|
Post by ca on Jun 8, 2007 15:04:25 GMT -5
|
|
jonesfactor
New Member
"(insert clever saying here)"
Posts: 29
|
Post by jonesfactor on Jun 19, 2007 8:09:18 GMT -5
Roy, from my point of view there are 0 cons to running mustang dos suspension. My sre crossmember is the burliest part of my whole car, plus im running a motor plate and a slightly modified pan with my new setup which lets me put the motor back 3/4 of an inch from where it was stock(of course my firewall has been slightly modified) and transfers the weight and torque of the motor directly to the frame rails. (also with the sre kit they give you a pre fabbed kit to box the frame rails which greatly increases strength) As for the motor's weight flowing into the shocktower, I dont understand why you say changing that is a downside. Assuming youre mounting the motor to the II crossmember, the weight all ends up in the same place as it does with the motor in the stock location, the frame rail. The weight and force when cornering is still transferred to the firewall in the same fashion but with much less sheet metal to flex and a MUCH more rigid crossmember. Plus most everyone ive seen install mustang II(including myself) puts in a bar from where the core support and the frame rail meet all the way up to the firewall which GREATLY increases the stiffness you want in an open track setting. groups.msn.com/MyFordandMercury/highpockets63fairlane.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=2624the rrs setup is killer, but i still wouldnt have enough room to fit ol' tex between the towers ;D
|
|
|
Post by ca on Jun 19, 2007 14:27:04 GMT -5
well if you put the right exhaust on there - no problem ol' tex fits never gonna have the great handling possibilities over a range of surfaces/roads/tracks with struts that you can get with arms just because of tuneability = just my of little value opinion ;D the support in the pic would really help even a stock Meteor/Fairlane and with subframe connectors help it would knock out a whole bunch of flex/twist either struts or arms will work an the street as proven by millions of miles with both setups
|
|
|
Post by roy on Jul 16, 2007 10:35:54 GMT -5
Jeez, nice mill!!! I talked at Length with Fatman Fab;s & these guys were adamant about the Mustang 11 kits, their take was the shock towers were supposed to take the weight of the engine, as Ford designers meant them too But, that was in the 60;s so we are not talking rocket science, but ecomony of making cars! I think your right, boxing sub frames & reinforcing to core support the weight & flexing is looked after The only thing i seem to remember the installer telling me was he had to move the motor 2" forward to line up with mounts on X-member. My buddy to, used a motor plate on his 460 to get motor back even further than stock. There has to be a way to install the mustang 11 kit & not move the motor forward
|
|
|
Post by ca on Jul 16, 2007 15:26:04 GMT -5
well nobody wants to move an engine forward on a front engine car. i'm sure you could figure out away to add to or change out the cross member to fit your needs.
|
|
|
Post by w2zero on Jul 16, 2007 19:25:47 GMT -5
just get the van oil pan and remote pickup. Rear sump eh. Sorry, that's too simple, forget I said anything.
|
|
|
Post by roy on Oct 9, 2007 7:59:05 GMT -5
Just to get this off my chest I have a problem using a suspension set up that was basically designed 25 yrs. ago for a compact car that flopped. Just because you loose the shock towers? thats the best reason to use a Mustang 11 set up? I;m sure the stang 11 set up is great for a drag car, or for those who just drive in a straight line Thanks, I;''ll save my pennies & get a REAL coil over set up thank you,
|
|
|
Post by eliotsdad on Oct 9, 2007 9:22:12 GMT -5
Just to get this off my chest I have a problem using a suspension set up that was basically designed 25 yrs. ago for a compact car that flopped. Just because you loose the shock towers? thats the best reason to use a Mustang 11 set up? I;m sure the stang 11 set up is great for a drag car, or for those who just drive in a straight line Thanks, I;''ll save my pennies & get a REAL coil over set up thank you, I'm confused ... why is the Mustang II IFS not a REAL coil-over set up? Give us an example of a "REAL coil over set up."
|
|
|
Post by w2zero on Oct 9, 2007 16:31:29 GMT -5
The shock or strut has a coil spring around it and connects to the suspension arm on one end and the frame on the other. That is what is usually referred to as coil over though not as much with the strut. Check out RRS for their coilover strut arrangement that only transmits the actual weight of the car at the wheel to the shock tower. Unlike the stock arrangement that just about doubles the stress due to the leverage from the spring placement.
|
|
|
Post by eliotsdad on Oct 9, 2007 21:20:46 GMT -5
The shock or strut has a coil spring around it and connects to the suspension arm on one end and the frame on the other. That is what is usually referred to as coil over though not as much with the strut. Sure, exactly. And that perfectly describes the rcmotorsports Mustang II kit: But, roy implied that the Mustang II setup was not a true coil-over system. I was trying to find out his reasoning behind that statement.
|
|
|
Post by johnc118 on Oct 9, 2007 21:31:24 GMT -5
Looks like a true adjustable coil over to me. I would do Elliots setup way before the RRS strut setup.
|
|
|
Post by w2zero on Oct 10, 2007 0:11:25 GMT -5
Roy was probably talking about the MII setups that weld a spring hat where your upper shock mount is. I would fab another crossmember or build a new pan before moving the engine forward like some of the guys have.
|
|
|
Post by basher on Oct 10, 2007 10:30:34 GMT -5
Hey, Not trying to stir the pot or anything, but has anyone done a Fox Body front end? I just tore one apart and sold the front end. That would be a True strut or coilover set-up and the struts would tie into the upper coil pocket, where Ford designed the stress to be. Would also solve the problem of using a 25yr old design. Actually, it probably is 25 by now, which makes the M2 30-35. ALOT of streetrods still using the M2, so it cant be too bad. I had one on my 68 International pick-up and it cornered like a slot car!
Just a thought. I am still happy with my airbags up front.
|
|
|
Post by johnc118 on Oct 10, 2007 11:10:50 GMT -5
RRS has the strut setup. As for what is called a MII setup these days are far from the old setup with the springhat. I have access to three 75 MIIs and noway would I put that setup on the Merc.
The problem with the original Pinto/MII is most did not have a sway bar on the front let alone on the rear. So when you head into say a left hand curve and had to nail the binders, the right rear of the car would come around on you really fast putting you into the severe oversteer problem spinning the car if you were not on top pf your game. Did it several times in my 72 PINTO.
Now days we have the so called M II setup and its nothing more than a double A-arm suspension. Look at the Indy cars from years ago to present they all run the formula cars.
As for the McPherson Strut, its been around in Europe longer than the M II setup. I had a 1968 BMW while there that had Mc Strut and saw many older than it with struts.
|
|
|
Post by ca on Oct 10, 2007 13:18:27 GMT -5
why would you be turnin and hittin the brakes and NOT expectin the assend to come around? ;D i think yur messin with us John A-arms are the best way to go i've been lookin under the Merc and i think it would be kool to move the upper mount outboard of the frame rail and lengthen the LCA for more track width and room. haven't done the geometry on it but it really couldn't be any worse than what it is now. could it?
|
|