The use of ANY Pinto / Mustang II based IFS under a vehicle over 3,000 pounds is RISKY ... IMHO. I seriously doubt that a 33 Dodge Humpback panel will cross the scales @ 2800 pounds. Most 32 Ford Hot Rod sedans weigh that much ... and the Dodge is longer, has a heavier frame and more metal ...



I have sold for scrap metal ... dozens and dozens of Pintos and Mustang II's ... and NEVER ... had one weight over 3100 pounds and it had a good bit of other metal thrown in it. Complete junker Pintos usually cross the scales ( certified by the state for accuracy ) @ 2400 to 2600 pounds.

Folks who adapt the Mustang II / Pinto front ends to their vehicles seem to forget the true weight of the donor vehicle and the weight of the vehicle they are trying to install it under. Ford designed the Pinto suspension and it's components for a light, disposable compact car. It was narrow, had a short wheelbase and was LIGHT DUTY. THEN is was installed under the new Mustang II. All these factors that seem to be overlooked by a LOT of folks. Basic engineering principals cannot be ignored ...

The rack is light duty, the brakes are small and have 4 lugs, and the design is not all that adaptable to early cars. Track width, brake UPGRADES ... and different racks have all been tried and used. With varying degrees of success.

In addition ... the Pinto / Mustang II fronts ends are less than beautiful ... especially in pre 33 models. Most early vehicles with the Pinto / Mustang II suspensions cannot have the upper A arm in the correct engineering position ... and still keep the original fenders. And they are REALLY ugly on a fenderless car.

I have read the charts printed by some of the IFS sellers on vehicle donor vehicle weights and they are a JOKE ... IMHO ... I also find it funny that it is always Mustang II suspension ... never the true name ... Pinto suspension. How many Pintos do you see running around ... or even the 74 - 78 Mustangs that share the suspension that this craze is based on.

Disclaimer

My experiences and results may vary from yours ...

Deuce ...

Duece, That really interesting info. I was under the impression that the Pinto and Must 2 were a few hundred pounds heavier.

There are generally 3 front springs listed for these. The Pinto, Must 2, And Must 2 v-8, and about 3400 pounds weight (listed) with 55% or so on the front end.

I had new Pinto springs and ordered them for the lightest one (if it made any difference) for my 41 Willys. this car weighs about 2600 rolling with 55% on the rear. The springs I got set the front end up skyward to say the least. There was very little deflection, maybe an inch and a half. As I recall they were 14 inches tall. Well they were useless the way they were and I needed something to set the car on so I began cutting them down knowing full well that they were going to be stiffer still. I think I cut 2 3/4 coils off. I don't remember what the installed height is but they are now very and too stiff. So the coil over is the only choice for my car now.

I do have much bigger brakes and calipers and 5 bolt wheels. A friend has a very similar Willys and his stops very well.

I agree that these are not up to road racing or auto cross. They serve the purpose if used correctly. (use the strut rod). Anything heavier duty needs to go with larger car suspension.

I sold for scrap metal ... a 76 V8 Mustang II ... it was rusted pretty bad ( car came from Ohio ) ... and it was complete but had suffered a engine compartment fire.

I believe it was set on fire intentionally for insurance purposes but it crossed the scales at less than 3,000 pounds.

I believe that the Pinto / Mustang II front ends have a place in hot rodding. They work well under 33 - 34 Fords ... They do good in some 35 to 40 Fords. They may work well in the 37 to 41 Willys ( but I prefer the nose up straight axle look myself ) I just believe you need to size the suspension components to the size of the vehicle. I would NOT but a Vega steering box on a vehicle with a weight of over 3000 pounds either. A Corvair box would need even a lighter vehicle ... IMHO.

Not necessarily so. Eaton Springs makes a bunch of different springs rate coils for the Pinto / Mustang II front ends .. in different lengths.

Go here ...

http://www.eatonsprings.com/m2coils.htm

They even make custom springs for a reasonable price. I have used their springs before. They have them in different lengths. Some are about the length of your cut springs are now but with a lighter spring rate.

I am also installing a M II frontend. I have started a brace on the rear of the lower control arm bolt, still need to install a gusset. Hope this helps to correct a weak spot. It is going into a 1947 Chevy Coupe W/5.3-4L60E from a 2003 Yukon.

Attached Thumbnails

   

Hey Duece, thanks a lot for the info. Your weight on the M2 is about 400 less than what everyone says. Good to know from the man who really knows. Thanks

I see a couple springs in the list that may work. I'll give them a call and check on prices.

When I looked at your pictures, that was my first thought for a recommendation. As I had mentioned, my suspicion is that this was the failure point on the original topic, not the lower control arm attachment to the frame.

When you gusset the coilover mount to the LCA, if you can make it a 1 piece gusset that goes around your round tube (under the bottom) and comes up on both sides of the square tube of your lower control arm so that you have a lap joint, that would be ideal. Capture the coilover mount with continuous steel and weld it with metal-to-metal so that you aren't rellying on filler metal that may be bridging a gap, but instead have base metal fused into base metal.

From what I'm hearing about strut bars, all that a "strut bar" is doing is effectively adding a third inboard lower control arm pivot point, and mechanically speaking, you have the same thing if you just have two outer pivots.

Let me ask this... I can't help but ask, why does everybody insist on having the coilover mount below the lower control arm where it's going to put welds in tension? As Caroll Smith might have said, the coilover should mount above the lower control arm so the welds can be in compression as God intended.

And if anyone says it's necessary because of the length of the coilover... Hmm.. Well, if it is that original of an idea, maybe I'd rather go into business than give it away, but let's just say rocker arms aren't just something you find in engines.

Fenders and engines and stuff start getting in the way of pushrods and rockerarms,, but if you want to check one out, Kugel makes a trick looking setup. ( I'm not going to endorse or condemn the design,,the horse is dead already ) But they do have individual tabs and short bolts for LCA mounts instead of throughbolts... But the shock bellcrank bracket is in tension

Sheet, ya can't win for anything...






Later, mikey

__________________
BE different....ACT normal.

No one is completely useless..They can always be used as a bad example

Here are some weights of Pintos
http://www.fordpinto.com/smf/index....+Specifications

and a M 2
http://www.mustangii.net/1974/74_tech_37.asp

So Duece is right on. these were a lot lighter cars than everyone thinks. they did have a good deal of weight on the front end however. As much as 60%.

ALL I know is what the state certified weight scale tells me.
I supplemented my meager government job income by selling scrap for years ...

As a side note ... I CANNOT believe what steel is bringing now ... PER TON ...

160.00 per ton out here..

My neighbor is a scrap guy, he gets all kinds of cool stuff.

Later, mikey

__________________
BE different....ACT normal.

No one is completely useless..They can always be used as a bad example

[/QUOTE]

I see some of you don't like how the frame bracket on this drawing is made and I agree on that one.
This simple, flat piece of steel will put a lot of stress where its welded to the frame. But consider this drawing only as a principle for how to redirect some of the forces that otherwise are consentrated on the cross member in the original design. A modification to the bracket to make the fastening point better is very easy.

And as for the original Pinto design and witch cars the M II kits can handle: I haven't seen any of the manufactureres today that still uses standard M II brakes? They all use bigger brakes than that.

The only Pinto parts in my M II kit is the spindle and rack. How heavy cars those parts can handle will be limited by the weight on the front wheels, not the total weight of the car, right?

I have never heard of rack failure as an issue on M II suspension equipped hot rods..?
Besides that, doens't many of the manufacturers offer a different ratio power racks from a later (and probably heavier) Mustang?

Then the spindle is all that's left from the standard MII/Pinto.

My MII kit (TCI) uses zero Mustang or Pinto parts. The spindles, calipers and large rotors are from a Chevy Caprice, the steering rack is from an '88 T'bird, the control arms are fabricated from huge tubular steel, the crossmember is fabricated of thick-walled rectangular tube. None of the parts are from a lightweight Mustang/Pinto.

This is probably true of most of the aftermarket manufacturers' offerings. They use the basic principals and geometry of the original MII and Pinto design, which is why these kits are refered to as "Mustang II". But the parts are NOT the actual parts from those cars, they are MUCH beefier.

Antny

Most if not all Mustang II kits use original Mustang II tie rod ends because no other car has the proper length tie rod ends to maintain the geometry to prevent bump steer. The pivot point or line of the tie rod ends must be exactly the same as the control arms to eliminate bump steer.

Vince

__________________
Here's to you DoC, you will always be here.
My project 34
http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/34-...ght=34+progress

That Heidt's x-member is the worst design possible if you are using strut rod eliminators. The square corners on the bottom plate initiate cracks that continue to the bolt tube and the whole thing breaks off. I highly recommend you a) weld a plate over the entire open area on the ends of the x-member and b) use strut rods with a robust rear strut rod mount.

People are vilifying the entire MII front end based on faulty after market stuff that keeps breaking. TRUST ME the Ford engineers designed a robust SYSTEM that is inherently safe. The problem comes when folks arbitrarily throw out vital structural design components like strut rods because they are ugly. It is insane. In fact to be totally on board with the design engineers, you should also include the transverse brace that the Ford engineers installed between the strut rod mounts. Here is a photo of how Ford thought strut rods should be installed in heavier cars. This is a FAR CRY from strut rod eliminator A-arms or 1/4" strut rod plates welded to 3/16" thick frame rails don't you think?

Here is my compromise with Ford engineers. I use strut rods, rear mounts that are mounted in rubber and the X-bracket. I still leave off the extra robustness of their design.

folks just need to admit we are screwing up the original engineered solution so we should expect the catastrophic failures we are seeing.