ok, here is a little background on this question. i have a clasic mustang. the front suspension does not handle really well, but if you move the mounting point for the upper control arm lower about an inch (like they did on the shelby mustangs) it will increase negative camber on loading, and improve handling (or so im told). now, is this possible to do on a fiero? (84-87 suspension)

and can you modify a mustang II irs setup to work underneath a fiero? that way you can get a redily acessible power rack, and alot of aftermarket suspension stuff (including brakes with the chevrolet 5X5.75 bolt pattern.)

or is it possible to move the mounting point of the upper control arm down a bit to make this change?

just some random questions.....

------------------
Brandon Edmonds

1996 Taurus SHO (my baby)
1986 Ford EXP (goin bye-bye soon hopefully)
1986 Fiero (to be my street rocket)
1977 yamaha xs750-2D (in pieces right now, doesnt appear that it will be done for summer, unfortunately)

echoooooo..........

Well, the only thing I can tell you is that the Mustang II had IFS not IRS (front, not rear). I heard that the MII is used on a lot of kits, but I don't know how the geometry compares.

Where are the real experts when you need them??

Here's something that could work pretty good. Use an aftermarket mustang two lower a-arm (the kind that eliminates the strut bar). Cut off the Fiero rack mounts from the cradle. Run a tubes through the cradle and gusset for the lower a-arm mounts. These mounts should be the same distance apart as the inner pivot points of the rack (about 24 1/2 inches apart) and closer to the bottom of the cradle.. Mount the mustang rack to the cradle (pivot the rack to get the same angle on the steering shaft). Fit the mustang ball joint to the upper fiero a-arm. You will probable have to shorten or lengthen the upper a-arm. Use the dropped mustang spindles. The longer lower a-arm will give additional camber gain, as will the taller mustang spindle. The fiero ant-dive problem will be improved You are going to need coil-overs with this. If you buy steel (not cast) spindles you can shorten the steering arms to speed up the steering. A note of caution: I have no idea where the instant center or the roll center will be or where the track will end up.

I'm no expert, but I might be the only guy on PFF that has done the control arm drop on an early mustang (my 65 fastback). And yes, it handles better. Although that's not the only change I made to the suspension, it is a tried-and-true mod on those cars.

How that compares to a Mustang II setup, installed on an early mustang, I can't tell you firsthand. I would expect a Mustang II setup to work pretty well, especially the better kits with tubular control arms, good shocks, springs, etc.

Is it possible to put Mustang II parts on a Fiero? I'm sure it is, but I doubt if it's worth the trouble. Keep in mind that the main 2 reasons this is done on an early mustang are to get rack and pinion steering, and to remove the shock towers to make room for a bigger engine.

Can Fiero upper control arms be lowered? Not without a serious overhaul to the front crossmember. Take a wheel off your fiero and look at how that is designed. It's not just holes in sheetmetal like on the early Mustang front end. Plus, I'm not sure it would do any good on a fiero. Might make it worse. The Shelby mod you're talking about was done to correct a geometry "problem" on the Mustang suspension.

If you want adjustable camber on your fiero, just buy some aftermarket upper ball joints. If the ones you get are like mine, the mounting holes are slotted, and you can adjust the camber there.

Based solely on what I think is wrong with Fiero handling, I would say relocate your battery to the front. Or if you want to try it out first, pull your spare and throw about 50 lbs in the front compartment. The only problem I ever really have with Fiero handling is that the front end plows like a freakin' John Deere.

if you cant lower the upper mounts, you could raise the upper ball joint. both would give you better camber GAIN. i saw an article that showed it done on an early camaro. they reported big improvements.
the part was a manufactured clamshell thing. the bottom had a stud that went into the hole in the spindle. the top had a hole to accept the upper ball joint stud (and give you room to tighten it). then the two bolted together in the middle with several bolts around the outside.
drop spindles would give you even more room to make this work.
i wonder if it could even be made to fit the fiero? i dont have the article anymore.
sorry no help

i wonder if rodney's lowering balljoints would make this work....

sorry, i meant IFS

and i am going to do the drop upper on my stang if i decide to keep the stang suspension. if not, im goin mustang II

being the front Fiero suspension mounts onto a cross beam, I expect you could put whatever the heck you wanted on it, and modify what's existing freely. get a beam from a junkyard, and start hacking at it, then mount the beam onto the car. tho, I would look for a problem to solve with this first. is there something wrong with how your front is working? I havent really heard any complaints on the front suspension - other than "its from a chevette" - as if that means theres something wrong with it. in fact, I have heard of people preffering the 84-87 front over 88's - again, not sure why.

quote Originally posted by Flyguyeddy: ...and can you modify a mustang II irs setup to work underneath a fiero? that way you can get a redily acessible power rack...

Okay! So I'm not the only person who has thought about this.
Unfortunately, I know "less than nothing" about the Mustang II setup. Just that it's popular with kit car builders.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: ..I havent really heard any complaints on the front suspension - other than "its from a chevette" - as if that means theres something wrong with it. in fact, I have heard of people preffering the 84-87 front over 88's - again, not sure why.

The 84-87 front suspension has a large scrub radius, among other things. Hitting a bump can produce a lot of kickback in the wheel. That's the major complaint that I've heard. It's actually one of the reasons I sold my 85 GT, years ago. Drove on a lot of bad roads, and got tired of fighting the steering all the time. Some of the autocrossers do prefer the earlier front suspension because they feel that it is more responsive. Especially when combined with the 88 rear cradle.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 03-08-2005).]

yea, wanting to get rid of that nasty scrub radius....