Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > Classic Mustangs (Tech)
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search


Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Suspension upgrade for 66

Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-23-2008, 06:11 PM   #1
Pssst66
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
Default Suspension upgrade for 66

What do you guys think of the suspension packages where you cut out the shock towers, such as the ones from Heidts? Just curious if people who have done it like it.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
Pssst66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 06:18 PM   #2
cmanf
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 66 cope
Location:
Posts: 815
Send a message via Yahoo to cmanf
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

I did the rod and customs setup havent looked back since. Hated those shock towers!
I was looking into upgrades to our 04 and there is the same style upper and lower A arms
Guess the design still works well.
For the cash I couldnt beat it getting front disc brakes in the mix also be aware you will need to go with a wheel with at least 5" or better backspace.
They didnt tell me that one! Im running 17 bullets all the way around with 1/2 spacers on the back fits great.
__________________
CmanF
1966 coupe 347s S/C Paxton tko 500
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/cfzx10/
cmanf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 07:08 PM   #3
Pssst66
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

Thanks Cmanf for the advice.I just found an earlier thread on this topic so I will refer to that for more opinions.
Pssst66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2008, 11:41 PM   #4
andrewmp6
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 8,162
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

The mustang 2 kits are a bad idea they put all the weight on the frame rails in stead of the firewall like ford degined the car.Id use http://www.rrs-online.com/ coil overs and shock tower notching kit or http://www.griggsracing.com/index.php.
andrewmp6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2008, 11:04 AM   #5
Angliagasser
2nd Gear Member
 
Angliagasser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 172
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

I puta Heidt's mustang II suspensionin my daughters 1966 Mustang and it is great. All the room you will ever need for ANY motor you want to run in your car.
Before I did the suspension swap. I drove a mustang that someone had already done it to and the car handled better by far then the stock suspension ever did.
As for the guy a above about that says he thinks that it is a bad idea. Well if Ford had this suspension back then, I guaranteethey would have put it in the Mustang. As for the strain on the frame rails, if you are really concerned about it you can put a roll bar from the frame to the fire wall. But unless you are going to go over jumps with it, I would not worry about it. I have never heard about anyone that has put one of these kits in, having problems with the frames bending. And I know of oneguy that road race's his and no problems at all. Thats one of the reason what lead me to do it. That and I could not get the 2.3 SVO motor in our 66 Mustang with the header and turbo I had. Now a 4.6 DOHC motor or 460 will fit. Those shock towers suck!

Here is a picture of ours.

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...CN01700099.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/h...CN01750104.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh296/angliagasser/DSCN03350185.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh296/angliagasser/DSCN03360186.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh296/angliagasser/DSCN03370187.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh296/angliagasser/DSCN03380188.jpg

http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh296/angliagasser/DSCN03390189.jpg
Angliagasser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 09:09 AM   #6
Daze
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 877
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

There is no arguement that a Mustang II suspension is better than a STOCK original set up. Lets face it if the Mustang II kit was not a good one than it would not have been the front suspension of choice for hot rod builders for years. And there is the obvious improvement in removing the shock towers for better motor clearance. However, if you are running a ford small block and do not need the extra room in the engan bay then there are better options for handling and ride quality than the Mustang II kit. A stock suspension with:

UCA drop
performance shocks
medium rat coil springs
1" sway bar
roller spring perches
adjustable strut rods
rac and pinion steering or upgraded steering box
and most importantly a PERFORMANCE ALIGNMENT

will out handle a Mustang II front suspension fitted classic any day. The ride will be smoother and the suspension will be more responsive to road imperfections creating better tire to rod contact.

The BEST front suspension I have seen for our classics is the coil over set up that Ron Morris, Global West, and TCP puts out. theses use the improved design similar to the Mustang II of attaching the coil over shock to the LCA and the benifit of using the shock towers to correctly transfer suspension load to the body. This is a vast improvement over the stock design. Improving control of wheel movement over bumps without sacrificing ride quality is dificult with the stock suspension. The stock spring perch position is roughly centered along the length of the control arm and transfers much of the road vibration directly into the chassis. By locating the lower coil-over mount closer to the spindle, the majority of road vibration is transferred directly into the spring and shock where it can be absorbed. Also when the mount is on the LCA the length increase over the UCA mounting location improves leverage. The improved geometry allows use of a lighter, lower rate spring for significantly improved control without degrading ride quality.

So this mans OPINION based on an excellent understanding of Mustang suspension geometry is as that the order of quality is

1. stock suspension
2. Mustang II
3. upgraded stock
4. coil over
__________________
If it aint broke..... modify it anyway!!!!

Mustang tech www.DazeCars.com
[b][size=4]Galaxie & F S Ford forum www.galaxieforum.com
Daze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 09:21 AM   #7
andrewmp6
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 8,162
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

Daze don"t forget about ackerman the extra stree put on the frame rails the hot rodders use the mustang 2 for a ifs because its cheap to buy or take out of a mustang 2/pinto in a junkyard. Removes the straight axle most have and its a show car they ain't gonna autocross it.Most use a vega steering box and gauges also 70s gm van for its tilt steering column the cheapest parts don't always mean there best.
andrewmp6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 10:49 PM   #8
Angliagasser
2nd Gear Member
 
Angliagasser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 172
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

This is from a post by Ozarks06 on DOHC in 66. It is about the Mustang II Suspensions! Anda must read!!! For you non-believers. Or purists.

Actually the M2 puts the engine weight (the heaviest part on the front of the car) directly on the crossmember, which, unlike in avintage Mustang suspension, puts that directly on the wheels. Thus, there is probably less weight on the frame rails,aprons and firewallthanwith the stock suspension. You still have the aprons which carry some of the weight (though probablysubstantially less) directly to the firewall,though you are missing the heavy-guage metal in the shock towers (but with less weight on the aprons, is that needed?).

As for handling, here's a post onanother forumfrom a guy who has a real Mustang II - the car - and gets great handling out ofa modifiedfactory suspension - .99G lateral. http://www.pro-touring.com/forum/sho...ight=heidt%27s
Angliagasser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2008, 11:54 PM   #9
jlp66stang
2nd Gear Member
 
jlp66stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 278
Send a message via Yahoo to jlp66stang
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

Angliagasser, thanks for that link. Those guys were talking real suspension numbersthere.I didn't understand it butapparently they did.I think if there are any issues with the MII, someone will keep improving it, just like they are doing with these other systems. I know I like the way the crossmember went in, and it looks solid. The way it wraps the framerail can't help but make it stronger. You can buy disc brakes, rack and pinion, adjustable coilovers, sway barand steering adapter for under $3000. You may not need the room for a sbf, but sure leaves it open for later. It doesn't look like it came out of the junkyard either. These other systems want almost that much just for the rack!
__________________
Red 66 coupe 302
66 fastback 5.0 modified
73 EB- under construction
jlp66stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 02:23 AM   #10
andrewmp6
6th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location:
Posts: 8,162
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

Like i said on that other one those specs are from a mustang 2 putting the front suspension in a different bigger car doesn't mean you'll get those numbers and youll never get ackerman steering out of the mustang 2 kit little something to read http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/ack_rac.htm .
andrewmp6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 08:26 AM   #11
dodgestang
5th Gear Member
 
dodgestang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Vehicle: 1965, Mustang, Fastback
Location: Insanity
Posts: 2,149
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

The only opinion I will weigh in here with is:

Its a waste of time and money in my opinion to install a Mii style suspension unless you are doing massive changes to the car and one of those changes includes a motor that needs more room to fit.

There are tons of options out there some optimive stock compoments, some optimize stock componenets and mounting locations, some let you install things like rack and pinion using stock or slightly modifyies stock mounting locations in the car.
dodgestang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 08:51 AM   #12
cmanf
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 66 cope
Location:
Posts: 815
Send a message via Yahoo to cmanf
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

The mustang ll topic gets hot every time its brought up here. lol
My shock towers were so bad and cracked they had to be replaced any way.
The 66 coupe I have is a total performance package front to rear.
I used the rod and customs kit up front and the Mus+ mideye 5leaf in rear wit traction master bars and soon adding the Maier sway bar and Pannard set up.

I have a 65 fast back that Im starting on once I have some paint on my 66.
Think after looking into all the options Im going Maier racing suspension front and rear.
They use upgraded stock style components like roller bearing a arms and spring perches.

After they both are done ill have a blast finding out which ones better.
Both had there advantages and disadvantages.

I have to say after putting mine in, I see the beefy cross member holds the weight. The down tubes in the marntz chassis kit look like nothing more than a place to mount your hood hinges. They sell a beautiful aluminum kit to finish they bay out with so you have to have some place to mount the hinges.
I like not having a tower cross brace or the towers them selves on this car. The fastback isnt going to be as hardcore so it wont be as big an issue.
__________________
CmanF
1966 coupe 347s S/C Paxton tko 500
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/cfzx10/
cmanf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 08:59 AM   #13
ozarks06
2nd Gear Member
 
ozarks06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Vehicle: 1965 Ford Mustang
Location: MO
Posts: 439
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

Quote:
ORIGINAL: dodgestang

The only opinion I will weigh in here with is:

Its a waste of time and money in my opinion to install a Mii style suspension unless you are doing massive changes to the car and one of those changes includes a motor that needs more room to fit.

There are tons of options out there some optimive stock compoments, some optimize stock componenets and mounting locations, some let you install things like rack and pinion using stock or slightly modifyies stock mounting locations in the car.
I agree. If you don't need more space for the engine,I would go with upgraded stock suspension. Installing the M2 is a lot of work and a small block looks pretty lonely in all that space.
__________________
Plain Jane 65 Coupe - 284 ci with virtual displacement enhancer
Feature Car in December 2010 StreetScene (the magazine of the National Street Rod Assoc)
ozarks06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 09:49 AM   #14
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Vehicle: 2008 GT Premium
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 6,924
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

Keep in mind what the street rodders are comparing the Pinto Mustang suspension to.

The Pinto/Mustang II front suspension represents a huge improvement over the traditional street rod straight axle, but that doesn't make it a great swap into a chassis that was designed for a different SLA front suspension.

It works well enough in the chassis for which it was developed (as a novice autocrosser back in the early/mid 70'sI ran better times in my stock-geometry but stiffer-sprung and sta-barredPinto than others could in similarly modified Datsun 240Z's). The Cliff's Notes version is that if you can keep the suspension from moving too far, you can make it work quite well simply by preventing the worst of the camber and toe changes from happening (a function of upper and lower arm lengths vs knuckle height). But extra weight (3000-ish curb for a Mustang vs 2250 for the Pinto or the front end weight of a T-bucket) and any desire or need for a softish wheel rate for reasons of ride quality mean that you will end up with more suspension motion instead.

Just being strong enough to support a heavier motor directly over the crossmember is not the whole story unless the car lives its life a quarter mile at a time and/or never takes corners harder than mildly (think "cruising"). The load paths in the smaller car were specifically arranged to work with thelocations where the loads from the spring on lower arm design are put on the chassis vs the spring-on-upper-arm location of the early Mustang. The chassis side shock attachment is different as well (also lower). This does make a difference in the handling, as chassis stiffness is affected. Note that chassis stiffness and chassis strength are not the same thing, though they are at least loosely related.

Bottom line - you can probably make it work fairly well, as long as you're willing to take a hit as far as ride quality is concerned and do some intelligent chassis stiffening to make up for what you throw away when you lose the shock/spring towers and the bracing back to the firewall. And run relatively grippy tires (sticky tires can cover up a host of geometric shortcomings until you get all the way to the limit).

I thought I'd probably seen that PT thread. Understand that alcino's front geometry is hardly OE Pinto/Mustang II. He's got over 4" wider track width just for starters.


Norm
(BSCE)
__________________
'08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (mine)
'10 Legacy 2.5GT, 6M (hers)
'01 Maxima 20AE, 5M (spare, winter driver)

Gone but not forgotten dep't: '95 Mazda 626, V6/5M; '79 Chevy Malibu, 4M/5M; '87 Maxima, 5M; '72 Ford Pinto, 4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A . . .

Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 10:08 AM   #15
cmanf
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 66 cope
Location:
Posts: 815
Send a message via Yahoo to cmanf
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

No Doubt what you said is way over my head but I almost had it!
The thing of ride quality is a truth. Mine isnt on the road yet and I can tell its stiff to say the least.
Engine in I weigh about 260 and bouncing on the front or rear the thing doesnt move much @ all.
__________________
CmanF
1966 coupe 347s S/C Paxton tko 500
http://s208.photobucket.com/albums/bb35/cfzx10/
cmanf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 07:37 PM   #16
Norm Peterson
6th Gear Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Vehicle: 2008 GT Premium
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 6,924
Default RE: Suspension upgrade for 66

Edited the above - might make a little more sense now.
__________________
'08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (mine)
'10 Legacy 2.5GT, 6M (hers)
'01 Maxima 20AE, 5M (spare, winter driver)

Gone but not forgotten dep't: '95 Mazda 626, V6/5M; '79 Chevy Malibu, 4M/5M; '87 Maxima, 5M; '72 Ford Pinto, 4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A . . .

Norm Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2008, 07:37 PM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
1966, 66, angliagasser, axle, coil, custom, global, morris, mustang, ron, straight, suspension, upgrade, vs, west

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
suspension upgrade arthur Classic Mustangs (Tech) 17 02-25-2007 10:50 AM

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.


This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup