Front Axle / Front Suspension: Mustang II setup - -what's its problem?

[pbrown]

First off, let me say that I'm not planning on doing this swap...

And I also want to say that I understand that a Mustang II front end setup is not the cat's PJs when it comes to upgrades (Based on a Pinto, wasn't it?)

But I want someone to tell me where my reasoning is wrong:

Even though Mustang II Hub to Hub swaps pop up regularly on other forums, (and lots of vendors sell them) I don't hear much about Mustang II Hub to Hub swaps on Studebakers

If you cut the front suspension/steering off of any car, and weld a Mustang II setup in its place (by that I mean same position of the front wheels, both wheelbase and track) wouldn't that bring 80s technology to an old car with a minimum of fuss? Granted it's not 2014 technology, but wouldn't it be the level of steering/handling/etc that the Mustang II had? (I do understand the rest of the car contributes to steering/handling/etc, but let's leave that out if we can)

So, what am I missing?

[DEEPNHOCK]

"Conversions", whether it be an engine, or a front suspension, all depend on the design and quality of the installation.
A great 'kit' can be totally messed up with a poor installation.
And the quality of the kit is paramount to a quality outcome.
Demeaning the conversion based on an opinion of the heritage of the swap is done quite often,
and usually done by those that are never going to consider a swap
(and are looking for reasons to shoot the idea down).

The components chosen for most conversions today are brand new parts.
Conversions done in days of yore were often done with junkyard parts.
When was the last time you saw a Pinto in the boneyard, let alone one with a decent suspension under it?

Biggest issue most have with an MII suspension is they set the hub to hub with so they can put big ol' fat tires on the car with a lot of offset.
Then, when done, they complain that the MII kit caused them to lose turning radius.

As with any 'conversion'... Give it a lot of thought, and check out your choice of components.
Food for thought, anyways...

[bezhawk]

The Studebaker frame is an odd cross section, so just welding in a crossmember and hanging suspension pieces is not a simple thing. If you want to sub frame it, then you are talking about fabbing up supports for the radiator, bumper, front sheet metal, and everything that makes the body fit in front. Also you will have to fab up a steering linkage, and it has to clear the engine components. Don't forget you are now also engineering a new brake system too. Then if you do sub frame it, of course the stock engine mounts wont be there any more, so count on making those too. To completely subframe and engineer all that on ANY car you will be talking at least 10K to have it done by a shop. To do it yourself, I would guestimate at least half that if you use USED PARTS. All of this to get a car that handles marginally better than stock, and probably not as good as a 100% COMPLETELY rebuilt stock suspension with upgraded anti sway bars, and good high end shocks.
This is not just throwing a new old stock dry rotted out rubber crap bushings, and a set of sears shocks. I'm talking about GOOD new bushings, ALL bearings, All pivots, The steering gear and ALL seals, and GOOD Koni or Bilstein shocks, and Dave Thibeault heavy duty anti sway bars.

[Kurt]

These swaps look like the way to go if you are street rodding a pick up or pre 51 Stude. You get better ride, better steering, power steering, etc. On post 51 it's pretty hard to beat the stock set up. To me, and that's just me, I would rebuild the stock components, add disk brakes, power steering, heavy sway bars, and spend my money on fuel injection or overdrive transmissions, or whatever.....

[sals54]

[RadioRoy]

Another thing to consider is the weight of both cars. If the donor car was significantly lighter than the car that is getting the installation, then the components will be stressed differently than they were designed for.

[Mike Van Veghten]

This has been gone over many times...

It's the "geometry".

Like Sal says...just provide a little help to the stock parts and all will be well...UNLESS you want to do a lot of homework, spend a bit of money, to do or have this work done.."correctly".

Just slapping on a "GENERICLY designed front suspension, ISN"T going to gain you much but to lighten your wallet. Though you will be able to say...I've got brand X front suspension on my Stude....for the coolness of it.
It "won't" be any better than with the Stude engineers came up with...period.


Now...as noted...if you want to pick up a book or two on suspensions, learn what the different things are that make up a "properly" designed front suspension, are willing to spend the extra time (if you can do the work) or extra money if you have to have someone else do it...then and ONLY then will it be worth the extra work/money to do a front suspension swap.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

The angles that the control arms are set at, make all the difference in the world. It's in the..."geometry" that the control arms attachment points and angles of swing, are designed to. Remember that, geometry", from school..? It applys in a major way to the way a "properly" designed front suspension...works...
With all of the Mustang II arms parallel...like in the Stude...you'll "still" have Studebaker like handling. Maybe a little lighter, but still Stude handling.
BUT...if you move those angles around a little, tilt the arms down (from the side), tilt the upper down a bit (looking from the front), rotate the upper back a little, etc., etc., THEN and only then will you gain better handling.

The front tire tread will stay more directly planted to the pavement while cornering, the tires will will follow the road better as it moves around the corner. It's all for additionally control in the corners. Not much if anything new or great will happen while your driving down a flat, straight highway, BUT...throw in a few highspeed "on" and "offramps" and 70+mph interchange roads...you'll think you're in a sports car... not a 60+ year old Studebaker..!
It's nothing new, it's not really rocket science...it's just highschool geometry.

Note - there are two ways to buy from a suspension shop, 1. the cheaper, faster, easier, off the shelf, weld and bolt together, or 2. the more expensive way of telling (Fatman, Heidts, Morrison, et-al) the wheelbase, the track width, the weight, the height and have them actually design a suspension that will "work" for you, not just hold the car up off the ground...!
See my last two paragraphs.

Mike

P.s. - Something like this needs to be made into a "sticky" to put at the top of this page.
Also, misspellings and or bad grammer are a result of being in a rush...

[wittsend]

Yes, the Mustang II front suspension was shared with the '74 and up Pinto's. The '71 - '73 Pinto's front suspension was different. Basically the Mustang II suspension was developed - and then adapted to the Pinto. This is somewhat speculation on my part, but I believe the Mustang II suspension became popular because because it resembled conventional upper/lower arms common to the early 70's. However, being designed for lighter cars it became popular in the drag racing world where there was an attempt to reduce front end weight. Prior to that the straight axle (such as off the Econoline vans) were used. Kits became available as this suspension became popular. From there it just took off and ran as the "must have" suspension.

I can't account for its practical use on street cars. It may well be very appropriate. I simply have no experience. But the origins of the use of the suspension I saw quite well from its drag racing beginnings in the 70's. So, I just have some apprehension if it is an ideal street car suspension given that drag racing suspension back in the day were a totally different application.

[PackardV8]

wouldn't that bring 80s technology to an old car with a minimum of fuss?

No, as previously well stated, it's huge and very technical undertaking that few-to-no homebuilders can accomplish well enough to better the original.

No, it's not even '80s technology. The Pinto (Mustang II sounds sexier, but an evolution of the Pinto it basically was) suspension was designed in the late 1960s as the cheapest possible thing to build.

Yes, the aftermarket has modified, tweaked and redesigned their front suspension offerings until most have no parts which would bolt directly to the 1971 Pinto, but as some wise man once said, "One cannot polish excrement."

Maybe, for some of us different isn't enough better to be worth the expense. Count me into those who thoroughly investigated the labor and material costs versus the benefits and chose to stay with the best possible build of the original Studebaker suspension.

FWIW, I recently took a long road trip in two Studebaker C/Ks. One was restored with a new, upgraded Studebaker suspension

(GOOD new bushings, ALL bearings, All pivots, The steering gear and ALL seals, and GOOD Koni or Bilstein shocks, and Dave Thibeault heavy duty anti sway bars.)

and one had a "front clip and Chevy V8". The first thing I noticed was modified car had a much larger turning radius and didn't ride or handle noticeably better on the highway. If pushed really hard, taking 150# off the front tires made the modified car a better road racer. Neither owner was comfortable with me driving his car anywhere nearly as hard as I drive my own every day, so within the reasonable limits most old cars stay, the modified car didn't really do anything to earn back the money spent.

jack vines

[Alan]

Fat Man makes one for Studes, but I have never seen one. I prefer to make modifications that can be reversed. I have built a front suspension for my 53K that could be swapped back for stock in a weekend. Sal I have 9" between the bottom of the front cross member and the road running 2.15 X 70 X 15's on the front. I would not build one for someone else, it would be my luck the imbecile would kill himself and his old lady would blame it on me. Like Jack there, he drives them like he stole em.

[rodnutrandy]

I had a 1933 Willys coupe I put a pinto Suspension under. Narrowed the cross member 6 inches and narrowed the rack and pinion 6 inches. Installed it myself . The Willys drove great , tracked straight and turned easily ( no power steering ) . Later I had a 36 Ford sedan with a Mustang II set up under it. It also drove great without power steering . I see no problem with them . You can spend a lot or spend little . Example My truck sets on a shortened 70 1/2 ton frame ($65 ) . sold the 3:08 10 bolt from it for $65 . Bought a 3:73 12 bolt limited slip for $125 , Bought a 83 Chevy 1/2 ton front suspension for $125. 10 of 12 bolts lined up , giving me power disc brakes and power steering . At same time my neighbor was building a 57 Chevy pickup . $1500 front suspension , Than changed the springs . He Bought a new bed. My bed is made from new metal ( $140) . At the shows . his truck would beat me sometimes, and I would beat him sometimes. He sold his for $35,000 and loss money. I could sell mine for $20,000 (won't ) and make money .

[48skyliner]

I have never driven any Studebaker newer than my current 48 Champion, before I took it apart. The ride was pretty good, but the cornering and braking were really awful. It has long been my belief that it is not difficult to make a car that corners and handles well, or to make a car that has a smooth comfortable ride. But to make a car that does both really well requires some good design engineering and is not going to be cheap to manufacture. Ideally you will have fully independent suspension front and rear. That is one of the reasons you pay more for a BMW, Audi, Jaguar, high-end Nissan or Toyota and in recent years, some American cars. The suspension systems on some of these cars do not lend themselves easily to a swap into other cars. A few, like the Jaguar, carry the entire front suspension on a single crossmember. But most of these better handling cars are wider than your Studebaker.

If you want your classic Stude to drive like a modern sport sedan , this is not going to be achieved by bolting on a Mustang II front end, as others have suggested. My 48 Champion project is very radical by any measure, and in a few months we will know if it was really worth the effort. I would not expect any normal sane person to go to the extremes I have.

[JoeHall]

My two cents, the misc., modern front end swaps probably benefit most any 1930s-40s vehicle, and maybe up through 1950 on Stude cars (dunno about trucks). For 1951 and later Stude cars, its harder to justify the swap.

[pbrown]

Thanks for all the responses - I keep seeing those Mustang II front end setups in the Hot Rod catalogs, and was curious why they never showed up on a Studebaker.

As I said, I'm keeping my suspension stock, so this is only for learning on my part. And with every response, I learn more!

[1962larksedan]

I don't know what the status is on the 2WD Chevy Astro reverse PS gear conversion for a 1951 up Stude/Avanti car but; if said gearbox could be adapted, that'd give the best of both worlds, stock Stude stuff steering reach rod forward but decent 'modern' feeling PS. Too; the mid 1950's Studes with the early Saginaw PS were actually quite close in concept (and layout) to the Astro swap from the factory