tr7triumph.com

Posted: **19 May 2008 05:15**

Mustang II front suspension I have looked through the archives searching forÂ anyone who may have adapted a M2 suspension to a TR 7/8. Has anyone looked into this arrangement?Â Is it feasable and not a case of how much money do you have to throw at it to make it work??Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Cliff

Posted: **20 May 2008 01:34**

Cliff,

With enough money, you can make anything work. The question is WHY?

I can understand why all of the hot rodders put these M2 units under the old Fords with there straight axles, but the MacPherson strut is a modern design used in many great car today.

With modern up-grades such as Poly bushings, gas shocks, roller or ball bearing kits, anti-dive plates and strut tower braces, the Triumph front end is one of the best around. You can even so as far as coil over springs and adjustable tower toppers.

Put your money in your engine or a college fund for your kids.

Have fun, drive fast & safe, be kewl,

jclay

Posted: **20 May 2008 01:47**

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by jclay

Cliff,

With enough money, you can make anything work. The question is WHY?

I can understand why all of the hot rodders put these M2 units under the old Fords with there straight axles, but the McPherson strut is a modern design used in many great car today.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

pssst J [;)][;)][;)][;)][;)]
Just for the record, to the best of my knowledge, a Mustang II (M2) also utilises a McPherson style frt suspension.......

but Cliff, I am also mystified why anyone would want to go through the effort to adapt this of a wedge????
Planing on swaping over some kind of Ford engine w/powertrain swap???

Ron.

Posted: **20 May 2008 01:53**

Pssst, Ron,

Double wishbone!

Posted: **20 May 2008 02:01**

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Jay Foster:

Comments:
The front suspension is one area of the car that I am most proud of and most over looked. The original front suspension of the TR7/8 was weak and poorly designed. In addition, the geometry was all wrong. The 7/8 models are notorious for shimmying at 45 and 60 mph. The heaver rear mounted sway bar is the main fix for the suspension woes of this model. It was also a mistake (for the factory) to mount the "K" frame on rubber mounts. The new Ford sub-frame that I use is bolted directly to the unibody frame. The body of this car was so well thought out, it's too bad they didn't give the front suspension half as much thought.

The power steering which can be seen running under the oil pan is a variable assist system which gives a nice "road feel" at highway speeds. Even with the original short-coming of the TR7s and TR8s, the car was always a delight to drive. With the mods that have been made it now performs as it should have originally; like a true performance automobile.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

[url="http://www.britishv8.org/Triumph/JayFoster.htm"]Jay's story with photos[/url]

Posted: **20 May 2008 17:32**

First of all, thanks for the input concerning Mustang II suspension.
I now have some decisions to make, ie. keeping the BL suspension, M2 suspension or some other iteration. Again thanks! For what its worth I am putting a slightly warmed over 3.1L EFI Chevy V6 in my DHC. The engine buuilder estimates 207 hp at the crankshaft. Balanced, heads cleaned up, HO cam & flat top pistons. Previously I have used Toyota 20R and Buick 3.8 for power in other TR7s. Will post photos when it gets closer to driving time. The reason for going to the 3.1 infor compliance with the California SMOG police.

Posted: **20 May 2008 19:39**

Jclay, aren't you defeating your own argument? [:p]

Clif, 60 deg GM engine is not a very good powerplant! (I am being very kind here...) It was designed a V6 replacement for a 2.5L Iron Duke for FWD configuration and never really made any decent power. Why not stick with Toyota or Buick?

If you happen to have a transmission for the 3.1, you could look into the Caddy Northstar engines, which bold right up.

Leon
'94 Eagle Talon AWD Turbo 613whp <powered by Mitsu 4G63T
'80 TR7 Spyder GS-T <undergoing Mitsu 4G63T transplant

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2472999

Posted: **20 May 2008 19:54**

No! I am just offering other opinions! I don't have to agree with everyones opinion, I just have to recognize that they have different ones than mine, as I have found with my wife.

Posted: **20 May 2008 20:52**

The double wishbone setup looks a lot like the aftermarket deal selling for the MGB. What would be really neat IMO is a crossmember with a true 3 point lower a-arm but retaining the strut suspension. That would eliminate the swaybar as a locating link which I think is the largest defect in the factory design.

72 MGB BRG
80 TR8 Persian Aqua
If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.

Posted: **21 May 2008 02:42**

thanks for clarifying the frt suspension J!
Sorry, after all these years of owning fox-body Mustangs I naturally assumed the older Pinto based 'stangs were also running McPherson based setups .................

I've been reading up of II's tonight, and am quite impressed !!

http://www.rodandcustommagazine.com/techarticles/custom_mustang_ii_suspension/index.html

Ron.

Posted: **21 May 2008 05:00**

Just my two cents worth...The M2 suspension will give more wheel options, more brake options, has countless upgrade parts available with more being designed all the time. Also because so many Hot Rods run them they are fairly easy to find and can be bought at a reasonable price from if you look. There are several universal install kits out there that should be able to be put on a Wedge easy enough. When I get around to the resto on my 7 I am thinking about the M2 suspension also so keep us posted.

Posted: **22 May 2008 13:46**

Cliff,

Instead of editing your original post, please make new replies. Otherwise, it makes other people's posts (who have replied to your original post) look foolish.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by cliff

For what its worth I am putting a slightly warmed over 3.1L EFI Chevy V6 in my DHC. The engine buuilder estimates 207 hp at the crankshaft. Balanced, heads cleaned up, HO cam & flat top pistons. Previously I have used Toyota 20R and Buick 3.8 for power in other TR7s. Will post photos when it gets closer to driving time. The reason for going to the 3.1 infor compliance with the California SMOG police.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

California SMOG is big PITA to deal with, but if all you want is 200hp, rover V8 might be better option! And it will certainly require a lot less custom work!

Out of curiosity, why would a Buick 3.8 be less SMOG compliant than a Chevy 3.1?

I just have a very negative reaction to 60 degree GM V6 engines (2.8, 3.1 and 3.4) from my Fiero days. Those engines are just not very good when it comes to performance!

People would spend all sorts of crazy money building them up and inevitably, results would be very disappointing...

I suppose there might have been a lot of development on those engine in the last 6-8 years, but who would be crazy enough to invest in that motor?

Leon
'94 Eagle Talon AWD Turbo 613whp <powered by Mitsu 4G63T
'80 TR7 Spyder GS-T <undergoing Mitsu 4G63T transplant

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2472999

Posted: **23 May 2008 23:49**

A friend is updating his 7 to a V6. Got a chevy V6 but was wrong one. The second one (from same guy) was from a Camaro (forget the year range) which is actually a Buick V6 and about 2/3 the external size even though the engine displacement is the same. The small V6 is 35 lbs. heavier than the slant 4. Output is 265 hp. It's going to be a monster.

TR7 Spider - 1978 Spifire - 1976 Spitfire - 1988 Tercel 4X4 - Kali on Integra - 1991 Integra