Love how thoroughly you're documenting this. Looking forward to the next update.
I did not use a wire wheel. I used an abrasive wheel to get the thick stuff off (i.e. undercoating) and then I used a 26 grit sanding wheel to get the majority of the paint off the engine bay. Both where used on my air sander.Did you wire-wheel the entire bay down? How long did that take you out of curiosity?
I hear you. I'm dreading blocking and sanding the engine bay once I lay down the body filler. Right now everything I'm doing has been with the use of a tool of some kind. Blocking and sanding will be all manual labor. Not looking forward to that at all...………..Just about as miserable as my sandblasting efforts then(Its not very fast for me, not sure if its solely due to the grit of the media I am using or whether I am blasting at the wrong psi or what, but its taking forever)
Neither the crossmember nor the front strut rod replacement structure will address the weakness created. Without the factory braces or export brace there is a pivot point at the firewall. The MTF braces sort-of addresses the issue, but I don't like how they put the load into the middle of a flat panel, it should go up higher, and outwards, to the corner of the cowl and the cowl side panel.The support will come from the new cross member which is significantly thicker than the original cross bar used by Ford. Also, the front of the frame rails are supported by a triangular jack pad which is also made out of significantly thicker metal than the thin pieces of metal Ford used for the strut rod bars.
Also, I have installed subframe connectors to stiffen the chassis. Lastly, I'm contemplating adding Mustangs to Fear frame stiffeners to increase the strength and tie it all together.
View attachment 761403
Thank you for your opinion and point of view. I do mean that sincerely. I appreciate your feedback and have read other posts on VMF of people with the same point of view. However, here are my counter points:Neither the crossmember nor the front strut rod replacement structure will address the weakness created. Without the factory braces or export brace there is a pivot point at the firewall. The MTF braces sort-of addresses the issue, but I don't like how they put the load into the middle of a flat panel, it should go up higher, and outwards, to the corner of the cowl and the cowl side panel.
Let me see if I can clarify a bit.Thank you for your opinion and point of view. I do mean that sincerely. I appreciate your feedback and have read other posts on VMF of people with the same point of view. However, here are my counter points:
1. Why do companies such as Mustang's to Fear, Heidts, TCI and Detroit Speed make these kits if they are prone to fail or cause weak points? Not to mention this is based off of a Ford Mustang II design (A proven design).
2. You mention a weakness has been created and now there is a pivot point at the firewall. Well, when you look at the original design the frame rail itself is welded to the firewall and the rear aprons are welded to the firewall and the cowl brace is bolted to the shock towers. The "only" thing missing in the new set up is the cowl brace, which is bolted and can be removed by the owner, not welded in place by the factory. Also, the metal used in the firewall and aprons is VERY thin. Not a type of metal that would be used for structural support and this is how it came from Ford.
3. The shock towers sit on top of the frame rail. The new shock mounts also sit on top of the frame rails and the new cross member is welded to the frame rails connecting the 2 frame rails together by a significant piece of metal. The original design only has a small cross bar that is bolted to the frame rails and my car was missing this cross bar for years when I had the stock 289 in it.
4. Even Chevy used a similar design in the 60's with the Camaro. They used a front clip that is bolted to the car and not even welded in place. Then the other parts are bolted to it and there is no shock towers, no export brace and no cowl brace in their design
View attachment 761419 .
I understand your point of view, but I don't think the installation of the Mustang II suspension causes a weak point that will fail or cause a pivot point at the firewall. I have never seen or read a post or web page where this has happened to someone who installed one of these suspension kits.
Again, I appreciate your comment/post. I'm no expert, but have done extensive research before starting this project. As mentioned, I built this car originally in 2010 and have been looking into this current build/set up for years.
Again you make valid points and I see what you're saying. My only answer is I'm not building this car to be a road course car or a drag car. It will mainly be a street cruiser that sees cars shows. So, my car should not see much chassis flex.Let me see if I can clarify a bit.
1) I can't answer for the Mfg. , but generally the MII kits are a convenient package to allow for more engine room, and an "off-the-shelf" front steer Rack & pinion.
2) If you've done extensive research, one of the first things you'll hear mentioned is how flexy vintage Mustangs are. The so-called frame rail (floor support) is attached to the fairly weak floor pan, which is why torque boxes were added after the 1st generation. The only thing preventing flexing at the torque box "hinge" I mention is the fender aprons and factory cowl supports. That's barely sufficient, which is why the stronger "export brace" is such a common modification. You're right that these panels are thin, but being a uni-body car, it's strength/stiffness is derived from the design and how the loads are transferred. Now you only have small sheet metal "angle" pieces connecting the cowl to the aprons, and the aprons are weakened by the shock tower removal. I'm not saying you'll have a structure failure, I'm saying the chassis bending and twisting stiffness will be reduced. I don't know if you care about cornering performance, but one of the most important design factors is to have a stiff chassis. maybe in drag racing also, but I don't know much about that.
3) Again, strengthening the crossmember & shock mounts does nothing to transfer load to the cowl and main body.
4) You can see that the Chevy clips are of much stronger material than the Mustang, and the main body is designed to handle the point load where they bolt on.
@Black Gold 380R . You'll get varying view points on the Mustang II suspension. I have installed mustang II type suspension on various mustangs. What I will say is based on experience from building my brother's 66 mustang using the mustang II suspension. His goals are almost exactly like yours, but he daily drives his. A few things I'd like to say before I give my $.02 on the debate.Again you make valid points and I see what you're saying. My only answer is I'm not building this car to be a road course car or a drag car. It will mainly be a street cruiser that sees cars shows. So, my car should not see much chassis flex.
Not sure if you seen my original post, but I used to drag race this car when it had the original factory setup in place. However, I blew the motor. It gets too expensive to be building things, breaking them and then rebuilding them again. Therefore, this time around I'm more worried about the car looking good and driving well rather than worrying about all out performance. I've always liked the 427 and want to have one and place some badging on the car to indicate what's under the hood.
This might seem trivial to some, but again I'm building a weekend cruiser that will not see track time. Of course I want to build it right, so your feedback is welcomed and I'll look into adding torque boxes and anything that may help reduce chassis flex.
Thank you Stephen...….