Why would you want to do this?  All Ford ball joint 4 link front ends up through the '90s were essentially the same geometry.  they were pretty much state of the art and compare well with the M II geometry. With all new wear parts and maybe somewhat higher rate springs and certainly a higher rate anti roll bar they will provide very good handling.  You can even get graphite bushings for serious control of front end geometry.  Of course most people will agree that disc brakes on the front are desirable but there are ways to do that without going to M II.

The same obtains with rack and pinion steering. You have a good steering system that already fits the car.  Bring it up to snuff and you will have everything you can use.

Please don't misunderstand, the M II route with R & P steering is good stuff especially with aftermarket add ons.  But it became popular for upgrading solid axle cars from the 30's and applications like that.  The current Salt Flat Comet is a good example, the engine bay needed more space and the M II give them that.  But for most street cars that came with  Y blocks the payback isn't there over a good overhall of what came with it,  IMHO. 

Lon

So my 2 cents! A rebuilt 50's Ford front end, completely in spec, lowered or not, works great! Of course to all owners, it's your car, do it your way! Chuck in NH

I would like to convert to power steering but all factory slave cylinder units that I have found are around $1500. I have Granada spindles and 11 in. roters but, I have never installed them.I have found a power steering conversion that uses a saginaw 700 gearbox and adapter plate to fit to the factory ford location.I also found a saginaw power steering pump bracket for a y block.

I'm not sure why there was no effect on the alignment. Maybe on of the site Guru's could comment on that. I theorized that lowering the spring bottom mount, while allowing a lower stance did not alter any of the steering geometry? But I've been wrong before. Anyway I'm sure happy with the setup and unlike heating or cutting springs I can remove the blocks and bolt everything back together if I want. Chuck in NH

Hi Chuck,

I am not quite Guru Status but the reason nothing changed when you dropped the spring pockets is that you didn't change the length of the suspension arms or their mounting position.  You should see a slight camber change as the arms are now further "up" in relation to the chassis at normal ride height.

I have never seen it in the '57 manual but the '56 manual has a table of the part #'s and specs for 8 springs which seem to be what was used in '56 (see page 359).  This includes the height at normal load which for all springs was set at 9.59", there are 3 wire dia's used and slightly different free heights ranging from 14.09 to 15.95.  Also different but not identified is the number of coils.  This is table is a good point of departure to specify new springs from a spring vendor.  To lower the car one specifies a lower free height,  to get about 1" of drop you need something like .75" reduction in normal load height. 

I assume the T bird spring rate was the lowest at 290 lb/" of deflection.  Back when this stuff was much more available I took two springs from a '56 2 door 6 cyl which had probably one of the springs that had a rate of 360 Lb/".  I shortened those springs by a calculated amount to reduce the ride height about 1 1/2" which also has the effect of raising the spring rate to something like 420 lb/".  They are in my Bird right now.  The ride is fine but I do believe the rate could be somewhat higher, maybe 500 lb/" which would reduce body lean in hard cornering.  Today there is the spring vendor Eaton that will custom make springs and I would get a set from them rather than try to find the old stuff and modify it.

Chuck   Good explanation, this is simple.  When I get the bird going again I think this is my best option.  I will be happy with a 1" drop.    -Bob

Only works on '54-'56 passenger and '55-'57 T-Bird.  '57 passenger a arms are one piece.