Mustang II IFS vs Aftermarket Front Suspension on 65/66 - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Mod and Custom Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-29-2005, 08:41 PM   #1 (permalink)
Supporting Member
White Elephant Guy
 
obsidianspider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 12,959
Send a message via AIM to obsidianspider Send a message via Yahoo to obsidianspider Send a message via Skype™ to obsidianspider
Default

I've read things here and there about the IFS kits for classic mustangs and I've heard from some people that they are wonderful, others say they handle terrible. Does anyone know of anyone who did a comparison between a stock/aftermarket front end and an IFS setup? I looked at the Total Control Products stuff and its not cheap by any means, but is it actually better than an IFS setup? I looked through my mustang mags and haven't even seen a buildup let alone a comparison. I need to decide what I want to do with the front end of my 66FB. It's going to be mainly street use, but I'd like to be able to use it on a road course if I wanted to. Any and all constructive feedback is appreciated.
__________________
Todd Dietrich - '66 T-Code Fastback, '10 V8 Explorer
VMF Facebook Group
obsidianspider is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-29-2005, 11:52 PM   #2 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jacksonville, FL 32257
Posts: 22
Default

I've been thinking about the same thing. I used to have an 88 GT and I'm giving serious consideration to installing an EFI 5.0, T-5 and MII into my 66FB to recreate (kinda) the driving experience of the GT with the classic styling of the 66.
rowka is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2005, 09:13 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tunkhannock PA
Posts: 11,594
Default

Think about this. The MII design is over 30 years old, why do we think this set up is the cutting edge set up for vintage Mustangs What advancements do you see for the MII set up? What is the aftermarket doing for the MII? Look at Global West or TCP components, they ARE the lastest upgrades, they do advancements in designs. Personally, if I were going to replace the whole front suspension, it would be off a 2000's car with modern design, not one from 1974! One front suspension that I find interesting is the one used on Jags/Lincoln platform. The over all dimensions from an eyeball point of view look to be close enough to fit under the Mustangs sheetmetal. With this set up you'd get HUGE disc brakes, R&P, coil over and all the good stuff that we try to do to the Vintage Mustang suspension. One last thing, go to corner carvers and mention the words Mustang II and handling in the same sentence.
__________________
Tom


Rehab is for quiters!

Huskinhano is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2005, 09:57 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
gt350clone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: KANSAS!
Posts: 5,200
Default

Mustang II front suspension is only used because it's a fairly compact & adaptable package. It's not used for handling improvement... BTW, any Mustang front suspension system (including stock) is "IFS".

Global West, TCP, RRS, Fatman, etc are all improvements over stock - the biggest limiting factor you'll find on an early Mustang is front tire width - just not enough fenderwell there to get a tire wide enough to take full advantage.

Quote:
I used to have an 88 GT and I'm giving serious consideration to installing an EFI 5.0, T-5 and MII into my 66FB to recreate (kinda) the driving experience of the GT with the classic styling of the 66.
The 88 GT used a Mcpherson strut front suspension, not Mustang II.
__________________
http://www.sunflower.com/~luckybug/images/banner.jpg
Ye old 65 Clone - www.gt350clone.com (Car & Tech Pages)
The young stud - www.MySaleen.com
gt350clone is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2005, 12:05 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,047
Default

Quote:
I looked through my mustang mags and haven't even seen a buildup let alone a comparison.

I need to decide what I want to do with the front end of my 66FB. It's going to be mainly street use, but I'd like to be able to use it on a road course if I wanted to.
:track: first. Just use good pads (I was happy with EBC Redstuff), use DOT 5.1 fluid and make sure rear shoes are close enough to drums and check that your rubber brake hoses and brake lines are good and then go. You'll find that your lap times will drop 2-3 seconds between each track day for the first four or five track days even if you don't do anything to car.

Good news is that you don't need a IFS, you already have one. From thereon

Mustangs mags are not up to the level of discussing virtues of different suspension setups. They can run often decent infomercials about those products that are advertised in the mag. You have to either pay a pretty penny to well known race shops to get it trackworthy or learn and share here with the rest of us. Use search about
roller perches
rack and pinion
coil overs
anti-roll bars or sway bars
camber curve

For mainly street use I would
1) install 1" front bar with 5/8" rear bar
2) Koni shocks
3) no stiffer than 480lbs (and cut to desired ride height) front springs
4) rear spring stiffness should have more choices than standard vendors generic 4 leaf, 4˝leaf or 5 leaf packs, haven't found mine yet, call Eaton Springs when you know or decide that whatever is fine in the meantime since you are going IRS or three link or torque arm eventually.
5) good 225/55/15 tires (difficult to find but 225/60 is tad too tall and 225/50 is too low, may have to go for 225/50/16), they are the only thing to connect any fansy-pansy suspension to ground
6) decide (after reading a lot) whether you're are satisfied with Arning (often miscredited to Shelby) drop (upper control arms lowered 1", see template) or whether you need more camber gain
7) get heim jointed strut rods
8) get roller perches (I'll do this winter)
9) steering, TCP, Griggs or whether design your own with Coleman custom spindles, weight, rear suspension, aero, etc the list goes on until you have build yourself a McLaren.
__________________
Oversized sig pics nobis delenda est. No need for that anymore, I found Hide avatar choice.
Arto65FB is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-30-2005, 05:49 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sandy, Utah
Posts: 7,557
Default

MII just gets you space in the engine compartment. It was designed for a car with significantly different weight and wheelbase, therefore it is not going to handle anywhere close to optimally for a classic Mustang.

John Harvey
__________________
5R08A, "298"(+.060, 6,000+ rpm), T-10, Crane XR-i, Disc (F), Dual Master, Heim Strut Rods - Spherical Bearing LCAs, Roller Perches, Arning Drop, 1" & 75" Anti-Sway Bars, Export & Monte Carlo, "functional" hood scoop, and GW Subframes.

Victory Red, Eagle Wheels, Power Antenna, White Int. w/ Black trim, Right & *Left* Indicators, Tach, Cruise, and a Glass Rear Window.

http://i1325.photobucket.com/albums/...psb38dc213.jpg
JSHarvey is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-02-2005, 11:31 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
mdjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 204
Default

When speaking of the Heidt's version, the only thing MII on that set-up is the spindle. The rest is just products based loosely on the design. I have driven several cars that have had the set-up from 351w to big blocks and feel the performance is comparable. You can definately make this suspension do what you want with the right adjustments. You can also pick track width, spring rate, tubular arms, etc, etc.

Most don't think it's necessary unless you need the room. If you are going for something big enough that needs the room, you are heavy in the front. So your handling will be hampered by the weight, not necessarily the suspension.
__________________
1965 Sinister Stang
2010 GT Rebellion Stang
mdjay is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-05-2005, 06:44 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
gfmccann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Brantford ON, Canada
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Personally, if I were going to replace the whole front suspension, it would be off a 2000's car with modern design, not one from 1974!
Tom, while I agree, generally, with your opinion, let's bear in mind that the "modern" designs use struts because they're lighter and simpler in overall design (= cheaper to produce), NOT because they have inherently better handling geometry; actually, quite the opposite. In fact, there are high-end aftermarket suspension systems for late-model Mustangs that convert from the struts to a dual a-arm suspension. Except in modified production classes, you won't find too many race cars with struts.

One thing I'm curious about: I don't understand why one of the larger M-II conversion companies doesn't do a redesign to improve the (apparently) poor geometry. The end cost should be pretty much the same... needing different tubular a-arms, likely a litle longer, and relocated mounts. Or is it the small spindle that's the limiting factor? Use something else! I know the vast majority of these conversions are destined for Rods and occasional drivers, but even these builders would likely choose the setup the promises "excellent handling geomotry." fwiw...

- Gord
__________________
Currently running a warmed-over 302...
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/fo...tang-Small.JPG
Driven every day!
gfmccann is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 12-11-2005, 09:40 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 118
Default

a 5.0 will fit between the factory shock towers on a 65/6 FB. so why waste the energy doing a mustang II front suspension if you don't have to? besides, my experience with the global west control arms (w/ shelby drop) tells me that you're not going to get any improvement with a II front end.
mariofenu is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.