Thread: Wrong geometry on all Mustang II?

Tweet

Shops who offer other aplications than the Mustang II often point out that they do "NOT use Mustang II geometry".
Is something wrong with that setup?

Have a look at Jim Meyer Racing Products:
http://www.jimmeyerracing.com/ifs5.html
They offer IFS setups based on GM mid size cars (with rebuildt spindles to make the Omni Rack rear mounted)

Is this setup better than a Mustang II setup?

When I say "Better" I mean geometry and handling.

In my opinion, this TYPE setup is better - simply because it uses both upper and lower A-Frames instead of the MII lower strut. However, there are MII versions out there using A-Frames all around, good geometry, including anti-dive built in. Interesting that this builder claims accurate Ackerman, since that is dependent on wheelbase. He can't get it exactly right without knowing the wheelbase of your car.

I have no problem with MII setups. My '30 A-bone drove just fine with one. Parts are plentiful, there are dozens of versions (coil-over, airbag, etc.) and they're generally lighter than the mid-size car versions.

Thank you for your answer.
My car will be a highboy style car (34 steel Roadster), so I'm looking for an IFS setup with tubular A- arms.
After surfing around on the net I found this above mentioned guy and from earlier I know about Heidt's of course.

The Heitdt's IFS Super Ride (which is not a Mustang II setup) cost 2495$ all included.
Jim Meyer offer his setup for 1950$. The price is without rotors, balljoints and calipers, which the builder can purcase at a local wreck yard or a GM supplier.

What do you thik of this? I suppose those two setups are fairly equal on most areas with one exception: Jim Meyers GM setup accept 12" rotors from Impala/Caprice while Heidt's setup have 11" rotors as stock. Maybe not a big deal, but since I'm going to use 16" wheels in front, I'd like to have as big rotors as possible.

Other things I should consider?

I got my IFS from a place called "hartrods." www.streetrodparts.tv will take you to their site.
It cost $1725 and I got
powder coated upper and lower Tubular A-arms
2" drop spindles
11" rotors and calipers
cross member and spring hats
sway bar
power rack and pinion
powder coated coil and shocks
all necessary hardware as well

It is a mustang II so if you are trying to stay away from that
I guess this is no good, but I thought it was a pretty good deal for what you get.

Vik,
The Super Ride is based on the MII geometry with the exception of the rack location and commensurate effect on steering arm design. It was Heidt's product to appeal to the need for rear steer IFS for '28-32 Fords.

Jim Meyer has a good reputation for quality and function.

One thought on your brake rotor size issue. The 12's may work with the 16's but I would only do that if I were ABSOLUTELY positive I was NEVER going to change wheel size down.....EVER!

Thank you for all your inputs. According to change wheel size down I don't quite understand what you mean? Most used front wheel dimensions on traditional 33-34 Highboys are still 15" isnt it?

My chassis is only at the planning stage so far. I'm just checking the possibilities. However, some data is decided:
Jaguar Rear axle which is already bought
16x9" rear wheels equipped with 295/50-16 rubber
7 1/2 or 7x16" front wheels with suitable rubber.
The wheels are bought.

Originally posted by staleg
According to change wheel size down I don't quite understand what you mean? Most used front wheel dimensions on traditional 33-34 Highboys are still 15" isnt it?

What I meant was if you REALLY don't think you'll ever want to change the wheel size in the future down to a 15" then go with the 12" rotors. It's just a matter of planning for the unforseen possibilities. Choosing the 12" will limit your options for a variation on the traditional look in the future, for what would likely be a nominal improvement in braking ability considering the relatively light weight of the '33-4 Ford.

Richard,

When you mentioned negative camber, it rang a little bell. Have you noticed that many of the cars in the magazines lately set up the LOWER A-Frames at an up angle instead of level to get the car lower? I've been seeing a lot of that lately, and I believe that cancels out some of the negative camber gain. The lower A-Frame starts swinging in at an earlier suspension displacement. Not a good thing in my opinion.