Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
1965 2+2 Vintage Burgundy A-code C4
Joined
·
3,851 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
If an early Mustang uses a lower control arm and a strut rod, essentially forming a large "A" arm and the Mustang II suspenstion, which is arguably so much better, uses a lower "A" arm only.......why can't you just add a lower "A" arm to the current 65 frame and be done with it? I know some geometry has to go into the equation, but still, what gives? A Mustang II weld in frame basically does this, does it not? Is it the more rigid crossmember? I'm really baffled on this one guys, give me a good cobweb clearing, please. ::
 

·
Just some guy
67 coupe, 69 Sportsroof, 86 hatchback
Joined
·
20,853 Posts
You caould engineer an "A frame". You'd still have to use the shock towers and would still have the old steering. The two main benefits of the II stuff is adding a rack and pinion and being able to remove the shock towers. Another is that you get disk brakes in the deal. Although they're a bit small in stock form.
Mustangs already have an "aframe" if you picture the strut rod and lower arm as one piece, it's really one BIG aframe.
The old style has more handling potential. The roadracers seem to be pretty sure the II setup is pretty crappy for opentrack fun. An upgraded early suspension works better and is more durable.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top