IFS/IRS questions

The place to talk Slicks. All we ask is that discussion has something to do with slicks...

Moderators: Kid, Casey 65

User avatar
kstones63
Posts: 1504
Joined: April 7, 2007, 10:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by kstones63 »

I am not going to cut this frame. I did that on mine for the Camaro subframe and I said that I would never do that again.
I have been looking at the team 321 conversions but it appears that it might sit too high in the rear after it is done. I am trying to figure out if it can be modified to make it sit lower.
Maybe the Mark VIII rear and a Jag front would be best.???????
I don't know, he might decide that he wants to do a 4 link and keep the rear end that is in the truck.

Kevin
kstones63
_______________________________________
63 F100
29 Ford Sedan Delivery
99 F250 PSD, 4x4, CC
95 F350 Flatbed Dually Diesel
User avatar
randyr
Posts: 414
Joined: April 26, 2009, 12:58 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by randyr »

kstones63 wrote:Maybe the Mark VIII rear and a Jag front would be best.???????
I don't know, he might decide that he wants to do a 4 link and keep the rear end that is in the truck.

Kevin


If you go Jag in the front the Corvette rear would have the same 5x4.75 bolt pattern and I think it has about the same track width as the Jag. Just a thought.... :)
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Toyz »

kstones63 wrote:I am not going to cut this frame. I did that on mine for the Camaro subframe and I said that I would never do that again.
I have been looking at the team 321 conversions but it appears that it might sit too high in the rear after it is done. I am trying to figure out if it can be modified to make it sit lower.
Maybe the Mark VIII rear and a Jag front would be best.???????
I don't know, he might decide that he wants to do a 4 link and keep the rear end that is in the truck.
Kevin

That's my concern also, plus I'm not really enthused about the appearance of the Team 321 setup. Another member is working on his own adapters, so I'm anxious to see how he approaches it.
My Fatman conversion is setting ready for mock-up, hopefully I'll get the Mark cradle set under it soon. I don't foresee any major challenges in mounting it several inches lower, even sans the FF kit, although some cutting will obviously be required.
I keep expecting someone to prototype or adapt a tubular setup to narrow the late Panther components. With the cost and availability factored in; it still might prove most value for the buck. It doesn't appear real complicated if the radius arm is retained.
The Dakota interests me; Steve's earlier design under Chris's truck makes a nice setup, and I'm sure the new one is even nicer.I just haven't seen any Dakota donors readily available at the CV price point. That pretty well holds for either the Jag or Corvette suggestions also; by the time all is purchased and made to fit, it appears that a lot of both coin and effort will be expended especially in comparison to a readily available factory engineered "cradle" with mod-motor mounts in place, although both of us might prefer engine re-positioning in the trucks.
The track offset is not a prime concern in my case since I prefer the "staggered, big and little" wheel approach anyway.
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
User avatar
kstones63
Posts: 1504
Joined: April 7, 2007, 10:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by kstones63 »

On the "Trucks" show on Spike, they put a Mark VIII or Cobra rear end in a Ranger pickup so I can't believe that it will be that hard to put any of the choices in these trucks.
I think that a lot this just becomes a challenge for me so I don't have have to spend any extra money on it.
For example - the wiring harness on my engine. I probably spent about $50 on material and probably close to 100 hours dissecting that harness to save $935. Was it worth it? Absolutely, just to be able to say that I did it myself.

Kevin
kstones63
_______________________________________
63 F100
29 Ford Sedan Delivery
99 F250 PSD, 4x4, CC
95 F350 Flatbed Dually Diesel
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Toyz »

I agree!, and this time the harness work can be expected to go somewhat faster based on experience gained.
I am a rather poor fabricator, but I don't see any insurmountable challenges to the DIY approaches, and I certainly am a big devotee of the "built not bought" concept! 'Course, that's hard to tell from my current inventory of "orphaned" projects :roll:
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
User avatar
Greg D
Posts: 10113
Joined: September 13, 2006, 4:39 pm
Location: Podunk Iowa
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Greg D »

Ford Racing used to make a rear subframe to adapt Ford IRS to non IRS vehicles.
Just looked on their site - doesn't show it anymore.
If it were me I think I'd be looking at the MK VIII complete frame swap.
Everything would fit and work together without alot of engineering - after all it already does.
Basically you are then doing a "body swap", be easier for repair parts purchases down the road.
Likely none of the options will give you everything you want without a fair amount of complication.
Just seems to me the best compromise available.
At worst fabrication then becomes adjusting the wheel base.
2 cuts, 2 welds, run brake & fuel lines, have the driveshaft modded - done.
Pretty simple way to go if you ask me.
I know you already know this - just my perspective though.

Good luck Kevin - whatever you decide I am sure the result will be stunning.
1964 F 100 - I am going to do "something" with it.......

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15942

1987 Mustang LX Convertible, 2.3 Auto - cruiser.
1994 F 150 XLT 2WD


~ Yes - I adopted another cat..............

Cam L Milan,
You'll be missed my friend.
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Toyz »

Only problem there is the lack of a full frame!
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
Indy63
Posts: 49
Joined: February 10, 2013, 9:08 pm

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Indy63 »

The MN12 IRS can be made a lot cleaner and easier to swap by cutting off the "wings" and welding the cradle in wherever you want with a new crossmember or two. The biggest problem with it is that it has relatively low anti-squat stock and doesn't plant or hook up too well in a Thunderbird - it would probably be even worse in a truck with less weight over it. It's one of the reasons they are terrible on anything but dry pavement.

I would stay away from C4 parts, especially the earlier stuff you mentioned. C4 parts can look good but aren't really up to the task of being reliable under a truck and the early stuff doesn't work as well as one would think anyway. Plus you get to pay the Corvette tax every time you need a replacement part. Keep in mind the newest C4 parts are now 17 years old.

Factory IRS tends to be overrated unless you're primarily going for ride quality or just being different. If you're looking for different and something that works better than leaf springs by themselves with as little cutting as possible, I would recommend a truck arm setup. It's easy to make, hard to screw up the geometry, and easy to keep under the bed without having to worry about clearance as much as with other link setups. You could use coils, coil overs, bags, 1/4 elipticals, or even a transverse leaf if you wanted for springs.
User avatar
Greg D
Posts: 10113
Joined: September 13, 2006, 4:39 pm
Location: Podunk Iowa
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Greg D »

Toyz wrote:Only problem there is the lack of a full frame!
Paul


Oh crap,
I forgot it was a unibody car.
(mind for some reason pictured a town car frame with IRS)


Oh Well - nevermind...................
:shock:
1964 F 100 - I am going to do "something" with it.......

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15942

1987 Mustang LX Convertible, 2.3 Auto - cruiser.
1994 F 150 XLT 2WD


~ Yes - I adopted another cat..............

Cam L Milan,
You'll be missed my friend.
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Toyz »

Keep picturing; kinda got the same picture in mind! :P
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
User avatar
Greg D
Posts: 10113
Joined: September 13, 2006, 4:39 pm
Location: Podunk Iowa
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Greg D »

The MN 12 IFS adapted to the town car frame?
Hmmm.................
1964 F 100 - I am going to do "something" with it.......

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=15942

1987 Mustang LX Convertible, 2.3 Auto - cruiser.
1994 F 150 XLT 2WD


~ Yes - I adopted another cat..............

Cam L Milan,
You'll be missed my friend.
User avatar
kstones63
Posts: 1504
Joined: April 7, 2007, 10:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by kstones63 »

Indy63, That is what I wanted to hear about the C4 parts. I needed somebody to talk me out of them. Thanks.

I am thinking the IRS for ride quality and to make it different. I'm not very concerned about the way that it actually hooks up under hard acceleration but it isn't my truck so Nick might have another opinion.

We will see exactly what he wants to do as soon as he gets some time to think about it. After he leaves Dearborn he is going to Pennsylvania for a few weeks and then who knows after that. I hope that he gets to go and see the Henry Ford Museum while he is in Dearborn.

Kevin
kstones63
_______________________________________
63 F100
29 Ford Sedan Delivery
99 F250 PSD, 4x4, CC
95 F350 Flatbed Dually Diesel
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Toyz »

Greg D wrote:The MN 12 IFS adapted to the town car frame?
Hmmm.................

Not exactly, actually the Mark VIII, to retain the aluminum center and the factory air bags. This will be my '63 with the earlier Town Car frame grafted and boxed in. It will give me a chance to compare the Fatman MII with the Mark VIII components to the earlier recirculating ball Panther setup with same.
Kevin, as a '92 C4 owner, I have extensively looked at the nuances of such a conversion. I really feel, without any concrete proof, that the Mark/MN12 setup can be done more economically and easily with inherent advantages of retaining Ford identity and equally effective components and appearances. I AM concerned about squat; I also am well pleased at my success in mimimizing such effects with a simple shock change on a similar weight vehicle. One of my previous IRS's came from a serious racer who felt his Cobra would hook better with a 9" based setup. That certainly proved correct, but I'm just not going to launch that hard!
I don't need IRS; it just seems the best approach to maintaining a stock-appearing bed and avoiding C-notching. Other than that, it's just appearance, and the increases in braking and balance I expect to gain with the Mark parts. Now if I could just get my hands on some affordable Coyote components.
Paul
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
Indy63
Posts: 49
Joined: February 10, 2013, 9:08 pm

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Indy63 »

No problem.

If it were me, I would start by picking a desired ride height and look and using what will accomplish that. The only donor vehicle options for you appear to be the Jag or Panther/ MN12 combo. I don't think either front end will allow the truck sit as low as your '63 without cutting the frame, but the Jag combo would allow for more traditional-looking wheels and tires. I'm not a fan of the Panther swap mostly because of the extreme positive offset required to keep the tires inside the fenders - I just don't think it looks right under our trucks, but I know some people like that look. Keep in mind the MN12 IRS is at least 3" wider than a lot of IFS kits if you were to go that route.

I would not make the decision based on existing motor mounts. Those are extremely minor in the scheme of things.
User avatar
kstones63
Posts: 1504
Joined: April 7, 2007, 10:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by kstones63 »

Engine mounts really aren't a concern, they are easy to design and fabricate. If I don't think that the Jag IFS will sit low enough, I can always cut into the frame and raise it up into the frame a little bit.
When I said that I am not going to cut this frame, I meant that for a total subframe install but I am not opposed to modifying it some.

Paul, If I remember correctly, Jaguar was owned by Ford in the 80's?
Affordable Coyote parts, like a new 5.0 engine? :lol:

Kevin
kstones63
_______________________________________
63 F100
29 Ford Sedan Delivery
99 F250 PSD, 4x4, CC
95 F350 Flatbed Dually Diesel
User avatar
randyr
Posts: 414
Joined: April 26, 2009, 12:58 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by randyr »

Ford owned Jaguar from late '89 till '08. Here's a blurb from wikipedia...

Ford Motor Company era

Ford made offers to Jaguar's US and UK shareholders to buy their shares in November 1989; Jaguar's listing on the London Stock Exchange was removed on 28 February 1990.[20] In 1999 it became part of Ford's new Premier Automotive Group along with Aston Martin, Volvo Cars and, from 2000, Land Rover. Aston Martin was subsequently sold off in 2007. Between Ford purchasing Jaguar in 1989 and selling it in 2008 it did not earn any profit for the Dearborn-based auto manufacturer.[citation needed]
Under Ford's ownership Jaguar expanded its range of products with the launch of the S-Type in 1999 and X-type in 2001. Since Land Rover's May 2000 purchase by Ford, it has been closely associated with Jaguar. In many countries they share a common sales and distribution network (including shared dealerships), and some models now share components, although the only shared production facility was Halewood Body & Assembly, for the X-Type and the Freelander 2. However operationally the two companies were effectively integrated under a common management structure within Ford's PAG.
On 11 June 2007, Ford announced that it planned to sell Jaguar, along with Land Rover and retained the services of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and HSBC to advise it on the deal. The sale was initially expected to be announced by September 2007, but was delayed until March 2008. Private equity firms such as Alchemy Partners of the UK, TPG Capital, Ripplewood Holdings (which hired former Ford Europe executive Sir Nick Scheele to head its bid), Cerberus Capital Management and One Equity Partners (owned by JP Morgan Chase and managed by former Ford executive Jacques Nasser) of the US, Tata Motors of India and a consortium comprising Mahindra and Mahindra (an automobile manufacturer from India) and Apollo Management all initially expressed interest in purchasing the marques from the Ford Motor Company.[21][22]
Before the sale was announced, Anthony Bamford, chairman of British excavator manufacturer JCB had expressed interest in purchasing the company in August 2006,[23] but backed out upon learning that the sale would also involve Land Rover, which he did not wish to buy. On Christmas Eve of 2007, Mahindra and Mahindra backed out of the race for both brands, citing complexities in the deal.[24]
User avatar
Toyz
Posts: 4333
Joined: March 22, 2011, 6:23 pm
Location: Baja Houston Taxes
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Toyz »

Yep, Jag was Ford until just recently.Tata Motors is the current owner, leading my wife to lose any interest in a newer Jag! "Hey I really like your new Tata" :roll: . The 3.9 in the last gen T-bird and the Lincoln LS is a version of the Jag AJ engine. My supercharged AJ utilizes a Mercedes transmission, but many Ford components. I don't believe the 80's models were produced under Ford ownership. The wheel pattern on my 2000 XK-R is the S10 style 4.75", as are the desirable early Jag donors. Years ago, I purchased a set of 5.5 to 4.75 adapters so I could utilize a Jag front, which never happened.
As to the MN12 IRS, some applications may in fact be wider than some IRS kits. The Mark IRS,(distinct from MN12), as mentioned, pretty well matches the original Slick track width (hub to hub). That makes it, in stock form, several inches narrower than the last-Gen Panther stuff, but pretty well in line with the earlier Panthers.
I know from conversations with you that we pretty well agree on a lower engine mounting position; again, that's easier achieved with the Panther setup IMHO, not sure on the Jag. We also seem to have similar preferences as to ride height. Your fabricating abilities greatly exceed mine; thus I'm interested in not only bang for the buck, but simplicity. I've got a pretty good background in suspension; that may not dissuade me from attempting to narrow the late Panther components. The Mark front cradle has the same disadvantage as the FWD Continental 32v components; the unwieldly and protruding Modified McPherson struts.
I'm beginning to think a purpose-built frame designed for the donor(s) of choice might also be a viable option.
With my stock of Mark VIII components and frames already attached both to the early Panther front as well as the Fatman setup, and a late CVPI clip; my destiny is pretty well set; I can run my current SN97 Bullit wheels on the front of all three, and utilize aftermarket Bullit replicas made for the Mark 4.25" pattern in a traditional offset on the Mark rear. This, as you stated, appears to be easily set up for my preferred ride height while retaining the adjustability inherent in the air bag suspension. The early Panther and Fatman setups appear to have acceptable ride height as installed. If I were starting from scratch, I might well consider Jag components at both ends. I know they can be made to fit and perform.
The downside to me is the same as the C4, high initial and replacement parts costs in most cases.
The Coyote crate engine remains a good buy IMO; until someone markets a more reasonably priced controller package, it remains outside my budget. I'm sure i could adapt an aftermarket system to control the variable components which give it it's strengths, then I'd still have to purchase a transmission controller, or convert to T-56, etc.
My intent is not to influence anyone's choice of components; I am certainly interested in more info on any and all options which might be workable.
Paul.
The Ford Orphanage
Life's too short for boring vehicles!
My quest to develop a universal solvent is held up by the lack of a storage container.
Paul
65styleside
Posts: 52
Joined: December 20, 2012, 2:04 pm
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by 65styleside »

I have the jag/mark viii combo under my 65.

The jag is sectioned up into my frame 1", im not sure how far i put the mark viii up into the frame.

I cut the rear frame until I had a good ride height in the rear.

I built the mounts for the rear, I am out of town for a couple weeks but I could get some measurements when I get back.

I'll see if I can get some pics up
65styleside
Posts: 52
Joined: December 20, 2012, 2:04 pm
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by 65styleside »

10827

Rear plate from above, I started with 1/4" plate, 8 x 12

10828

10829

Welded in with some triangle gussets

10830

Added 2x2 square tubing as a cross member

10831

This is how it sits, the front is still a little high but it should drop a bit once the front springs settle. It measures about 10" at the rear quarters and a little over 9" at the front.
Gritsngumbo
Posts: 5441
Joined: August 4, 2007, 4:15 pm
Location: Monroe, Louisiana
United States of America

Re: IFS/IRS questions

Post by Gritsngumbo »

Nice!
If you understand what you’re doing, you’re not learning anything.


LITTLE RED: 64 F100 Short Style
BIG RED: 62 F100 Long Uni
BIG “UN": 63 F250 Long Flare
BBW RED: 61 F100 CC BBW Long Uni
CRIMSON CREW: 63 F100 "Stageway" Long Flare Crew Cab
"RANGER": 66 F100 CC Long Flatbed
"AVA" 1963 Avion T-20 Travel Trailer
“Lucille” 1955 New Moon 44’ Travel Trailer
Post Reply