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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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