Vintage Mustang Forums banner

21 - 40 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,602 Posts
getting an engineer to look at it will require thousands of dollars and the item destroyed at the end. its not that simple , i know. i have delt with engineers on construction jobs where i designed some structural items. the owner of the vehilce is responsible for its safe operation here in the u.s. also the only thing the wheel base difference will affect is the akerman. i dont see where there would be a safety issue putting that front end under a mustang. btw lots of guys take old mustangs and chevys and put straight axles under the front and street drive them. if you can read a tape measure you can do a way better job then the factories +-1/8" tolerance. yep the tolerance on the old mustangs was 1/4".

i have never heard of a wreck occuring becaue of a suspension kit or modification. there have ben some factory recals in the last few years because steering shafts, steering u-joints, have failed. about a week ago it was reported that 5 ford f series pickup trucks had the steering box FAIL causing loss of control. the gov is investigating
Failure does happen in the suspension business. It's only when it's frequent or when
something dramatic occurs that it becomes known. Here's one with a potential for
failure that they addressed (cast vs forged in this case)-
Front upper control arms on the 2005 Ford GT. That's an example that's definitely
known by the public. I'm not aware of any fatalities. Ford at that point may have
still had control of most/all of the 283 cars anyhow, but NHTSA makes you put the
notice out regardless.

I've been involved in the legal process AFA the aftermath of a wreck where high
performance aftermarket suspension parts were involved. You wouldn't want to
go there as a parts supplier. The only time the shark stops biting is when you can
show that a failed suspension part broke as a consequence of the accident and
wasn't a factor in causing the accident. It takes some cubic dollars to determine
that sometimes.

As far as crash-testing, even the "Big 3" aftermarket parts programs do that. One
of the criteria of being a vendor to those programs is not only giving up your parts
for poking and prodding by their engineers but they do crash test them as well. It
is a significant time and dollar investment for both the vendor and supplied corporation.

ex-Global West GM
1991-1995
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,138 Posts
Question for the OP, what kind of a budget are you working with? We might be able to help you out without redesigning everything.
I'm talking serious money, not an answer like "as cheap as I can"
Sometimes a master cylinder from a Maverick will work in place of a "conversion master cylinder" at 4X the price. Maybe someone has a set of V8 spindles on the cheap and a set of adapters can be had for $150 or so, to install Cobra brakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
780 Posts
Crown Vic Suspension in Mustang

Might be tough squeeze, the track width on a 65-66 Mustang is 56" and on the 2002 Crown Vic it's 63.4"

I just checked this data quickly on Google, could be wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
987 Posts
The Crown Vic's wheel base is quite wide. I've been under two (a '98 and an '03) pulling disk brakes. I haven't actually measured it but ~63" doesn't seem far off. I am not sure it would fit between the fender walls of your '66. Doubtful between the 67-70s as well. A maybe for a 71-73.

The only advantage to it over a MII setup is that it is a rear steer car, like the original Mustang.

Chuck
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
The Crown Vic's wheel base is quite wide.
thats not wheel base , thats track width. wheel base is the distance between the center of the front and rear wheels. too much misinformation being thrown around on forums by people tyhat dont know. also the mustang was never called a coupe and ford called it a hardtop and i even posted a slaes brochure on this forum. the 65-70 mustang has a 108" wheelbase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,661 Posts
2003 Ford Crown Victoria Specifications

Wheelbase - 115 "
Front Tread - 63 "
Rear Tread - 66 "
Turning Radius - 20.0 '

1964 1/2, 1965, and 1966
Wheelbase - 108"
Front tread-6cyl = 55.4"
Front tread-8cyl = 56"
Rear track = 56"
Turning radius = 19 ft.

You would have to narrow up the crossmember to fit under the mustang, but that doesn't solve the issue with the steering rack and pinion being too wide.

Also keep in mind that a suspension designed for one car doesn't mean it would handle the same when slapped onto another car. Putting a full size car's suspension under a truck isn't exactly a good comparison to putting it under our cars....assuming you want this thing to handle well after all of that work. Roll center, camber gain, wheel rate, roll stiffness, ackerman angle, steering inclination angle, scrub radius, among many others factor into suspension design and slight tweaks to a suspension can affect these things immensely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
406 Posts
Once again. Thanks for your opinions. Having driven many police interceptor CV's, I can say they handle quite well at speed exceeding 140 mph.

Here are the brass tacks of it. My 66 has worn out drum brakes, worn out power steering, worn out suspension parts and it's 4 lug, not 5.

I plan to upgrade all of this at signifigant cost. If this swap will work it will handle all of the major upgrades in one chunk. At considerably less cost.Will it be a perfect scenario? I have no idea, that is why I asked the question.

Like many ideas that I have I guess, this is one more that I will have to just do. Give it a go and see.
I can see no advantage to this at all even just looking at the cost. First off you are going to have to do a lot of changing to your car and to the Vic parts to make them fit. Secondly you are surely going to want to go through that suspension and make sure its all in proper order, so you could have added expense of replacing those parts. And like buening said above, there's a lot more to think about than just getting it to fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
987 Posts
thats not wheel base , thats track width. wheel base is the distance between the center of the front and rear wheels. too much misinformation being thrown around on forums by people tyhat dont know. also the mustang was never called a coupe and ford called it a hardtop and i even posted a slaes brochure on this forum. the 65-70 mustang has a 108" wheelbase.
You are correct and I knew better. Thanks for the correction.

Chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
I found a rack and pinion kit and a set of granada front discs to convert my 66. So that is what I will go with for now.

I still have not given up on this idea of the CV front suspension. I have the unit at my house now and will be playing with it some. I have another 66 coupe that I have been using as a parts car that I planned to build into a widebody. I WILL be attempting this swap on that frame. Using an appropriate rear end to equal out the track width and adding width to he body to cover. I appreciate the opinions but I still think it is a viable swap. It has drawbacks, I am sure I will run into fab work. That has never been a problem. I'll do a write up on it when I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
I have one of them in the back of my shop. Was plannig on purchasing a 70 Eldorado that was recked a bit. Was going to cut the frame of the Eldo and install the eng and suspension in the rear and use the Crown vic suspension in the front. Drop or build a body on it. Guy found out what my plab=ns were and wouldnt sell me the Eldo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
765 Posts
The 2003-up CV's underwent numerous changes --particularly improvements to the front suspensions. 2002-earlier CV front suspensions are different from 2003-up models and are not the front suspensions being used in the early Ford F-100 pickup swaps.

I don't know if the '03-up CV front suspensions would work in an early Mustang.

...in following photo...the 2003 CV front suspension and T-Bird Super Coupe IRS for my 1969 Ford F-100 short bed Ranger when I got home with them from the wrecking yard;



...The truck they will be swapped into;



...eventually to look something along the lines of this;

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,054 Posts
Can you cut and weld? If so, have at'er.. If not, this whole conversation is moot.

That being said, the width is substantially different.. I wouldn't try it, and I'm pretty stupid that way.

I'd find a better match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
...in following photo...the 2003 CV front suspension and T-Bird Super Coupe IRS for my 1969 Ford F-100 short bed Ranger when I got home with them from the wrecking yard;]
I'm doing the same swap into my 72 SWB only using the Mark VIII rear IRS.
I also feel the suspension is too wide for the Mustang but if the OP is gonna try it I hope he posts pics.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,773 Posts
Missed this old thread. Interesting. Never considered a Tbird IRS in an old F100 before. I have no doubt that Ultrastang has the skills to get it done though. I'd very much like the see the end results.
I do have a doubt about one thing though. "Having driven many police interceptor CV's, I can say they handle quite well at speed exceeding 140 mph." Cough. Stock P71's are speed limited (technically "torque-limited") by the ECM to about 129mph. Last I heard anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,240 Posts
I found it humorous how many "Cut-n-weld" comments this thread had.....did anybody even look at those parts..they are cast alloy. It must bolt in on a car/truck/jet ski with steel frame rails. (Unless you have mystery rod)

With wide-body mods and custom wheel offset who knows if it will work until its tried?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
I found it humorous how many "Cut-n-weld" comments this thread had.....did anybody even look at those parts..they are cast alloy. It must bolt in on a car/truck/jet ski with steel frame rails. (Unless you have mystery rod)

With wide-body mods and custom wheel offset who knows if it will work until its tried?
cast alloy really? and??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
dont be discouraged the truth is some people dont like change and they dont like ,low posters,, having an opinion or suggesting something they havent suggested themselves its bs and a forum thing also lots of ,,experts,, putting out mis information basicly if they havent done it or are not capable of it or they simply dont know they wont say that but have to say something so they would rather rubbish any unconforming idea.

not everybody that knows there stuff and does this sort of thing uses forums infact ive found the most capable people tend to just get on with it and not spend every waking moment self promoting themselves you wont hear/see them online so maybe check out some local fabbing/car shops?

i never read this thread but had started a similar one which no doubt will cause some tantrums or maybe some usefull info will come out

personaly my view is why spend 1000s (if you got it spare) when 1000000,s go into development on cars that are sitting in the junkyard overlooked because its not a common swap or magazine feature but are just ripe for picking at a fraction of the cost plus easy replacement parts but im more of a traditional hot rodder in that way i like using better parts from ANY other brand

i love the idea but imo mustangs and maybe some of there owners are more retsorers /cars so they dont like any idea outside the box.then theres the devaluing issue i used to put big hp ,,dont belong,, motors in classic cars but when it was time to sell them people were mostly interested in lower hp traditional swaps so basicly the savings to gain hp and work were
not worth the drop in value / harder to sell factor i dont like it but sometimes its just better to shell out and go with the flow plus its easier tried and tested and accepted etc

its common knoledge you can make the factory set up work but thats not the point. if it all needs replacing anyway and you want upgrades theres stuff out there without resorting to throwing money at it.
but sadly maybe the cv front is just too much work? maybe an x member that fits our frames but takes cv parts? maybe its way too wide in the wishbone area?............keep searching!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,660 Posts
2003 Ford Crown Victoria Specifications

Wheelbase - 115 "
Front Tread - 63 "
Rear Tread - 66 "
Turning Radius - 20.0 '

1964 1/2, 1965, and 1966
Wheelbase - 108"
Front tread-6cyl = 55.4"
Front tread-8cyl = 56"
Rear track = 56"
Turning radius = 19 ft.

You would have to narrow up the crossmember to fit under the mustang, but that doesn't solve the issue with the steering rack and pinion being too wide.

Also keep in mind that a suspension designed for one car doesn't mean it would handle the same when slapped onto another car. Putting a full size car's suspension under a truck isn't exactly a good comparison to putting it under our cars....assuming you want this thing to handle well after all of that work. Roll center, camber gain, wheel rate, roll stiffness, ackerman angle, steering inclination angle, scrub radius, among many others factor into suspension design and slight tweaks to a suspension can affect these things immensely.
Thats a nice post but I drive my mother around time to time in her 2003 Grand Marquis and I would swear it makes U's and turns into parking spots easier/tighter than my stang. It may be the power steering fooling me but the OP may want to check on wheel rub in a full lock turn, depending on tires to.
 

·
I won a special award
Joined
·
7,409 Posts
I do have a doubt about one thing though. "Having driven many police interceptor CV's, I can say they handle quite well at speed exceeding 140 mph." Cough. Stock P71's are speed limited (technically "torque-limited") by the ECM to about 129mph. Last I heard anyway.

I have an old (2005) Crown Vic Interceptor at work. I can assure you that the computer cuts you off at 120. But it is very smooth and stable all the way until the governor kicks in.:)
 
21 - 40 of 59 Posts
Top