Steeda 5 link/ Fac. 5 three link - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 9 Old 10-10-2005, 04:10 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 295
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!

CI PERFORMANCE is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 Old 10-10-2005, 05:23 PM
Registered User
 
cosmoracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Radford, VA
Posts: 1,197
Without being an engineer, you'd likely have to upgrade the link as it now has double the load that it used to. Other than that, I don't see a problem, but I have been mistaken before. Other, more knowledgeable folks will chime in.

You are correct about the design of the X2 balljoints, the pin is extended.


Cream may rise to the top, but sometimes sh&t floats too.
cosmoracer is offline  
post #3 of 9 Old 10-10-2005, 06:17 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmoracer
Without being an engineer, you'd likely have to upgrade the link as it now has double the load that it used to. Other than that, I don't see a problem, but I have been mistaken before. Other, more knowledgeable folks will chime in.

You are correct about the design of the X2 balljoints, the pin is extended.
Thank you for the response. It seems the real question would then be, what part of the link may need to be upgraded? Since it is a non factory part that is essentially untested with regards to it's failure potential, one can only visually surmise that the weakest point remains in the mounting as opposed to the the actual arm itself. Steeda provides what is essentially an angled bracket to make a third mounting point for the long bolt that locates the arm at the chassis. This bracket has very little actual mounting surface area, so the real key will be in providing a much more solid surface to mount this to. Through use of doubler plates keyed in to actual stressed members of the chassis, future failure can be markedly reduced. It's just interesting to note that Factory 5 has racing cred, and for them, a single upper is sufficient. Of course, their phone rep also said that putting in another on would cause aggregious bind, so I'm not really putting much faith in his opinion after that kind of comment.
I'm interested to hear if anyone has an opinion of the real world effects of this longer X2 balljoint. I haven't heard anything bad, which is good and could point to any negative effects being minimal, at best. Of course, there is the possibilty that this extra "Swing" could be desireable?!
CI PERFORMANCE is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 9 Old 10-10-2005, 06:28 PM
MFE
Super Moderator
 
MFE's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 27,649
As for the X2 balljoints, here's what I wrote in another thread, to save me the typing.
Quote:
Hard to say what they contributed but it had to be something. I can attribute the first few seconds of improvement from the first day to the second just to learning the line better. The improvements from the second trip to the third came even though the part where I probably got the most gain was screwed up by track repair. Without that section I think I'd have been another 1-2 seconds faster for a 4-5 second gain over the 2nd trip...and I'm not willing to claim it all came from driving.

I noticed the car stuck a little better in turns and exhibited WAY less of what I can't describe very well except to say that it used to kind of boing-boing-boing across the diagonal formed by the inside front and outside rear, and hardly does that anymore at all. Used to be able to hear it in the videos and even see it to some extent, not so much anymore, and those were the only things changed between events. All other equipment and settings were identical.
This in a '92 5.0 coupe with relatively conventional suspension, heavy springs, Koni yellows, delrin front bushings
MFE is offline  
post #5 of 9 Old 10-11-2005, 01:12 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFE
As for the X2 balljoints, here's what I wrote in another thread, to save me the typing.

This in a '92 5.0 coupe with relatively conventional suspension, heavy springs, Koni yellows, delrin front bushings
Nice, thank you for the insight! You didn't mention any brake upgrade, so considering the difference in spindle balljoint hole ID from Fox to SN-95, are you still able to take advantage of the X2's height potential?

Last edited by CI PERFORMANCE; 10-11-2005 at 01:17 PM.
CI PERFORMANCE is offline  
post #6 of 9 Old 10-11-2005, 01:21 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Milford, OH
Posts: 105
EVM sells a three link supsension that replaces the two upper link with a "third" link and a PHB

2000 GT - 5 speed
bala is offline  
post #7 of 9 Old 10-11-2005, 01:56 PM
MFE
Super Moderator
 
MFE's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 27,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by CI PERFORMANCE
Nice, thank you for the insight! You didn't mention any brake upgrade, so considering the difference in spindle balljoint hole ID from Fox to SN-95, are you still able to take advantage of the X2's height potential?
They won't work with Fox spindles and brakes. The car has a Baer conversion (e.g. '94-98 Cobra brakes) with '94 spindles. The X2's were plug & play, except I've had to max out the capacity of the MM bumpsteer kit I'm using. And because I always felt the car sat too high, I opted to take a little bit of lowering rather than use the spring spacers and get a higher RC.
MFE is offline  
post #8 of 9 Old 10-11-2005, 02:13 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFE
They won't work with Fox spindles and brakes. The car has a Baer conversion (e.g. '94-98 Cobra brakes) with '94 spindles. The X2's were plug & play, except I've had to max out the capacity of the MM bumpsteer kit I'm using. And because I always felt the car sat too high, I opted to take a little bit of lowering rather than use the spring spacers and get a higher RC.
That makes sense. We have a set of Baer's Fox spindles modified for SN-95 components, it always seemed like a lot of effort when SN-95 parts were already plentiful?! I've always preffered the 96+ spindles for better bumpsteer adjustment, even though I'm still on the ragged edge of adjustment currently with Baer's kit.
CI PERFORMANCE is offline  
post #9 of 9 Old 10-11-2005, 02:16 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 295
Thanks for the link, time to do some searching for some real world feedback.......
CI PERFORMANCE 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