Suspension - what is really best?

[coz 108]

So assuming cost is not an issue at this time and the desire is a true corner carver that does not take away from straight line racing; what type of suspension would you go with?

 

TCP with coilover or Air Ride with a 4 link rear?

 

Art Morrison frame cut to hell and fabbed to fit the Mach? Could still run Air Ride at the corners.

 

Mustang II front end?

 

ReenMachine and his IRS system?

 

Consider if the shock towers are cut out to make room for a larger engine, then the TCP front suspension is out.... How would you stiffen the front end? Especially, with a bigger engine make 700hp....

 

I'm sure all have their pros/cons. The IRS system seems cool but is it 700hp strong? Mustang II looks like the easiest way to go if I pull the shock towers but is it really going to last with a 700hp engine? Art Morrison / custom frames sound the best strength wise but they are very expensive, require a lot of massaging and may still not be a good fit for the car.

 

TCP seems the best but only if I keep the shock towers which I'm leaning away from if I go big block EFI. I need the engine bay room for a big dog 511cid...

[Grabber70Mach 107]

If money were no object, I would leave your car the way it is. Then go out and find a Sportsroof to do what you want. What about a G-machine frame? I kinda thought about the M2 front end a while back, but decided against cutting the shock towers.

[coz 108]

remember my car, though a Mach, is nothing special from the factory. FMX, 351-2V, 3.00 open rear, etc... Or in other words a low end Mach. And of course when I bought it there was nothing original about it other than the body. 351C, 4 speed, 3.50 posi, etc... So think of it as a costly sportroof....

 

G-machine? Not heard of that frame - are you sure it can be used with a Mustang? There are several front end / full frame kits out there but they are for A and B body Chevys.

[Grabber70Mach 107]

1967 - 1970 Ford Mustang full chassis

 

 

Mustang full chassis rear view

 

Mustang full chassis assembled with 460

1969 Mustang full chassis with body on

Mustang unit requires fabrication of core support mount, due to elimination of the shock towers.

 

front mounting detail

Can be attached to the original Mustang rails

http://www.gmachinechassis.com/

 

They say that they have one that will work. :detective: I understand what you are saying with what you have done to the car so far and the options hat it came with.

[coz 108]

Very nice and similar to the Art Morrison frames.... Notice the Air Ride options. I'll have to contact my "possible" builder and see if he can work with this. One thing I really liked with the Morrison frames is the ability to run the exhaust thru the chassis to eliminate anything hanging lower. With the Air Ride option I hope to plant the car onto the tires in it's lowest form but be able to raise it enough to get her into the driveway. The Air Ride system I like has 5" of travel. I'm still working Air Ride for a "discount" if the use my car as a display in their shows.

 

Any other opinions? Really want to get low and run w/o shock towers and handle 700+HP.

[Thunder Kiss 13]

A lot of guys here in Australia run RRS suspension systems and swear by them.

[69stang 11]

I have heard the griggs suspension stuff is the best but also RIDICULOUSLY expensive.

[wantahertzdonut 10]

I have full Global West stuff or equivalent on my front end, and just running with standard leaf springs with Global West bushings for now. Maybe eventually I'll go with a 3 link setup.

 

I'm in the same boat as you coz, I have a low option Mach 1 and wish it were standard sometimes. Only because I feel like I *should* hang on to the original engine and transmission, and it's more clutter I'll have to hang onto.

 

Some days I wish I bought that 70 vert from the same guy. But I'm going to go ahead and modify anyway.

[bnickel 10,004]

i'd go with the TCP (or GW) front coilovers and TCP rear G-Bar, with or without air bags your choice but if you are planning on drag racing i'd probably stay away from the bags. you have enough room with the TCP/GW coilovers to trim the towers back some to make some clearance for the big block, BTW the big block will fit without having to modify the towers at all so that shouldn't be one of your main reasons for cutting them out, it's a pain to change plugs but only takes a couple of hours. if you trim the towers you'll have all the room you'll need and won't be affecting the value of the car nearly as bad as swapping in a mustang II front end or a full frame, i wouldn't do a MII on anything of mine personally, the ones i've ridden in that have had the conversion done have all had serious problems with cowl shake....like worse than a fox body vert cowl shake which is way bad already.... and many people have reported problems with lower control arms snapping on some kits, supposedly these problems have been addressed on newer versions of the MII kits but i still wouldn't trust them in my car.

 

so my recommendation is the TCP coilover kit and trimming the shock towers back some to gain some clearance. you could also do the RRS front strut conversion and take a much bigger chunk out of your towers but their front strut kits are super pricey, much more than the TCP kits are.

 

for the rear you have a ton of choices, the TCP G-Bar (my choice), heidts rear 4 link, TCI rear torque arm, RRS 3 link/torque arm, Evolution Motorsports 3 link (the only true 3 link available right now) with the super cool layback pushrod coilovers, Griggs torque arm, DVS restorations Cobra IRS conversion kit (this is the one that Reen uses now), Martz 4 link and i'm sure i'm missing a bunch more.

 

 

i will say that if you are dead set on a MII front setup use the Martz Chassis kit and NONE of the others, they have the only MII kit i'd ever consider using on an early mustang....period, but i wouldn't even use theirs unless i had to, i just don't think it's good for anything but a cruiser and even they are marginal at best IMO. at least Martz has got some reinforcements that go back to the firewal and some triangulation that NONE of the other kits have.

 

so after this novel i'm still sticking with my original suggestion TCP (or GW) front coilover and TCP rear G-Bar....without bags

[coz 108]

Good info all... I hear ya B on the MII front end. Keep in mind the plan is to go Pro-Tour so it will become somewhat of a beauty queen and not a true 1/4 miler as it is set up now. I know this will ruffle some feathers but I want a high end show car (but I WILL drive it not trailer it) and am not concerned at all about originality. I like the bags simply to be able to raise and lower the car for shows and ingress/egress into parking lots, over curbs, etc....

 

I do like the TCP offerings - both the coilover and bag route. There is still a chance I can get some Air Ride sponsorship so that will help with some costs. However, with all the mods I want to do it is becoming a 6 figure number just in mods and parts.

 

I want to "clean up" the engine bay and one way to do that is removing the shock towers. However, I'm of the opinion IF I go that way it will have to be in conjunction with a full frame install. Again, that shoots me into a whole other area of costs.

 

The engine I really covet is the Roush 511 EFI. That is going to be tight to get into the bay shaving shock towers or not.

 

Jim - if your Mach is original then I certainly can understand your desire to keep it that way. If I had a Mach with the original drivetrain I would not be doing this upgrade. I, like you would be looking for a standard sportroof to modify.

[bnickel 10,004]

spend some time on the Pro-tour website and the Corner-Carvers website before you even think about going with anything Mustang II, most of those guys will tell you to stay from them too, and not because of chassis strength either but because of the suspension geometry which is at least as bad as the original mustang design if not worse, at least for a performance suspension anyway. there is a lot more that can be done with the stock suspension that can be done with a mustang II based system.

 

you're also going to run into the MII ytpe setups on most the full frame designs on the market as well, although Art Morrison does offer a C5 corvette based front system on some of the Max G chassis though i don't know if it's offered for the mustang frame or not.

 

don't worry about getting that roush motor in there, it's just a 460 based motor like any other 460 based motor and it will fit with NO cutting of the towers at all, just makes it difficult to change the plugs but if you shave the towers like i said you'll have plenty of room to change them.

 

i've been there and done that already on an old Hot Rod Fastest Street Car Shootout car, it was a low 10, high 9 second 69 coupe with a 460 stroker in it and it had the tall Motorsport valve covers too...all wedged in between the stock shock towers with NO modifications. if i can change the plugs on that car with stock shock towers then you won't have any problems changing them with the towers shaved. this car had some pretty damn large header primarie tubes too.

[coz 108]

This is really what I'm interested in but with more goodies...

 

http://www.artmorrison.com/2006cat/12.pdf

[69fastback393 0]

most people down the mustang ll front end because they never had one with it.most people are scared to cut the shock towers because of strength.well there not very strong from the factory and notorous for leaning in.

 

yes,you do loose the towers but there is a plate you weld back in to replace it not to mention having a 2 x 3 crossmember. and the gains are rack & pinion steering,tubular arms,great handling and tons of room that the factory didnt have.

 

dont get me wrong i would never cut up a true mach but for anything else give me the mll any day.just my 2 cents

[dchandler60 10]

I have the air ride up front and will have the air ride out back like the Fatman setup Love it so far just touch a button for whatever you want!! I have a question a little bit off subject but I hope ya`ll explain it to me. I have a 69 sportsroof so what is the difference between it and a "true mach one"? 69fast said "dont get me wrong i would never cut up a true mach but for anything else give me the mll any day.just my 2 cents" I thought all along a mach was just a trim package???? am I right or wrong? I also know the Mach is more desirable than the sportsroof. Sorry to ask in this thread but it just puzzled me. Thanks David

[rks pilot 10]

Hi all, you guys are talking about the MII suspension is that rack and pinion or something else

 

thanx

[Grabber70Mach 107]

They are talking about a front suspension system based on the 74-78 Mustang II which does include rack and pinion steering components.

[70vert 17]

listen to bnickel - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the corner-carvers.com thread on this and make sure you understand the reasons that most of the posters object to this design! Look for "chassis under a 69" or simply "morrison". It was panned for the following reasons. (ignore the name-calling in the thread, read the actual tech from guys like Jag, SN65, 4DoorBoss351, etc. Reasons they gave, in short:

 

-MII front end, for reasons described already in this thread

-High rear roll center

-Bolt-on method of attachment to the frame

-"Quadrabind" 4-link rear, with binding in the upper arms depending on the durometer of the bushings used.

 

I think probably the ultimate setup is the Griggs system, but if that's not in your budget, you can do what I did - Evolution Motorsports 3-link with Watt's (going in about a week and a half from now) and Tin Man Fabrications subframes going through a convertible under-floor reinforcement pan and weld to it, or if you really don't care about a metal tube going through your rear seat floor, create a square subframe that goes straight through the rear floor, or both! Work with the original sheet metal, don't just add to it. In the future, since this is a convertible, I also plan to add "jacking rails" that tie the subframes to the rocker panels. I need to create a ton of strength through the floor, and the more everything is tied to everything else, the better. Unless you do a roll cage, or even if you do, a heavy convertible-style trunk divider could do wonders tied to a round crossbar. But you lose the cool fold-down-rear-seat deal, and gain a rear firewall if hit from behind . . .

 

A well-designed 3-link with a Watt's is a great compromise between the straight line acceleration of a 4-link, but without the associated bind. You will find a lot of feedback on corner-carvers.com about how the EvM system behaves on an SN95/Fox system, and the difference with a vintage mustang will roughly be due to the "5th spring" - the flex in the chassis. But if you have the money, give that Grigg's system a try . . . I didn't want to have anything intruding into my passenger compartment or remove shock towers, so that's why I went with TCP/UP up front, EvM 3-link in the rear, and custom chassis reinforcement in the middle . . .

[cphsonic 11]

Subscribing!

 

Jeez, the choices for Mustangs are mindboggling. :blink:

But seriously, how much more can you get out of the car with 3/4 links compared to a tricked out leaf setup? Were talking corners here of course.

 

My current 69 runs 5-leaf, SPAX adj. shocks, HD shackles, TrueTrac diff etc. Even without the panhard bar I keep wanting to weld in, I'm pretty happy with it on the track but I've never driven a g-Bar for instance. Is it really worth the $$ or are we into bragging rights here?

I'm considering the TCP leaf kit and a FAB9 housing with torque arm & panhard bar, Stange aluminum 3rd member and the TrueTrac diff I so love. Should save 1-1.5k over the similar g-Bar. Hmmmm....

[bnickel 10,004]

i'm mainly plan on going with the G-bar on my cougar since it's the only aftermarket rear suspension available for the cougars. i'd probably still use it on the mustang if i wasn't selling it and had the money. there are several reasons why i would choose it, there is less inherent bind in a 4 link than there is a in a leaf spring arrangement, you get a better ride with the 4 link even with stiff shocks, and with the triangulated design of the G-bar there is no need for a watts or panhard bar fighting with the leaf springs to control the roll center height plus you get more articulation out of the system which may sound bad at first thought but with that articulation you have almost no binding anywhere in the system, this is especially true if you get one of the systems that uses the spherical bearings instead of bushings. leaf springs are for trucks and stock restorations IMO, you can do so much more with a nice 3 or 4 link of just about any type vs leaf springs. note that the last mustang to use leaf springs in the rear was built in 1978!!!!!! to me that says a lot about leafs since the mustang has always been the affordable muscle car.

[70vert 17]

Jeez, the choices for Mustangs are mindboggling. :blink:

But seriously, how much more can you get out of the car with 3/4 links compared to a tricked out leaf setup? Were talking corners here of course.

 

My current 69 runs 5-leaf, SPAX adj. shocks, HD shackles, TrueTrac diff etc. Even without the panhard bar I keep wanting to weld in, I'm pretty happy with it on the track but I've never driven a g-Bar for instance. Is it really worth the $$ or are we into bragging rights here?

I'm considering the TCP leaf kit and a FAB9 housing with torque arm & panhard bar, Stange aluminum 3rd member and the TrueTrac diff I so love. Should save 1-1.5k over the similar g-Bar. Hmmmm....

 

yeah, you can get a lot out of a leaf spring setup, but it still ends up giving you a lot of unsprung weight, which you already have a lot of in a solid axle, and even with all the improvements, you still have a problem of the front part of the leaf shortening under acceleration, and then the reverse happening on decel. Plus the unpredictability of these two flexible components controlling axle location fore and aft, vertical wheel travel, and horizontal anti-sway, even if you have a Watt's/Panhard. It just seems like the leafs have too much work to do and lots of forces are acting in different directions on them. You can put patches on a less-than-optimal design and get it to perform very very well, or start with a more or less blank sheet of paper and design something that starts out great and can get even better.

 

Check out the Moser 3rd member as well - the through-bolt design is supposed to be stronger:

 

http://www.moserengineering.com/Pages/Center-Sections/cs-aluminum.html

 

I will probably just order a crate Currie Track 9 with a TrueTrac diff, then perform upgrades on it if I feel the need. After looking at all the rear end options, I just want to keep it simple and do the crate option.

[coz 108]

Well I for one am very happy with my Moser rear. It's a 31 spline Ford 9" with 3.89 gears and the Detroit Tru-trac. After looking at Currie, Strange and Moser it was Moser hands down based mostly on the A-holes at Strange and Currie. Both acted like they were doing you a favor by talking to you or selling you their product. On the other hand, the Moser guys were cool and even called me back with additional info and shipping ideas.

[70vert 17]

coz, did you get the aluminum center section or the steel? It would be great to hear a report of an AL center section doing just fine behind a ~600hp/520tq stroker . . . yeah, customer service is a big deal to me, since I do it well every day and can't imagine how a business can exist without it. EvM is outstanding in this regard, btw, specifically Mike there.

[coz 108]

Did not do the aluminum center for exactly that reason. I have to tell you it is one tough rear. I've done several 4k+ RPM dumps in 1st gear on dry pavement and it took it all. Smoked the tires all the way up to 6400 (rev limiiter) only to smoke them again through 2nd gear up to 6400. And that's with MT slicks on the back which do grab well if given the chance.

 

A Bowtie boy talked me into the Moser line after seeing his 800hp monster shred tires w/o a rear end issue time after time.

[6T9rustang 11]

The Strange aluminium centre is rated to 700hp(26.70-lb.case) where as the iron centre is rated at 700hp+(33.50-lb.case) I went with the iron centre because I will be nearing the 700hp mark. Only 7lbs difference in weight.

[RogerC 136]

Has anyone seen any comments on the Art Morrison MII setup? I've only seen comments towards Heidts, Rod & Custom and MIIs in general. The Art Morrison setup seems more geared towards performance. I researched it several years ago but don't recall all the info.