460 Ford Forum banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Next Topic >> Return to Index

For guys considering a Must II front suspension conversion
January 8 2006 at 12:47 AM
No score for this post Phil63 (Login philsfln)
from IP address 205.188.117.68

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will show you a pic of my 63 fairlane engine compartment as I now have my engine out for painting. This thing steers ok as I have had it up to 131 in the 1/4 and haven't been too scared. I did this conversion for about 500.00 bucks. But you got to realize I did it all myself. Cutting,measuring,welding everything. I used a front setup out of an old must II and if I had to do it again I would by a streetrod type crossmember and put that in. But it works.
you will notice that there is lotsa room now for headers

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
OldSchoolRacer
(Login OldSchoolRacer)
69.210.107.185 Lotsa room now !
No score for this post January 8 2006, 4:34 AM

You sure gained some room under there!


I can't wait to make some room under my hood!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Nick
(Login Nickbay)
64.136.27.227 Re: For guys considering a Must II front suspension conversion
No score for this post January 8 2006, 10:29 AM

Are you going to put a 460 in there?

69 mustang, 1977 460, 1970 heads-home ported, 213/224 dur-.512/.535 cam, Edelbrock performer intake, 800 Edelbrock carb, stock exhaust manifolds, factory dual exhaust, TCI 11” converter, 3.50 gears

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Anonymous
(Login philsfln)
205.188.117.68 Raced it last year with a
No score for this post January 8 2006, 11:03 AM

pump gas 545 and that will be going back in it this year as I just removed it for painting and being as I had to tighten up the converter it is just that much easier.I am also having the headers coated. Its all part of the (quote beautification process)



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Anonymous
(Login philsfln)
205.188.117.68 Sorry forgot to put my name in
No score for this post January 8 2006, 11:06 AM

Its Phil63

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Bob M
(Login Bob_M)
66.69.46.160 Custom headers? or...
No score for this post January 8 2006, 11:29 AM

did you use Fox swap headers?
I'm doing my 69 Mustang this spring, I have the Hooker fox swap headers, and appears they will work fine with the Mustang II susp/steering. I'm soooo sick of the shock towers... Car was FE powered, going to 385.

Bob M
http://fordifiedracing.com
http://bigblockfox.com


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Phil63
(Login philsfln)
205.188.117.68 I made them myself
No score for this post January 8 2006, 11:34 AM

from a kit that I bought at a swap meet.The kit was for a long nose mustang 71/73 and I just did some cutting and fitting. Got a grand total of less than 75.00 in them. I just took them down to a local guy yesterday to be coated so that will bring the price up a little

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

John M.
(Login jjmstang)
71.246.206.189 headers
No score for this post January 8 2006, 11:47 AM

Did the hookers work with the factory shock towers in place with the 460 in there? and if they did what part # are they?
Thanks,
John M.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Bob M
(Login Bob_M)
66.69.46.160 No...
No score for this post January 8 2006, 11:54 AM

The hookers I have were for a sidelined BBfox project. You 'll have to use Crites, Tubular Automotive or, MPG Head service headers (the MPG's are made by Hooker now, but require use of MPG mounts as the engine location is slightly different).

Bob M
http://fordifiedracing.com
http://bigblockfox.com


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

John M.
(Login jjmstang)
71.246.206.189 Re: No...
No score for this post January 8 2006, 12:01 PM

OK...thank you for the info

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Jon Faubion
(Login richter69)
68.12.202.141 I am in the process of strutting my 69
No score for this post January 8 2006, 10:34 PM

I will try and get some pics up, removed everything except the factory frame rails and built off that. These are a set of Anthony Jones coilover struts for a fox, built my own lower control arms, rack mount, hell everything. I have zero bumpsteer and am super pleased how its all turning out, just takes a million hours as I have to fabricate everything. Not sure on the headers, I have a new set of hooker fox headers, but will most likely have to build a set as well to fit around the steering shaft, oil lines and pump etc. Motor is set back all the way to the firewall, in fact the mid plate will fit flat against the firewall and there will be a removable tunnel to access the tranny bolts. Seat is set back a goood 5" as well so my fat *** should help with the tire plant too.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Vinne
(Login purnlow)
69.230.100.110 Fox body swap headers in cougar
No score for this post January 9 2006, 12:44 AM

Hi,

I used the Hooker super comp 460 headers for the fox body swap in my 1967 cougar. I also used a Chassiworks front end kit. All I had to do was notch the frame in a small area. You can't see it in the picture, but I also reccomend these headers because they have two tubes that remove off both sides and the drivers side, the header is near the suspenion bolt for alignment purposes and the headers tube removes meaning no hassle to allign the front end that way. Hope the pic helps

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

XR7
(Login XR7)
69.167.180.129 how much total suspension travel?
No score for this post January 8 2006, 12:28 PM

I know there is way more room swapping to the Mustang II suspension but from what I understand there is not as much total travel as the stock shock tower suspension. If you have less travel you have less weight transfer correct? On a nose heavy car unless you set back the engine for better weight scaling percentages this would be a dis-advantage. I'd think on some cars it might hurt, on others it mught not. Any before and after 60' times with no other changes? I notched my towers and modified spring saddles and control arms etc. like the stock eliminator guys do because they have to run a stock suspension, they can get them to yank 4 foot wheelies so I think they transfer weight pretty good!

68 Cougar XR7 street and strip car, 428 4-speed, all steel full interior, [email protected] 1.51 60 ft

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Phil63
(Login philsfln)
152.163.101.9 The best 60ft time so far is
No score for this post January 8 2006, 4:21 PM

1.49 and the tires are pretty old in fact they need to be replaced this summer. I have a ladder bar leaf spring with housing floaters from I think chassi enginerring. I did one for the 57 that I used to have and I used the Alston bars and housing floaters. It hooked good but it had 29x13.5 slicks on it instead of the 28x10.5's that this one has. You may have seen my post in the engine build section about the weight of this engine. It only weighs 576 lb's. Alum head's,intake,water pump,and c-4 trans. I don't believe it is much heavier than when it was stock. As it came stock with a 260 and a cast iron auto and power steering. Anyways it has stock must II springs in it that I may cut off a half a coil this winter as it sets a bit high in front. It will pull the wheels about afoot off the ground even when footbraking it. More when using the trans brake. (to clairify it the engine alone weighs 576 not with the c-4)

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DAVID
(Login D.I.L.L.I.G.A.S.)
64.12.117.9 Re: Suspension travel & weight transfer .
No score for this post January 8 2006, 4:44 PM

...The stock Mustang II suspension has a decient amount of suspension travel. But remember the 460's torque will help you "hit" the slicks, so too much front suspension travel for your combo could hurt E.T.'s by wasting time lifting the front end excessivly instead of moving the car foward sooner. Low power/torque combos can, at times, be helped with more suspension travel because they dont have as much torque to help smack and keep the the slicks planted.

A number of the manufacturers that make aftermarket Mustang II X-member kits have taken the time to iron-out the bump-steer problems that the "stock" crossmembers are known for. But some of the "kits" do have less suspension travel because of the use of coil-over shocks. The actual amount of suspension travel an aftermarket suspension kit will have depends on which brand (and part number) of coil-over they use, and where on the bottom control arm the coil-over is mounted (how close to the spindle).



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Dwyan
(Login Dwyan)
72.26.16.141 I just put the Heidt Mustang ll kit in my '69 Mustang
No score for this post January 8 2006, 8:33 PM

I am waiting on a foxbody engine swap kit from D&D right now. I am hoping the D&D kit will work with my new set up. I will let you know in a few weeks what I had to do concerning motor fitment of 557 with 2 1/8" headers. While waiting, I am putting fiberglass front and doors on. The Mustang ll kit with Qa1 coil over shocks reduced my front weight by 81 pounds.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Mike
(Login stewmike)
70.242.67.217 Oil Pan & steering Column
No score for this post January 8 2006, 8:41 PM

Did you have to change to a rear sump oil pan? Is that the stock steering column?


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Dwyan
(Login Dwyan)
72.26.16.141 Oh yes, definitely has to be rear sump.N/M
No score for this post January 8 2006, 8:51 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Ray
(Login racinray)
199.174.149.232 Headers
No score for this post January 8 2006, 9:05 PM

Have personally done this same setup to several shock tower cars and found 68-72 chevelle bigblock headers to work great.I cut off chev flange and installed ford flange there is a little diff in exhaust spacing that is exaggerated from front to rear but with a little paitence they will fit the tubes.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Jim in Texas
(Login davvet2)
68.203.125.130 How's Your Turning Radius?
No score for this post January 8 2006, 11:41 PM

I have a mustang II setup in my 460 '62 Falcon, and have an extremely short turning radius. Backing up is a real b*tch, and requires several tries. Since the car is Pro Street and not a race car it's pretty bothersome.

I've been told I'll have to live with it --

Jim

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DAVID
(Login D.I.L.L.I.G.A.S.)
152.163.101.9 Any lowered car (pro street or race).....
No score for this post January 9 2006, 6:32 AM

....Could have a reduced turning ability no matter what the front suspension type because of the front tires hitting the lowered body panels & wheel openings when turning. This can be especially true on older body styles that have odd shaped wheel openings, or low/short wheel openings to begin with.

To keep the front tires from rubbing the sheetmetal when turning you can either tuck the tires in further under the body when building the car, but this can look like crap (in my opinion). Or you can install turning stops inside the rack boots (each side) to stop the tire before it hits the fender. But this might make it even harder to turn corners.

A lot of positive caster can also mess with turning radius too, but some times you have to compromise, do you want to go straight faster or turn corners faster.



This message has been edited by D.I.L.L.I.G.A.S. from IP address 152.163.101.9 on Jan 9, 2006 6:40 AM
This message has been edited by D.I.L.L.I.G.A.S. from IP address 152.163.101.9 on Jan 9, 2006 6:38 AM
This message has been edited by D.I.L.L.I.G.A.S. from IP address 152.163.101.9 on Jan 9, 2006 6:36 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Jim in Texas
(Login davvet2)
68.203.125.130 Re: Any lowered car (pro street or race).....
No score for this post January 9 2006, 9:54 PM

Thanks, David --

The tires on my Falcon clear the wheel wells OK, it's just that they won't turn far enough to make it turn easily.

I've also noticed that my Alston Chassis Ranchero is hard to turn as well. It's just the body with no front fenders installed yet, but when I've pushed and moved it around yard, the turning radius is short. I've noticed that if the wheels are cut too sharp the front end starts to skate and slide a little.

Guess it's just the geometry.

Jim

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DAVID
(Login D.I.L.L.I.G.A.S.)
64.12.117.9 If your Alston Ranchero......
No score for this post January 10 2006, 4:33 AM

....Has around 10* positive caster, and the enging/trans is out of the car when you are moving the car around the yard/shop, that could explain the skating/sliding front tires when they are turned. Remember, a bunch of positive caster is good for going straight at speed, but can hurt turning and cornering ability.



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Jim in Texas
(Login davvet2)
68.203.125.130 Re: If your Alston Ranchero......
No score for this post January 10 2006, 12:12 PM

David,

The front end hasn't been aligned yet, and it doesn't have an engine in it -- so what you said explains it.

Thanks!

Jim

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

tubs
(Login tubais)
67.171.243.89 66 fairlane
No score for this post January 11 2006, 12:08 AM

I put in a mustang conversion kit in my fairlane the kit was made by RC motor sports. Any of you have to set you motor off to the passenger side to get everything to even fit?? I had a hell of a time getting far enough away from my rack and the rod that connects it to the steering colum.any solutions for me as it stands i see no way to put headers on the passenger side unless there are headers that actually take up less space then stock manifolds.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Jim in Texas
(Login davvet2)
68.203.125.130 66 Fairlane
No score for this post January 11 2006, 7:07 PM

I have a '62 Falcon Ranchero that has an Alston chassis and Mustang II style tubular front end. Found a tube cross member for a 460 that was originally made to fit a 55 - 57 F100 truck- I shortened the width to fit the Alston frame rails and was able to get the block centered, and the C-6 transmission cross member installed. The block is almost dead center -- BUT -- the steering tube that goes to the Pinto rack is in the way of the oil filter.

I understand that this happens often, and plan to run a remote filter.

My headers were made for a 460 van and will require quite a bit of changing to clear the frame -- especially on the passengers side. I may end up having headers built as the work involved to change them might cost more than a new set. (according to my muffler guy).

Good luck with your Fairlane!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - For guys considering a Must II front suspension conversion

Next Topic >> Return to Index
 
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
Top