko). At quick glance I thought the frame was notched along the bottom. Apparently not, you will want to do this!

 

The frame is notched or "C'd" to make clearance for the rack. I'll jack it up tomorrow when I get off work and take a few more pics.

 

More pics! Good eye on the shock and tire wear Steve, but if the lower control arm is running uphill from level and if he has the right shock length how can it be at near full extension? If the shock and control arm are part of the kit and matched then the shock should be partially compressed. So i am thinking somebody has subs***uted a shorter shock or the upper attachment point is way off from where it should be.
A pic without the tire, elevation and sideview would be helpful.

 

Some of the larger manufacturers of MII kits offer a 2" drop spindle, perhaps it will fit your set up. You could raise your truck up to get the lower control arm level, then use the drop spindles to get it back down. Raise the bridge, AND lower the river.

 

The upper hat (attachment point) is mounted to high to make it fit over a wide frame rail. El Polaco has is right, ya got to listen to what he's telling you.
A couple thing I've learned in 30 years of installing/ repairing Must II front is A; just cause it's a "professional" made kit does NOT mean it's right. I've had issues with a lot of Fat Man products. B: Change anything from the Ford geomitry and it will effect drivabilty. I've seen way to many "altered" front ends to make it fit and they drive bad or are just plain dangerous. If you don't understand how it work find someone that does, please don't start moving racks ect.

 

oj, most of my above post is directed to the op, just used your quote about upper attachment point.

 

OJ, most of the frames that the Mustang II gets fitted to has a frame rail that is four inches tall. The stock Mustang II will clear a 3" tall rail without having to spread the upper and lower control arms apart or notching the rail for rack and pinion clearance.

The 65 and up Ford F100 frames are close to 5.5" tall. So vendors like Fatman just spread the distance between the upper and lower control arms. Hence why I am making the suggestion I am.

 

Aint that the truth

 

I agree with ELPOLACKO but I would first go with your idea of regulating the pressure at the rack. I just installed a TCI MII and it states in it's instruction literature that it will have this exact "twitchy" trait you're speaking of. believe Speedway has the regulator and am positive TCI does.

 

You have three options.

#1 Listen to El Polacko, and do it right.

Or

#2 **** around grasping at straws and hope you get real lucky.

Or

#3 P*** the buck and sell it to someone that won't look too close.


My guess is that the thing wouldn't drive right
after the screwed up "crossmember install",
and that is why it was sold.

 

So thinking outloud here, if I raise this thing up 1.5 to 2 inches, I'll have to alter the motor mounts, the trans mount possibly, shorten the steering shaft...Any other obvious changes that I missed. Drive shaft possibly?

 

Sounds like you got it covered. It is hard to tell, but if you have clearance between the oil pan and rack to go up at least 1.5" then you shouldn't have to change much other than the steering shaft.

If it's tight, then yeah, everything has to go up.

Give me a dimension from the top, upper spring pocket to the center of the lower control arm bolt and I can tell you how much you should cut out of it.

 

I'll be home tomorrow 'bout noon and I'll get some more pics and measurements. I appreciate all your help Elpolacko and also all the other folks who have chimed in.

 

RHOPPER is on track as well, there is an article in the July Rod and Custom addressing this very same issue on a 36 Ford.

 

If you removed the shock and try a heaver spring v8 mustang,of cource taking it apart,that should lift the a arms and make sure the spring is as big a dia spring.It has to lift with bigger springs.If I were you I wouldn,t touch the crossmember,at most the top maybe but i don,t see anyting wrong with it.

 

You can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink it.

 

George, as ELpolako pointed out the distance between the inner mounting points for the control arms is too great which totally screws up the castor and camber paths so putting heavier springs in place is not going to help much.
As far as I can see in the photos the control arm angles are exactly opposite to what they should be--lower about horizontal and upper running up from the frame to the ball joint and that is a result of the frame being too deep.

Roo

 

I installed a Mustang II on my 40 Chev. P.U. What you want to shoot for is a set up that looks like this at ride hieght. I would reinstall the crossmember so it sits level at ride hieght and that way your suspension travel will be consistant up and down. That's what I did and I had no bumpsteer at all. I used a Chevy pump also. Get the foundation right to start with and it will ride like you want it to. There are a lot of nice looking cars out there that don't ride worth a ****, after all, we build these things to drive.

 

Okay here's a few more pics as per request of ELpolacko.

 

And some more.

 

Also for those of you suggesting taller springs, please take note that at full droop on the suspension, that the lower arms are still not level. I prefer the tie rod ends to be level which would put the lower arms pointed down at the ball joint. And the angle of the upper control arm is already down past level.

 

This shot is particularly interesting to me.

Notice a few issue, the spring winds look really chaotic and appear to be heated (note the burned off spot at the top) and don't appear to be seated or supported correctly on the lower control arm.

With this suspension at full rebound (droop) the upper control arm is down (ok) but the lower is near level and the tie rod is still up. This proves my point about the geometry being screwed with for the convenience of installation.

PLEASE oh PLEASE inspect all the welds! Suspect everything.

With one spring heated I am concerned that the upper spring pocket is installed properly, Check to see it is the same height and angle as the driver side. If the spring pockets are not the same the ride height side for side will not match...

 

You read my mind.

Should say, though "nearly bolt-in" since the rear pivots still need to be welded on.

 

I'm voting for the "chop it out and start over with an '03 Crown Vic crossmember" option. There were shortcuts taken here that aren't worth fixing with the parts that are in the truck, IMO.

 

I have seen plenty of these CV front ends done, I am not convinced on a few points that cannot be resolved with them. The track width is at least 3" wider than stock and the high positive offset wheels. On this truck the width may not hurt you but HPO wheels and limited availability of wheel styles would kill the deal IMHO.

 

Gonna get the wire brush and drill out and start checking welds. So ELpolacko your saying I need to raise the crossmember up at least 1.5 inches and maybe 2? And your saying the best way to do this is to take the amount out of the bottom of the frame rails by reducing their height? Would you get a new crossmember or clean this one up and reuse? You also said earlier that I could maybe move the upper spring pockets instead of the crossmember. If I moved the pockets I wouldn't have to change motor mounts, steering shaft and other stuff would I?

 

You definitely could do it by moving the spring pockets/upper control arm mountings down by that some 1.5-2". This will work ONLY if you want to raise the ride height of the truck.
And YES by all means check all that welding carefully!!!!!! and get some springs that haven't been introduced to the gas ax.

 

I thought that looked like silicone or finger smeared filler as well?

Thanks for the input Steve, always pick something up reading or talking to you.

 

Very informative post here! Thanks Elpolako!

 

That's the way I would do it.

As with everyone, I'm sure you're budget is tighter than a frogs ***hole, so just clean up what you have and reuse it.

You can fix this by dropping the uppers down and it may be a bit easier. The ride height will change either way, you will raise it more by dropping the upper.

Figure this to help you decide which way to go. If you are running a tire that is 26" tall a properly set up MII front is going to put the lower control arm pivot bolt about 10" off the ground at ride height with stock Mustang II spindles.

Remove the front suspension components completely, which you are going to have to do, then mock up the truck with a tire in the fender opening for reference, at the ride height you desire. Measure where the lower control arm pivot bolt is from the ground at this desired height. If it's close to 8", then section the frame and move the crossmember up. If it's 10" then drop the spring pocket down.