mustang II front axle mod

bawrencher · Post by **bawrencher** » November 20, 2006, 1:49 pm

hi guys, i see MadMaxetc is considering this mod for his 63. i've read
that it's not the best choice. anybody have hands on experience with
it? let him know, good or bad.

didgeytrucker · Post by **didgeytrucker** » November 21, 2006, 8:39 pm

If you read that the MII was not the best choice, what was recommended? Many different companies have brought out kits using the MII DESIGN - not the components themselves. That might be what you read. The design is a very well thought out design and adapts to a variety of vehicles. But I would not remove a complete MII front end from a Mustang and weld it in my vehicle. I would install a kit made for my vehicle.

Tracy

MadMaxetc · Post by **MadMaxetc** » November 21, 2006, 9:49 pm

The MII is not a bad mod, just not the one I desided to go with.

I am now going with Elpolako's DAKOTA IFS.

These are my requirements...

My truck will routinly see 100+ mph (1/4 mile on the weekends) so tite handling is a must.
I will be running a 460, so a strong suspention is a must.
I want P/S, P/B and a swaybar.
I also want to lower the truck a little.

Here is why I desided agains the MII..

The springs for a MII are only made to hadel the weight of a 351 not a 460.
The MII needs to have beefed up parts to work on a truck. As I will be racing it I will most likly stress/break stuff, and would like to use stock/off the shelf stuff.
The MII was designed for a frame 4" narower than ours, so the geometry is alterd (Fat Man has fixed that with there custom peice ...see #2)

That is why I am going with the Dakota IFS. Stock parts, wide availibility and if using stock parts...chepper. I am planning on $2000.00 MAX on the Dakota where as the MII from Fat Man would have been closer to $3k.

The MII can be used just fine for around town and show trucks, but I would look into the Dakota for a truck that will get worked (not hauling just agresive driving) and with a smaller engine like a 351 (not sure how much FE's weigh). Oh use the one from Fat Man's...I didn't think any of the other ones looked any good.

Another good choice is the Twin-I if you don't want to lower the truck. It can take a punishing and parts are cheep. The only thing I dont like is the steering boxes, they are loose for the most part and cost a few hundred $ to get them fixed.

It just all depends what you want to get out of (and put in) to your truck...

So what are your plans??

Johnny Canuck · Post by **Johnny Canuck** » November 21, 2006, 9:53 pm

I don't mean to dis your choice, in fact I endorse it Dan, I believe in what ElP and Garbz have to say (most of the time

)

But where did you get that with stock parts, a Dakota is designed for anything more than a 318? or at the most a 360...

MadMaxetc · Post by **MadMaxetc** » November 21, 2006, 10:20 pm

True the dakota is done to handle a 360 (A-arms are smae part # for all engines) but that is just it...they are stock. If I crack or break on I just put another one from the yard on and go. The MII kit you have to use the SS cast arms to handle the weight...I know these will not break (well I hope not anyway) but I can get a lot of stock parts for $1000. The springs might be a little week on eather kit...but I don't know, this is my first kit.

This is just what I thought.

61 Merc · Post by **61 Merc** » November 22, 2006, 1:07 am

I've been looking at the Scotts system. Have seen it a number of units, and it looks heavier than some of the others. Talked to Justin (Owner of Scotts) at a show and he was very helpfull.

Johnny Canuck · Post by **Johnny Canuck** » November 22, 2006, 9:45 am

Does Justin have one on his own Slick?
Because ElPolacko (Steve) from Industrial Chassis has one of his own Dakotas that he makes, on his own Slick and ain't askeered to drive it, either, according to Garbz

Has a big honkin' brand X big block too... but we won't go there

The only M2 I have seen on a pickup was on a '46 Chev... it scared me so bad to look at it I never even considered one after that. Looks like a bear on a unicycle in that truck.... put it this way,, you couldn't get me drunk enough, or pay me enough cash to ride in that thing

ELpolacko · Post by **ELpolacko** » November 22, 2006, 11:12 am

Just a quick quip on Mustang II suspensions in "our" trucks. I will not try and make this a sales pitch, honest.

Raw facts: Mustang II built from 1974-1978 came in variants 4-6-8 cylinder and at the most carried 1900# on the front wheels on a 2650# Gross vehicle weight. The maximum wheel size was a 175/70-13" and was fitted with a 9" vented disc rotor. Track width is 56" stock.

Your truck carries a minimum of 2100# on the front axle and weights in excess of 3300#. So right there you should understand that you are overloading the stock design by 10% static and braking loads will increase by 25% or more depending on speed. Now increase the wheel size and brake you increase the unsprung weight dramatically as well as the wheel interia the supsension must overcome to slow the vehicle which translates directley into the suspension crossmember braking resistance loads.

Widening the track width to 60" or so without altering the relation of the upper and lower control arms would drop the roll center well below ground inducing excessive body roll. Since the Mustang II was designed with fairly compliant geometry an anti-roll bar was always affixed to them. You would want to retain the roll bar and increase it's roll stiffness to counteract the lower roll center. That will effect the ride quality also but it isn't that simple. The kit manufacuterers don't leave the suspension geometry untouched. The move things around to clear the frame rails better. The upper control arm fixed point is usually raised to gain clearance. This allows the rack and pinion to be mounted below the frame rail without a C-notch and gives you better oil pan clearance.

Now this does relocate the roll center back near stock placement inregards to the Mustang II. However all is not rosy. The camber curve is greatly affected by altering the normally compliant curve to a negative or zero camber gain. What that means to you is understeer and lots of it. No ammount of anti-roll bar stiffness is going to correct that.

To boil this all down, the Mustang II is not the best choice for this application. Yes it has been done, quite a bit and very popular. This does not excuse the manufacturers from continuing to push this bad design on us.

Just for reference the Dodge Dakota 4 and 6 cylinder trucks carry 2200# pounds on the front and the trucks weigh in around 3800# gross and carry a 225/75-15 tire over an 11.375" diameter vented disc rotor. All on a 61" track width.

Cheers!

MadMaxetc · Post by **MadMaxetc** » November 22, 2006, 12:47 pm

That post is the reasion I am going with the Dakota from Steve (ELpolacko). He knows what he is talking about (not saying others don't) and will not BS you around (well he hasn't yet

).

The more I talk about this the more I can't wait to get mine in!!
(I have been bugging him (steve) WAY too much)

Are they done yet Steve?!?!

BigTim · Post by **BigTim** » November 22, 2006, 4:43 pm

Johnny Canuck wrote:you couldn't get me drunk enough

That sounds like a challenge.

ELpolacko · Post by **ELpolacko** » November 22, 2006, 6:59 pm

MadMaxetc wrote: Are they done yet Steve?!?!

Are we there yet, are we there yet, are we there yet!

mikecarson · Post by **mikecarson** » November 22, 2006, 7:18 pm

Johnny Canuck · Post by **Johnny Canuck** » November 22, 2006, 7:41 pm

BigTim wrote:
Johnny Canuck wrote:you couldn't get me drunk enough
That sounds like a challenge.

Heh. you can take up the challenge in KC '08

Garbz · Post by **Garbz** » November 22, 2006, 10:35 pm

Well

Seeing as i get to build em i will stay silent............As to the comment on just how fast Steve drives the green monster.. FAST! and it handles like on rails.

JC Tim says cheers. arrived here this afternoon. Nice to know i can pirate the neghbors wireless internet!!!!!

Garbz

Johnny Canuck · Post by **Johnny Canuck** » November 23, 2006, 1:24 am

Cheers right backatcha both.

or in Braille

.::... ...:...: .:::. :::..:: ::...: ...::..:

Hope I spelled that right

Have fun youse guys. Hoist one for me, I gotta work tomorrow.