Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Through searching the forums ive noticed that when it comes to "modestly upgrading" a stocker suspension, say for spirited driving or maybe an amateur event, there are many opinions on where to start. so, what are the 3 aspects of the fox mustang suspension that should have been "better" from the factory to improve overall handling/agressive driving? let the opinions and knowledge flow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
Through searching the forums ive noticed that when it comes to "modestly upgrading" a stocker suspension, say for spirited driving or maybe an amateur event, there are many opinions on where to start.
Yep. This is one question -- where to start?

so, what are the 3 aspects of the fox mustang suspension that should have been "better" from the factory to improve overall handling/agressive driving?
This is another question entirely.

The top three problems with the Fox's suspension are 1) Lack of chassis stiffness, 2) Lack of dynamic camber gain up front, and 3) poor rear suspension geometry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
Robert nailed it, but I would add 3.5, poor weight distribution. However, is this is the hardest to fix, I'd stick with his three and then deal with the weight issues later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,087 Posts
The top three problems with the Fox's suspension are 1) Lack of chassis stiffness, 2) Lack of dynamic camber gain up front, and 3) poor rear suspension geometry.
Thats it... making a Fox fun to drive/competetive all starts and ends with addressing these three areas.

Just look at any decent suspension company with their Kits and you'll see that there are three main Kits that are aimed at each of these concerns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
I raced a fox in a Solo II class (C Prepared) that has a rule set that allowed me to fix all of the suspension issues. My problem with the fox mustang was how high the engine set in the chassis and how far forward it was. But if you look at all of the Mustangs they ever made and compared them to the F body this was always an issue. At least the fox has a short wheel base and that makes up for a few things

Later, when I worked with a friend on an A Sedan fox mustang some of the suspension issues became more of a problem. We were able to fix most of them as the rules matured. In the end, the car was too narrow to take avantage of the wheels and tires effectively. But in reality the biggest problem was areo-they are bricks compared to an F Body or an SN95/S197.

I sold My CP car 8 yrs ago and had not driven a fox mustang until just recently when I bought an 85 GT to play with. Now when I drive it I don't worry too much about what it isn't. I focus on what it is......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
so, with various braces and subframe connecters the stiffness can improve. with caster/camber plates the camber can improve. what would "good" rear suspension geometry be and how to improve that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
The three problem aspects of a Fox are:
It's a Ford Fairmont with a "5.0" badge on the side.
It's been manufactured since 1979 (that's 32 years ago, but hey, who's counting?)
It wasn't even that great a handling car even in 1979.

Enjoy it for what it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,059 Posts
I raced a fox in a Solo II class (C Prepared) that has a rule set that allowed me to fix all of the suspension issues. My problem with the fox mustang was how high the engine set in the chassis and how far forward it was. But if you look at all of the Mustangs they ever made and compared them to the F body this was always an issue. At least the fox has a short wheel base and that makes up for a few things

Later, when I worked with a friend on an A Sedan fox mustang some of the suspension issues became more of a problem. We were able to fix most of them as the rules matured. In the end, the car was too narrow to take avantage of the wheels and tires effectively. But in reality the biggest problem was areo-they are bricks compared to an F Body or an SN95/S197.

I sold My CP car 8 yrs ago and had not driven a fox mustang until just recently when I bought an 85 GT to play with. Now when I drive it I don't worry too much about what it isn't. I focus on what it is......

I am having a hard time with this. All the drag numbers I've seen indicate that these cars are all pretty much the same (not very good) and I would think that downforce would be more dependent on the splitter and wing fabrication than the production body.

I could be wrong about the S197 drag numbers, I've never looked, but the F-body and SN-95 weren't anything to write home about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
I am having a hard time with this. All the drag numbers I've seen indicate that these cars are all pretty much the same (not very good) and I would think that downforce would be more dependent on the splitter and wing fabrication than the production body.

I could be wrong about the S197 drag numbers, I've never looked, but the F-body and SN-95 weren't anything to write home about.
SCCA American Sedan race cars don't have splitters and wings. They are only allowed to use OE rear spoliers/wings or nothing at all. In the front they can have an air dam but nothing that extends beyond the leading edge of the bumper. All of the the cars have to retain OE window trim pieces as well.

When you look at little details on Fox - flat roof, recessed window trim, etc it just isn't as slippery as a newer car.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top