Mustang II setup - -what's its problem?

[AC0J]

My 56 wagon has the fat man setup, with the stainless control arms. It was on there when I got it.
It is considerably heavier duty than the "mustang II" suspension was originally. It is a simple IFS system that gives the ability to mount virtually any engine.
I would say it drives like an old car with power steering probably did when it was brand new.
The only benefit I could see is the availability of parts, like the rack, spindles and brakes. You can get a variety of fancy calipers and rotors to fit it, and use whatever wheel bolt pattern you want. And the fact they are very easy to set the ride height on.

Bottom line, if it wasn't on my car already, I wouldnt spend the money putting it on now that I know it doesnt make the car handle much better.

[LugNut]

Hi Phillip, I agree with you about updating. We took a 57 CH__Y truck 3100 short wheel base and put a 78 camero front end under it. It drives like a 70's vehicle. Power brakes,
power steering its a bit quirky on some roads but it is so far ahead of the orginal dropped front axle steering and parking that I would never go back. The guy at Firestone is still having nightmares about aligning the front end but it didn't kill him so I guess he's stronger because of it.

[johnod]

I have MII suspension with a custom front frame clip.
Manual steering, works well.

[Paul Keller]

The Fatman sub-frame is only avail for early Stude' cars/trucks - not sure of the exact years, but around up to '51 for cars and a bit later for trucks (their web site has all the years/applications). Saw a '50 Stude w/ the Fatman & SB C----Y , looked quite robust. The owner had put some time into finishing the sub' (grinding and sanding for a better finish appearance).
Paul TK

[Bob Andrews]

The Daytona I'm doing now will stay stock with factory power steering. The custom I'm planning will be either Fatman or something I can design. That one will be a long-distance, low maintenance touring car, so I'm updating. Unlike many here, I do not want primitive oddball king pins, reach rod, and ridiculously poor quality power steering. I also disagree that king pins are superior to ball joints; only ones I've seen fail are those that were not maintained and ignored for decades. I'll go for modern handling and design- no bump steer issues, no loose pinch bolts, etc.

Stock is fine in most cases. It's part of the 'experience'. But for a higher-end custom, I say upgrade.

[johnod]

The Fatman sub-frame is only avail for early Stude' cars/trucks - not sure of the exact years, but around up to '51 for cars and a bit later for trucks (their web site has all the years/applications). Saw a '50 Stude w/ the Fatman & SB C----Y , looked quite robust. The owner had put some time into finishing the sub' (grinding and sanding for a better finish appearance).
Paul TK

I'm pretty sure Fatman does have a clip for 53-54 coupes.
If I were looking, I'd definitely call them and check.

[jimmijim8]

I wouldn't upgrade the front suspension on my 55 and 63 K models even if I were going to upgrade. cheers jimmijim

[Reggie]

Re: Bob Andrews opinion. The only real benefit to ball joints vs king pins is that ball joints are much cheaper and easier to manufacture and install. Then, when the car owners neglect to lube them and they develop wear, they can be replaced with less expense. That's basically it.

[bezhawk]

That is, if the ball joints even come with lubrication fittings!!! Too cheap for even that on many .

[jimmijim8]

I am quite comfortable with my antiquated king pin suspension. I am also glad that Studebaker did not resort to cheapening their suspension with the ball and socket technology. cheers jimmijim

Re: Bob Andrews opinion. The only real benefit to ball joints vs king pins is that ball joints are much cheaper and easier to manufacture and install. Then, when the car owners neglect to lube them and they develop wear, they can be replaced with less expense. That's basically it.

[DEEPNHOCK]

This is a circle jerk of a conversation.

So stay stay stuck in the 60's, or 50's... Who cares?
Use your Western Electric telephone with impunity.
Tell us all every excuse of why current technology is better/worse than the low bid budget and mostly obsolete stuff Stude kept using for decades.. (don't lay that line on me that trunions are superior to anything... Where are they today?
Or...maybe just admit that the Studebaker is a nostalgic beast that you have mastered the skill level necessary to keep it going.
Not a darned thing wrong with that.
But don't demean others that might want something newer, even if you don't think it is better.

I am quite comfortable with my antiquated king pin suspension. I am also glad that Studebaker did not resort to cheapening their suspension with the ball and socket technology. cheers jimmijim
Originally Posted by Reggie
Re: Bob Andrews opinion. The only real benefit to ball joints vs king pins is that ball joints are much cheaper and easier to manufacture and install. Then, when the car owners neglect to lube them and they develop wear, they can be replaced with less expense. That's basically it.

[jimmijim8]

Yes Jeff and you just had an orgasm. I don't know of any forum rules that I did not adhere to unless there has recently been put in effect a ban on personal opinions. I for sure didn't demean any body by my statement. Not even close. Opinions are like arssholes. Every body has one. Yes, some folks bottom half speak their opinion. Only because their mouth knows better. These people I refer to as arssholes. Me thinks. Get this. Studebaker might have changed their {as you say} obsolete stuff{king pin/trunion} in favor of the newer high tech ball and socket suspension if they could have afforded to/or just didn't cause it wouldn't have made a hill of beans to anyone. I drive my old cars as they were presented from the factory cause I can. Cause me thinks they don't need no front frame clip for my driving pleasure. I have never driven a car manufactured before 1955 model year. If it were up to me to design an automobile as we know them even going back as far back as 100 years. Impossible. I have never owned and driven or tried out a car that isn't light years ahead of what I think I might come up with all by lonesome here in my garage. Right now I'm just borderline smart enough to keep the two relics dependable car meet cruisers. I hope. cheers jimmijim cheers jimmijim

[Bob Andrews]

This is a circle jerk of a conversation.

So stay stay stuck in the 60's, or 50's... Who cares?
Use your Western Electric telephone with impunity.
Tell us all every excuse of why current technology is better/worse than the low bid budget and mostly obsolete stuff Stude kept using for decades.. (don't lay that line on me that trunions are superior to anything... Where are they today?
Or...maybe just admit that the Studebaker is a nostalgic beast that you have mastered the skill level necessary to keep it going.
Not a darned thing wrong with that.
But don't demean others that might want something newer, even if you don't think it is better.

I am quite comfortable with my antiquated king pin suspension. I am also glad that Studebaker did not resort to cheapening their suspension with the ball and socket technology. cheers jimmijim
Originally Posted by Reggie
Re: Bob Andrews opinion. The only real benefit to ball joints vs king pins is that ball joints are much cheaper and easier to manufacture and install. Then, when the car owners neglect to lube them and they develop wear, they can be replaced with less expense. That's basically it.

That is very well said, Jeff. I think you hit it on the head about some not wanting to look outside their decades-old comfort zone. Nothing wrong with wanting to live in the 50s and 60s, I guess. I like to go there frequently; it's fun to romanticize and remember only the good things about that era. Problem is, a lot of it doesn't translate well to modern day, with the knowledge and technology we now have.

[Don Jeffers]

Re: Bob Andrews opinion. The only real benefit to ball joints vs king pins is that ball joints are much cheaper and easier to manufacture and install. Then, when the car owners neglect to lube them and they develop wear, they can be replaced with less expense. That's basically it.

One very real advantage to ball joints is that the front end can be designed with "Anti-dive" in the geometry.

Anti-dive is achieved by tilting the upper A-arm backward some 7 or 8 degrees from parallel to the lower A-arm, when viewed from the side.

That cannot be done with king pins, which demand the upper and lower arms must be parallel when viewed from the side. If they wern't, the system would bind.

That gives a leveraging effect to the nose of the car to resist dive when under heavy braking. Virtually all modern double A-arm systems incorporate Anti-dive.

That said, the Stude front suspension system has very good geometry, save for Anti-dive, which is not of much need in gentle touring. If you want to road race your 51 and later Stude, you should probably use a later ball joint heavy duty front suspension for the anti-dive effect.

As for safety, king pins can be worn to the point that you get front end tramp from the looseness of heavily worn king pins and still not break. Ball joints, on the other hand, wear to the point of the ball coming out of the joint, the upright falls over and the car goes out of control.

The 51 and later Stude suspension with anti-roll bars (sway bars), stiffer springs, good shocks and a disc brake conversion is an excellent suspension for highway use in our old cars. Stude suspensions were well designed.

[DEEPNHOCK]

You said it all. Nothing more could be added.

Yes Jeff and you just had an orgasm. I don't know of any forum rules that I did not adhere to unless there has recently been put in effect a ban on personal opinions. I for sure didn't demean any body by my statement. Not even close. Opinions are like arssholes. Every body has one. Yes, some folks bottom half speak their opinion. Only because their mouth knows better. These people I refer to as arssholes. Me thinks. Get this. Studebaker might have changed their {as you say} obsolete stuff{king pin/trunion} in favor of the newer high tech ball and socket suspension if they could have afforded to/or just didn't cause it wouldn't have made a hill of beans to anyone. I drive my old cars as they were presented from the factory cause I can. Cause me thinks they don't need no front frame clip for my driving pleasure. I have never driven a car manufactured before 1955 model year. If it were up to me to design an automobile as we know them even going back as far back as 100 years. Impossible. I have never owned and driven or tried out a car that isn't light years ahead of what I think I might come up with all by lonesome here in my garage. Right now I'm just borderline smart enough to keep the two relics dependable car meet cruisers. I hope. cheers jimmijim cheers jimmijim