Productively speaking about Mustang suspensions

[FETorino]

On a previous thread that degraded it was mentioned that there were only three options for an early Mustang front suspension. That is far from true. In addition to the weld in Mustang II, TCP or Global West coilovers or crappy stock I think they called it there are several other options. Griggs racing for one makes a complete fron GR350 kit for early Mustangs with race breed geometry. Also RRS makes a Macphearson strut coilover conversion complete with spindles and brakes, Ron Morris makes his own verion of the coilover front suspension similar to TCP and Global West but different. There is also FatMans MC Strut using late model Mustang SN95 front end parts. There are a few others out there also and not all based on the same basic design but starting from completely different places. I've rode in a well prepped "stock style" suspended car with the basic shelby mod and solid bushings and it definately got the job done around the corners just look at some of the cars racing the vintage circuit. I'm running an RRS kit in my Torino and so far my impression is it delivers a very compliant ride along with good trun in, tracking and no noticable bump steer. Some upcomming track time will point out the limitations of my 3800lb car and strut front end but as a street car it's working pretty well. So for the Mustang crowd there are options you just need to look around a bit.

[CNDbowtie]

:thumbsup: that was probably me you quoted...I quess those are the main 3 Ive always seen...but your right there are other ones out there...in fact in the last day or so ive come across 2 other alternatives that you didnt mention...the Martz chassis (mustang II setup with complete frame) and the most interesting is the MaxG chassis from Art Morrison. But when you talk about the stock suspension using the Shelby drop...well it worked great back in the day but how well does it work when you start dropping 245/40 series sticky rubber instead of the the old bias ply rubber or skinny 70s radials.

Id also like to see this conversation constructive..Im stuck on stock suspension and 70 series rubber....the 17in tires are in the garage and rims on order...so i need input myself in which system works best without breaking the bank.

[MtotheIKEo]

JME has a pretty nice looking front setup.

http://jmeenterprises.com/JME%20New%20Suspension.shtml

[FETorino]

In the end you are at the mercy of the designers claims and feedback from people who bought the stuff. For me the RRS Machphearson strut coilover made the most sense. Now that is because I didn't want to cut up the car. I did want it to look like a 69 including the shock towers under the hood. Being a Ford fan I also followed thier lead. The new mustangs are a Machphearson strut front, live axle rear set up with a unibody. Yes it is true they are not the ultimate handler but they are competant handlers and the platform is really just a refined version of the original. That was the way I looked at mine. Strut front end with good brakes and geometry, live axle out back with cal tracks solid bushings in the leafs and a watts link, good rear shocks and front sway bar and now I'm working on subrame connectors to stiffen the unibody (Not as easy on a Torino as a Mustang). I am happy with the performance of the stuff on my car. A lot of the suspension stuff ends up like most mods just bench racing. That isn't saying that the manufactures don't put a lot of time engineering good parts. I'd point to air ride tech and some others who have taken thier stuff out on the track and proven it works. I think the first step is prioritize your goals. Is the car street or track? Is the car more for show or go? are you more concerned with ride or ultimate grip? How much $$ do you have to spend? I don't think there is one right answer. I do think a forum like this is a good place to ask for feedback from people who have used the parts you think you want before you buy.

[CNDbowtie]

with that RRS machphearson strut kit...does it change your wheel offset at all or maintain same backspacing? and how much adjustment do you get in ride height? im lookin to drop my front at least a 1inch or more

[sacarguy]

to me the best solution will always be the mustang 2 ifs the only reason I wouldnt do it would be if you just wanted the shock tower look in the engine compartment

you get a true ifs with uneqqual length controll arms and you gain rack and pinion steering in as part of the deal.


So I went with the hedits coil over m2 setup i also used the martz chassis four bar with panhard rear setup

[CNDbowtie]

to me the best solution will always be the mustang 2 ifs the only reason I wouldnt do it would be if you just wanted the shock tower look in the engine compartment

you get a true ifs with uneqqual length controll arms and you gain rack and pinion steering in as part of the deal.


So I went with the hedits coil over m2 setup i also used the martz chassis four bar with panhard rear setup

have any pics of the front end? ive heard talk that the Mustang II is not as structuraly sound since the framerails were never intended to carry the weight of the suspension like the original shock towers carried the wieght back into the structure of the unibody and into the firewall. Ive seen some people run a reinforcement back from the lower frame into the firewall though when the run the mustangII...and i believe the Martz chassis has the same idea.

[sacarguy]

that is funny to hear

if you think those sheet metal shock towers are stronger then the boxed steel frame especialy when its been reinforced with 8th inch plate steel and a cross member to tie the two sides of the frame together its far far far stronger and stiffer then the shock tower arangment with the engine hanging off them as well.

i can say for sure after having driven several mustangs with the ifs setup its alot stiffer it feels much more solid when driving

[FETorino]

to me the best solution will always be the mustang 2 ifs the only reason I wouldnt do it would be if you just wanted the shock tower look in the engine compartment

you get a true ifs with uneqqual length controll arms and you gain rack and pinion steering in as part of the deal.


So I went with the hedits coil over m2 setup i also used the martz chassis four bar with panhard rear setup

I wonder if the Mustang II front end was so great why Ford didn't use that platform for any of the mustangs that came after it. The Mod motors definately could use the clearance provided by no shock towers. I do seriously wonder why?

The RRS kit allows you to run more backspacing if you want in front but if you already have the normal 4.5" on 8" wheel that most early Mustang guys run they will work fine also. You have close to 3" of adjustment. Mine is sitting about 2" lower than stock but I could have run it stock height or an inch lower than it is if I wanted.

There are a few pretty stellar handling cars out there from thre factories running M struts.

[sacarguy]

do you see any machpherson strut setups on current anything goes road race cars anywhere ? nope every single one such as indy etc will have double unequal length a arms. because then you get a veritcle plane when the suspension moves instead of a arc

they dont do it now for the same reason as most companies unibody construction and Lower cost .. yet if you look at most all out performance cars ie lambos freraries konigsegs corvettes etc you see the same thing double unequal lenght a-arms

do you see any machpherson strut setups on any anything goes road race cars anywhere ?
nope every single one such as indy etc will have double unequal length a arms. because then you get a veritcle plane when the suspension moves instead of a arc

Plus that early mustang has very week towers and no cross member to tie the frame sides together trust me I have driven both and you can actualy FEEL the car is alot stiffer up front when you hit bumps vs the tower and brace setup

[FETorino]

do you see any machpherson strut setups on current anything goes road race cars anywhere ? nope every single one such as indy etc will have double unequal length a arms. because then you get a veritcle plane when the suspension moves instead of a arc

they dont do it now for the same reason as most companies unibody construction and Lower cost .. yet if you look at most all out performance cars ie lambos freraries konigsegs corvettes etc you see the same thing double unequal lenght a-arms

do you see any machpherson strut setups on any anything goes road race cars anywhere ?
nope every single one such as indy etc will have double unequal length a arms. because then you get a veritcle plane when the suspension moves instead of a arc


Plus that early mustang has very week towers and no cross member to tie the frame sides together trust me I have driven both and you can actualy FEEL the car is alot stiffer up front when you hit bumps vs the tower and brace setup

I never said M struts were the ultimate but I don't see pushrods or two valves per cyl in those purpose built cars you mention should we start chucking those LS motors? So I agree double wishbone is the ultimate set up. I have seen plenty of production cars on the track running struts and winning in thier classes against double wishbone front ends. I don't remeber the pinto front end being the pinicale of that design forum so maybe we should consider that not all double wishbone suspensions are created equal.


I had a 66 and there was a crossmember between the frame rails? My Torino has one. I wouldn't say don't run a Mustang II fron but it isn't the ultimate. I would say the best looking set up I've seen is the Griggs Racing GR350 kit for early Mustangs. It is a double wishbone with it's own integrated K member but big $$ and from what I hear Griggs isn't the easiest to deal with. Plus I was building a Torino so the mustang kit wouldn't have worked without mods.

For me the struts accomplished what I needed, didn't break the bank and no need to hack up the car.

[CNDbowtie]

that is funny to hear

if you think those sheet metal shock towers are stronger then the boxed steel frame especialy when its been reinforced with 8th inch plate steel and a cross member to tie the two sides of the frame together its far far far stronger and stiffer then the shock tower arangment with the engine hanging off them as well.

i can say for sure after having driven several mustangs with the ifs setup its alot stiffer it feels much more solid when driving

I was just saying what ive read...seriously i have no personal experience with either setup yet...your more of a expert on it then me. BUT i do agree with some of the critics that at the very least the Mustang II should be tubularly braced from the frame rails and back into the firewall to unify it to the Unibody again. Ford never designed the thin wall frame rails to carry the entire weight of the front end. I dont know how you had your installed and how much fab work you did to beef it up...but I know ive seen people just cut the few inches of thin frame rail then weld in the strong mustang II front end...personally i would want subframe connectors..beefed up frame rails and tubular bracing to the firewall...all that would add up to be way to much of investment for what i need. But i do believe your right that the basic setup and geometry is better...but unless your installing a wide late model modular motor or something similar (and you need to room) i dont know if its worth the money unless you can do all the work yourself.

[67turbostang]

I hear nothing but good things about the Griggs GR-350 suspension. Definitly more money, but well worth it. Im running the Griggs stuff on my 67.

[sacarguy]

I was just saying what ive read...seriously i have no personal experience with either setup yet...your more of a expert on it then me. BUT i do agree with some of the critics that at the very least the Mustang II should be tubularly braced from the frame rails and back into the firewall to unify it to the Unibody again. Ford never designed the thin wall frame rails to carry the entire weight of the front end. I dont know how you had your installed and how much fab work you did to beef it up...but I know ive seen people just cut the few inches of thin frame rail then weld in the strong mustang II front end...personally i would want subframe connectors..beefed up frame rails and tubular bracing to the firewall...all that would add up to be way to much of investment for what i need. But i do believe your right that the basic setup and geometry is better...but unless your installing a wide late model modular motor or something similar (and you need to room) i dont know if its worth the money unless you can do all the work yourself.


Well have you priced the other stuff ? I did when I did my car and its just cheaper to do the m2 setup if you want good brakes coil overs and the nice steering of a rack.

You will actualy spend about 1500 less on a m2 front ifs with coilovers and tubular arms then you will on a full bolt in system and rack and pinion conversion and big brakes to fit the stock setup.


as for what your saying about the frame rails well they arent carrying any more weight then they did with the shock towers the towers are part of the inner fender and frame rail and when you cut them out and weld in a piece to replace them the frame rail is just as suported by that piece as it used to be by the shock tower.

i used the heidts system not the martz that removes the inner fender completly

it also includes 8th inch thick steel reinforcment plating to stiffing up the front frame rails.

the marts system requires you tie back into the firewall because they put in a whole new front subframe and there is no more inner fender welded to the frame to tie it into the front of the car and fire wall.

but the heidts doesnt do that it leaves the inner fenders in place and only removes the shock towers.

if you look here you can see how beefy the cross member is and how you just cut the towers out not the whole suport of the inner fender.. once you weld in the replacment panel that is just as suporting as the shock tower was but you now have a real cross member in there to tie the two halfs together

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j10/8urls1/1966%20mustang/DSCF0290.jpg

here you can see the 8th inch plate that comes with the kit to reinforce and spread the load ont he stock frame rail

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j10/8urls1/1966%20mustang/DSCF0288.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j10/8urls1/1966%20mustang/DSCF0287.jpg

[wiedemab]

do you see any machpherson strut setups on any anything goes road race cars anywhere ?
nope every single one such as indy etc will have double unequal length a arms. because then you get a veritcle plane when the suspension moves instead of a arc


BMW still uses MacPherson struts in alot of their stuff. I'm not an expert, but I think their M3 etc. are pretty badass on the track.

A MacPherson strut suspension does not travel in a vertical plane though. It travels along the axis of the strut which is typically at an inward and rearward angle which will give some camber and caster gain.

http://www.lanciamontecarlo.net/images/front-suspension.gif

I'm not trying to stir anything up, but any/all suspension setups have tradeoffs. I'm not a suspension design engineer, but I would suggest just learning as much about each and making the best choice of performance and cost for you. Someone will always be able to say well this is better or that is better, but it really all comes down the intended purpose and budget.

[jeff s]

Another option, We have a full chassis with No bind triangulated 4 bar rear suspension and unequal length a arm front suspension, with optimum camber curve and no bump steer.
Thanks

[FETorino]

Very cool. It all just depends on your budget.

[CNDbowtie]

Another option, We have a full chassis with No bind triangulated 4 bar rear suspension and unequal length a arm front suspension, with optimum camber curve and no bump steer.
Thanks

as in full chassis do you mean complete front to rear frame rails like the Artmorrison MaxG? there is a guy on the protourin forum doing the ArtM chassis with airbags..its quite impressive

[andrewmp6]

Heres the full frames Jeff makes http://gmachinechassis.com/ i have seen one of his under a Camaro it fit prefect was well worth the money the car did handle a lot better then any Camaro i drove.I have never used a mustang 2 kit or wouldn't id like to not cut on the car or do anything thats not a bolt on just in case i change my mind on it.Only early mustang i drove with one i didn't like it was a 68 fastback with a mod motor it was too front end heavy and was done cheaply and wrong.And yes id run a support bar from the front of the frame rail to the fire wall to help support the extra load on the frame rails with a mustang 2 kit.Ford designed the car for the firewall to take most of the load.I have global west coil overs in the front of my 68 mustang and if i had to do it over id use them or one of Jeff's full frame too bad no one really makes anything for the 71-73 mustangs but for 2 people most just cover the 64-70 mustangs.

[oorange67]

I am looking for options for my 71 cougar and have found little support.

[CNDbowtie]

Jeff took a quick look at the pics for the frame...ive seen a build thread with a MaxG frame and everything had to be cut out...floors, firewall, front end.
It appears your doesnt require as much cutting? just the front clip? and modify the front frame rails? how about the rear?
And what type of front suspension will that accept?

[sacarguy]

ya but arent those about 12 thousand dollars with suspension and brakes ?

[FETorino]

Last time I remember those purpose built formula one cars you spoke of early weren't constrained by budget.

[CNDbowtie]

well for those who didnt catch the season 5 opener of Overhaulin tonight...it looks like Foose agrees with FETorino and picked the RRS suspension too ;)

http://www.gatewayclassicmustang.com/uploads/Foose2_large.jpg

http://www.gatewayclassicmustang.com/uploads/Foose1_large.jpg

im really diggin the brushed finish on the trim :thumbsup:

[sacarguy]

foose didnt pick anything .. he put what was given to him on it heh

they dont buy those parts they contact companies and see who will donate parts for the build

[CNDbowtie]

foose didnt pick anything .. he put what was given to him on it heh

they dont buy those parts they contact companies and see who will donate parts for the build

Gee thanks for the insight..i really had no idea how tv advertising worked heh! here i thought Foose went down to National Parts Depot and picked these out himself....sorry for posting my stupidness :hail:
perhaps in the future i will post a LOL or add in a sarcasm banter so im not corrected :rolleyes:

[sacarguy]

just saying since you used the fact they had it on that car to back up the suspension choice above heh.


im going a step farther then brushed on my car im molding the bumper in clay then im going to take it to be digitized and have a bumper machined out of billet aluminum wich will have a satin anodized finish.

[jeff s]

Our Mustang full chassis does not require floor cutting. The front end gets cut off, a couple brackets get welded to the floor pan. We can supply the inner fender panels and the core support get's re-used if you choose.
Yes, a full roller comes with 13" crossdrilled 6 piston Wilwoods and a complete, with 3rd member, Winters alum full floating 31 spline rear end, racing axles, splined end racing sway bars, power rack and teflon lined spherical rod ends throughout.
We can also powdercoat and install the hardlines.
No it's not cheap, but add up all the bolt on stuff, really compare and it's not that bad.

[andrewmp6]

A while back overhaulin did a 69 mustang convertible and they used rrs front and rear on it.Yeah jeff frame ain't cheap but add up coil overs front and back wilwood brakes sub frame connectors stiffing the shock towers etc etc you can get real close to his frames price.But his frame a 460 fits nicely so I'm sure a mod motor will too.