Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.
MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical - mustang II front susp
|has anyone here tried a mustang II front susp. in their B? i dont know if it has similar dimentions to stock susp, but it would give you much bigger and much better brake selection. over here in the US theyre pretty cheap and easy to find. just thaught it might be worth checking into.|
|Josh this is a great idea but it does have some drawbacks. I have built a complete front end for my B V8 using mustang spindles along with brakes. I made my own tubeular a-arms so that I could incorporate a afco coilover spring. The cross member is made of 2x4 box tubing and uses the same measurements as the standard rubber bumper B. Some of the problems I encountered were finding the ball joints that would work with the spindles. Because of the upper ball joint on the mustang spindle the upper A arm has to be quite short but the geometry works out quite well. another problem is the steering rack is too long and the rod ends must be shortened. This is not an easy process because the rod ends are forged and you just cannot cut off what you don't need and rethread. I took mine to a machinist who cut them, pinned them and had them welded by a pro. The other problem is the B tie rod ends are too small for the mustang spindle and they face the wrong direction. Again machinist came to the rescue by inserting a tapered bushing in the spindle and welding that in. Building a suspension from scratch is a ton of work but it should work great and look cool.There is no way a stock mustang front would fit under a B without major surgery.|
|This company used to market a Mustang II front end for the MGB, but it is no longer listed on their website:|
You might contact them for information though.
|How does that company stay in business? Who da heck's gonna pay $30K for that car when a regular B is ten times as attractive?|
|FWIW - The Mustang II was basically a rebodied Pinto. Front suspension would be identical, or nearly so. Imagine it would differ basically on the engine application - Pinto's were all fours - 1.6L / 2.0L / 2.3L.|
Mustang II had the 2.3L four, 2.8L V6 and even a 5.0L V8.
If y'all find this subject interesting, may I humbly suggest you pick up a copy of the Carroll Smith book "Tune to Win". I really think it's a classic, and that every serious hot rodder should read it.
The relative position of the pivot points in a front suspension, their position relative to the rear axle, to the tire contact points, to the vehicle center of gravity, etc... these are ALL critically important to how a car behaves on the road, and particularly in tense situations like, for example, heavy braking while approaching a turn on a bumpy road. Now, I'm no expert on Pintos, Mustang II's, or MGB's, but I'm aware these are three very different cars... Anyway, Carroll Smith has a great skill for explaining the mysterious ways suspension geometry effects performance.
Incidentally, deep in my memory I remember reading that the Mustang II stirred up attention when it came out because it incorporated a relatively large amount of "anti-dive" in it's front suspension. I think that was a pretty new idea at the time. The MGB suspension is a much older, and in a sense more "traditional" design. (For heaven's sakes - it's got KINGPINS and LEVER SHOCKS! But it's also got little or no "anti-dive".) As I recall, the anti-dive effect is achieved by arranging the respective inboard wishbone pivot points so that, when viewed from the side, they converge in the direction of the center of gravity. To tell how relatively strong the anti-dive effect will be, one can draw a line from the front tire contact patch through the convergence point, and compare the height of this intersection to the height of the center of gravity (sprung only!) The higher the convergence point, the stronger the anti-dive effect. Anyway, I believe I'm correct to say that its anti-dive characteristic was THE reason transplanting Mustang II suspensions onto hot rods became popular in the 1970's.
After all that hot air, may I say one more thing? When I studied up on this ten years ago I found that the basic chrome-bumper MGB suspension GEOMETRY is pretty hard to beat without going to a significantly wider tire spacing. Changing shocks, springs, bushings, anti-sway bar and obviously tires can, however, do a lot of good.
postscript: the best way to improve a rubber bumper MGB's handling may well be to rebuild it to chrome-bumper specs... (wink!)
Would you send me an email? I would like to ask you a question.
The 2.8L V6 was an option on the Pinto wagon starting in '75 and the sedans/hatchbacks in '76.
This thread was discussed between 21/07/2002 and 23/07/2002
This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGB GT V8 Factory Originals Technical BBS now