Which direction to go in next? - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 08:29 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
Which direction to go in next?

1992 lx 5.0 Mods below

Engine- mild mods roughly 270-290 horse
Ac delete
BBK specifics
KYB Gr-2's............I know
steeda x ball joints
Steeda BS kit
MM panhard
MM cc plates, STB and 4 pt k brace
Lakewood rear lower control arms
373's w/ Torsen T-2 diff
4 wheel cobra brakes w/ ss lines
Old OZ 17x8's w/ 255/40 victos

The car is run in SM and is not driven except to events.
http://www.tcstangs.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22622 I am #429
Here's my dilema. I have very little cash to spend this winter for mods. I know my suspension setup is junk. I also know I need more tire to be competitive (I lost to a Hoosiered/trailered M3 by 4 sec on an 80 sec course).

Do I

1- get some 17x9's and 275/40 Ra-1's?

or

2- Get MM valved bilsteins/coilover and MM rear lower control arms?


The car pushes in sweepers and tight turns. I can also feel one tire slip a little coming out of turns when I accelerate. I attribute this to a lack of rear roll stiffness.


Last edited by 92MNstanger; 08-29-2005 at 09:44 AM.
92MNstanger is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 11:24 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 211
Change tires at events and buy Kumho V710's.

sjrife1 is offline  
post #3 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 12:27 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
The reason I wanted to hear a little discussion is; tires wear out......fast. V710 on will cost as must as a set of shocks/struts. I would have the trsut and shocks for years to come. Where tires burn up quick, but they immediately enhance perfrmance.
92MNstanger is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 01:34 PM
Registered User
 
2k2GT's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lenoir City, TN
Posts: 6,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92MNstanger
The reason I wanted to hear a little discussion is; tires wear out......fast. V710 on will cost as must as a set of shocks/struts. I would have the trsut and shocks for years to come. Where tires burn up quick, but they immediately enhance perfrmance.
If you're driving your car at even 9/10's, the tires will be the best bet. A set of V710's should last you an entire autox season. The right shocks/struts will only help as much as your current tires can grip.


You have WAAAY more mods than I do, and I still have the OE GT struts/shocks. I don't see shocks/struts picking you up over 2 seonds at autox, the way tires/brakes would.
2k2GT is offline  
post #5 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 01:48 PM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
If you are trying to catch an M3 on Hoosiers, tires and struts aren't going to get you there. You do need better struts/shocks and the Lakewoods probably hurt more than they help. Tires will help some but until you correct the major deficiencies of your stock suspension you still won't stand a chance against the M3. To really move closer to the M3 you will need a torque arm or tri-link to get your power down on corner exits. Unfortunately the MM TA has to be mounted to the SFC's which make it illegal in SM. An EVM Tri-Link would be a legal modification for SM.

MM rear LCA's and better shocks/struts will free up the rear suspension so that it has better grip. The front pushing is an inherent trait of a Mustang and is very difficult to eliminate. Using offset delrin bushings in the LCA will help as will going with an SN95 arm. This will allow you to get something in the range of -3* camber and maybe 4-5* positive caster which will improve front grip. Going with an adjustable rear ASB and switching to a softer front bar with stiffer springs will help in that area as well. If you don't care about being in SM youcan do what I did, install the MM K-member and TA/PHB and just run in CP. If you do that you won't have to worry about M3's on Hoosiers.

Putting huge rubber on a Fox is difficult at best. If you want sticky go with the Kumho V-710 as suggested above. It is head and shoulders above just about anything else.

Last edited by Glenn; 08-29-2005 at 01:52 PM.
Glenn is offline  
post #6 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 03:29 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
The venues I run in MN have very rough (old) asphalt. They seem to chew up tires pretty quickly. I was thinking about the 710's, they seem to be a pretty big hit, but I don't want to buy them very often.

I see the tires as being a band-aid for the real problem. Crappy suspension (not to mention the driver). I am just wondering what others have done in this situation. I don't have much of a budget. And tires aren't a hard part like suspension components. It seems the consensus is that the V710's and 17x9's will make more difference than any number of suspension components. Should I try 275's??

I am also trying to look at big picture vs immediate gain. I would like to have both though.............
92MNstanger is offline  
post #7 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 03:39 PM
Registered User
 
2k2GT's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lenoir City, TN
Posts: 6,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92MNstanger
It seems the consensus is that the V710's and 17x9's will make more difference than any number of suspension components. Should I try 275's??
I wouldn't try any size LESS. If you wish to try a tire that MAY last longer(a season and a 1/2 or probably 2), you could try the Nitto NT555 R II's. Believe it or not, you could also run drag radials(preferably Nitto's due to sidewall)on all 4 corners. I believe you can get 4 Nitto's(either model)for about 60-70$ less per tire than the V710's.
Quote:
I am also trying to look at big picture vs immediate gain. I would like to have both though.............
Well, in the big picture, if you want to go fast, your gonna hafta have R-compound tires, PERIOD.
2k2GT is offline  
post #8 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 05:08 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92MNstanger
The venues I run in MN have very rough (old) asphalt. They seem to chew up tires pretty quickly. I was thinking about the 710's, they seem to be a pretty big hit, but I don't want to buy them very often.

I see the tires as being a band-aid for the real problem. Crappy suspension (not to mention the driver). I am just wondering what others have done in this situation. I don't have much of a budget. And tires aren't a hard part like suspension components. It seems the consensus is that the V710's and 17x9's will make more difference than any number of suspension components. Should I try 275's??

I am also trying to look at big picture vs immediate gain. I would like to have both though.............
If your focus is autocross (and more specifically, being more competitive at autocross) and you don't want to pony up for the best tires you can buy, perhaps you should look at getting another car. Mustangs are power and grip cars and SM is, for the most part, a power and grip class. You need GOOD tires to go fast.
sjrife1 is offline  
post #9 of 34 Old 08-29-2005, 05:51 PM
Registered User
 
rfloz's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: la la land
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
Unfortunately the MM TA has to be mounted to the SFC's which make it illegal in SM.

True. Unless you use the Griggs chassis t/a mount on a Fox. And, on an SN95, you can weld on the Ford TSB subframe connectors and hang the t/a there just fine.


FWIW, John in Huston (search) took a Fox to Nationals when SM was just starting off as a class. Had lots of tire and suspension, including the "blatantly illegal" Griggs k-member, and a 400+ rwhp 347. The car was not competitive. SM has gotten lots faster, Mustangs, by and large, have not.

Good luck.

Bob F.
Mustang - The Great American Kit Car
#50 ESP/SM2 (backup) - Cal Club
Porsche - The Great German Kit Car - #50 SM2 Cal Club - #84 JP PCA
rfloz is offline  
post #10 of 34 Old 08-30-2005, 08:10 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
Our SM class up here is incredibly competitive. That's why I wanted to stay in it. Competition Improves the breed. Our CP class, however, has just a few 3rd gen camaros that run the same times I did when I had Street tires. Maybe I should enter CP and shake things up a bit..........All of the Local MN clubs seem to be populated by Miatas and Rally cars. The American V-8's are few and far between.

92MNstanger is offline  
post #11 of 34 Old 08-30-2005, 07:01 PM
Registered User
 
NewtStang's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Delray Beach, FL USA
Posts: 324
Another vote for tires. If you're serious about making a dent in that 4 second spread between you and that M3, tires are the closest thing to a silver bullet. Once you try a good tire, you'll never go back. You'll find a way to put it in your annual budget, believe me.

I also agree with Glenn regarding a good k-member that relocates suspension points. It's unfortunate k-members will never be an SM modification.

-- Kyle
'92 LX Convertible (now a Lemons race car)
'90 LX Coupe (HPDE track car)
'94 Cobra (stock)
NewtStang is offline  
post #12 of 34 Old 08-31-2005, 08:25 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
I've been putting some thought into competing in CP next year instead of SM. From what I get from you guys is a fox stang just won't compete with M3's, WRX's and Evo VIII's w/o spending a ton of cash. I agree, it's been really hard. Our clubs run tight Miata and Sprite style courses. Venue owners don't like to see speeds in excess of 60mph. In turn our club installs slaloms and >100* turns everywhere. This makes it very hard for heavier cars to compete with the small, agile rally cars.

I also think I could be very competitive in CP without spending too much, unless someone is building something crazy this winter.

I was thinking about getting some Tokico Illuminas, some MM adjustable LCA's and some poly bushings for the front end then Removing some serious weight and hitting CP. What do you CP people think??


Are there any advantages to the Adjustable MM arms versus the non adjustable arms? Besides the obvious ride height.

Last edited by 92MNstanger; 08-31-2005 at 10:27 AM.
92MNstanger is offline  
post #13 of 34 Old 08-31-2005, 08:36 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 144
I didn't see subframe connectors on your list. Those are a gottahave.

66 Emberglo Mustang Convertible
89 Track Slut
66emberglo is offline  
post #14 of 34 Old 08-31-2005, 09:03 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
Sorry, forgot to add. I have those.
92MNstanger is offline  
post #15 of 34 Old 08-31-2005, 10:33 AM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
My car is not SM legal due to the K-member and the MM mounting for the TA. I have to run in CP for SCCA events but locally there aren't any built to the limit of the rules cars I have to deal with. I also run with another private club that has a GT class for pony cars. There I compete with other like modified cars like Camaros, Trans-Ams and Mustangs. I'm very happy with my local competition and how much more fun to drive my car is now. When I ran in ESP I could not compete with the rally cars by staying within the rules. I built the car the way I wanted it and just let the chips fall where they may. It's fun having a fast well handling street legal Mustang that can beat expensive exotics on an autocross course.
Glenn is offline  
post #16 of 34 Old 09-03-2005, 11:37 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
Do coil overs give that much of a handling advantage over conventional springs. I understang how the whole wheel rate vs. spring rat thing works and I see how a coilover set up better utlilizes the spring, but how much real world difference are we talking about? Also which roll cages are you guys running? I am looking at the Steeda and the MM 6 point cages. Are there others that may add more torsional rigidity?
92MNstanger is offline  
post #17 of 34 Old 09-03-2005, 12:00 PM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
Damn Internet, frikken triple post.

Last edited by Glenn; 09-03-2005 at 12:05 PM.
Glenn is offline  
post #18 of 34 Old 09-03-2005, 12:00 PM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
Double Post, sorry

Last edited by Glenn; 09-03-2005 at 12:03 PM.
Glenn is offline  
post #19 of 34 Old 09-03-2005, 12:01 PM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
Coil overs will ride better at any given wheel rate because they don't add binding to the A-arm bushings like the conventional does. This also allows more compliance in the suspension that provides better grip on bumpy surfaces. Adjustable ride height is a nice touch as well.

As for the roll bars, I had the MM 6-point one and sold it without installing it. It was NHRA legal but did not meet SCCA standards. Not only that, but the side bars interferred with the seats. There was no way in hell the side bars would go in with my Corbeau seats. I wasn't about to pull them and go back to the crappy stock seating. I then ordered a 4 point bar from Kirk Racing Products and it fit perfectly and met SCCA safety requirements.

Last edited by Glenn; 09-03-2005 at 12:03 PM.
Glenn is offline  
post #20 of 34 Old 09-03-2005, 12:03 PM
Registered User
 
2k2GT's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lenoir City, TN
Posts: 6,493
Damn Glenn........you wantin' to make a point with those 3 posts! Make that TRIPLE post!
2k2GT is offline  
post #21 of 34 Old 09-03-2005, 12:05 PM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2k2GT
Damn Glenn........you wantin' to make a point with those 3 posts! Make that TRIPLE post!
Fixed Tony!!!
Glenn is offline  
post #22 of 34 Old 09-08-2005, 09:52 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 305
Like the others have said, get the 710s on 17x9s and it'll really help. That's the combo I'm running on my car, and it's about as competitive as a Mustang can get in SM. For reference: Last weekend I ran EM and finished 2nd out of 6, and beat the car/driver that finished 4th in EM at the 2004 solo nationals. Now I think he had a bad event, but it isn't the first time I've beaten him. A rotary turbo Lotus 7 finished 1st & 4th. BMW M3s were 5th & 6th.

Coil overs would help, but don't bother til you figure out your rear suspension. I've found you get a better ride with 400 lb coil overs than you do with 850 lb conventional springs due to the reduced vertical load & friction in the a-arm bushings.

I'm not convinced the 3-link is legal, unless you successfully argue it as a traction bar. While it bolts to the original pivot points, it relocates the pivot point on the chassis end. I'm running a 5-link, which has been protested and upheld in ESP, so is therefore legal in SM.

Besides the 5-link, I'm running SN95 length, 3/4" forward offset delrin bushed front control arms, X-2 balljoints, CC plates, Koni doubles, 500 lb coil overs up front, 500 lb conventional springs rear, urethane bushed rear control arms with weight jacks, SFCs, and stock swaybars with rod ends for end links up front. Cobra brakes F+R with adjustable bias. Got about 400 hp + tq, and weigh 2980 with a full tank with 55% up front. Sounds cheap, right?

In the DC area, our SM class sped up so much over the past couple years, the car that dominated in 03 can't trophy in what is usually a 20+ car class. But like you said, competition is more interesting than winning CP by several seconds.

If you want to go CP, skip the 710s, and get some 16x12s with 25x12 Hoosier slicks. Be prepared to cut your fenders...

Justin
Fast92Coupe is offline  
post #23 of 34 Old 09-08-2005, 10:21 PM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast92Coupe
I'm not convinced the 3-link is legal, unless you successfully argue it as a traction bar. While it bolts to the original pivot points, it relocates the pivot point on the chassis end. I'm running a 5-link, which has been protested and upheld in ESP, so is therefore legal in SM.
Maybe a bit off topic, but...a mod being ESP legal does not necessarily make it SM legal. The torque arm is specifically allowed by SP rules as is any required mounting for a SP legal modification. Therfore you can legally attach the TA front mount between any SP legal subframes on a Mustang. However, when you read the SM rules they specifically prohibit any lateral connecting members between the subframes. This makes what's legal for SP illegal fro SM. Well, so much for the SCCA trying to make the transition from tock to SP to SM easier, eh?
Glenn is offline  
post #24 of 34 Old 09-09-2005, 08:45 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast92Coupe
stock swaybars with rod ends for end links up front.

Justin

Do you have photos/specs on those links? I have seen them in my must ang book, but the info/concept wasn't discussed at detail.


Are your arms simply SN 95 arms w/ nice delrins and X-2's? What tire/wheel combo do you have up front? Did you need to swap out steering racks?
92MNstanger is offline  
post #25 of 34 Old 09-09-2005, 12:05 PM
Registered User
 
rfloz's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: la la land
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
Maybe a bit off topic, but...a mod being ESP legal does not necessarily make it SM legal. The torque arm is specifically allowed by SP rules as is any required mounting for a SP legal modification. Therfore you can legally attach the TA front mount between any SP legal subframes on a Mustang. However, when you read the SM rules they specifically prohibit any lateral connecting members between the subframes. This makes what's legal for SP illegal fro SM. Well, so much for the SCCA trying to make the transition from tock to SP to SM easier, eh?
Glenn, not to be a PITA, but, 16.1 A. says: "All Stock, Street Touring and Street Prepared modifications are authorized." (Emphasis added.) I.e., if it's legal in SP, it's legal in SM.

Now, at the instigation of Dennis Grant and other pony-car haters, they added rule 16.1 B. . . . "Allowances inherited from 16.1 A. may not incorporate SM specific allowances."

The actual effect of this is that a torque arm may be run in ESP (and, so SM) if and only if it is mounted to the floor pan or to Ford TSB subframe connecters (SN 95's only, BTW for the TSB's). I.e., you cannot attach the SP legal t/a to the SM legal (other than Ford TSB) subframe connecters. Since the TSB's and the t/a are both SP legal via 16.1 A., SM is stuck with them.

I know it's convoluted, but I have fought this battle for years now and am fairly certain I am correct on this. A search here or on Corner-Carvers.com will give a lot more info to anyone interested.


Justin-

I don't see why the 3-link would be illegal in SP or SM under 15.8 G. But you are correct that the 5-link has been protested and okayed. In fact, it was the protest of Marcus Meredith's 5-link Mustang that led to the incorporation of 15.8. G. (then 14.8 IIRC). It's not really a logically consistant rule, but was sort of a gimme so Mustangs could compete w/ Camaros (my opinion only).

Again, a search here or on C-C.com, will give more info. Probably more that most folks have any interest in. But, if you are concerned with having an SP or SM legal car, it's worth the time.

Have fun.

Bob F.
Mustang - The Great American Kit Car
#50 ESP/SM2 (backup) - Cal Club
Porsche - The Great German Kit Car - #50 SM2 Cal Club - #84 JP PCA
rfloz is offline  
post #26 of 34 Old 09-09-2005, 12:39 PM
Registered User
 
Glenn's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Cocoa, Florida
Posts: 3,627
Bob, thanks for the clarification on the TA. In other words SM still discriminates against Pony cars. Therefore I have to drive my street car in prepared class still.
Glenn is offline  
post #27 of 34 Old 09-09-2005, 01:44 PM
Registered User
 
rfloz's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: la la land
Posts: 850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn
Bob, thanks for the clarification on the TA. In other words SM still discriminates against Pony cars. Therefore I have to drive my street car in prepared class still.
Glenn-

No big. For a long time several of us lobbied for k-members and "normal" subframe connecters in SM since anybody with half a brain could see the M-3's would kill the Mustangs without same (and probably with - search "blatantly illegal" if you care) and since a lot of Mustangs have them installed. No luck.

The one thing I really, really like about SM, is that their rule set makes the SP rules look downright rational.

Stick with CP.

Bob F.
Mustang - The Great American Kit Car
#50 ESP/SM2 (backup) - Cal Club
Porsche - The Great German Kit Car - #50 SM2 Cal Club - #84 JP PCA
rfloz is offline  
post #28 of 34 Old 09-10-2005, 10:32 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfloz
I don't see why the 3-link would be illegal in SP or SM under 15.8 G. But you are correct that the 5-link has been protested and okayed. In fact, it was the protest of Marcus Meredith's 5-link Mustang that led to the incorporation of 15.8. G. (then 14.8 IIRC). It's not really a logically consistant rule, but was sort of a gimme so Mustangs could compete w/ Camaros (my opinion only).
If you could successfully argue it as a traction bar under 15.8.G.2 I think it would be ok. Dunno if anyone is running one in SM or ESP. It wasn't available when I did my rear suspension...

Justin
Fast92Coupe is offline  
post #29 of 34 Old 09-10-2005, 10:45 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 305
Quote:
Originally Posted by 92MNstanger
Do you have photos/specs on those links? I have seen them in my must ang book, but the info/concept wasn't discussed at detail.
If I get some time after working on the real racecar I'll shoot a couple shots today. Probably will get me banned from c-c. They're a homemade, 5 minute effort, from stuff laying around my garage. Basically rod ends threaded through the a-arm and swaybar (with a lug nut used to center it) and two flat steel strips connecting them vertically, spaced out with washers so the rod ends can articulate enough for full suspension movement. They look like sh*t but work well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 92MNstanger
Are your arms simply SN 95 arms w/ nice delrins and X-2's? What tire/wheel combo do you have up front? Did you need to swap out steering racks?
They're MM pieces- SN95 with the forward offset. Stock rack with custom (and heavy) 4130 adapters to a Coleman bump steer kit. Putting 5/8" threads in 4130 is not fun.

Wheels/tires are Cobra 17x9 with 275-40 v710s. Spindles are 95 V-6 models. Fenders are flared about 2" or so to clear everything.

Justin
Fast92Coupe is offline  
post #30 of 34 Old 09-10-2005, 10:55 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 305
End Links

Ok, here's a shot of my zero slop end links:


Parts are: 3/8" rod ends, 5/16" fender washers on swaybar and A-arm double stacked to reduce the chance of bending, open ended acorn style lug nuts to center the rod end in the swaybar, 5/16" washers to provide side clearance for the rod ends, 3/8" bolts long enough so the loads avoid the threads, four 1 1/4" x 3/16" thick flat steel pieces for sides cut to length so swaybar is level. I adjust the preload in the front bar by moving the rod ends in the a-arm up or down.

I should cut the excess threads off the bolts, machine some proper spacers, and put some paint on them, but everything works very well- been autocrossing it this way since the end of last season. Transitions much faster and rolls slightly less than when I had urethane end links.

Justin
Fast92Coupe is offline  
post #31 of 34 Old 09-11-2005, 01:01 PM
MFE
Super Moderator
 
MFE's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 27,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast92Coupe
Ok, here's a shot of my zero slop end links:


Parts are: 3/8" rod ends, 5/16" fender washers on swaybar and A-arm double stacked to reduce the chance of bending, open ended acorn style lug nuts to center the rod end in the swaybar, 5/16" washers to provide side clearance for the rod ends, 3/8" bolts long enough so the loads avoid the threads, four 1 1/4" x 3/16" thick flat steel pieces for sides cut to length so swaybar is level. I adjust the preload in the front bar by moving the rod ends in the a-arm up or down.

I should cut the excess threads off the bolts, machine some proper spacers, and put some paint on them, but everything works very well- been autocrossing it this way since the end of last season. Transitions much faster and rolls slightly less than when I had urethane end links.

Justin
That's pretty damn cool. Thanks for providing the detail.
MFE is offline  
post #32 of 34 Old 09-11-2005, 03:46 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 305
Thanks. I didn't like the Mathis design with rod ends in single shear, and too many rod ends. Wanted to keep the play to a minimum even when they wear a bit.
Fast92Coupe is offline  
post #33 of 34 Old 09-11-2005, 04:31 PM
Registered User
 
rfloz's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: la la land
Posts: 850
Ug-ly; but effective.

I've been looking for a simple way to zero out the pre-load. Hope you haven't filed for a patent.

Bob F.
Mustang - The Great American Kit Car
#50 ESP/SM2 (backup) - Cal Club
Porsche - The Great German Kit Car - #50 SM2 Cal Club - #84 JP PCA
rfloz is offline  
post #34 of 34 Old 09-14-2005, 03:00 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: MN
Posts: 249
I have been looking at the Bilstein HD's. Can I get 94-98 shocks and remove my factory frame mounted bumpstops? They come very close to my steel brake lines for my rear calipers.
92MNstanger is offline  
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



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