Author
|
Topic: mustang II suspension kits for different year mustangs - width
|
wildstang Journeyman Posts: 57 From: somewhere in Vermont Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-22-2003 12:15 PM
I believe the mustang II is about a 1/4" narrower then a 65 mustang, but how do the kits compensate for the width difference in the later models or do they? I have never noticed in the adds if they address this. The distance between frame rails is the same up to at least 70, correct, so it wouldn't be by a wider crossmember? If the upper and lower arms are lengthened, does this mess up the goemetry and cause more bumpsteer or related problems? Thanks for any answers or extra info.
IP: Logged |
SteveLaRiviere Administrator Posts: 34763 From: Saco, Maine Registered: May 99
|
posted 04-23-2003 10:36 AM
They don't have them for newer than '67, do they?------------------ '70 Mustang Mach 1 - '72 Mustang Sprint - '94 F-150 Please remember our sponsors, Mustangs Plus, NPD, Osborn Reproductions, MyFordPerformance.com, and FordRamAir.com
IP: Logged |
wildstang Journeyman Posts: 57 From: somewhere in Vermont Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-23-2003 12:15 PM
I have seen a mustang magazine that a guy had a 69 or 70 with a 428 sohc with the mustang II front in and I think a year or so ago I saw an article on installation into a 71 to 73 model. I have called rod and custom motorsports but he didn't really want to tell me anything, just wanted me to buy. I have a 65 but I am curious how they deal with it.
IP: Logged |
66project Journeyman Posts: 25 From: Abilene TX USA Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 04-23-2003 12:50 PM
I'm in the process of installing Heidt's Mustang II front end on my '66. The crossmember is made specifically for the 65-66 and fits like a glove. The rack and pinion steering bolts directly on to the new crossmember. I would say the crossmember compensates for the width difference, as the upper and lower control arms aren't modified. As far as changing the width, the crossmember comes in three pieces, so an experienced welder could easily modify the width slightly with "creative welding" (and they probably used a different rack). Just my opinion, as I've only just started the mod. Heid't has always been good on answering my questions, so you might want to give them a call.
IP: Logged |
Huskinhano Journeyman Posts: 50 From: Montvale, NJ. Registered: Nov 2002
|
posted 04-23-2003 02:26 PM
I'm not a big fan of the Mustang II set up where the strut rod is done away with. Some time ago, on a street rod forum, this guy who owned a 40's Ford with the Heidts set up had a cross member failure on one side and a failure starting on the other side.The failure was on the cross member, in the back, where the tubes with the gussets are welded on for the lower control arm bolt goes through. It appeared as though the cross member was over stressed and fialed. I'm not a mechanical engineer, so take this with a grain of salt. Looking at it, the base of the control arm, on the lower appears to be very narrow IMO. It's transfering all of it's load from braking, bumps, ect., to one relatively small area. Look at any factory set up. the base for the lower control arms are much wider, providing less leverage forces and also transfering the load to 2, seperated and distint areas. Not to one tube. Like I said, I could be completely wrong, I'm not an engineer. It just looks questionable to me, doing away with the strut and asking the cross member tube to handle all the load in a small area.
IP: Logged |
66project Journeyman Posts: 25 From: Abilene TX USA Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 04-26-2003 02:34 PM
Yeah, I thought about that when assembling. It appears the weak point of this system is the lower control arm conection. The new crossmember is much more robust than the Mustang frame-rail, so if you get a failure it'll be right at the weld joint. To prevent this, I'm adding a thick "wedge" on both sides of the control arm tube to help distribute stress down the frame rail. Specs call for a wedge on one side, which will compensate for "push/pull" forces, but over time may fail from tortional forces (ie hitting a big pothole in a sharp turn!). A reinforcing wedge on the other side will help compensate for tortional forces (since it runs up the diagnal) and prevent a high stress load on the welds. This may be overkill, but it's an easy mod...and sure beats learning the hard way by rolling my mustang as the front end fails!
IP: Logged |
wildstang Journeyman Posts: 57 From: somewhere in Vermont Registered: May 2000
|
posted 04-28-2003 12:18 PM
66project, yours is a 66 mustang I assume, what company did you go with and did it come with a sway bar and are you using the coil over shocks or the regular big stock spring. Is it true that the big spring is from a v-6 mustang II? Thanks.
IP: Logged |
66project Journeyman Posts: 25 From: Abilene TX USA Registered: Jan 2003
|
posted 04-28-2003 10:52 PM
Yeah, a '66 coupe. I'm using Heidt's Mustang II front end with the larger springs, although coil over shocks are an option. I got a sway bar with the kit, but paid a little extra. With the options I chose, most of the parts are not Mustang II parts...you can order different types of springs, the rotors are Grenada rotors, etc, etc. I added a lot of options, so I think the only thing from a Mustang II is the brake calipers. It was pretty pricey overall...if I had the time I would have done some salvage yard trips and just bought the crossmember. You could get the same results for a lot less money... Unfortunately I'm moving soon and wanted to get the suspension done before I leave...so I ended up ordering the whole kit. http://www.heidts.com/heip32-3.htm
IP: Logged |
wildstang Journeyman Posts: 57 From: somewhere in Vermont Registered: May 2000
|
posted 05-02-2003 12:22 PM
66project, would you be so kind as to measure the distance inside to inside of the lower control arm mounting surfaces and the length and diameter of that long bolt. I am in the process of doing this myself. Right now I have it configured using a strut rod but I don't like the way it looks. Thanks for any help.
IP: Logged |