Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
1965 2+2 Vintage Burgundy A-code C4
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Vs. TCP or other exotica? I can buy it much cheaper and still get my r&p and stuff. So, is it up to snuff as far as handling, etc.? Give some input, please....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
I'm looking to go mustang II. Price is a huge factor. The mustang II is popular with hot roders and other car groups. Its compact and effective. It also removes the shock towers giving a whole lot more room under the hood. I wouldn't expect it to be significantly better than a mustang, with the shelby mod, with firm springs, top of the like shock, granada front brakes, and tighter ratio steering box. The weight distribution is not being changed by going to mustang II. I like the look of the tubular front end. The mustang II spindles are also available in drop spindles.
 

·
Registered
1965 2+2 Vintage Burgundy A-code C4
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
My thing is, if the suspension was better or close to TCP, then I could buy from these guys http://www.carshopinc.com/product/HEI.shtml
and get the entire shooting match for the cost of a TCP manual rack. That looks like a pretty good deal. If the MII suspension is no good for handling, then I may as well save up for the TCP stuff, or hold my breath until some enterprising youngster comes up with a workable, affordable R&P.... More input please......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,782 Posts
Installing a big block or do you really need PS? Either way, the cost of a TCP setup or the significant work to install a Mustang II suspension isn't worth it (It's popular with the rodders because it is as a starting point a cheap conversion from a solid beam axle or other older setups, it's compact and they have to due something). My front suspension is just fine (it's just the attentions to the details) and will run with any TCP conversion. The weakness in my setup is the rear. If I was going to spring for big bucks, a new Watts link (to replace the panard rod) or better yet, an IRS.

Bob.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
680 Posts
Hey buddy: Have you checked out Fatman Fabrications in Charollette. He does some cool stuff. I saw a '69 Mach 1 he put the MustangII front end in, and ditched the shock towers. I t had a big block in it.looked like it had enough room for you to stand under the hood, next to the motor....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,654 Posts
Russ,

there is no denying the fact that rack and pinion steering is far superior than what is currently installed in our stangs. The trick is finding the right setup (ie geometry wise) for the A-arm configuration. nearly all the late model cars utilize r&p steering, just like they do fuel injection. Its just a more efficient way to steer the vehicle. The money TCP is "asking" these days for their stuff is a joke. I am sure some enterprising engineers out there could come up with a much more cost effective setup and put TCP out of business....

randy
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
actually, the MII conversion is a HUGE difference over stock. feels like a totally different car and HANDLES very well.

i don't like the MII conversions simply for the fact that you have to weld and cut to get it in. i think TCP is the way to go. by the time you get all the pieces and parts for MII and do ALL that work, you could have bolted on the TCP and probably had close to the same money in it.
 

·
Registered
1965 2+2 Vintage Burgundy A-code C4
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Well, I agree with you for the most part, but......../forums/images/icons/wink.gif Heidt's now has a MII front for about $1600. You can go a few more hundred and get the tubular A-arms. This is for a complete set-up, brakes, R&P, shocks, etc. That's not bad, and at $1300 for a TCP rack only, it doesn't seem to add up. I am in agreement with Dinosawnj, in that I LOVE the originality (for the most part) of my setup and will most likely try to optimize what I have (Flaming River box, quick steer, idler arm with bearings, boxed UCA and LCAs, etc.) I just wonder if I'll be happy enough with it then or will I STILL want a rack. Its a vicious circle in my head (OK, one of MANY vicious circles in there/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif). I'm doing a restomod, so cutting and welding aren't out of the question, they're just not what I'd "rather" do. Thanks for the input, though.......
PS....Randy, you ARE an interprising young man, what's the holdup with a poor man's rack???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,044 Posts
If I were building a serious restomod,and the car in question was expendable(T or C code,rusty,not a nice original,etc.),I would definitely go with the mustang 2.A few months ago mustang monthly's cover car was a '65 fastback with mustang 2 suspension.I know the owner of this car personally and I can tell you it drives and handles great.A friend of mine has built several street rods using the mustang 2,and I was always impressed by the stability and responsive steering.Parts availability is another good point.About the only drawback I see is that the brakes are rather small and in most cases an upgrade would be necessary,figure that into the total cost too.However,I've been considering doing the mustang 2 to my fastback but just can't bring myself to modify the car to that extent.I just can't adjust to the idea.Also,I think the the original steering isn't as bad as it seems.Making the original suspension handle well is no challenge but it seems as if the issue is always the steering.I recondition my own steering boxes and beyond that finding someone who can align it properly is the next challenge.The alignment specs are crucial to the original suspension and makes the difference between whether the car is fun to drive or makes you miserable.My point is that the original suspension and steering can be made to work very well,but you'll never duplicate the feel of the rack & pinion.My two cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,109 Posts
I wasn't compairing to stock, i was compairing to a stock configuration with updated components.

Both systems use traditional springs and shock. Both use A-arm suspension. There overall characteristics will be very similar. There is no significant weight difference, the mustang II kit does not lower the cars center of gravity. So if the spring weights are the same and the shocks are the same and the steering gear ratio is close to the same then overall performance will be the same.

Is there some variable i'm missing?
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Well, your original post eluded a comparison to stock. I have driven a car with MII conversion done to it and I can say that it feels and drives like a new(er) car. That's all the input I have, take it or leave it.
 

·
Registered
1965 2+2 Vintage Burgundy A-code C4
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
So if I gather correctly from this mini-debate, I should definitely/definitely not/whatever I want to do, as far as considering the MII setup? Thanks for clearing that up. I suggest you go to the Heidt's site http://www.heidts.com/ and check them out. We're talking some pretty serious looking stuff for a minimal investment (compared to TCP)
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top