I am looking pretty seriously at the "Economy Mustang II" kit for the 55-59 and wondering if anyone has experience with it. All of the kits are a bit different and I am explicitly staying away fron the cheap ebay/carid ones.
The instructions they link with the kit come from CPP and I have been pretty happy with the products I have gotten from them in the past. That said, this kit is less than half the price of a Heidts and dramatically cheaper than even a Johnny Law. Not knowing anyhing else about it, the price is concerningly low.
Anyone have an experience with these? Good or bad?
The math I am working with right now says my springs, wheel bearings, kingpins, tie rods, and pitman arm are all pretty well done. By the time I replace all of those with quality parts, I am looking at $700-$900. I want to put power disk brakes and power steering on this truck eventually so my wife can drive it. Doing that while the front end is apart seems prudent since that will change some of the parts that go on now. The brake conversion is ~400 and the steering conversion is ~500 (not including the power steering pump). By the time I add of those together, I am within spittimg distance of the cost of a hub-to-hub mistang 2 kit that gets me IFS and "modern" geometry.
My rear axle also needs rebuilt and I can get an S10 one with disks for less than the parts to rebuild just the differential on the axle I have. The MII kit gives me the same hub pattern if I do them together.
It all sounds like great plan, assuming the MII kit isn't junk. Everything else just bolts on and can be reversed without too much trouble. Thus my desire to try and get some kind of feedback on the kit before spending most of the budget and a month of effort on it.
Haven't done this personally, but friends of mine who've done the Mustang II front end have had mixed reviews. Some say it is not too bad and some say it turned their truck into a mess...no longer like a pickup at all. These folks are not beginners at this sort of work, either I should add...that is to say steering geometry is well-known to them. The ones who haven't liked the change have said it was just wrong for a pickup and have said given a chance to do it again they would use a real truck front end or at the very least a Nova front clip. It also changes the ride height, and while some think that's fine to ride low...others don't. And that includes me. You can do this in a manner in which your original height is preserved, but it does take some extra work.
If it were me, I would think long and hard about ever doing this. You can add electric power steering to your truck and add some more caster angle in the process if you want (to make it more stable). In my opinion that's more sensible than a fluid power steering system given you're working with a 235. You can also re-do your brakes completely and have brakes that will stop you just fine...even at speed. The MII front end was designed for a second or third rate compact car built at a time when Detroit was wrestling with how to make cars lighter and more economical. Ask Evan (coilover). I think he'll tell you there is a world of difference between one of these done correctly and one done incorrectly. Often the difference is measured in $$$ spent and who did the work. Get the steering geometry out of whack and you'll hate it, plus it won't be safe. And...it has been mentioned here before...you may discover there are insurance concerns when you start monkeying with steering, suspension, etc. The worst time to learn your insurance company has a problem with something is AFTER a wreck, so you need to let them know up front. Good luck!
~ Jon 1952 1/2 ton with 1959 235 | T5 with 3.07 rear end
I'm using EPAS power steering on my 53 3100. I have not installed it yet but did put one on a friends truck a couple of years ago, maybe 3. It's amazing, smooth with adjustable gain. I was starting from scratch and it's so simple that I bought one too. I think it was about $1500. We installed it in about 4 hours with no rush. You could literally install it with a hacksaw, drill and file. It doesn't care if the engine is running. You just cut a chunk out of the stock column, double "D" the shaft and bolt it inline. Run a power wire and done. I plan on using my throttle knob location for the gain control with an original knob on it. No P/S box, pump, pulleys or hoses. I also have Rencool electric A/C with remote condenser so my engine compartment will look stock except for the blown 292 sticking out of the hood. Sorry this got so long. Thank you for your time.
Mick, that is great to know. I have a buddy building a 56 F**d that ordered one of those kits for his rig. I was going to let him get it installed before I got too invested in the idea.
The other thing I am looking at is the Vue EPS conversion. I helped a coworker adapt one of them for his 67 big block pontiac and it worked like a dream. The "motor" assembly gets installed somewhere in line between the column and the rack and is a fully contained assist system. It has a load cell between the input amd output to measure torque on the shaft and a motor to assist. There is a fairly inexpensive adaptor to generate to CAN messages to control the level of assist.
You can take a very similar motor out of a prius and run it without the adapter, but it has a lot less assist strength.
I am considering the idea of the MII kit with the manual rack initially, then put the electric assist on later. Spread the cost out and be able to drive it in the meantime.
Jon, the lowering is my biggest concern. I do not want to lower it at all and there are quite a few shenanigans that would be needed to avoid that with a kit.
There is certainly a change to the "feel" going from a solid axle to an IFS and I recognize that a lot of people don't like that. Different strokes and all. Using stock mustang 2 parts, I would agree with the concern about the cheap and low strength construction. There have been a lot of improvements in the last 30 years and the fundamental architecture of the system is actually very good.
I explicitly want to do something bigger and more radical with this truck than just build it stock. I did a full frame off restoration of a 69 mustang convertible (had the bodywork done by another guy, but did the rest myself), a stock rebuild then LS swap on a 78 Corvette, a full up California smog legal LS swap on my grandmother's 84 F150, built a 14 second crew cab long bed duramax (with a buddy), and more smaller projects than I care to think about at the moment. I fully recognize the amount of time and effort that will go into a project like this, but I specfically want to do somethig bigger and better than what I have done before.
In an ideal world, I would do a full frame swap to a GMT800 with an LQ9, 6L80, and NP246. I just don't have the space and tooling for that now and don't expect to anytime soon. The level of effort needed to narrow the front end on that is non-trivial and I don't like the exposed tires look from leaving it at full width.
I do appreciate the feedback and perspective. I am exploring a lot of options right now, trying to plan out the long term project before jumping in and regretting an early decision. One thing that I do specifically want is to be able to do things in chunks and drive it in the intermediate states.
I used to drop in to Tuckers every now and then. Don't know if they are still on line but the store front has closed. Went past on the freeway a couple months back and the building sign had been removed.
One can retain stock height by LOWERING the MII crosmember. This only works with the kit designed to use coil over shocks. It takes 3" to 3.5" spacers on the underside of the frame to regain factory height. This brings other variables into the equation ranging from little change with an all aluminum LS to big changes with a cast iron six. The raised chassis results in increased body roll so heavier springs and shocks come into play. We have a whiz bang techie that can lay it all out on a computer, even to the point of reaction on different road surfaces and corner reaction. The MII shown is a Heidt's but we now use mostly Fatman units.
Someome answered the phone at Tuckers when I called last week, so I feel moderately confident that they are still in business.
The other issue I have is that I like the *current* ride height. I don't actually know the *stock* ride height. I asked earlier and concluded that my springs are pretty sprung, but I can't find info in any of the manuals I have that tell me what the frame rail height should be
Want information for another year? Simply copy and past the link I gave you above and change the year. Don't know what your current height is, but it probably won't be too far off from original.
For what it may be worth I took a 600+ mile trip in a 1958 Chevy 1/2 ton completely stock truck with no radio back in the 1960s (in the bitter cold) and had nothing to complain about at all. A doggone good pickup. I think if you put your suspension and braking system back in top nick (like new in other words), you'll be happy. It won't ride like a 1998 Chevy 1/2 ton, but there were lots of things to enjoy about the 1958. Good luck!
~ Jon 1952 1/2 ton with 1959 235 | T5 with 3.07 rear end
We had a customer that kept a car or truck in our shop at all times; he had about 35 cars and same number of tractors. One of the trucks was a 56 Chevy 3100 (same chassis as yours) with 28,000 original miles. You could spin the steering wheel with one hand with it on dry pavement, shift the three on the tree with precise movement, and the windows rolled up with two fingers. Could eat a burger and fries at 50mph as it tracked dead center in its driving lane. He brought it to us because his grand daughters horse BIT THE HOOD---all the way to metal. As Jon said, the easiest and cheapest is to bring back to factory specs.
I am still going through s lot of Evan's old posts to try and avoid asking stupid and/or repetative questions. I will see if I still have questions when I am done.
As far as the height, the only number I had been able to find in the heritage center documentation was the rear deck height (27.6"). Assuming that the front and rear sagged the same (not sure if I trust that assumption or not), I can use that number to estimate the current sag on the front.
I am also somewhat confused by the spring section of that document, so maybe that answers my question and I just don't understand the data.
It gives a spring rate for the front springs: 343 lb/in. That should be the amount of force needed to deflect the spring 1". But it also says that the "load in pounds at opening height" is: 865 @1.70".
I would have thought that sentance meant there was 865 lbs on each of the front springs (~1700lb front axle seems plausible with the stated max of 2200) and those springs would have 1.7" of deflection at that point. But (1.70 * 343) != 865, so I must be missing something.
I thought I could unload the spring (drop the front axle), measure the spring height, then subtract 1.70 to get the correct stock height. Would that give me a reasonable estimate?
Thank you Mick, that is helpful. The 53 is a bit smaller than the 59, but the ballpark numbers are helpful. I can cross-reference those to the 53 vehicle kit of heritage center to see if I can make sense of how they give values.
Any idea why the FR corner is so much heavier than the FL? Maybe the engine is offset to that side a decent amount?
Thank you Mick, that is helpful. The 53 is a bit smaller than the 59, but the ballpark numbers are helpful. I can cross-reference those to the 53 vehicle kit of heritage center to see if I can make sense of how they give values.
Any idea why the FR corner is so much heavier than the FL? Maybe the engine is offset to that side a decent amount?
That's a good question. I'm no expert on this but it does seem to be offset to the right. If you add a driver it might be closer. Here are the cross weights and front rear. I should have done it with me in it also. #1 rear right / front left #2 rear left / front right. #3 left / right #4 Front / rear. I hope I got the order right. Thank you for your time.
