What are your thoughts on Mustang 2 steering geometry in its stock form. I have transplanted one in my 38 Plymouth but is not ready to road test for awhile. Just getting ready to final position the crossmember for caster. Probably tilt it back on the top a couple of degrees & hopefully give me a good head start on the final alignment. The real question is, these front ends are undoubtedly very specific to the original application. So, in a car with a longer wheelbase and different weight transfers, what should I expect as far as final alignment specs. The way it's designed seems more for ease of steering because the outside tire in a tight turn goes to positive camber & the inside tire goes to negative camber. Just don't seem right. I'm not building a race car but am at the stage where it would be easy to change certain aspects like spindles for example. Has anybody tried different things along these lines with good results. This is my first build concerning major front end design changes. Most of my experience is with bringing damaged front ends, etc. back to original specs. Although I have never owned (or driven that I can remember) a Mustang 2, I'm not convinced from what I see so far that this thing will handle the way I want it to. There's nothing worse than a car that handles sloppy. What are your experiences with these conversions in their stock form (not kits)?
About 18 years ago I put a Mustang II suspension in my '54 Chevy pickup. I used a Fatman crossmember, but the rest of the parts were junkyard Pinto and Mustang II parts including the strut rods, rack and pinion, tie rod ends, springs, control arms, etc. I think I got most of the parts out of a '78 V6 Pinto wagon. Except I did put on late model Camaro disk brakes. It handles and steers great. It drives like a car. I aligned it myself using simple home-made stuff. Never had any problems with it. It was like night and day going from the sloppy original truck suspension to driving like a smooth car. I think it's a good design. I'm not so sure some of the altered designs that get rid of the strut rods are as tough. With the strut rods I think it's a good strong suspension and I like how it feels. I don't think you'll have any problems with yours if you align it right. Make sure it's sitting at "ride height". The rack and pinion and the lower control arms should be as close to a horizontal line as possible when it's done. If your springs are shot, it'll go lower, but it throws the geometry off. At normal ride height it handles well. They sell "mustang II" springs in a lot of different spring weights. Pick the springs that hold it at a normal ride height and it'll have a smooth ride. A stock Mustang II or Pinto has the engine sitting pretty far forward which puts a lot of weight on the front wheels. So, even though you might have a heavier engine than a Mustang II, you might have no more weight than a Mustang II on the front wheels, so you might find that stock 4 cyl Pinto springs or 6 cyl Mustang II springs are fine. I wound up using slightly chopped 6 cylinder Mustang II springs on my '54 Chevy pickup to hold it at normal ride height. For a while I had some 4 cylinder springs and it ran a little too low, so I put in some 6cyl springs which are still in it now. Good luck.
I transplanted a stock Mustang II frontend to a 37 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Plymouth</st1lace></st1:City> convertible years ago. I have built and drove quite a few cars since and it is still my favorite car of all of them. I had a four bar with coilovers in the rear and completely stock Mustang II in the front, I also retained the stock Mustang II sway bar. This thing handled like a baby buggy. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o> It is an easy swap and you are correct you will have to tilt the crossmember back a few degrees to get your caster settings <o></o>
Guess I have to change out the rotors, tie rod ends, get new calipers & brackets and gain an inch on each side from the Granada rotors. I already widened the cross member 2" to match the original width of the Plymouth, now I'll have another 2" I don't want. I think I'm gonna try something different on mine. I'm going to take a chance and change the whole geometry and swap in Dodge spindles. They're out of a 86 5th Ave, probably the same as Volare. It'll be a ball joint swap as well and have already fitted and measured one side. Worst case scenario is I'll wreck the M2 control arms if it don't work. Ball joints are shot anyway so who cares. Reversed the steering arms/ball joint receivers to make it front steer (ya, ya, I know) and bent them upwards. I'll have to move the rack ahead to match. I'll also be lengthening the top control arm 1" to 1 1/2 " when I swap the ball joint. It'll be interesting because now when the steering turns the outside wheel goes to negative camber and the inside goes positive. Not excessive, but the opposite of what the stock M2 does although body roll may cancel this out some.The longer upper control arm will remove some of the camber in travel. Caster stays about the same with this spindle although is less on the outside wheel in a turn. Don't know the exact specs, just what i can do with a level & degree finder. Steering arms are 2" longer so the rack won't push as far and I'll lose some turning radius. Ackerman will change but this might be ok because I'm on a 112" WB, not the orig M2 of 96". This thing may not work at all and I may have to find new arms to revert back to orig. Worse case is lost time and a few bucks. If it works it'll take care of the braking with bigger rotors and track will change only 1/2" per side. Also will give an inch or so drop which is ok. Plus I got all the parts on hand and will have the complete brake system front and back plus M/C & porp valve from the 5th Ave. Any thoughts on this, besides mental?
You can't just widen the cross member without widening the rack and pinion. You moved the upper and lower pivot points out of the arc of the rack and pinion inner joint. You have to keep them in line otherwise you will have big time bump steer. Place a straight edge from the upper and lower a-arm pivots and the inner tie rod should fall on that line.
It sure sounds like you are making this more complicated than you ought, but I guess that's kinda what hot rodders do. Anyways, wouldn't swapping sides with the Mopar spindles screw up your Ackerman? Oh, and for proper caster & anti-dive, if you are using the OEM Ford crossmember, the top of the main crossmember should be dead level in both directions at right height on level ground. This means the top of the spring towers should be angled where they are higher in the front, and tilt downward toward the firewall.
as 41 willys said you can't just widen the crossmember. bump steer city. changing spindles... I'd say the odds of that workinng are slim. what benifit do you plan on getting by doing this?
I'm told I can use Fairmont outer tie rods, they are longer. At ride height the inner tie rod is about level with the steering arm. Hell yes, unfortunately thats what hot rodders do. Damn it! I've gone from sensible and stock form to who knows what. However not the first time I've just made more work for myself. Cross member is tilted back a couple of degrees from say, 90 degrees from plane, Then there's whatever Ford built into the hat running down hill toward the firewall. Don't quite understand how widening the crossmember will give me bump steer. The rack and the steering arm are at the same height as they were. Just now the tie rod is too short, but a longer tie rod end should get me back in the ball game. As far as benefits go, providing this works would be....... 1- don't need to use Granada rotors & Chev calipers with aftermarket caliper brackets. 2- less track width increase than with Granada rotors. 3- total braking system will be stock as I'm using the master cyl & proportioning valve. Rear end is from same car. 4-hopefully it will handle better than stock. 5- I'm a ****er for punishment so if this don't work I'll be perfectly at home with myself. Thanks for the input guys.
it's not the length of the tie rod it is the pivot point on the rack VS the pivot of the lower A-arm. your A-arm and the tie rod will be moving in different arcs, causing bump steer. I had a friend who narrowed a MII crossmember for use in a 50 or so studebaker. I told him when he did it it will not work. after he got it all ****oned up you couldn't even drive the thing. you can not change the width of the crossmember without consequenses.
Widening the crossmember will affect bumpsteer. There should be a line through the upper and lower control arm pivot points that intersect the pivot point of the steering rack where the tie rods pivot. If these three pinots don't pivot in the same line it will bumpsteer.
My understanding is that Granada rotors don't widen the track width. Some GM rotors will add about 3/4" on each side, though. Still wondering about the Ackerman issue...
Not my intention to be a ****, but this seems to be one of those cases where a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous than having none. I followed along your posts and I have no idea what your question is. So far all it seems you have done is create a ton of work for yourself without any appreciable gain. All I see is this:
Stock Mustang II is 56" and with the Granada rotors it is 58" give or take a half inch. Ackerman is almost a non issue any more and most IFS front ends including the MII have a convergence point far behind the rear axle. Wheel base will not affect the toe gain scrub until you exceed over 120" in wheel base. AND at that the worse that will happen is your tires may squeal a bit when you turn sharp.
If you are using the stock Pinto/MII crossmember level the flat bottom surface of the crossmember when you mount it. It is the only flat surface on the Xmember and should be level so the factory Ford alignment etc. is correct. These little suspensions have turned out to be the most wonderful thing ever happened in the hot rod/street rod/old car world. Factory technology combined with universality of fit and function.
Go to Heidts they have pretty informative tech pages. Wilwood sells modified spindle that corrects what some consider problems. Most modern M11 deals are far from original set ups and just carry the name as in Art Morrison set up. Probably one of the best out there. Still hate the small control arm bushings especially on a heavy car. Maybe you should post where you live as if you are trying these set ups on the street remember it might not just be yourself that gets hurt. Suspensions aren't just addinh whatever fits or made to fit.
Other than changing caliper mounting and removable steering arms it appears that Wilwood uses the factory geometry. At least they don't mention on their website. Morrison appears to use the TCI,Heidt's style cast dropped spindle. I have never heard anyone complain about the stock forged Mustang II spindle. In fact it gets used on a ton of applications because it is a very durable little lightweight spindle and there is a **** load of aftermarket parts available that will fit it.
Well I guess its more of an experiment than any thing. My original question (poorly worded) was more like " is the M2 geometry workable in most applications other than what it was designed for'. To add to that, are alot of people including kit makers doing lots of modifications to the geometry and just keeping to the basic design? I just find it hard to think a front end designed and used in a monster like the M2 can not be vastly improved upon with some simple tricks. Anyone know of any?
>>>My original question (poorly worded) was more like " is the M2 geometry workable in most applications other than what it was designed for'.>>> The basic answer to your original intended question is yes. Both street rod and for certain racing applications (even oval track stuff), the M-II design works just fine in many cases. That being said, however, from what you said afterwards in your posts you actually no longer have a M-II deal going so now you'll need to pay extra special attention to bump steer, roll centers, scrub radius issues and such with the pieces you are using. You have essentially designed/engineered your own front suspension package at this point and it bears virtually no resemblance to a M-II package. But this stuff is fun Al in TN..errr I mean (usually) CT
http://www.heidts.com/pdf/IFS_weight_distribution.pdf http://www.heidts.com/pdf/Understanding_IFS.pdf These guys have been doing the R&D on MKII suspension for years. I think you should look at some more info before you go getting your self or someone else hurt. Einstein knew he couldnt reinvent the wheel. That was part of his Genius. You should really read the second link that Heidts has provided for backyard engineers such as yourself it may save you from disaster.
Hey, thanks for the info. I'm afraid to even touch that suspension again. Gonna order up a Heidts tomorrow, maybe two. Grand kids will want one when they grow up
The Jalopy Journal
