Mustang II Suspension Question Moved from Suspension section

[TBART70]

I have an after market Martz chassis for my 70 Camaro (should have bought a different one) with mustang suspension, the lower control arm is 15" from bolt center to middle of the ball joint. My question is if I replaced the control arm with one that is 15 3/4" long and move the inner bolt hole in 3/4" how much of a difference will there be in geometry. I found a real nice control arm from TCP (chris alston) that I would like to utilize because some of the features of my chassis is not that great. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Also does anybody know how I can figure out the total geometry on this thing? Also would like to put ATS spindles on it. Mostly purchased it for the WOW factor it is only a street car no racing intended. Most people at the cruise nights won't even know that it isn't the best suspension but it looks cool. As long as it handles as good as stock or at least a little better I will be happy, but I figured if I could improve a little I will.

[sinned]

Mustang II front clips are street rod parts, not designed for hard core handling. You would need to redesign the entire front end to get any real handling out of it. Figuring out the end numbers is the easy part, taking all the nesessary measurements is the hard part.

[RobM]

every one says that but i never hear what is actualy wrong with them... I have yet to blue print one out. what are the major down falls of the mustang II? they are prety easy to fabricate and it would be cool if i could work the bugs out and give it a try in my car.

[TBART70]

I am a newby on suspension dynamics still learning, I know that there are some people on here that know their stuff. Have spent many hours reading their posts. The problem with my chassis is that it was flimsy, it added some supports to it, seems to have helped alot. The mustang suspension on the other hand many have said it is less than desirable. That's why I would like to make some minor improvements. Also learn the pro's and con's of it.

[sinned]

every one says that but i never hear what is actualy wrong with them... I have yet to blue print one out. what are the major down falls of the mustang II? they are prety easy to fabricate and it would be cool if i could work the bugs out and give it a try in my car.Control arms are way too short resulting in drastic lateral RC migration as well as excessive scrub radius.

[parsonsj]

Dennis has it. Here's some more thoughts (http://popularhotrodding.com/tech/0505phr_susp/) on the MII suspension as sold by AME.

jp

[red65FB]

Hi - Newbie here. While I understand the negatives of the MII suspension, I believe that there are enough people running MII's that would like to improve them. Until now, the only advice I have seen is "start over". There must be something that can be done in the world of bolt-on's that would improve the existing geometry.

To add to TBART70's suggestion, I myself would appreciate some ideas to improve what I have.

AT

[alcino]

Works for me. But my car was designed for it:rotfl:

[sinned]

Hi - Newbie here. While I understand the negatives of the MII suspension, I believe that there are enough people running MII's that would like to improve them. Until now, the only advice I have seen is "start over". There must be something that can be done in the world of bolt-on's that would improve the existing geometry.

To add to TBART70's suggestion, I myself would appreciate some ideas to improve what I have.

AT
No, there is nothing that can be done to improve the geometry other than to start over. It doesn't matter if throw a million dollars at it, without throwing the control arms in the garbage and starting from scratch it a junk street rod design (or in Al’s case as kick ass OE design that works well ONLY on factory Mustang II chassis').

[TBART70]

I looked at pictures of II Much unbeleivable car.
He said his lower control arms were in the 13 in. range and went to 15.6 in. Mine are 15 in. now and I want to go to 15 3/4 in. I do not know what the uppers are I have to measure. As long as my suspension is durable and reliable I will be happy. If it handles good that would be a plus. I will have a 17x9.5 wheel with a 5 in. backspace with a 275/40/17 tire on the front. I don't know what these demensions will do for scrub radius, camber gain or RC migration ( had to look up definitions on them):dunno: but hope before the car hits the road in a few years I will understand them better.

[red65FB]

Alcino - love your car. Great write-up in PHR. What's different in your set-up vs. a bone stock MII? TBART70 mentioned longer LCA's. Are these fabricated? My car is a 65 Mustang FB with an old school factory MII cross-member transplant - not a kit. Apart from the obvious differences in wheelbase, and frame construction, I don't see why changes that worked for you wouldn't offer improvement in my application.

Any word on wether or not AFX's planned MII spindles will improve geometry?

AT

[RobM]

is that scrub radius caused but the factory setup or droped spindles?

[sinned]

As I recall Al’s control arms are the stock pieces it came with, or at least the stock dimensions. The reason it works on his car is because it was designed to work as a package with the entire chassis. That is the biggest problem with today’s incoming group of PTers, looking for the easy way out. You cannot simply throw some parts at a frame and expect it to work. Engineers spend hundreds of hours designing suspension systems as they are quite intricate and are definitely one of the "do it right or die" systems; kind of like brakes. If you don't know what you are doing, it is best to seek the assistance of someone who does to aid in the design/construction of what you are doing. I have over 8 months of design, and redesign, and redesign and hundreds of dollars spent on "wall art" trying to make everything work properly. It's just not as easy as you all would like it to be.

No, you cannot make Mustang II parts work on another chassis and expect it to handle well enough to run with any of the more advanced groups on a road course. Sure it will drive and turn on the street but handle well, not likely. Even in Al’s case his car could handle better with some redesign work on the UCA/LCA length and pick-ups. I realize it ran .99g on the skid and does well on the road events. It also weighs half of most the cars out there and runs R compound tires.

The scrub radius concern comes in as the control arms are so short that you need a very short backspacing to get the fitment right.

[red65FB]

As much as I would love to start over again, I bought this car pre-modded, prior to my doing enough research to know what I should be really looking for. I come from tracking a modded C5 and a Miata previously - those were great handling cars, so I'm not expecting miracles, nor am I trying to shortcut the right way to do things. I will say that for what it is, the car handles high speed canyon runs quite well with more stability than I thought possible - on street tires.

Your right - R-compounds and stiff springs will make just about anything stick like glue, a band-aid if you will. In the meantime, until I win the lottery, I plan to squeeze as much as I can out of the car as it is. I'm holding out some hope for the rumoured AFX MII spindle...:hammer:

[alcino]

sorry if i ryled things up here.


What's different in your set-up vs. a bone stock MII?


Only the rubber bushings replaced with the poly ones. Everything else is factory, but the alignment settings.(-1.75d camber, 3.5d caster, 0.5inch toe out)

I agree with dennis about the wandering RC from the short arms, or so I think. When I'm hauling ass on the road course it can be really scary during transitions when the weight is being shifted from one side to the other. I don't know how to explain it other than the car starts to feel unpredictable and I say "oh *****!" in my head. Is that the RC moving dennis?

I also agree that there is room to improve. In the future I would like to get wheels with the most backspacing possible in the front, with taller dropped spindles(AFX?) or taller balljoints and making long control arms to fit. I'm hoping to get close to 3 more inches on the control arms.

Dennis do you still have that suspension program? Could I give you some dimensions on my ideas and see how they would turn out?

[Norm Peterson]

0.5inch toe outhalf an INCH . . . :eek:

(BTW, The same bits worked fairly well on the Pinto, with no evil traits that I ever found.)

Norm

[sinned]

Yeah, I have WinGeo. Send my the numbers and I'll run them.

[red65FB]

sorry if i ryled things up here.


Only the rubber bushings replaced with the poly ones. Everything else is factory, but the alignment settings.(-1.75d camber, 3.5d caster, 0.5inch toe out)

I agree with dennis about the wandering RC from the short arms, or so I think. When I'm hauling ass on the road course it can be really scary during transitions when the weight is being shifted from one side to the other. I don't know how to explain it other than the car starts to feel unpredictable and I say "oh *****!" in my head. Is that the RC moving dennis?






I'm running similar alignment numbers, except for that toe out thingy. I wonder if this could be causing some of your transitional instability at higher road coarse speeds? You could be exagerrating the RC problem. Also, I noticed the rear of your car is very tall, this might also be adding to that sensation. I'm no expert, but screwing around with my rear ride height has resulted in improvements at the wheel and SOTP.

I too have been thinking about some of the solutions your thinking of. I'm running 4.5 BS on 17x8 rims - there seems to be room for moving the LCA and balljoint outward. Coupled with maybe a larger rim diameter to clear everything?

[RobM]

that toe out give you better ackermen right?

[baz67]

I would think no. Ackermen is a determained by the steering geometry. It does not matter what the toe is set at to the geomtry.

[alcino]

Toe out definitely helps Ackerman. My car is set up for the tight turns of an autoX track hence my use of lots of toe out. I think it causes the car to wander in the straights, but stick better in the turns. I've never changed the alignment for the road course, but maybe next time I will adjust it to see if it helps the handling. What kind of toe should I shoot for? None?

[RobM]

i would slowely dial it in untill the problem gets fixed. and the reason toe out gives more ackermen is because it causes the inside tire to stear into the corner more then the outer, more so then if you had a toe in this is a pretty comon trick in auto X and roundy round racing. I love your car man alot of people think throwing money for shiney parts solves the problem when in reality its all in the tuning! this is turning into a good thread

[Norm Peterson]

I think if you've got any more than about 50% Ackermann correction in that 94.5" wheelbase / 55" track width car, half an inch of total toe is more than you need for a 30' radius turn (per a little spreadsheet I threw together, guessing at that value as being representative of the tighter turn radii in auto-x).

Larger radius turns need less total toe to compensate for partial Ackermann correction. That's ignoring for the moment the notion that having or simulating full Ackermann correction may actually not be the hot tip, as a more complete expression for getting the wheels effectively pointed in consistent directions includes the different slip angles experienced by the inner vs outer tires (so it's somewhat wheel/tire sensitive). A greater slip angle on the outer tire than on the inner also simulates Ackermann - though a badly cambered inner wheel might yield an overall effect of anti-Ackermann. IOW, this is something best left for a test 'n' tune session or two.

Norm

[red65FB]

Toe out would cause the straight line wander. The two wheels pointing away from the vehicle's centerline fight each other as they try to head off in opposing directions. Nice for auto-x as it helps turn-in at low speeds. I find that roadcourse work needs a compromise between stability and cornering - I personally prefer stability as the speeds tend to be higher and I like driving home in one piece...

[TBART70]

Stop your making my brain hurt.:hand:

[bret]

Actually a properly set up Mustang II suspension can handle very nicely. We have installed several dozen, most notably under a 2001 Sport Trac and a 56 F100. Both of these under powered, front heavy, top heavy, under sway barred,[sp?] cheap shocked, over wheel and tired trucks drove, stopped and cornered beautifully. Tracked nicely, cornered flat, even tire temps, predictable, transitioned well...all that kind of stuff we spend hours chasing on paper. In the case of the Sport Trac the head test driver for Ford, Kevin Markham, had the truck on the track at the Ford Proving Grounds at speeds of over 120mph. His largest criticism was that it was way too neutral for a civilian...Ford would have to make it understeer a bit more for the general public. He also said it needed a little larger front sway bar [it had none] and the power steering effort was too low [it certainly was.] The Sport Trac had a 3 link and panhard bar on the rear.
On the 56 F100, Boris Said liked it so much he has asked us to build him one. This truck has a plain old Fatman's MII system with AutoZone shocks on the front and a parrallel 4 link and panhard bar on the rear.
BTW...both trucks had/have air suspension. The Sport Trac had ShockWaves all around, the F100 has airsprings front and rear.
I think the trick with any suspension, including the MII, is to drive the thing at its intended, designed ride height. So many people, especially with an air suspension, insist on driving the vehicle way too low. In addition to a terrible ride quality, the handling performance suffers greatly because the lower control arm is way past level so the camber curve goes to hell a lot quicker, the sway bar is typically not at its optimum operating level, and the bumpsteer geometry is into an unfavorable position. As with any suspension, proper load capacity and spring rate springs [air or otherwise], proper shocks, and proper installation will give you great performance.
I have not evaluated the MII suspension on paper for roll center, ackerman, etc. By the time I learned how to do all that stuff on paper I had successfully installed enough of them not to care what the calculations said. I would love for someone to run some numbers on this suspension so we could all learn why it performs as well as it does. If I get half a chance I'll do that one of these days!
I'm not sure where the MII got its bad reputation...possibly from its donor car, which was no jewel as a whole. The front suspension was definately the best part of that car.
Given the fact that there is an abundance of easily adaptable aftermarket MII systems out there that can be easily upgraded with larger brakes and better shocks, it is one of the better choices for many vehicles. The oem Mustang components are weak, hard to adapt, and should be avoided.
There are theroretically better suspension systems out there, at least on paper, but if I was building a car from scratch that had to perform with a minimum of hassle...I'd have a MII based system.

[sinned]

I would love for someone to run some numbers on this suspension so we could all learn why it performs as well as it does. If I get half a chance I'll do that one of these days! I'm not sure where the MII got its bad reputation...possibly from its donor car, which was no jewel as a whole. The front suspension was definately the best part of that car. OK, I really don't want to start an argument but you are full of siht. The Mustang II suspension is not a great handling suspension, hell one of A/M's (the pioneer of the Mustang II clip being used as a donor suspension) chief engineers for many years will admit to that. I get the sneaking suspicion that we are going to find out very soon that "bret" is actually a chassis builder and uses....Mustang II suspension (I use chassis builder very loosely as there are very few these days who actually know what they are doing).

There are theroretically better suspension systems out there, at least on paper, but if I was building a car from scratch that had to perform with a minimum of hassle...I'd have a MII based system.OK, you go right ahead. I guess since all the other designs are just "theoretically" better that would explain why NOBODY who intends use their car even for limited track uses them and runs like hell away from Mustang II designed kits. Please, bring tech or keep your rants about how great your cars drive to your street rod buddies that believe it. There are more engineers in this place and dozens of regulars at the track, wrong crowd to try and sell crap to. I’m sure Boris Said was being polite and evaluating the car as he saw it to be intended to be used, as a cruiser. OK, the tech is gone, I'm done

[silver69camaro]

[COLOR=black] The Mustang II suspension is not a great handling suspension, hell one of A/M's (the pioneer of the Mustang II clip being used as a donor suspension) chief engineers for many years will admit to that.

I just want to make sure everybody is aware that we do not use Mustang II suspensions. The only thing that somewhat resembles MII components is the spindles, and even those are different.

[kamaroman68]

Hey Matt Jones I purchased a Max G frame for my 68 camaro. I understand that it is not MII front suspension so what is it? I did not order the C5 setup. From what I understood when buying this frame from your salesman it was based on the MII suspension with a little geometry changed. So wouldn't this still be classified as MII suspension with some tweaks? And if I were to somehow break a control arm would a stock from another company drop right in? Without getting into all the crazy numbers can you tell us what is changed from the MII suspension? Chris

[red65FB]

[COLOR=black] OK, the tech is gone, I'm done

Come back! The whole point of this forum is to discuss how to make our old crap suspensions work less crappy - right? Did you get a chance to run alcino's numbers?

[chet]

interesting discussion! I have a question on my '79 ford truck I want to put a better handling suspension under it and I'm kind of limited on choices. fatmanfab has a MII setup but will it be that much better than stock? My main problem with the stock system is lack of ajdustability (and weight)

What suspension set-up would be a good start for a trans plant? or could a MII set-up be modded to give me some corner performance in a heavy truck?

[alcino]

I don't have numbers yet so don't expect anything from dennis. I will be out of town this weekend but after that I should have time to take a few measurements off my car to get the baseline and start putting together a version 1.0 of my future redesigned MII suspension. If Dennis is willing he can run the numbers and show us what the values are and if they are improved by the "redesign".

[silver69camaro]

Hey Matt Jones I purchased a Max G frame for my 68 camaro. I understand that it is not MII front suspension so what is it? I did not order the C5 setup. From what I understood when buying this frame from your salesman it was based on the MII suspension with a little geometry changed. So wouldn't this still be classified as MII suspension with some tweaks? And if I were to somehow break a control arm would a stock from another company drop right in? Without getting into all the crazy numbers can you tell us what is changed from the MII suspension? Chris

It's not based on the Mustang II suspension at all. We have the Mustang II spindles (which aren't exactly like the stock MII spindles), and designed the suspension from scratch. So the answer is no, it is not a "tweaked" MII design, and other components will not fit (only AME parts will fit). Some measurements are similar between the two, but as we all know, "similar" measurements do not produce the same end result.

Things that have changed from the stock setup are, but not limited to:
- Anti-dive
- Camber curve
- RCH height
- RCH migration
- SVSA
- Bumpsteer

And the list goes on. The suspension used on our GT55 chassis also uses MII spindles, but the geometry is heavily modified from our base in-house suspension. This proves that even though MII spindles are used, you can get great handling! But the similarities end at the spindles, and people can get that confused.

Let me know if you have any other questions!

[kamaroman68]

Thanks for the reply Mr Jones. I'm actually kind of glad you cleared it up for me. people at work were asking why I would put a mustang suspension under a camaro. I told them it was tweaked MII suspension. I will correct that statement. Chris

[kamaroman68]

So I kinda understand what you are saying but when I opened my rack and pinion unit it was a 74-78 mustang rack as well as the outer tie rod ends although coming from flaming river. So it seems that there are parts from the MII suspension being employed in the use of this suspension but geometry has changed. Thanks Matt Chris

[silver69camaro]

So I kinda understand what you are saying but when I opened my rack and pinion unit it was a 74-78 mustang rack as well as the outer tie rod ends although coming from flaming river. So it seems that there are parts from the MII suspension being employed in the use of this suspension but geometry has changed. Thanks Matt Chris

The rack doesn't have much to do with the stock Mustang II geometry. It's narrowed/widened to fit our specs, and we also use Pinto, Omni, and Opel racks when we see fit. So really, the rack that you have was just used because it has the correct pivot-to-pivot dimension for your suspension type (frame and hub width). The tie rod ends are used simply because they bolt up to the Mustang II spindles, and they're very durable. Again, nothing to do with stock MII geometry. Sometimes we use sphericals, too.

I think your rack may actually be a '79-'93 Mustang rack, not a Mustang II. If you want to tell for sure, the MII rack is 16" mount-to-mount, and the Mustang rack is 15.5" mount-to-mount.

[kamaroman68]

Yes Matt you are correct the rack is the later one as you stated. The outer tie rod ends are definitely 74 - 78 as I have the package in hand. But that pretty much clears it all up. Thanks Chris

[TBART70]

As far as I know the suspension I have is based on a mustang because of the spindles, steering rack and strut rod lower control arm set up. As mentioned before the similarities end there. It is built to the demensions of my car, control arm length, track width and so on. Supposedly the dimensions are suppossed to be a better design. I do not know exactly what the geometry is, but it is also hard to get an answer out of the guy who built it. I should have done my homework before I bought it, and the way he was on the phone answering my questions I should have known better an hung up on him. I will find someone at some point to help me figure this out so I can stop assuming that it will handle good, until I drive it and feel it I won't know. If the numbers look good before it is on the road great.

[murtah]

Tbart, your sub is from Martz, right? Getting info from ol' gary is like pulling teeth.

[TBART70]

yeah its from him, hard to get answers, was hoping R. Kirkindall would chime in he loves his chassis, maybe he could get some numbers from him?

[steeryourite]

Hey Guys,
Wow what a heated topic. Im going to put my 2 cents into the mix. We sell rack and pinions to almost all the MII guys, including Morison, Alston, TCI, Heidt's and Fatman. Most of them if not all dont market there product for hard core road racing. They make a good product for their intended use. And as far as the harsh remarks to Bret, he is no dummy, he owns Air Ride Technologies. He does know alot about suspensions, but again doesnt market his products for hard core racing. I also agree that the OEM's spend many thousands of hours, and dollars designing independent suspentions, and most are pretty good for thier intended use, which is not hard core racing. When we design a bolt in rack kit we are very carefull to make sure the geometry is correct and reacts correctly with what the engineers designed. We always test for bump steer, and try to eliminate it as much as possible. Our new Chevy II/Nova kit has a little bump, but it has less than what the factory set up had. We have yet to have anyone try it on the track, but it does extremely well on the street. My point is parts should be designated for street or racing. You guys admit that you are setting your toe, caster, and camber way differently than a street car, so lets compare apples to apples.
Dave Batke
Maval Mfg.

[silver69camaro]

Hey Guys,
...almost all the MII guys, including Morison, Alston, TCI, Heidt's and Fatman.


I hate to nitpick, and I don't want to seem like a pain in the butt, but we don't do Mustang II suspensions. It's a very common misconception about our products, and don't want people to get the wrong idea.

But I agree, some people tend to blend the autocross/street performance together. In a remote way, it's a bit like when a customer says "I want a car that will be excellent in drag and road racing." IMO, you can do one of those real well, or you can do both poorly. Each suspension does their intended use very well, but don't try to make them do something it wasn't meant to do.

[steeryourite]

Sorry Matt,
I should have said custom IFS. My bad, I know what you guys make, and it should not be classified as MII.

[silver69camaro]

Sorry Matt,
I should have said custom IFS. My bad, I know what you guys make, and it should not be classified as MII.

No big deal!

[sinned]

And as far as the harsh remarks to Bret, he is no dummy, he owns Air Ride Technologies. He does know alot about suspensions, but again doesnt market his products for hard core racing. .
I should have guessed, he knows so much about suspension that he puts together scratch built designs without once ever even doing the math to figure out what will work and what won't. Just weld it all together and hope for the best. The airbag guys lately have been really pushing their product to the track crowd, and PHR isn't helping much with their fairly biased install/reviews. Sorry, I don't put much faith in a guy that claims he builds suspensions but has no idea what the geometric analysis looks like, first rule to design is to put it down and on paper. That scares the crap out of me that he marketing kits and selling them to the public.

[bret]

I confess that I own Air Ride Technologies. I don't make a deal out of it because I am not looking for shameless self promotion. I was a hotrodder before we started this company. It exists to feed my hotrod habit.
Just a couple of observations...1. when practical experience contradicts "proven" therorys, it may be time to re-evaluate that therory. 2. I think it is likely that practical experience and objective results were the roots for the textbook theorys that we all [including me] subscribe to today. As usual, the written word cannot convey the tone of a discussion...I didn't say the MII suspension is the absolute best available...I said that I have personally had great results with it both on and off the track. I would love to say that my success was the result of my superior driving skills, but there are too many first hand witnesses to the contrary [ask any of my friends who have raced me on a kart track with equal karts].
As for Boris being polite...he is. He is also quite blunt. The rest of that story was that he thought my cars were a little down on power. [ouch!]
The Street Challenge event that we started doing a couple of years ago has taught us a lot about getting a car around a racetrack. It is absolutely true that we have never built a front suspension from scratch. Given the fact that there are many good products out there, and that we supply product to several suspension manufacturers, there has been no compelling reason to build something from scratch. We have simply tuned on existing systems. It has been encouraging to have my subjective opinions collaborated by experienced third parties. As for the magazines...it is true that we advertise in these books. It doesn't change the objective results of the tests. I certainly don't expect everyone [anyone?] to roll over and agree with me just because I say all this is true. If they did there would be no reason to go to Hotrod's Open Track Smackdown this fall to see how we can really stack up against the hardcore guys. I was going to take a truly average suspended car [69 Mustang] Now I may have to "upgrade". I can't wait to continue learning. And if I get my ass handed to me...well, I have experience at that as well!

[sinned]

May I make a suggestion before anybody goes and outfits a car with either MII parts or air bags (or both) and proclaims who much better it feels? I humbly suggest (PHR is welcome to read too as it applies to them big time), next time do a car right first. By "right" I mean do some homework and put together a really good package even if it’s your own doing and involves some unconventional pieces. Then if you’re so inclined swap to one of the many kits and post the results. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing look how great this kit is compared to garbage (they always leave out the garbage part but instead insert”previously well handling car").

I might also add that Bret has proven himself a true gentleman, few can handle my verbal bashings without responding with at least a few ****. Civilized discussion to follow.

[David Pozzi]

sorry if i ryled things up here.



Only the rubber bushings replaced with the poly ones. Everything else is factory, but the alignment settings.(-1.75d camber, 3.5d caster, 0.5inch toe out)

I agree with dennis about the wandering RC from the short arms, or so I think. When I'm hauling ass on the road course it can be really scary during transitions when the weight is being shifted from one side to the other. I don't know how to explain it other than the car starts to feel unpredictable and I say "oh *****!" in my head. Is that the RC moving dennis?

I also agree that there is room to improve. In the future I would like to get wheels with the most backspacing possible in the front, with taller dropped spindles(AFX?) or taller balljoints and making long control arms to fit. I'm hoping to get close to 3 more inches on the control arms.

Dennis do you still have that suspension program? Could I give you some dimensions on my ideas and see how they would turn out?

Al,
Perf Trends demo software has a 78 mustang II.
The roll center moves laterally a lot, it moves towards the loaded tire under roll.
The roll center is at ground level, goes below ground level under braking, there is only .3 deg neg camber gain per inch of bump, there is .8 deg camber loss relative to the ground at 2 deg pure roll, with no dive.

The A arms are so short they really hurt the geometry!!! The usual move to the upper A arm inner pivots does not help much.

[David Pozzi]

Al,

what is the distance (height) from lower balljoint center of pivot, to the floor?
What is the distance (height) from lower inner A arm pivot to floor?

Is there any room to raise the inner pivot of the lower A arm? Both front and rear pivots?
Does anyone make a drop spindle for a Mustang II? I've got an idea...

[TBART70]

David maybe you can answer my question. I know not having all the measurements plotted out for use on the computer is going to make it hard to answer. As stated in the first post, will making the lower control arm 3/4 inch longer make that much of a significant difference good or bad? thanks for any input.
-Tom b.

[David Pozzi]

TBAR70,
No, I dont' think so.
It's looking like the lower arm inboard pivot must be higher than the LBJ on the inboard side by an inch, and the upper arm inner pivot lowered an inch. You really don't want to raise the inner LCA pivot because you would then need to move the rack.

If you could find a drop spindle, then raise the car up an inch with taller springs or spacers, that would help get the lower A arm at a better angle, then lower the upper A arm pivot 2". The rack might not need to be moved this way, but the outer steering arm would have to be spaced up to where it was.

This is just a flat out guess at this point but something in that directon would help and be something to try on an MII suspension other than changing A arm lengths which is more difficult.

What I'm seeing is, the arms are too short both top and bottom, this makes the roll center move laterally a WHOLE BUNCH. It also stays very low at ground level even if you lower the upper frame pivot 1" or 2" by itself.

I tried raising the lower A arm inner pivot 1" and it got better but the Instant Center moves in very close, the RC moves up, there is less lateral RC movement, (if I did it right). This isn't the way you want to design a suspension from scratch, but at this point, we are mainly wanting the tires to stay reasonably flat on the ground and the RC to stay above ground as primary goals.

This was just a half-hour playing with the Perf Trends software so don't treat it like I spent a week on it please! I might take another look at it and change my mind about some of this, I was kinda sleepy when I did it.

If I had a MII suspension, I'd swap it out for something else quick! If that is not possible, longer A arms are needed. If not that, then the mods above I outlined are something to try. They really need to be refined and improved with more time invested than I have done thus far.

If you can't do the mods, then make the suspension super stiff in roll so the car doesn't lean, and crank in a lot of static neg camber. Lots of positive caster would be a big help and would reduce the camber losses I see.

I think the spindle has a KPI of close to 10 degrees, so positive caster of 6 or 7 deg would be something to experiment with, then see where the camber goes when you turn the wheel.

If you have this suspension can you take some readings of camber with the wheels turned full-lock, compared to straight-ahead? Or take a good pic straight in line from the front looking at the outer edge of the wheel?

[red65FB]

TBAR70,
No, I dont' think so.
It's looking like the lower arm inboard pivot must be higher than the LBJ on the inboard side by an inch, and the upper arm inner pivot lowered an inch. You really don't want to raise the inner LCA pivot because you would then need to move the rack.

If you could find a drop spindle, then raise the car up an inch with taller springs or spacers, that would help get the lower A arm at a better angle, then lower the upper A arm pivot 2". The rack might not need to be moved this way, but the outer steering arm would have to be spaced up to where it was.

This is just a flat out guess at this point but something in that directon would help and be something to try on an MII suspension other than changing A arm lengths which is more difficult.

What I'm seeing is, the arms are too short both top and bottom, this makes the roll center move laterally a WHOLE BUNCH. It also stays very low at ground level even if you lower the upper frame pivot 1" or 2" by itself.

I tried raising the lower A arm inner pivot 1" and it got better but the Instant Center moves in very close, the RC moves up, there is less lateral RC movement, (if I did it right). This isn't the way you want to design a suspension from scratch, but at this point, we are mainly wanting the tires to stay reasonably flat on the ground and the RC to stay above ground as primary goals.

This was just a half-hour playing with the Perf Trends software so don't treat it like I spent a week on it please! I might take another look at it and change my mind about some of this, I was kinda sleepy when I did it.

If I had a MII suspension, I'd swap it out for something else quick! If that is not possible, longer A arms are needed. If not that, then the mods above I outlined are something to try. They really need to be refined and improved with more time invested than I have done thus far.

If you can't do the mods, then make the suspension super stiff in roll so the car doesn't lean, and crank in a lot of static neg camber. Lots of positive caster would be a big help and would reduce the camber losses I see.

I think the spindle has a KPI of close to 10 degrees, so positive caster of 6 or 7 deg would be something to experiment with, then see where the camber goes when you turn the wheel.

If you have this suspension can you take some readings of camber with the wheels turned full-lock, compared to straight-ahead? Or take a good pic straight in line from the front looking at the outer edge of the wheel?

First of all, thanks for taking a stab at this Dave. I suspect the reason why some us are leaning towards the longer control arms idea, is that the moving the inner pivots around is going to be tough. The rack mounts right next to and laterally in line with the LCA.

After taking a long hard look, packaging wise, the areas of opportunity seem to be the following:

1) Lengthen LCA - moving lower ball joint outward. Seems to be space for a good 3-4" with corresponding offset needed for wheels.
2) Lengthen UCA - Lot's of room here.
3) Increase height of upper ball joint mount - room here as well.
4) Move UCA up - from what little I know of suspension theory, probably not a good idea, but certainly easy enough to do with some properly machined spacers.

Not saying this is what should be done, but fabricating solutions for these areas seems "easier" somehow.

[David Pozzi]

Thanks for the input.

I guessed moving the lower pivot would be a pain. I can tell that suspension was designed to understeer!

I was hoping a drop spindle was available. It would allow a downward slope to the lower A arm. If a longer lower A arm can be used with a late style FWD wheel with lots of backspace, maybe that would help. It sure wouldn't hurt!

If I get a chance, I'll look at a longer A arm and see what that does.

I'm preparing to run my car at a vintage club track day this Wed, so maybe after that I can spend more time with it.

[alcino]

hot little topic here.

Al,

what is the distance (height) from lower balljoint center of pivot, to the floor?
What is the distance (height) from lower inner A arm pivot to floor?

Is there any room to raise the inner pivot of the lower A arm? Both front and rear pivots?
Does anyone make a drop spindle for a Mustang II? I've got an idea...

Just got home and was motivated to measure.

lower balljoint to floor is about 7"(the spindle height was 10 7/8")
lower inner A-arm pivot to floor is 6 3/8"
trackwidth is 68 1/4" and the tires are 205/50/15.

So how does that look on paper? I already see the problem of the balljoint being higher than the inner pivot.

Also Heidts makes a forged 2" drop spindle.

So my initial idea is to use the drop spindle, Lengthen the a-arms at least 2.5 inches, and if need be use tall balljoints that add a 1/4 inch each. Can you run that David? or anyone else?

Thanks

[red65FB]

Forgot to add - I have the Heidts 2" dropped spindle - it at least appears to be a stout piece. On top of that, I also had to cut a coil off the spring to get it to sit right. With this set-up, the LCA's and steering rack arms are sitting level to the ground which I've been told is the most desirable position to minimize bump steer with the stock rack.

[David Pozzi]

Alcino,
I'll take a look at it Thursday or Friday night, I should have more time by then.
With most A arm suspensions, if you lower the car you get more neg camber gain, but this type is different.

[Norm Peterson]

trackwidth is 68 1/4" and the tires are 205/50/15.Just how was that measurement made? Outsides of the front tires? In that case, the wheel width would help better establish the center point of the contact patches.

Norm

[Mean 69]

The suspension used on our GT55 chassis also uses MII spindles, but the geometry is heavily modified from our base in-house suspension.

Huh? Really? Whatcha mean, Matt?

The funny thing about performance upgrades these days is that if it improves the performance, at some level it seems to be getting translated to "race car." Reality is the furthest thing from the truth. The media, advertisers/producers, and lay-people that have opinions all fuel the fire too. Not so funny to watch in many cases. Unfortunately, the average consumer gets bombarded by too much crap, and it makes making a truly informed decision, which is based upon facts, very difficult. Suspension systems are the top of the heap in terms of trying to get to the facts in the overall scheme.

Mark

[USAZR1]

May I make a suggestion before anybody goes and outfits a car with either MII parts or air bags (or both) and proclaims who much better it feels? I humbly suggest (PHR is welcome to read too as it applies to them big time), next time do a car right first. By "right" I mean do some homework and put together a really good package even if it’s your own doing and involves some unconventional pieces. Then if you’re so inclined swap to one of the many kits and post the results. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing look how great this kit is compared to garbage (they always leave out the garbage part but instead insert”previously well handling car").

I might also add that Bret has proven himself a true gentleman, few can handle my verbal bashings without responding with at least a few ****. Civilized discussion to follow.

Guess it's my turn to be an a-hole but why don't you do what you're asking others to spend money & time to do,Denny? You have been talking a good story as long as I've been on this site (3-4 years,maybe) but you still haven't finished anything on your car yet,have you? How long is it going to take? You seem to be able to really throw the numbers out there so when are you and a few others going to do something with all this talk?
What really pisses me off is hearing some of you telling me my car is crap unless it has Tyler's front suspension and your three-link rear suspension. Yet,neither one of those systems has been proven,,heck,even built yet. My car is together now,runs now,and can be driven cross-country by just turning the key. How many others on here can make that statement? If you don't quit dreaming about the ultimate system and build something now,we will still be reading about "well,when I get my car done,I'm gonna tear up the track" a few years from now. Some of us can do it now,even though we won't ever have state of the art stuff.
This post will probably be edited like a few others I've written. If so,whatever. Flame away if you want. I really don't give a damn anymore as I'm tired of the elitist crap I keep reading from some of you.

[sinned]

Wow Clint, somebody piss in your Cheerios today. You would think I was telling you that your car is a pile of crap. How about instead of attempting to belittle those who do know a little bit but don't have the luxury of the resources some you do, try to listen and learn something. If I had your money, I’d have been done a long time ago and spend my days at the track, instead I work 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week trying to make ends meet. I do make progress however slow it may be and drive everyday (heck, even make it to the track a couple time a year) so it doesn't just sit as one of the many "someday" projects.

I don’t have the time, money, vendor or track connections that the magazines and parts manufacturers have, nor do I make claims about how the parts I am marketing for sale to the general public are so great without any real world testing.

Odd that I get hate mail from guys who barley have a basic understanding of alignment, but none of the design engineers make posts like yours, instead they email to talk about how silly some of you sound. Where exactly is your hostility coming from? I made a post about how the MII design is fairly poor for a variety of reasons and then beat up on a Bret a little bit for coming in after me to contradict everything I said with no data to prove otherwise. He was respectful enough to read the post and bow out with out a tiff, you come in a week later and want to start it back up….

I’d like to also note that my critique is about the technical information presented in the various threads that seem to piss you off, while your attacks are simply on my person and have nothing to do with the information being presented. Just an observation.

[TBART70]

David I truly appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. But I think some of the info was lost in translation from my first post. I have a 1970 Camaro with a Martz chassis it is based on a mustang, only the lower control arm strut rod design and the spindles, I think. It is designed to fit the car so it is not just pulled from a mustang or mustang II. The lower control arm is 15 in. from pivot to center of balljoint, it is straight across. The new control arm from TCP (Alston) is 15 3/4 in. and the pivot is raised about 1 in. above the plain of the balljoint. I'm still learning about all of this stuff and apreciate the info, I know making these mod's without really knowing the effect is not a real good idea but I like to learn as I do things, I helps me put it in a real world situation. The reason I want to change things is I have made a few changes to the frame already, for strength and rigidity. Like I said in many previous posts I should have not bought it but I have it and I am going to use it. If I can improve the suspension without too much trouble great, if not I hope it handles decent enough for the money I spent. Live and learn( the hard way sometimes).
-Tom B.

[David Pozzi]

Tom,
If your A arms are longer than a Mustang II, it may not be so bad. How long is the upper arm?
All I'm working from is a Mustang II file, I'd need full measurements for the Martz suspension to really do anything helpful to you.

Sometimes your first loss is your best loss, meaning if you really want handling, sell your sub to someone who is a drag racer and look for something better. I hate so say that when I don't know for sure if your geometry is as bad as a stock Mustang II, so take it with a grain of salt.

[silver69camaro]

Huh? Really? Whatcha mean, Matt?
Mark

Somehow I believe lies more in that question that was it reads. :hmm:

The differences are stated in my post. In addition,
Shorter SVSA
Significantly more anti-dive
More aggressive camber gain
Roll/ride steer is deisgned to be more stable under high speeds, braking, and cornering
Drastically reduced roll center migration
More caster

Mark, I hope you weren't getting the impression that Mustang II setups are suitable for racing. I don't think you'll ever hear me say that.

[Mean 69]

No, all that makes sense, Matt, what I read in that statement was that the version used on the GT Chassis is not the same as what your "stock" product was. I read it to mean that the one used on Art's car was modified beyond what you guys already do, I didn't think that to be the case. You needn't read anything more into it than that, just worded funny.

M

[CraigMorrison]

Mark- The IFS setup that we use on the GT Sport chassis (Tri 5 Frame) is different from what our standard IFS is. Katz originally designed this suspension specifically for this chassis. As Matt said, it is quite a bit different from what we were using on our "street rod" chassis, but we are now using both styles on our custom chassis depending on what is being built.

Hope that this clears up some of the confusion.

PS- are you going to Coulmbus?

[Mean 69]

Ahh, I didn't realize that. Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

Columbus? Probably, we hope to have some new stuff to show, including a car we are doing (68 Plymouth) that should be pretty cool. I think we are going to pass on the Power Tour, too far, so we will probably go there instead.

Er, sorry for the highjack...

Tom/all, there is a big difference between a Mustang II suspension, and a suspension system that is derived around the MII spindle. Once you start looking at ways to solve front suspension issues, you will quickly determine that the hardest part to find is a good donor spindle, MII's are/were popular candidates because of the rack steering, and they were a dime a dozen. Plus, if one outfit was doing something with the piece, it'd be pretty easy for another outfit to copy/improve, etc. There's nothing wrong with using this spindle and designing around it, the issue comes about when folks that don't understand the design issues muck things up.

With a car like yours, which is wider than a MII, the steering rack, it's placement, proper width, etc is another fun thing to overcome. My guess is that Martz used the stock rack width, pulled the control arms in towards vehicle centerline (making them longer, which in the VERY general case is good) to help mitigate bump steer. Frankly, that's not a really bad place to start with, through some analysis it is probably possible to come up with something that is decent. A 15" LCA is pretty darned good for a typical street car, but again, it is only ONE piece of a large puzzle.

M

[David Pozzi]

Tom,
Can you either provide full front suspension measurements or can you do a test of the camber curve from your sub?

I suspect it's not nearly as bad as a stock Mustang II.

I need distance out from F/R centerline to inner pivots and balljoints, then measure up from floor for the same points. I need front and rear pivot locations for the A arms, and their distance forward or rearward from a line drawn from lower balljoint to lower balljoint.

[Norm Peterson]

I'd kind of like to see those dimensions myself. Perhaps they could be posted?

Norm

[TBART70]

Thank you everybody for taking an interest in this. I'm assuming these measurements need to be taken with all components installed. The problem right now is the car is still in the fab stage. I can put all the parts on the chassis, but a full weight engine and nose of the car will be way off. I have a mock-up block in it now with my trans. I don't have tires for my new wheels yet but I have the old wheels and I think the tires are the same height. Thanks David ! I will try to get as many measurements as possible but I am still learning the lingo, I am way new at this so it might take some time to translate what you are looking for( great learning experience ). I still do not know how to post pics, if I could it might be easier to figure out.
-Tom

[DonQuehotey]

wow....a heated debate and I missed it.......and a good one too! This is one of the funny things that cracks up about this forum and sometimes after reading some responses I feel like looking at the banner at the top of the page to make sure that I did not go from Pro Tour to some "how to build an IRL car" Again... like I have said before, some of you guys need to slow down and take a breath before you respond..... or maybe go see your anger managment counsilor because instead of coming across as a person who is knowledgable and willing to help, you come across like a jerk know it all who rarely looks at the meat of the conversation. First off, I dont think I saw anywhere where someone said that a MII was race bred suspension and excellent for the track. From what I recall of the posts I read... it was said that somebody has built several cars in the past using these crossmembers or a derivative of them and has had a degree of success. The success part is going to be ones OWN personal subjective opinion on how their car or truck handled with the original front suspension in it and lets be realistic... when we are talking about hot rods, pick ups and cruisers from the 30's through the 60's.... the MII is a superior component that makes an easy conversion for most chassis. Am I saying that "If I were building a true track only car that this is what I would use.... absolutely.... am I saying that it is far superior to what you would find under a 40 ford..... first gen chev truck ect... you bet your ass it is. You homeys need to quite thinking and responding to everyone like they are building a track only car! THAT IS NOT WHAT PRO TOUR IS!! In fact just to make sure... I looked up the definition to make sure that all of my educators had not been misleading me after all of those years like they had about the democratic party and liberal agenda and this is what I found.

pro-1
pref.
1.Acting in the place of; substituting for: proform.
2.Supporting; favoring: prorevolutionary


tour ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
n.
1.A trip with visits to various places of interest for business, pleasure, or instruction.
2.A group organized for such a trip or for a shorter sightseeing excursion.
3.A brief trip to or through a place for the purpose of seeing it: a tour of the house.
4.A journey to fulfill a round of engagements in several places: a pianist on a concert tour.
5.A shift, as in a factory.
6.A period of duty at a single place or job.
7.Sports. A series of professional tournaments, as in golf.

v. toured, tour·ing, tours
v. intr.
1.To travel from place to place, especially for pleasure.
2.To travel among various places while fulfilling engagements.

No where in there did I see "race"..... am I posting on the wrong forum again?

[Damn True]

Morrison, Pozzi, Mean69, Dennis and myself all have or are building cars expressly FOR competitive auto-x and open track use. That is our frame of referance.

If you want to build a car for "shorter sightseeing excursions", go right ahead. Your needs will be different than ours.

[Norm Peterson]

DonQ... - this board caters to a slightly wider audience than what the specific words "pro" and "touring" imply. If you need a description of the spectrum, let's say it runs from your definition of "pro-touring" through "g-machines" (slightly more track-oriented) to take-no-prisoners "street fighters" and track machines. Everybody has their own "comfort point" somewhere within that range, but that point won't be at the same place for everybody.

You can probably get me to agree that the MII suspension, or one based on some of its components, is better than most suspensions built for cars of similar weight/wheelbase/track that date from ten or more years previous to the Pinto/MII (remember, I do have some Pinto experience, and found that with cheap, basic mods to get roll under control that the little car could hang with far "sportier" cars of the period that were blessed with considerably greater power and perceived "sportiness").

But that doesn't make it anywhere near "cutting edge" any more. "Adequate", perhaps, and that only in the right chassis. Like it or not, there are those who can and will build to higher targets than what was the better side of decent 30 years or so ago.

Maybe that makes it more "race" to you, I don't know. I do know that philosophically I'm more aligned toward the hard-core end of the spectrum. If I'm going to bother with modding a car at all, I want real gains for my $. Nobody with an ounce of sense spends $1000 to gain a handful of HP. For me, chassis and suspension mods are no different, and to use the same $1000 figure - I'd better be getting more than a couple hundredths of a lateral g and a tenth or two in a 40-second auto-X or it simply isn't worth doing. What keeps me within the realm of pro-touring is that I fully expect to be able to register and insure whatever project for street duty and still be able to drive it just about anywhere, including to and from events on the weekend - and back and forth to work come Monday.

Norm

[David Pozzi]

I have to say I 've seen plenty of "wrong" suspensions do pretty well at an autocross, open track, or circle track. I find it interesting when a car with "poor" suspension design beats everything else, or at least finishes well! It doesn't happen very often however, and usually the driver is the determining factor.
If someone tells me a car handled pretty well I take it at face value unless I've driven it myself. Our frame of reference is often quite different. Bad designs can often be improved, adjusted, compensated for or driven-around. It's often helpful if the driver doesn't actually know how "bad" the suspension is! I was once asked to review a suspension on a sprint car, the suspension looked poor to me, but the car was on the Pole!!!

The front suspension on my Lola is a bit like the Mustang II, short arms and poor camber gain, but it has about a 6" high roll center. This tends to make the car push but it can be overcome, and these cars were generally known to be good handling cars in their day.

All the above said, I don't think it would be wise of me or any of the hard-core suspension guys on the forum to recomend buying and installing a suspension that has a very poor roll center and poor camber curve. It may ride better than a straight axle but a straight axle can be made to corner very well with some good linkage.

If a Forum member makes it clear their intended use for the suspension, we can adjust our comments to fit, however we are mainly performance oriented guys so that shows through. I think TBART70 stated his modest goals right at the start, and was searching for ways to gain a small improvement while retaining his investment in the Martz sub. I think we owe it to him to try and keep that the focus of our discussion and put the other stuff to the side.

[Mean 69]

Don, you very well might be posting on the wrong forum if you can't allow others to express their opinions, even if they don't seem to be communicated in a sense that you, yourself deem fit. In fact, if you look at the title of this particular thread, it says "Mustang II suspension question." I looked again, and I didn't see race, just like you, but I also didn't see "What's your opinion of the definition of Pro-Touring, What's your take on forward, challenging responses by individuals, of What's your philosophical position on what "everyone in here" is building or should be?"

Everyone's frame of reference is different, clearly yours is too, but I'd ask that you not try to tidy up what everyone is doing into one little convenient package. I learn a heck of a lot more in this forum when it comes to debates, substantiated with facts, theory, and practical experience than I do when it comes to helping someone decide which color powdercoat looks best with their complexion, but that color powdercoat is important to them, and I do my best to respect that stance (sometimes this is difficult for me, I know this, but I am working on it). If it comes with a bit of baggage in terms of inflamatory responses, so be it. In my opinion, this board does a very good job of keeping that in check, but that's just my opinion.

Taken as your definition stated, "pro" missed the meaning that I "think" was intended here, rather, it's short for "Professional." Now, I can tell you that there are very few of us in here that call this hobby our profession, so if you look at it that way, it outta make your head spin.


3.A brief trip to or through a place for the purpose of seeing it: a tour of the house.

Touring? Well, I personally like to take tours of local race tracks, and I like my "visit" each lap to be as brief as possible. Not everyone does, but I do. I don't get to do it nearly as much as I'd like, and the competitive nature in me, and my desire to learn "whay," makes it important for me to try to improve what I can every time I go out. My current tool of choice is a 69 Camaro, and so I can enjoy it more, I left the car street legal, and registered. Frankly, it isn't always so fun to drive on the street, it's hard to get in and out of, the seats are confining for longer trips, it's loud, all that good stuff. As a compromise, though, all of that stuff makes the car safer, and faster where "I" want it to be, so I live with it.

I guess that I am feeling that if you took your stance on the suspension modifications that are "reasonable, or practical," and applied it to every other aspect of the car, well, I think the car would be pretty boring overall.

Mark

P.S. Sorry for the additional philospophy that didn't add any technical merit to this thread.....

[David Pozzi]

I just copied this thread over here to Outhouse.
You can discuss whatever you want here.
David

[David Pozzi]

If you were subscribed to the original thread, will you stay subscribed to this thread too?

[sinned]

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

[DonQuehotey]

"Don, you very well might be posting on the wrong forum if you can't allow others to express their opinions" ..... WTH ??? you are not hearing me man... What I am getting at is that alot of novice builders myself included come on here to become educated about new techniques, procedures or products and half of the generic question posts I read have responses leaning towrds some unilateral hardcore technical jargon. I have no quams with posting serious tech I have learned alot from some of you guys BUT... you have to remember to be subjective and give a rounded response,not just the "use this stuff because its the best as expressed by factor XYZ and everything else is a joke.."... dont assume what the guy posting is asking for just because your "technical" and you want to try to come across as some techical guru.... Always remember that even if there are only 5 people posting in a thread there could be literally hundreds of people reading....... not just the "use this stuff because its the best as expressed by factor "XYZ" and everything else is a joke" which is about what half of the responses sound like..... ok man....sorry guy.... I am off my soap box and I will take my pill now ;)

[6'9"Witha69]

If you want to break down Pro - Touring, let's. First, let's look at how the name is intended. Compare it with Pro-Street. It is a car built like a drag race car but can be driven on the street. Likewise, a pro-touring car should be built like a race car but capable of touring. The higher up the spectrum you go towards G-Machine status the less street or touring is incorporated. Luxury items are discarded.
This by no means removes the subjectivity of your own build. But when a suspension (or any other component) has been shown to not offer the same benefits of other modifications, the members here are going to steer junior members toward the light. I have driven an MII based '68 Camaro. Honestly, my friends G-Mod and almost nothing else fancy '67 is faster around the corners. Thousands of dollars compared to practically free. These are the things people here are going to steer toward. If a product can not live up to expectations, and on this board those expextations are for increased handling, it will be criticized. If I came up with a widget that you replace the sway bar with and claim it improves handling, it better. If it doesn't it will be criticized to hell. Regardless of whther everyone and their brother buys one to look cool, if it doesn't work people here will let you know.
What would you prefer to happen? You buy a part and bolt it on and when you show up to a cruise, the track or any other event, the guys "in the know" or "in the club" snicker and laugh amongst themselves. Or you come here, ask about it, search some threads and find out that it can be done BETTER either for cheaper or just a few dollars more. A lot of the guys here are not billionaires. They are not interesrted in fancy. Sure we all dig a cool paint scheme or a well thought out interior. We are guys who do this for the fun and know how to do it right. Yes, criticism hurts, but would you rather get it out of the way before you make a mistake, or after?
Can a bit of attitude be sensed in some responses, yes. But as a parent I recognize the tone of these responses. It is like a child who doesn't listen and keeps making the same mistake or questioning 'why' even after it has been explained.

[Norm Peterson]

Allow me to suggest that if the opening line in a post goes something like
wow....a heated debate and I missed it does establish a certain amount of confrontation all by itself. While it's not quite as inflammatory now (after reading everything that followed it and being able to put it into the proper context), the original attempt at humor went unappreciated. Virtual conversations aren't very good at conveying things like body language and "tone of voice", but make up for that by exaggerating any sarcasm.

Norm

[DonQuehotey]

Norm... I hear ya man.... and dont read this wrong, I am not defending a MII when it comes to a track performance piece......and replacing a rear steer clip with an MII ......now that is out there......!

[Mean 69]

WTH ??? you are not hearing me man... What I am getting at is that alot of novice builders myself included come on here to become educated about new techniques, procedures or products and half of the generic question posts I read have responses leaning towrds some unilateral hardcore technical jargon.

You know, Don, I guess I really am not hearing you. If you just want someone to tell you something without substantiation, as in "lack of hardcore technical jargon," well, I am not really sure what you are looking for other than someone's opinion. The hardcore jargon can be tough, but I can tell you for a fact that any of the folks here truly trying to help will break down ANY term, concept, product, etc into excrutiating detail to help folks understand where they are coming from. Honest.

M

[David Pozzi]

I would like to hear from any "Lurkers" out there, just pop in and say hi! We won't bite! :)
It would be nice to see how many people out there are are reading these posts.

We can explain in more detail if asked.

[hssss]

Greetings from a lurker. I am interested in info on this topic but my application is enough different that it probably should be another thread.

[68LSS1]

I too am using a Mustang II based suspension. Had I found this website and other resources that are available here I would of went a different direction. But do to budget constraints I will use what I have already purchased. I am building a truck, a '68 Chevy stepside to be exact and using a Fatman unit with the tubular/polished A-arms and coil overs with Baer brakes that I got from JP when he went in a different direction. I know this truck will never rival most of the cars on here in terms of suspension capability but I did have some direction in the build. My goal was to build this particular truck with as much modern features (leaning towards performance) as possible. It will have a LSx/T56 moved back as far as possible, Hydratech hydraboost, Baer disc brakes on all four corners, fiberglass tilt front end, roll cage, HTH to enhance the already existing trailing arm set up with a 8.8 rear among other things. I think people need to understand some of us are on tighter budgets than some and are also limited by the vehicle capabilities or just don't want to go that far. Not all of us have welders, plasma cutters and everything else in the garage and ease of installation may be a requirement. After all, isn't it about improving the drivetrain and suspension? I would like to see some tech on how those of us who have MII set ups can improve them. I understand the short comings of the this set up and hope that when I tackle the next project I will be able to raise my personal bar another level, so to speak. Some of us are new to the suspension design and theory and thankfully there is this board to help us learn and seperate fact from fiction. But I'm learning daily and buying more tools all the time. Already have the next project car bought and it will be a serious pro-touring effort. But I'm still learning and this current project is a stepping stone for me.

[David Pozzi]

68LSS1,
You will learn a lot from this project.

Thanks to both of you for your input, it's nice to hear from you. Not everyone is building a Muscle car I guess! ;)

Any suspension can be discussed in the Suspension section, but keep in mind that there are many variations on the MII design, some of which are probably a lot better than others. It would be best to post a separate thread about your particular suspension.

I'd look for long lower arms, the upper arms should be about 2/3 the length of the lower arms. The lower arm is usually pretty close to level, the upper arm is slightly inclined downward towards the center of the car. The rack should have it's inner pivots pretty close to the lower A arm pivot, or along a line drawn from lower inner A arm pivot to the upper A arm pivot. If the installed suspension is very far off from this general outline, be careful.

[ZZ430]

I have a 67 Camaro convertible with one of Gary's road race subframes. It's an older piece from 1999 that is MMII based.

I like it.

It uses the MMII spindle size and 84 T-Bird power rack. The ball joints are Chrysler screw-in.

Header fit was a problem, as was the above-mentioned 1" longer wheelbase.

The car is street driven 99.99% of the time. The truth is that in the 5 years since I finished t, it's only been to 1 open track day, and that was an old airport with pylons. It handled pretty well around the concrete track.

I don't have any hard data to crunch, but it was a lot of fun, and that's why I built the car. I guess I could be called a poser :poke:

The best thing about it is the R&P, great response and very stable going down the road.

The Aldan coil-overs are surprisingly streetable. I'm using 400# springs. The soild SPC 1" bar is pretty nice.

[TBART70]

That looks a little different than what I have. It seems he had different lower control arms on yours, I wonder why he went to a lower strut rod on mine. I would ask but it is hard to get answers from him with out him getting annoyed.