1992 LX The street to track to street again build. - Page 12 - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
 116Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #386 of 518 Old 01-23-2019, 05:23 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustangmichael View Post
Get your megasquirt working and work on the tune. Wonder what's wrong with the tune? Congrats on the fire up. Don't let it idle too much before you break it in.
I'm running a Quarterhorse setup on my car. I'm having Decipha write the tune for the car right now. I wanted to go standalone with the car but there really wasn't a way to make it smog legal not that tuning with QH is but at least all the smog equipment will still function with the QH installed and I can tune it to run clean.

I know people have made the Pro-M system work for smog but I couldn't see spending 2k on a system and not be able to pass smog.

Peter92lx is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #387 of 518 Old 01-23-2019, 10:46 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Rust Belt
Posts: 63
Easily an all time favorite thread. Good stuff peter!

Peter92lx likes this.
Tob* is offline  
post #388 of 518 Old 01-24-2019, 08:41 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Here it is the engine running.


I came home during lunch today to fire up the car on the stock A9L tune with the data logging enabled in the tune. The car runs pretty good in the beginning but has trouble idling once its warmed up. I think the base idle need to be set on the car since it has a new throttle body on the car.

Unfortunately this happened after the car was running for a bit.



Luckily it looks like this is the only place it is leaking right at the fitting in the water pump. I put a rag against it to stop the leak and the dripping stopped so I believe this is the only leak. At first it looked like it was coming from the bottom of the water pump but that doesn't seem to be the case.



I'm going to try and fix the leak tonight so I can try and fire up the car again tomorrow. I took the stock A9L tune and added some settings for the injectors, engine size and MAF flow numbers to see how it will run. I still need to talk with Decipha about why the car will not run at all on the startup tune he provided.
Peter92lx is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #389 of 518 Old 01-28-2019, 09:35 AM
Corral Elite Member
 
Mustangmichael's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (59)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dayton, OH, home again!
Posts: 4,697
I can help with the tune if need be, but decipha is darn good at it as well. For some reason I thought you had ms on this car, but quarterhorse is better for achieving your end goal. You will not want to leave the quarterhorse in, get your tune burned onto a moates chip and run that day to day. It's easier on your computer. I had one start acting up with the quarterhorse in it and that's what moates advised me to do. It worked and solved the ussue for me.

Michael Bell
email:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

92 coupe, coyote 5.0, turbo, manual trans, project in progress....

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Mustangmichael is offline  
post #390 of 518 Old 02-01-2019, 10:26 AM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Small update on the car I have a new tune to test on the which I'm hoping to give a try today. i still need to work with the DMV to get a pass to drive the car on the street. I started to do the install on the rear seat delete. The main issue I had was the roll bar since mounted in the rear seat area. It just took some cutting to get it to fit. I still need to get it all lined up right but its almost ready to install.



I'm not going to get to work on the car next week since I will be out of town. But the plan right now when I get back is to go to the DMV to get my pass to drive the car on the street so I can start getting it ready for its smog check.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #391 of 518 Old 02-01-2019, 09:00 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Well the car is happier with the new tune. I got the car started and it ran for bit while tried to burp the cooling system. The low coolant light is on and I can't seem to get it to go away. I got a lisle spill free funnel to help burp the system which did get allot of air out and the over flow tank is full so not sure why the low coolant light is on unless its a bad sensor.

The one thing I did notice is the coolant surges in the funnel while the car is running. If I hit the gas the level will go way down then surge back up when I let off the throttle. Here's a short video of the car just idling. There's no air coming out I guess it just seems weird to me but it might be normal.


I have a leak down tester so I thought about doing a leak down test tomorrow to see if everything is fine inside the motor. I was planning on doing it anyway since I thought it would give me piece of mind that the motor is good.
Tob* likes this.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #392 of 518 Old 02-02-2019, 07:40 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
Nice thread Peter.

The burbling water past the radiator cap is normal with a Fox Mustang. It has to do with the air which is always trapped in the upper coolant hose.

Once you get the car running, I would consider installing a rubber or polyurethane bushing in at least one location on both sides of the rear suspension for control arm mounting. The parallel 4-link has less bind in it than the stock Quadra-Link, but it still has some bind.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #393 of 518 Old 02-02-2019, 09:49 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
Nice thread Peter.

The burbling water past the radiator cap is normal with a Fox Mustang. It has to do with the air which is always trapped in the upper coolant hose.

Once you get the car running, I would consider installing a rubber or polyurethane bushing in at least one location on both sides of the rear suspension for control arm mounting. The parallel 4-link has less bind in it than the stock Quadra-Link, but it still has some bind.
Thanks Jack.

I thought all the air was out of the system but I'm finding unless you pressure bleed the system your not going to get all the air out until you drive it.

I've looked into doing that very thing to the rear suspension it moves pretty free but will bind at the top end of its travel. The problem I have is the coil overs are pretty close to the upper control arm mounts. I'm worried the deflection in a rubber or polyurethane bushing might cause the coil over to hit the upper control arm axle mount. My plan is to add your torque arm to the rear suspension and your full length sub frames. I think that will be a better match for the front suspension then the 4 link. I honestly just put it on hold until later this year because right now my main focus is getting the car running and get some of the inevitable teething issues fixed. You can't go through a complete rebuild like this without running into problems.

Let me know when you get the lower k-member brace done for the ford racing oil pan its another part on my list.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #394 of 518 Old 02-02-2019, 11:41 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
Peter,

With regards to getting air out of the system. You can not do it on a Fox Mustang due to the routing of the upper radiator hose. It has a 12" long section which is 2" higher than the thermostat and the radiator cap. The air trapped up here can not get out unless you put a vent at the high point in the system. When you speed up the engine quickly, the water drags some of this air down to the radiator cap and makes the water burble. The air then goes back up into the hose. Once it is bled, you will only have air in the upper section of this hose.

I saw that you were planning on installing a TA, then I thought I saw that you changed your mind and were going to leave the 4-link. If there are clearance issues wit the UCA rod ends, the RLCAs could be swapped to ones with polyurethane bushings in them.

You and 6.3 million other people who are waiting for a bent k-member brace

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #395 of 518 Old 02-03-2019, 09:01 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
I saw that you were planning on installing a TA, then I thought I saw that you changed your mind and were going to leave the 4-link. If there are clearance issues wit the UCA rod ends, the RLCAs could be swapped to ones with polyurethane bushings in them.
I've bounce around on the idea between the 4 link and the torque arm but I think the best setup will be the torque arm in the end.

Peter92lx is online now  
post #396 of 518 Old 02-05-2019, 02:41 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Rust Belt
Posts: 63
Hey Peter. I'm still picking at my own engine and have some questions regarding what you've been up to.

First, the 1 inch setback. I too have the FR pan. I was planning on using Energy suspension engine mounts. I tried to follow what you did but am unsure as to the final combination you went with. I'm wondering if I'll need to space the mounts from the engine block at all (MM K-member too). I went withe the middle "setting" for the rack bushings as I believe you did.

I'm also wondering about exhaust manifold clearance at the firewall with the 1" setback as well. I see in this photo it looks like the manifolds you are using look to use a nut and bolt arrangement at the ball end. I have the FRPP shorty headers that have a threaded flange and use a stud. I'm wondering if the studs may hit the firewall if setback or not. Curious as to how much clearance you had here. Jack, I'd appreciate any input from you as well.




Regarding the FR oil pan, I didn't see you mention it but mine hit the body of the oil pump and wouldn't sit centered on the pan rails - not even close. You can see it hitting inside one of the threaded holes at the bottom of the pan.



I'm using a Melling nodular iron pump. The body dimensions are the same as that of the factory OEM aluminum body. I had to cut and grind the threaded bung inside the pan way down to allow for clearance such that the pan sat right and there was a gap between the pump and the remainder of the bung. You had plenty of clearance here?

Tob* is offline  
post #397 of 518 Old 02-05-2019, 06:50 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
As I understand it, Peter has MM solid engine mounts with the engine spaced back 1" on the k-member.

The trans was 1/4" too high because the front edge of the oilpan sump was hanging up on the center portion of the 1" brace tube welded onto the back of the k-member. Once the engine was moved back, this problem went away.

You can use either the Energy Suspension or solid engine mounts with the engine moved back 1".

With shorty headers, they don't hit the firewall. Access to the upper nut at the collector is very tight. You will need a long socket on the end of a u-joint. If you use full length headers, then you need to massage the Passenger side of he firewall at the bottom.
Tob* likes this.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #398 of 518 Old 02-05-2019, 09:12 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
As I understand it, Peter has MM solid engine mounts with the engine spaced back 1" on the k-member.

The trans was 1/4" too high because the front edge of the oilpan sump was hanging up on the center portion of the 1" brace tube welded onto the back of the k-member. Once the engine was moved back, this problem went away.

You can use either the Energy Suspension or solid engine mounts with the engine moved back 1".

With shorty headers, they don't hit the firewall. Access to the upper nut at the collector is very tight. You will need a long socket on the end of a u-joint. If you use full length headers, then you need to massage the Passenger side of he firewall at the bottom.
Jack nailed it setting the engine back was the only way I could get the pan to work. I wasn't sure if it was due to the motor mounts or something else so I tried the original solid motor mounts I had but they were same as the MM mounts. I'll be honest I've thought about going to the Energy Suspension motor mounts to cut down on the NVH from the engine. I forgot what it was like with solid mounts in the car. I'm going to keep them for now and see how i like it after driving the car for awhile.

The headers fit fine but Jack is right accessing the upper nut and bolt is a pain in the butt. I think you will be fine with studs the clearance looks worse in the picture. Since I have to run cats on the car I had to clearance the floor of the car to keep them from hitting. I also shortened my cat back to get the exhaust to fit right.

I looked to see if I had a better picture of the headers but I don't have one right now. I'm working in upstate NY this week so I won't be able to get the pictures until the weekend.

Quote:
Regarding the FR oil pan, I didn't see you mention it but mine hit the body of the oil pump and wouldn't sit centered on the pan rails - not even close. You can see it hitting inside one of the threaded holes at the bottom of the pan.
I didn't run into that problem it was close but it didn't touch it had enough clearance that I felt safe. The only part of the pan I had a problem with interfering with the pump was the part of the windage tray in the front sump it would hit the pump so I had to trim it.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #399 of 518 Old 02-05-2019, 09:23 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Rust Belt
Posts: 63
Peter, if you can get a shot when you are home from the side showing how much room there is at the manifold to H-Pipe connection I'd really appreciate it.

I'm absolutely planning on moving back an inch after seeing what you went through. I hope the Lakewood bellhousing I plan on using isn't an issue.

I had to trim the windage tray as well to allow for dipstick clearance. On that note, I ordered both that you had mentioned previously and neither looks to be long enough. I'm considering using the stock dipstick that runs through the block. I had to clearance the windage tray for that as well. I also had to oblong some of the pan rail holes as they didn't line up with those in the block. I verified this with a second block that showed the exact same issue. The pan is a robust piece but FR needs to evaluate the part as it is currently produced - it should fit much better than it does.

And Peter, I don't know where you are working in Upstate, NY but I live there. Shoot me a text if you have some free time as I'd love to get caught up.
Tob* is offline  
post #400 of 518 Old 02-05-2019, 10:07 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tob* View Post
Peter, if you can get a shot when you are home from the side showing how much room there is at the manifold to H-Pipe connection I'd really appreciate it.

I'm absolutely planning on moving back an inch after seeing what you went through. I hope the Lakewood bellhousing I plan on using isn't an issue.

I had to trim the windage tray as well to allow for dipstick clearance. On that note, I ordered both that you had mentioned previously and neither looks to be long enough. I'm considering using the stock dipstick that runs through the block. I had to clearance the windage tray for that as well. I also had to oblong some of the pan rail holes as they didn't line up with those in the block. I verified this with a second block that showed the exact same issue. The pan is a robust piece but FR needs to evaluate the part as it is currently produced - it should fit much better than it does.

And Peter, I don't know where you are working in Upstate, NY but I live there. Shoot me a text if you have some free time as I'd love to get caught up.
I'll get some pictures when I get home driver side is easy passenger is a little harder with the intake installed.

We should definitely get caught up I should have some time to talk tomorrow I'll shoot you a text. I'm working in Rochester until Friday.
Tob* likes this.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #401 of 518 Old 02-06-2019, 01:22 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
The original FR oilpan was designed on a car with an MM k-member. I know that the original pan cleared the brace tube welded onto the back of the main tube with the engine in its forward position. Over the last two years I've seen a couple of customers who said that this combination just barely wouldn't fit due to interference at this location. I'm positive our k-member didn't change. Due to this and some issues with Gen3 Coyote engines, we're in the process of changing the brace design on all 1979-2004 k-members. Some models are already in production. See the photo below as an example.

https://www.maximummotorsports.com/A...M-2-1_2_LG.jpg
zd302gt and Tob* like this.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #402 of 518 Old 02-09-2019, 02:46 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Rust Belt
Posts: 63
The definition of robust? See above MM k-member photo.

Good stuff Jack.

Peter, too bad we never got a hold of each other. I'm an hour or so from Rochester.
Tob* is offline  
post #403 of 518 Old 02-12-2019, 11:46 AM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Haven't had a chance to work on the car much lately. I was out of town for a week and really didn't get to work on it this weekend. Since I really can't run the car at night I won't be able to do a leak down test until the weekend. So I've been working on the interior. I'm just about done with the rear seat delete.



I going to start working on the trunk floor tonight. I need to figure out the placement of the roll bar down tubes in the trunk floor panels. I'm going to make some templates out of cardboard to make sure i get it right.
Tob* likes this.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #404 of 518 Old 02-21-2019, 05:48 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Jack I have some questions about my MMBK10 manual brake kit. I did a quick test in my driveway to make sure the brakes were working before I attempt a street drive and they seem to work but they don't seem to stop really hard. The pedal feels firm and stops without moving if you put enough pressure in it. The master cylinder bore size is 15/16 I wanted that to get a little less effort and more travel. I haven't measured it but my guess is I'm getting about 2inches of travel out of the pedal. i will have to measure it tonight to an exact number. I'm running 6 piston wilwood in the front and 4 piston wilwoods in the rear right now. I was going to pull the calipers on the car and move them around to see if there might be air trapped in the system. Basically everything was replaced except for two hard lines. I did bench bleed the master before I installed it in the car.

Now I will say I wasn’t putting any heat in them I was only moving the car about 10 feet then hitting the brakes so it just might be the fact there is no heat in them so there not working as good as the could.

If you set the pedal height higher in the car do you get better leverage on the master cylinder or does it even matter? When you set the pushrod length should it just touch the master cylinder piston so there is no slop or should it be putting a some pressure on the master cylinder piston? Any advice on setting them up would be appreciated.

Just for reference the pads in the car wilwood BP-20 in the front and BP-10 in the rear.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #405 of 518 Old 02-21-2019, 07:32 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
Peter,

The height of the pedal pad from the firewall doesn't normally affect the brake pedal effort much at all. See the photo linked below.

https://www.wilwood.com/images/tech/tip/pedalratio.jpg

The brake pedal needs to be at right angles to the pushrod when near maximum brake pedal force is applied. By "brake pedal" I mean a line drawn between the pedal pad and the pedal pivot point at the top. If the angle here gets to become much less than 90 degrees, this means that the pedal ratio is dropping and the car will be much harder to stop. In that case, move the pedal pad away from the firewall.

Moving the pedal pad to the lowest hole in the brake pedal will give the greatest pedal ratio and the least stopping effort.

You can use the pushrod length adjustment to affect the angle between the brake pedal and pushrod. Do this if the angle drops to less than 90 degrees under hard braking. If you lengthen the pushrod so much that the brake pedal hits something under the dash, stop. If you lengthen the pushrod any more at that point, the m/c piston will be pushed into the m/c bore which you do not want. The piston must be able to rest at its normal full back position in the m/c bore. You can improve the performance of the MBAK-10 a little bit by installing a return spring on the pedal. When you press on the brake pedal, your foot will have to overcome the force from stretching this spring, so it will add to the brake pedal effort. The job of the spring is to keep the weight of the brake pedal from pushing the piston in to the m/c bore. When you press down on the brakes and release them, the small spring inside the m/c has to pull all of the brake fluid back into it and push the brake pedal back. Adding in a second external spring will allow this to happen more quickly. The downside is a little more pedal effort when stopping.

If the pedal feels fairly firm and only moves 2", it is unlikely that there is any air in the system. Even if there is air in the system, it won't affect the amount of brake torque generated, unless it makes the pedal to pushrod geometry so bad (less than 90 degrees), that the pedal ratio decreases too much.

If you just assembled the car with new pads and rotors, it is not going to stop very well until the pads have been bed into the rotors. If there is any coating on the rotors, this will require even more time.

Look at the link below. Scroll down until you get to the section with the BP-20 pads. Look at the graph.

https://www.wilwood.com/BrakePads/BrakePadsApp

I'm not a fan of using different front/rear pad compounds. Look at the cf curve for the BP-20 in comparison to the BP-10. Once the BP-20 pad gets over 500F, its cf increases much faster than the BP-10 pad does. This is going to move the brake bias forward as they get hot. I can see doing this a little bit as you NEVER want the brake bias to shift rearwards as the brakes get hot. In my opinion this is too much correction. I would use the same pad front and rear in general. The bias should be set as much as possible by the ratio of caliper areas a rotor diameters.

I would probably use an E compound pad in the front.

Exactly what type of driving is this car going to be used for?

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

Last edited by Jack Hidley; 02-21-2019 at 07:35 PM.
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #406 of 518 Old 02-21-2019, 09:28 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
The height of the pedal pad from the firewall doesn't normally affect the brake pedal effort much at all. See the photo linked below.

https://www.wilwood.com/images/tech/tip/pedalratio.jpg

The brake pedal needs to be at right angles to the pushrod when near maximum brake pedal force is applied. By "brake pedal" I mean a line drawn between the pedal pad and the pedal pivot point at the top. If the angle here gets to become much less than 90 degrees, this means that the pedal ratio is dropping and the car will be much harder to stop. In that case, move the pedal pad away from the firewall.

Moving the pedal pad to the lowest hole in the brake pedal will give the greatest pedal ratio and the least stopping effort.

You can use the pushrod length adjustment to affect the angle between the brake pedal and pushrod. Do this if the angle drops to less than 90 degrees under hard braking. If you lengthen the pushrod so much that the brake pedal hits something under the dash, stop. If you lengthen the pushrod any more at that point, the m/c piston will be pushed into the m/c bore which you do not want. The piston must be able to rest at its normal full back position in the m/c bore. You can improve the performance of the MBAK-10 a little bit by installing a return spring on the pedal. When you press on the brake pedal, your foot will have to overcome the force from stretching this spring, so it will add to the brake pedal effort. The job of the spring is to keep the weight of the brake pedal from pushing the piston in to the m/c bore. When you press down on the brakes and release them, the small spring inside the m/c has to pull all of the brake fluid back into it and push the brake pedal back. Adding in a second external spring will allow this to happen more quickly. The downside is a little more pedal effort when stopping.
Thanks Jack I will take a look at this tonight. I will see if I can find something I can use as a return spring for the pedal and give that a try. Any suggestions on what you guys have tried? I was thinking something like a carb return spring.

Quote:
If the pedal feels fairly firm and only moves 2", it is unlikely that there is any air in the system. Even if there is air in the system, it won't affect the amount of brake torque generated, unless it makes the pedal to pushrod geometry so bad (less than 90 degrees), that the pedal ratio decreases too much.

If you just assembled the car with new pads and rotors, it is not going to stop very well until the pads have been bed into the rotors. If there is any coating on the rotors, this will require even more time.
That was my other thought I just haven't put any miles on the car yet so its going to take time to get the brakes working to there full potential.

Quote:
I'm not a fan of using different front/rear pad compounds. Look at the cf curve for the BP-20 in comparison to the BP-10. Once the BP-20 pad gets over 500F, its cf increases much faster than the BP-10 pad does. This is going to move the brake bias forward as they get hot. I can see doing this a little bit as you NEVER want the brake bias to shift rearwards as the brakes get hot. In my opinion this is too much correction. I would use the same pad front and rear in general. The bias should be set as much as possible by the ratio of caliper areas a rotor diameters.

I would probably use an E compound pad in the front.

Exactly what type of driving is this car going to be used for?
I was thinking of swapping out the BP-10 in the rear with a set of BP-20 to match front pads front but i decided since I have them I would give the BP-10 a try. But I see what your saying about how different they function at higher temperatures. I went with the BP-20 mainly because I was told they were comparable to the Hawk HP+ which I've used before on the car and other cars autocross cars.

The primary purpose for the car is autocross. I'm only going to drive it on the street when I need to get to an event other then that it really isn't going to see much street miles.

Let me know what pads you recommend and if you carry them.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #407 of 518 Old 02-22-2019, 11:04 AM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Here's a couple pictures of my current setup on the brake pedal. I have to get under the dash again to see what angle i have with the brake pedal arm. Currently its set as low as the brake pedal can go and still turn off the brake light switch when the brakes are released. I think when I apply the brakes I push it past the 90 degree mark. So I'm going to get a closer look at it tonight and maybe make adjustments to it. It might have also been putting a small amount of pressure on the master cylinder.





I found something I can use as a return spring for the pedal. It should be here today it has a pretty low rate to it and will extend pretty far so it doesn't reach its limits before the brakes are fully compressed. I will let you know how it works out.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #408 of 518 Old 02-23-2019, 07:48 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
Now that I know that this is an autocross car, I wouldn't even bother moving the car with the BP-20 pads. Just install BP-10 front pads before you do anything.

Look at the cf curves for each pad. At 100F, the BP-10 has a cf of 0.40 and the BP-20 is about 0.37. This is almost 10% more front brake torque at the same temperature. You NEVER want to throw that away on a car with manual brakes.

The following paragraph is not ment to bash on your car or build or brain or anything else, but I think it is important to point out for other people.

In an autocross situation, the speeds are very low. In addition, the brake zones are generally very short, so the delta V is really small. The brakes just don't have to convert very much energy into heat, so they aren't going to heat up much. Since your car has manual brakes, what you want to use are fairly large diameter brake rotors, so the calipers have a lot of leverage on the tires, but the rotors should be very thin. The thinner the rotors are, the less they weigh and the faster the brake pads will heat up. To build this optimally, you would need to get the thinnest 13" front rotors you could find and have them machined down thinner. The main downside to this is that if you do take the car to a track event, the brakes will then overheat.

I agree that the HP+ is a good autocross pad as it has a lot of bite cold. The problem here is that it is impossible to compare brake pad cf data between different manufacturers. There are too many variables in how it is measured. I don't have any comparison data between HP+ and BP-10 or 20 on the same car.

Yes, I would use something like a carb return spring on the brake pedal.

The upward stop that the brake pedal runs into is the machined steel cross bar that mounts the steering column.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #409 of 518 Old 02-24-2019, 11:53 AM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Now that I know that this is an autocross car, I wouldn't even bother moving the car with the BP-20 pads. Just install BP-10 front pads before you do anything.

Look at the cf curves for each pad. At 100F, the BP-10 has a cf of 0.40 and the BP-20 is about 0.37. This is almost 10% more front brake torque at the same temperature. You NEVER want to throw that away on a car with manual brakes.
Thanks Jack for the information I will switch the fronts to BP-10 and match the front and rear of the car. Makes me realize I need to read the graphics more then just reading performance characteristics. Let me know if you guys sell these pads if not I can always get them from summit.

Quote:
The following paragraph is not ment to bash on your car or build or brain or anything else, but I think it is important to point out for other people.

In an autocross situation, the speeds are very low. In addition, the brake zones are generally very short, so the delta V is really small. The brakes just don't have to convert very much energy into heat, so they aren't going to heat up much. Since your car has manual brakes, what you want to use are fairly large diameter brake rotors, so the calipers have a lot of leverage on the tires, but the rotors should be very thin. The thinner the rotors are, the less they weigh and the faster the brake pads will heat up. To build this optimally, you would need to get the thinnest 13" front rotors you could find and have them machined down thinner. The main downside to this is that if you do take the car to a track event, the brakes will then overheat.
Trust me man I don't take this as bashing on my car or anything else this is great information for other people hoping to build an autocross car. I was thinking along the same lines when I got the brake kit. I had the option to go to the 14inch rotors but didn't since I figured the 13inch rotor would weigh a little less and have less material so they should heat up faster. Do you think its a mistake to use manual brakes on a strictly autocross car? I got the kit shortly after you guys released it. The main reason I switched to manual brakes is the on and off the gas nature of autocross seemed to cause a inconsistent brake pedal which I figured was due to vacuum change.

Thanks again for the help Jack.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #410 of 518 Old 02-24-2019, 03:38 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
We don't stock any Wilwood pads except those included in the brake kits that we stock. I would just go to Summit for the BP-10 pads.

That is a tricky question to answer. When the Fox Mustang had manual brakes from the factory, it also had 5" wide front wheels which had tires about as wide as a 175. I doubt that the car could stop harder than 0.8g. I found one review of a 1979 model with a V6 and power brakes. It took 217' to stop from 70mph. This is an average of 0.76g deceleration. I'm sure a model with manual brakes and smaller tires would be much worse.

With the size of the tires on your car, and the tire compound on them, They are probably capable of stopping the car at 1.2g. That requires an increase in brake torque of 58%. Going from 10" to 13" rotors gives a 30% increase in brake torque. That other 25% has to come through increased pedal effort and/or higher cf pads.

On an autocross course with primarily short straights, I think that manual brakes will be ok. Primarily because you just can't loose that much time under braking. The car spends almost all of its time in corners. On a higher speed autocross course (60-80mph), the manual brakes will be more of an issue due to the increased time spent braking. If you have very strong legs, they may not cost you any time.

In most applications, I would try to resolve the fluctuating vacuum conditions, before going to manual brakes.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #411 of 518 Old 02-24-2019, 03:51 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
We don't stock any Wilwood pads except those included in the brake kits that we stock. I would just go to Summit for the BP-10 pads.

That is a tricky question to answer. When the Fox Mustang had manual brakes from the factory, it also had 5" wide front wheels which had tires about as wide as a 175. I doubt that the car could stop harder than 0.8g. I found one review of a 1979 model with a V6 and power brakes. It took 217' to stop from 70mph. This is an average of 0.76g deceleration. I'm sure a model with manual brakes and smaller tires would be much worse.

With the size of the tires on your car, and the tire compound on them, They are probably capable of stopping the car at 1.2g. That requires an increase in brake torque of 58%. Going from 10" to 13" rotors gives a 30% increase in brake torque. That other 25% has to come through increased pedal effort and/or higher cf pads.

On an autocross course with primarily short straights, I think that manual brakes will be ok. Primarily because you just can't loose that much time under braking. The car spends almost all of its time in corners. On a higher speed autocross course (60-80mph), the manual brakes will be more of an issue due to the increased time spent braking. If you have very strong legs, they may not cost you any time.

In most applications, I would try to resolve the fluctuating vacuum conditions, before going to manual brakes.
I think the best thing to do now is get the front pads swapped out and get the car out get some events under its belt and figure out what to do next. I never really got to try out the manual brakes on the car since I stopped running it shortly after I installed them. If it seems like there not going to work out as well as brakes with the booster I still have the brake booster and pedal so I can always swap back or go hydro boost. I see you have a kit for going to hydro boost brakes.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #412 of 518 Old 03-02-2019, 02:19 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Its been awhile since I updated the thread on the car. I've been doing some work on the interior and some work getting the car ready for its maiden street voyage. I also swapped the BP-20 pads I had for the car to BP-10 pads in hopes to make the front brakes better for autocross. I also have a spring to add to the brake pedal to get it dialed in better.

The interior I've been working on getting the Scott rod panels installed in the trunk. It would normally be easy but I have the roll bar installed so it makes it a bit more difficult. I started by making a template out of cardboard to get the placement of the roll bar so I could cut the panel.



After a bunch of cutting and trimming I was able to get the panel in the car.





The other side I did the same steps to get the other panel fitted in the car.



Next I moved on to making a shield for the air filter. I had one in the past but since I moved the fenders out more and the tire got wider I wasn't able to use the original one I had made years ago. I started by making a cardboard template.



The cut the panel out of some 6061 aluminum I don't have a bender so I just used some c clamps.



After some trimming I got the panel fitted.





Not the best looking panel but it should do the job. Then I started on the mounting brackets for the panel.



I still need to get the fender side brackets installed on the car. I'm going to use rivet nuts to mount the panel so I can remove it if needed to clean the filter.

The tune on the car is going good Decipha has done a great job getting it dialed in ready for its first road test. There is still more work to do but so far its going great. If anyone needs to get there car tuned I wouldn't hesitate to give him a call.
thadude likes this.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #413 of 518 Old 03-04-2019, 01:47 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Jack

What would you recommend for a good starting point for the front end alignment? My plan was to start at 2 degrees negative camber as much positive caster as I can balance on both sides of the car and 1/8 of toe out. I figured this would be a good starting point for the car but just wanted to check to see if you had a recommendation. I know it will take some testing and checking tire temps to figure the optimal settings.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #414 of 518 Old 03-04-2019, 04:11 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
For autocross use I would start out with at least -3 degrees of camber. The more camber, the less understeer the car will have. The limit to this is going to be when you have front brake lockup problems due to the camber.

Notice that F1 cars have double a-arm front suspensions and they still run -4 degrees of camber. They would run more, but the rules don't let them to keep from overheating the inner edge of the tire.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #415 of 518 Old 03-05-2019, 04:21 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Finally got the sheet metal guard done for the air filter. I riveted it in for now but I'm going to replace them with self tapping screws.



I also got a few minor things done on the car like the windshield wipers work now. I'm also getting ready to start on getting the saleen style front bumper on the car. Its going to take allot of cutting to make it work but i think it will look really good when its done.



I'm going to have to flare the ends out on it about 4 inches to get it to work. But I figure a heat gun some cutting and making some brackets will make it work.
Mustangmichael likes this.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #416 of 518 Old 03-06-2019, 10:06 AM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
So making the front bumper cover work is going to take allot more work then I had planned. I under estimated how much I have to bend it out and how much it starts to deform other parts of the bumper cover. I think more heat will help get it into place but I think it might come out funny but not sure yet. I'm also going to need more supports to hold the ends out to keep it from wanting to curl back in.

The black lines are where I need to trim to make it fit the front and keep from hitting the tires. I made a relief cut in the bump cover which helps but not enough to get it to work.





I have a few ideas on making it work from more heat to making new fender extensions to meet up with the bumper cover. I also looked other bumper covers like the ones from maier racing but really don't want to go down the road unless I have to. I'm going to keep trying to get it to work but it is going to take allot more work to make the front look good or at least a 50 footer.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #417 of 518 Old 03-06-2019, 12:20 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Rust Belt
Posts: 63
I have the same piece from Cervini's and am looking forward to seeing you go about getting it to work for you.
Tob* is offline  
post #418 of 518 Old 03-06-2019, 01:25 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tob* View Post
I have the same piece from Cervini's and am looking forward to seeing you go about getting it to work for you.
You and me both not sure how I'm going to make this work.
Peter92lx is online now  
post #419 of 518 Old 03-06-2019, 01:34 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
If you extend the length of the spreader bar, where the front of the fender meets the bump cover, that will reduce the discontinuity where they meet. You then wouldn't have to bend the air dam as sharply to match.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is offline  
post #420 of 518 Old 03-06-2019, 02:03 PM Thread Starter
Corral Elite Member
 
Peter92lx's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
If you extend the length of the spreader bar, where the front of the fender meets the bump cover, that will reduce the discontinuity where they meet. You then wouldn't have to bend the air dam as sharply to match.
Thanks Jack I was going to give that a try tonight. I was digging around on your site and found the pictures you have of Matt's car to see how you guys made it work. I noticed you guys ran a spreader bar from the radiator support to the where the fender and bumper cover meet. I have some extra spreader bars at home I'm going to give a try tonight.
Peter92lx is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
street only build ? frank1313 5.0/5.8 Engine Tech 19 12-24-2016 10:38 PM
450 fwhp 351 street build Dart347GT 5.0/5.8 Engine Tech 6 06-01-2015 10:09 AM
For Sale 1992 Mustang 5.0 LX notchback coupe low miles 360christang Mustangs For Sale/Wanted, 1987-1993 7 12-10-2012 11:13 PM
For Sale 1992 Mustang 5.0 LX notchback coupe low miles 360christang Mustangs For Sale/Wanted, 1987-1993 0 12-09-2012 07:10 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome