When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-Oct-02 AT 00:02 AM (EST)]I am seriously thinking of putting the Mustang II Hub to Hub kit from one of the Popular vendors (don't know if I can mention the name). Anyway, I would like to know how the truck is going to look once the job is done. I am told that I can experience about a 3 inch drop. But I don't want the truck to look too awfully low. (I am told that this IFS would drop the truck enough to just cover the tires) I would like to keep it pretty much stock height but would also like to get power steering, front discs and the independant front suspension ride. Any ideas? Or better yet, has anyone out there done that to a 1960 ford. Any pictures? This is my first venture. Thanks
OK check my gallery. I know its not a 60 and its not even a mustangII front end but the drop is about 4-6". I also put shackles on the rear to drop it 4" you can probably get the idea.
Have you considered an Aerostar front end? It doesn't lower it as much as the Mustang II. But, it gives you large power disc brakes and power rack and pinion steering without extensions. I have done one on a 54 frame and have talked a guy into doing one on a 63. Easiest swap I have ever done! Look in the gallery for "Garage Nite". It has photos of this setup.
iv never herd of the arostar swap. does this come in kit form or a junkyard outing? is it straight forward like the mii is supposed to be? where do i get info on this?
Im still concerned about the Aerostar swap. Those control arms look awful light duty and altho they are OK in a van the combined weight of a Y block and all that front sheetmetal may be too much in the long run. The steering and exhaust when using a V8 also needs to be addressed as the Aerostar as-is is smack in the way.
I wont touch a M11 either and unless something better comes along I may go the Jaguar route.
what is the gross vehicle weight of the van with 7 passengers and luggage. I'll bet it more than these trucks will ever see again. The steering on the Aerostar can be rotated back towards the firewall to eliminate the use of 3 u'joints and just use 2. The Aerostar would be junkyard-backyard job. There are no kits for this. I only offer this as a lower cost alternative to the Mustang II kits. Look under one of these vans and decide if you think you can make it work.
Gross vehicle weight is not the issue, its the distribution.
Id have to actually see one in a V8 truck first, done by someone who really understands the engineering. Im no suspension expert and need convincining.
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-Nov-02 AT 03:25 PM (EST)]I am not a suspension expert either. But, I have done these trucks with a Camaro, several Volare's, and an Aerostar. Watched my friend put a Jaguar in a 56. I thought I might make a suggestion. I thought that was the intent of this forum.
Suggestions welcome but dont get your undies in a bind when honest questions arrive.
Ive asked about the Aerostar on other forums that include professional builders and they say its too light duty for a truck.
Yet another non-suspension expert will check in on the subject. I say that GVW is relevant to a considerable degree. It is certainly not the end all to the argument/discussion, but an Aerostar IFS is engineered to take a large percentage of weight transfer during hard braking. I would therefore contend a seven passenger, V-6 AT van has to have a decent suspension. At least comparable to current widely accepted street rods methods of MII and Volare. I have only looked at Aerostar IFS. At the risk of putting words in your mouth, do you think a Volare or MII in stock form is substantially stronger? I know for a fact the Volare control arms are unimpressive. I know for a fact the MII was designed for a car that weighs barely 2000 pounds. Yet thousands of them are under 50s and 60s trucks. The only complaint I have heard about Volare is they are mushy when you back off the torsion bar adjustment to achieve a very low ride height. The MII without modification is insufficient in my opinion. In spite of this opinion, many seem to be getting along just fine in thousands of F1/100s.
Carl, can you provide a link to any discussion of this matter. I am considering Aerostar for a future project and would be interested in reading the "con" if it is accessible.
Greg brings up the point of intended use which is also relevant. We aren't pulling fifth wheels with these rides.
Check out my gallery. I have Fatman's MII kit installed on my 60. It is sitting with lower control arms level with ground as suggested. Haven't measured the actual drop but tires do tuck into fenders. If I was to guess I'd say 5-6 inches anyway. Let me know if you need more info.
Dewayne, youre also dealing with unsprung and sprung weight and there is a significant difference between an Aerostar and F100.
Add to the equation the improved braking of the discs and that sudden weight transfer of a loaded bed. Some of us actually use our trucks for something besides beer runs.
That thread was a few months ago on HAMB however the Search function has died again.
I wouldnt get near an original stamped tin M11/Pinto member. However some of the aftermarket ones are anywhere from a bit to a lot heavier duty. But the parts list never seems to stop and you can have $2K tied up real fast.
It makes the Aerostar attractive from a price and total package viewpoint which is why I havent completely discounted it. It just MAY be OK in some light duty F100 apps. I havent read anything either on fitting exhaust on a V8. The primary proponent had an inline 6.
But from a pure beefy viewpoint the XJ6 Jag has them all beat. And around here they are cheap since the unibodies have rotted away. The only Aerostars Ive found are front end totals (wonder if there is a message there).