Steeda 5 link/ Fac. 5 three link
After browsing the MM PHR Vs. Steeda 5 link thread, here's a couple of ideas to pose. Functionally, the 3 link set up on the MK3 roadster here looks like the same basic kit that the Steeda 5 link is. That being noted, is there a compromise only using a single Steeda upper control arm? Steeda phone reps were quite taken back with this out of the box line of thinking, but in reality, what difference would it make considering the upper no longer has to deal with side loads?
Several companies do the lower control arm to axle relocation thing, but both the HPM and SSM kits change the clevis width. For one of our own cars, we are welding on an extension to the bracket that retains stock clevis width, essentially allowing for more than one lower arm mounting location. To properly quantify the benefits, adjustable uppers will have to be utilized to keep pinion angle at a favorable constant. Ultimately, it would be easier to just use the 5 link upper kit that is already here, but it would obviously skew the results. The real trick will be to determine where the new holes should be in relation to the current ride height, as well as where instant center will be when (Hopefully) ultimately mated up with the 5 link uppers. Compiance over the mean streets of L.A. is the ultimate goal, so I'm expecting to be in for quite a bit of testing. Anyone here have any experience with a similar set up? Resetting the angle of the rear lowers with relation to instant center once the Mustang has been substantially lowered would appear to be a good thing, so it always seemed a little surprising that so few companies did offer arms and brackets. To just sell a lower made stiffer/lighter/better bushed than the stock piece, and call it superior with no regard to ride height or even now compromised pinion angle is pretty one dimensional.
Speaking of lowering and the havoc it wreaks on suspension geometry, has anyone used the Steeda X2 balljoints? We picked up a set to graft onto some A.J.E. arms, but are now questioning their efficacy. I'll have to get a stock SN-95 joint to quantify this, but at first glance/thought, it looks to be a compromise, at best. What it appears they do is just extend stud length from the housing to where the spindle actually mounts. While this does achieve the desired effect of helping restore front control arm angle, the concern is that now there is an increase in the amount of leverage and subsequent swing, (Technical term!), to the spindle that is ampified over the stock balljoint. If this is indeed the case, the a shorter stock balljoint mounted up higher on a tubular control arm looks to be a better option. Obviously, for a stock control arm, there is not much choice, so these may be fine? The only real question is whether or not there are now changes in steering geometry that are amplified from using these X2 pieces, and whether or not these changes are undesireable to the point of not being a benefit from stock. Again, factoring in that everyone's car has a different mix of parts, any real effects attributed soley to these balljoints may very well be near impossible to quantify. In the next couple of months, though, we'll at least have some results that may point one way or another.
It was great to read the posts here on the 5 link vs. the T.A., having more than a few of you with real world experience is of immeasureable value when it comes right down to disseminating what really works, as well as why. Keep up the great posts!