| ||
Visit MustangSteve's web site to view some of my work and find details for: FYIFORD Contributors' PICTURES - Power Brake Retrofit Kits for 65-66 Stangs - Classic Mustang FAQ's by MustangSteve - How to wire in a Duraspark Ignition - Mustang Ride Height Pictures and Descriptions - Steel Bushings to fit Granada Spindles to Mustang Tie Rods - Visit my EBAY store MustangSteve Performance - How to Install Granada Disc Brakes MustangSteve's Disc Brake Swap Page - FYIFORD Acronyms for guide to all the acronyms used on this page - FYIFORD Important information and upcoming events |
1 2 Jump to
Offline
Supra, looks like it might be promising. Better than a Crown Vic and about the right width for a Mustang. It also has IRS. Not sure what oil pan one could use. Even a Fox rear sump pan has that hump in front for the oil pump. Maybe a Coyote?
Offline
That sounds like sacrilege putting a ricer front end on a Mustang? btw, do you ever see your old pickup project?
Offline
Just did some very brief online research and it seems the same suspension also can be found under the Lexus SC300 and SC400.
Offline
If you could source the twin turbo in line six from a supra and put it in a light weight mustang you would be shocked! I drove a friends a few years ago and it was a monster.
Offline
Shades of Fast and Flatulent Tokyo Drift there Brent.
Offline
Come on now, let's all go to work and come up with a new junk yard dry sump that takes the oil pan out of any interference problems!
Offline
And it's on a pallet for you.
Offline
A guy in Dallas has both the front and rear on Craigslist for $400. Price is definitely right. It even uses 5 on 4-1/2 lug pattern.
Looks like it probably uses coilovers, so the load could be taken through the shock towers where it belongs. No springs are visible in the pictures on CL.
Offline
Any idea on how much that stuff weighs? looks heavy to me.
Offline
MustangSteve wrote:
Looks like it probably uses coilovers, so the load could be taken through the shock towers where it belongs. No springs are visible in the pictures on CL.
Yep, coilovers attached to a shocktower:
Offline
MustangSteve wrote:
A guy in Dallas has both the front and rear on Craigslist for $400. Price is definitely right. It even uses 5 on 4-1/2 lug pattern.
Looks like it probably uses coilovers, so the load could be taken through the shock towers where it belongs. No springs are visible in the pictures on CL.
For $400 I'd buy it.
Offline
bulletbirdman wrote:
Shades of Fast and Flatulent Tokyo Drift there Brent.
It was for sure! Banana yellow with low profile wheels. But man...those turbos whining and the blow off valve hissing! That is why I would love a turbo car. Hakan is building what I would love to build.
Offline
Hakan wrote:
MustangSteve wrote:
Looks like it probably uses coilovers, so the load could be taken through the shock towers where it belongs. No springs are visible in the pictures on CL.
Yep, coilovers attached to a shocktower: What car is that suspension mounted in?
Offline
MustangSteve wrote:
Supra, looks like it might be promising. Better than a Crown Vic and about the right width for a Mustang. It also has IRS. Not sure what oil pan one could use. Even a Fox rear sump pan has that hump in front for the oil pump. Maybe a Coyote? You make the brackets to install it Ill buy it!
Offline
Steve69 wrote:
What car is that suspension mounted in?
![]()
It's the original Lexus SC300 front suspension. If I understood the project description correctly they are bulding some kind of track race car out of it while keeping the front suspension, besides changing it to RHD for unknown reasons. Here's where I found the pic:
Offline
Mustang Steve sounds like a new kit in the making just need a test bed (sled) and some good old fashioned R&D to make it work, neat o
Offline
Some countries, Australia for instance, demand that all cars be RHD, whether they ever built factory ones that way or not. I recall seeing a Mustang in a magazine years ago that was so converted (there are companies in Australia that do nothing else as there is quite a demand).
20 years ago I'd have called a swap like this sacrilege, but time has given me a better appreciation for Japanese stuff. They build some monster engines like the 2JZ (Toyota Supra) and RB26DETT (Nissan Skyline). There are lots of guys pushing well over 1,000HP with these engines. The Japanese understood turbos a lot earlier than we did, and were cranking out some seriously fast, well handling cars a good 10-15 years before the American auto industry started to figure out how to make power and pass emissions with the newer generation of V8s.
The problem is that a lot of the really good stuff was never imported to the US, so there is no domestic service or parts for great engines like the RB26DETT. But, they did sell the Supra here, so you can go to any Toyota dealership or auto parts store and get what you need for the 2JZ.
Swaps like this are going to become more common as these cars get older. We all view these cars as musclecars, but they are old enough to be considered hot rods too. Hot rodders never had a care for originality, and marrying differing engines and bodies is not considered taboo in that culture. Hot rodders are always in search of the way cool, something that the next guy doesn't have. Frankly I like looking at that stuff. I appreciate the engineering that goes into it, and I can only look at so many '32 Fords with a SBC in them before I want to puke. I say bring on the 4BT Cummins powered Camaros and the 2JZ powered '67 Mustangs.
Offline
TKOPerformance wrote:
....... and I can only look at so many '32 Fords with a SBC in them before I want to puke. ........
Ditto x's two!
Offline
I see no reason for this swap. The basic early mustang front geometry is pretty good and real good with the Shelby drop. Only reason I see to go away from that is to get rid of the shock towers so you have room for a real set of headers. That is the only reason I went to the M II front end. Anything that does not make those gone is useless to me.
Offline
Again, its the hot rod mentality. Its being able to say "I swapped with front end for a Toyota Supra" just to see the look on the person you're saying it to's face.
I agree, the stock suspension is fine, and can be really great if properly modified. But to a hot rodder where's the wow factor in that?
Offline
My thought process was to take a worn out t code and stick $400 worth of Supra front and rear end in it to make a nice riding car without even the cost of a stock rebuild (MustangSteve's Law not yet applied).
As an alternative to a $6,000 front end conversion purchased from a Mustang retrofitter.
Not that I would bother on my own car because I am ok with original Shelby technology. If I was you ger and more energetic, this might be interesting to attempt, only because of the $400 price.
Owner told me the frame rail centerline where it bolts up is 31" or a couple inches wider than a 65.
Offline
Years ago I saw a Web page on a rebodied mustang, where a guy welded a mustang body onto supra frame/running gear. It looked pretty interesting. He called it a sprang.
Offline
Found it. www.suprang.com
Offline
DC wrote:
I see no reason for this swap. The basic early mustang front geometry is pretty good and real good with the Shelby drop. Only reason I see to go away from that is to get rid of the shock towers so you have room for a real set of headers. That is the only reason I went to the M II front end. Anything that does not make those gone is useless to me.
I know there are a lot who like "Glitsy or Bling" over function. I guess that is why my cars never see that side of a car show.
Offline
I appreciate clean execution and nice work, but I too believe form should follow function. I'm all for improving something, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time modifying something just for looks. Sure, I've got nice wheels and tires on my car, but its because I wanted better performance from the wider rubber, and the ability to run bigger brakes down the road. I've never been a huge fan of chrome (too much work). I like that older cars had chrome on the outside, but none of my engine bays require sunglasses to look over. Actually I tend to lean more towards cast aluminum for valve covers, etc. because the quality is a lot better than the chrome stuff, a lot of which seems to be made overseas with poor QC. In short order that chrome looks terrible, and the stampings are usually harder to get to seal well than a cast product.
1 2 Jump to
REMEMBER!!! When posting a question about your Mustang or other Ford on this forum, BE SURE to tell us what it is, what year, engine, etc so we have enough information to go on. |