2000 Mustang Front end

[squishylithium]

Anybody put a newer mustang front end in their 71-73? I’m putting a 4.6 in amongst other things and looking at all the modifications I’m thinking maybe just sealing the front ends. I understand it’s going to be a lot of fabricating especially as the front frame is wider on a newer mustang. I’m looking for real feedback, not looking to get yelled at for using a 4.6.

 

[Cleveland Crush]

Anybody put a newer mustang front end in their 71-73? I’m putting a 4.6 in amongst other things and looking at all the modifications I’m thinking maybe just sealing the front ends. I understand it’s going to be a lot of fabricating especially as the front frame is wider on a newer mustang. I’m looking for real feedback, not looking to get yelled at for using a 4.6.

You probably will not get yelled at with your proposed engine swap. YOU WILL GET YELLED AT FOR YOUR PROPOSED FRONT END SWAP!

 

[giantpune]

You probably will not get yelled at with your proposed engine swap. YOU WILL GET YELLED AT FOR YOUR PROPOSED FRONT END SWAP!

BAN OP!!!!!

 

[Cleveland Crush]

BAN OP!!!!!

 

[will e]

I am not an expert but it seems to me that it will be difficult, time consuming, expensive and probably won't work well.
You're suggesting the steering and suspension, possibly the subframe, not the body work correct?

 

[squishylithium]

I am not an expert but it seems to me that it will be difficult, time consuming, expensive and probably won't work well.
You're suggesting the steering and suspension, possibly the subframe, not the body work correct?

Correct

 

[jpaz]

I can turn from lock to lock with one finger on my 72 Mach. It steers and handles very well with the stock power steering set up. I have no idea how it could be much better. I did however replace the front and rear sway bars, but that was a handling up grade which works very well.

 

[rcadd1ct]

Anybody put a newer mustang front end in their 71-73? I’m putting a 4.6 in amongst other things and looking at all the modifications I’m thinking maybe just sealing the front ends. I understand it’s going to be a lot of fabricating especially as the front frame is wider on a newer mustang. I’m looking for real feedback, not looking to get yelled at for using a 4.6.

AJE makes a tubular crossmember to make the car a strut front end. Then you can modify the shock towers.

Lots of surgery, but it’s out there

 

[Rick@NPD]

With all due respect, and objectivity, it seems like a whole heap-load of work, daunting fabrication and problem-solving, all towards the quest of creating a mutant Mach 1 that has zero engineering-foundation, questionable structural and driving/handling dynamics once it's done, and if it's a 4.6 2V mill, a relatively weak and uninspiring driveline.

I'm searching for the "why" in all of this. If it's just another one of those "I just happen to have a 4.6L engine at my disposal", and you're peering down that rabbit hole of attempting to save $$ and concurrently "do something different"... The end result will be a gargantuan money pit and a car that's worth very little to anyone else (should life's journey cause you to need to sell someday).

 

[mjlan]

With all due respect, and objectivity, it seems like a whole heap-load of work, daunting fabrication and problem-solving, all towards the quest of creating a mutant Mach 1 that has zero engineering-foundation, questionable structural and driving/handling dynamics once it's done, and if it's a 4.6 2V mill, a relatively weak and uninspiring driveline.

I'm searching for the "why" in all of this. If it's just another one of those "I just happen to have a 4.6L engine at my disposal", and you're peering down that rabbit hole of attempting to save $$ and concurrently "do something different"... The end result will be a gargantuan money pit and a car that's worth very little to anyone else (should life's journey cause you to need to sell someday).

This is a more eloquent expression of what I was typing.

To me this situation is why the adage "just because you can doesn't mean you should" exists.

Can you expand on why you are investigating this project? You have a 71-73 Mustang and a 2000 4.6 Mustang donor?

 

[squishylithium]

This is a more eloquent expression of what I was typing.

To me this situation is why the adage "just because you can doesn't mean you should" exists.

Can you expand on why you are investigating this project? You have a 71-73 Mustang and a 2000 4.6 Mustang donor?

I have two 4.6 donor vehicles. I’m trying kind of a Frankenstein build and eventually am gonna make it a dune car. The more people say not to use the 4.6 the more I want to. I’m not new to fabrication and am pretty resourceful.

 

[73pony]

Sounds like a cool project. I will caution you on the 4.6 2V though. I had a 99 GT with the 4.6 2v, swapped PI heads and upgraded cams, throttle body etc. It was uninspiring to say the least.

 

[mjlan]

I have two 4.6 donor vehicles. I’m trying kind of a Frankenstein build and eventually am gonna make it a dune car. The more people say not to use the 4.6 the more I want to. I’m not new to fabrication and am pretty resourceful.

Sounds interesting.

I don't think that there are many (or any for that matter) of this type of project here. The majority of cars here are stock suspension layout or at the extreme, bolt-on coil over kits that don't require extensive cutting or fabrication.

I am not a fan of 4.6's either. With the amount of $$ that needs to be spent on them to make any sort of entertaining power it makes more sense to spend the money up front and start with something better. I think you'd be better off with a small block Windsor or something GM LS over a 4.6. Maybe with a turbo it would be ok?

Good luck whatever route you choose to go!

 

[Don C]

I don't see any advantage to installing a 2000 front suspension. Now if you were talking about a 2015 and up front suspension you would have my attention and support.

 

[squishylithium]

I don't see any advantage to installing a 2000 front suspension. Now if you were talking about a 2015 and up front suspension you would have my attention and support.

Why is that?

 

[Don C]

Why is that?

A lot of work with minimal improvements in function for the 2000. The 2015 suspension is MacPherson strut with ball joints connecting the strut (tension) rod and lower control arm to the MacPherson strut.
https://7173mustangs.com/threads/front-suspension.28103/#comment-288567

 

[mjlan]

The newer design is better dynamically- as the suspenstion travels there is less change in wheel alignment. The trade off is added cost and complexity over the simple McPherson layout.

The inherent problem with McPherson strut designs is that there are (relatively) large changes in camber as the suspension travels. At design height you can set static camber where you want it with the lower control arm at the inclination angle you want it at, but since the LBJ travels in an arc centered on the inner axis of the LCA, the camber will change as the wheel travels. This is why performance applications/ motorsports tend to avoid McPherson setups if given the chance. For any type of performance SLA suspensions are the way to go- an SLA can be designed to provide minimal change to static settings throughout its travel.

For what your end goal is I think you would be ahead to forego the 71-73 and start with something trucky like an old Ranger or something like that. Do a trophy truck style front suspension and long travel truck arms for the rear? Seems like it would be easier to work with a BOF configuration vs. unibody.