mustang 2 or McPherson strut [Archive]

ditonics

03-18-2010, 04:31 AM

I am building a heavily modified 66 mustang for track and street use. The rear suspension will be an uprated IRS from an 03 cobra mustang. To fit the new modular engine I will be removing the inner front fenders and shock towers which leave me with 2 possible options for the front suspension.

1: install a mustang 2 style front suspension from the likes of Heidts

2: install Mc Pherson syyle front struts on to the front space frame

My question is which is the better option. The Mustang 2 front suspension would be a much easier soloution to install but I have no experience with their handling and performance. I dont want to sacrifice the cars cornering ability to save a few weeks work on the build. As mentioned the car will be partly space framed so the front suspenion could be custon made to tie into this with either an upper and lower wish arm design or TCA/Mc pherson strut.

All advise and experiences welcome

Thanks

JRouche

03-26-2010, 07:54 PM

Instead of looking at the Mustang II style, give the Superide II a glance. Better adjustment and handling than the Mustang II. Sounds like something you might want to check out.

www.heidts.com

Feel free to give us a call with any questions.
800-841-8188

Im curious. Other than the adjustable upper arms how much different is it than a MII type suspension. Meaning, did you guys change the arm length of the uppers or lowers, change the mounting location of the arms or rack or anything else? What are the arm lengths?

I didnt see much mentioned on the site as far as differences besides the adjustable uppers and the spindle which are available for the MII suspension as well.

One thing I see with the adjustable uppers (I have some, SPC) is they are not really meant to adjust the alignment. You can, and thats what most people use them for. If you use them to change the camber for example then you totally change the camber gain also do to the change in arm length. On a MII type if you increase the arm length you reduce the amount of camber gain during suspension travel.

I see the adjustable uppers as a great tool for increasing caster. More so than the stock arms and mounting slots give you on the stock type MII front. Then on setups like yours where you mount the uppers on fixed points it looks like its a must to have adjustable uppers or eccentric bushing.

On my car I welded uprights to mount the upper's shaft to. And I spaced the uprights in far enough (about 1.125") to allow me to use spacers to align the car and to lengthen the upper arms by an inch via the adjustable arms. That way I am keeping the correct arm length for camber gain and using the adjustable part of the arms to give me the large caster I want and increase the arm length without pushing the top of the spindle way out.

And I use shims to get the fine tuned alignment after the adjustable arms are set at the correct length and backward angle for caster. Kinda a double adjustable setup that gives a tremendous amount of options. Given the narrow amount of adjustbility of the MII front.

So my point. Adjustable arms prolly shouldnt be looked at as a major point for adjustbility. Some folks may see them for that. They are good for minor alignment adjustments. But I think for major suspension adjustments they need to look at the mounts first..

And I strayed. I know you dont market your system as needing any major adjustments. It is a thought out suspension and you are using the adjustable arms for final alignment needs. It looks like a good system. Better than eccentric bushings.

I was just thinking out loud and thinking about the other adjustable arms out there. Where a guy may be thinking they would help with his suspension he is making up and and needs some larger adjustments. Then its time to break out the welder. JR