file: fox94a.html
collected by: [email protected]
04 Jan 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> First, it was the AOD (89 LX) not shifting into overdrive
> after about 1/2 hour of running time. Next, the temp
> gauge doesn't move to much (doesn't warm up too nicely,
> especially in this arctic air we got now) but since
> it gets stuck in 3rd on the highway, and revs a little higher,
> the temp gauge moves a little and I get some heat (-:
If you have a 160deg thermostat, you'll have these kinds of troubles
in the colder climates. Dump it for a 180 degF thermostat at a
minimum. The colder thermostats are an across-the-board lose.
On the other hand, if you're running the stock thermostat, you might
well have one that's stuck open. In any case, these cold-running
symptoms point at that item as the first thing to check. And since
you'll be draining the system to check or replace it, consider doing a
good full flush to break loose any crud that's floating around in
there. When you get the 'stat out, I'll bet that you'll find that
it's wedged open by a flake of corrosion crud.
If you can do it, a nice touch is to refill the system after your
complete flush and draining (including the block!) with distilled
water and clean new coolant. The distilled water is much kinder to the
mix of aluminum and cast iron that lives in the water passages than
tap water, even in the presence of good anticorrosion additives in the
antifreeze. Dissimilar metals immersed in an electrolyte- galvanic
corrosion for days. Every little bit helps in staving that off.
> Well, last night after a 3 hour sit following 3 hours
> of driving, the car started nicely but didn't quite idle
> well, and is skipping really bad when in gear, although less so
> at RPMs above 2K. I performed a KOEO test and discovered
> Code 31 which according to Skod's past posting (and verified
> in Probst), indicates a problem with the EVP (EGR valve position,
> of PFE (pressure feedback EGR) sensor voltage too low.
Sounds about right. I'd bet that the EGR valve was sticking partially
open, which allowed exhaust gases to enter the mixture at idle,
leaning it out and causing your miss. It is only supposed to open at
part throttle, not at idle. If it were stuck wide open, it'd lean it
out so far that it wouldn't idle at all- so it's probably just wedged
off the seat a bit. The presence of the miss points more at the valve
and its actuating mechanism than at the sensor (which is another
fairly common cause of Code 31).
> So, I'm not sure what to do now? I am not too familiar
> with a voltmeter (guess this is a good time to learn), and
> am kinda in an emergency situation this week. I may just limp
> the car to a Ford dealer tomorrow but at least I have some info
> on what it could be, and any other list-info would be appreciated.
I'd bet that the EGR valve needs a good cleaning, or a perhaps a
replacement. If you're under 50K miles, that bit should still be
covered by the emissions warranty, so the cost to you should be
minimal if you go the dealer route. Other folks on here have reported
good success with simply pulling the valve and cleaning it up with
carb cleaner. I have no experience with this, so I can't comment. My
original untouched 100Kmile EGR and EVP setup is still going strong.
When mine inevitably dies, I intend to replace the valve and sensor as
a unit, purely as a preventive measure.
> Finally, could these issues be related?
I would tend to think not, but I have no experience with the AOD. Any
AOD hackers out there? The thermostat and EGR problems are likely to
be completely unrelated. Code 31/EGR problems are pretty common,
especially in cars in the colder climates where the moist exhaust
gases can condense out inside the valve when it cools, creating a
nasty water/carbon sludge.
Hope that helps. Let us know what you find.
04 Jan 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
> Has anybody put an oil pressure gauge that reads PSI on a stock 302.
> My '93 factory gauge has no numbers just a "normal" that spans nearly
> the full range (I'd like to keep the stock gauge). I need to know
> what 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and full range would be in PSI.
Unfortunately, you can't plan on getting much use from the stock guages.
They suffer from several problems:
1) As you noticed, no calibration marks (for the oil pressure, anyway)
2) Rampant inaccuracy. In cars up to '87 or so it's due to the el-cheapo
mechanical voltage regulator, on later cars the guages are magnetic, but
apparently are about as inaccurate as the old ones (don't remember why, skod
covered this sometime back). Attempting to calibrate the hash marks to actual
pressures would probably be an exercise in futility.
3) The guage movement is damped to the point of uselessness. It'll let
you know if your oil pressure has gone way down and stayed there for a while,
but not much else. Consider it to be an analog idiot light.
Replacing the stock guages with calibrated mechanical guages is the only way
I've seen to remedy the problem. skod did this with his '86, but the dash
layout is quite different from the '87+ cars. I'd like to have real working
guages in my '92, but haven't figured out a way yet short of adding a new
guage panel. I've seen such a panel on some late model cars that mounts to
the right of the dash pod and provides several nice, large mechanical guages,
but it's overkill for a street only car.
04 Jan 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Ok, I got the front control arm bushings done, using the propane torch
> method. Easy. Now I'm ready to do the rear (since the rear end is now
> out of the car anyway). My question is this: Skod speaks of installing
> just 6 of the 8 bushings in the rear, leaving the two rubber bushings
> in the top of the differential housing.
Actually, that's Brian Kelley's suggestion. I went with the police/taxi parts
instead of the urethanes, and I'm currently pulling them out to go with all
Heims and the torque arm. He has had good luck with running 6 urethanes and 2
stockers, though.
> Seems to me that the lower
> control arm bushings that attach to the torque box would create quite
> a bit of binding (mine are oval, apparently there are also round ones
> out there). From moving the entire assembly about without the springs
> installed, it looks like both the top bushings should be replaced and
> potentially replace the ones on the axle housing for the lower control
> arms. This might prevent much binding and still provide the compliance
> needed for the arms to move (with the existing oval rubber bushings in
> the lower control arms). What are the thoughts on this?
I wouldn't do that. Much of the sogginess in the rear suspension is from the
oval bushings. Those should be the first to go. Brian's suggestion was to keep
the two soft bushings in the axle center section ears (which are a bitch to
get out, in any case) and replace all the others with the urethanes. That
makes good sense to me, to be sure.
The round bushing lower arms were used in the P/T package, the SVO Mustangs,
and all of the older Foxes up until about 1984. They started using quad-shocks
partly as a band-aid to correct the fore and aft axle motion allowed by the
new, softer oval bushings.
Apparently the use of the soft bushings in the center section ears is
sufficient to keep the rear suspension's binding problems down to a reasonable
level. As long as it's a 4-link like that one, it will have some bind
somewhere. The goal is to minimize it, and the claim is that that has worked
well.
Whatever you do, don't keep the stock oval bushings in the lower arms. I
wouldn't go so far as to claim that they're the Antichrist or anything, but I
suspect that you would be very disappointed...
05 Jan 1994
[email protected]
On Jan 4, Andre Molyneux wrote:
> > Has anybody put an oil pressure gauge that reads PSI on a stock 302.
> > My '93 factory gauge has no numbers just a "normal" that spans nearly
> > the full range (I'd like to keep the stock gauge). I need to know
> > what 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and full range would be in PSI.
> >-- End of excerpt from Troy Wecker
>
> Unfortunately, you can't plan on getting much use from the stock guages.
> They suffer from several problems:
>
> 1) As you noticed, no calibration marks (for the oil
> pressure, anyway)
True, but solvable with a small investment of effort.
> 2) Rampant inaccuracy. In cars up to '87 or so it's due
> to the el-cheapo mechanical voltage regulator, on
> later cars the guages are magnetic, but apparently are
> about as inaccurate as the old ones...
This is the bigger problem. I've got Marty Udisches' spare magnetic
gage cluster, and I've spent a little time poking at it, and for the
life of me I haven't been able to figure out how they made them *so*
inaccurate!
> 3) The guage movement is damped to the point of uselessness.
> It'll let you know if your oil pressure has gone way down
> and stayed there for a while, but not much else. Consider
> it to be an analog idiot light.
Even bigger problem. It takes the better part of a minute to settle out, by
the look of it. By the time the gage fell enough to tell you that you'd
twisted off the oil pump drive shaft and didn't have any pressure anymore,
you'd long since be hearing the rattle. Or smelling it...
Anyway, if you want to "calibrate" your gage, you just need a hand pump that
goes up to about 80psi. I used a bicycle tire pump. Pull the gage sender from
the oil gallery, and make a Schrader valve to 1/8" NPT adapter. I used an old
valve stem, or actually two of them and a 1/8" NPT female tee, so that I could
use my nice accurate tire pressure gage as a second reference for the pump's
builtin gage. Am I anal about this, or what? Never mind, don't answer that...
The valve stems I just carved down to the approximate size and screwed them
right into the female pipe threads. Worked like a champ. Then, make a little
extension harness with some 16ga wire for the sender voltage and ground.
Key on, and pump up the pressure until you reach the first hash mark. Read the
real pressure from your reference gage(s), make a note, and keep pumping. In
10 minutes you can have numbers to go with the ticks. They may not _mean_
much, given the ballistics of the meter, but at least you'll have an idea.
Commit them to memory, and then you'll know that the second tick is 43psi or
whatever.
For amusement value, try then bleeding air off and reproducing the same
measurement at each tick mark on the way back down. I haven't tried this on
the magnetic gages, but if the readings agree within even 10psi I'll be
_astounded_. Repeatability will likely be a big problem.
The same general trick works with the temperature gage, a decent thermometer,
a hot plate, and some Wesson oil (you do want to know what 240degF really
looks like on your gages, don't you)?
If you do this, reinstall the senders in their ports with some Teflon pipe
thread tape, or better yet use the Permatex or Locktite liquid Teflon pipe
thread sealer. And while you're doing the calibration, take pains to make sure
that the ground connection through the sender body is good. The senders are
only about 10ohms at fullscale, so small resistive errors will multiply
quickly.
Well, there's some utterly useless trivia for anybody who's a gage loony like
me. I'd bet that no more than 2 or 3 folks will try it! But if you do, let me
know what you find out, especially on the magnetic gage cars (mid-'87 and
later).
06 Jan 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jan 6, Eddie Berin wrote:
> Since it appears that warped rotors are indeed the culprit (judging
> by the responses), I am totally shocked that Mustang brakes are
> that fragile; I mean, all it takes is one or two panic stops and
> the rotors are warped? And that shuddering; it truly is frightening
> when you don't realize why it's happening at 70+ MPH.
It's even more frightening when it happens under braking on a racetrack when
you're fully committed to a corner and suddenly the front end starts doing the
lambada or whatever. It gets your attention. What makes it worse is that you
may understand perfectly well what's going on, and that doesn't help- any more
than screaming "9.8 meters per sec per sec!" at the top of your lungs will
slow you down when you're falling off a tall building. But I digress.
The Ford OEM rotors are very definitely of variable quality. Your problem is
not uncommon, but it's not totally pervasive either. My experience has been
that some fraction of the rotors warp very easily with a single thermal shock,
some take a fair amount of abuse before they warp, and some actually never do.
I have one or two that I used from new to "way-too-thin" that never so much as
pulsed the pedal a bit.
It comes down to quality control. The rotor castings themselves are pretty
crummy. All it takes is an uneven pour, and the material will get stresses
locked in through uneven cooling from the molten state. he raw casting is then
machined true, but this is done when it's dead cold. The first time you really
heat it up, ping! It assumes the shape that it would have wanted to, if only
all that damned sand hadn't been in the way, back when it was cast. Other
things that can contribute are air bubbles, inclusions, and so on. The factory
castings exhibit all of these. Thermal shocks are a great killer of imperfect
rotors.
Some of the aftermarket replacement rotors have been demonstrated to be pretty
good at evading this problem. If your car is still under warranty, by all
means have the dealer fix it. That really is a "materials and workmanship"
defect, if it died after one semiserious stop. But for those of us who are out
of warranty, the replacements from Bendix (P/N #141398) and Raybestos (P/N
#6984) have done pretty well. I'll also be beating up some new castings from
Autospecialty that are actually poured right up the road in Oakland, just to
see how they are. All these replacements are about $60 each, which is no big
expense.
Chris Behier wrote:
> Now, brakes compared to the '94, here are my comments. My '92
> brakes really suck compared to the '94.
The one good thing that I can say about the inclusion of ABS on the '94
Mustang is that it has forced Ford to go a step further with the quality
control on its rotors. ABS allows even an untrained driver to really _use_ the
brakes. Most heavy braking incidents in a non-ABS car would have most drivers
locking up (which dissipates very little heat in the rotor, but a lot in the
contact patch). But with ABS, essentially _all_ the heat will get dumped into
the rotors. And people with ABS just _love_ to go out and romp on the pedal,
just to feel it pulse at them. Bad rotors would have a nasty, short warped
life.
So it is a major warranty exposure to use crummy rotors, and since they do not
have separate part numbers for the non-ABS cars, then everybody gets the good
rotors. We all win, in that case. At least all buyers of '94s do, as the
rotors are not applicable to our older cars.
So Chris- take your wife's car up Skyline, and down 9 back into the valley,
and do maybe 2 or 3 laps. Just in the name of science, mind you. And then come
back and tell us how they go!
07 Jan 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jan 7, Claude Chambellan wrote (in private email):
> Could you please confirm that these rotors will fit my '90 GT. I
> believe that you have an '86 GT and I know that there are some front
> end differences but I'm not sure about the brakes.
Thanks for reminding me about that, Claude. Not everyone on the list
knows how many bizarre incarnations my braking system has gone
through, so I probably caused some confusion by being imprecise.
The Bendix #141398 and Raybestos #6984 rotors are direct replacements
for all 5.0 Mustangs from 1987 through 1992 with the 11" 4-lug front
brakes. They will also fit T-birds and other Foxes from those years
with the 11" 4-lug setup. They do not fit the '93's, apparently- when
I had my parts-counter buddy pull one, the offset was different. I'm
still checking into that.
These numbers won't help you if you have an earlier car ('79-86), or
one of the later 4 or 6 cylinder cars with the 10 inch brakes. I used
to know those part numbers, but conveniently forgot them when I
upgraded my car to the '87-up front suspension and brake bits.
I have a copy of the '94 Raybestos Master Reference Guide coming to
me, after finally sleazing the Raybestos corporate marketing honchos
into believing that I really had a life-threatening need for it. So
Real Soon Now, I'll be able to confirm the 10" and SVO part numbers,
and see if there really is a difference for the '93s. Stay tuned.
07 Jan 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Speaking of the Fox. Can anyone post a breif history of the Fox
platform. Models, drivelines etc.
OK, this will be sketchy, and the engine list may not be accurate, but
maybe someone can fill in the details.
The Fairmont, a family car, was introduced in '77 or '78 as the first in
the Fox family. The Mercury Zephyr was a cosmetically-challenged clone.
Body styles included 2-door coupe, 4-door sedan, and a station wagon.
Available engines were the ever-popular 2.3 liter SOHC 4, a 3.3 liter
(200 CID?) inline 6, and the 302. A 255 CID V-8 was available for a
short time in '79-80 (?). I'm not sure about the transmissions
available, but you can bet there was no 5-speed. The Fairmont ceased
production in '82 or '83. I believe its spiritual successor is the
Taurus.
The Mustang III was the next body off the Fox platform, and the best
known. Its production run began in '79 and ended last year. Less
remembered is the Mercury Capri, whose production run ended in 1986.
Engines over the years have included the 2.3L SOHC (normally aspirated
and turbo'd), 2.8L V6 (the infamous Capri motor), 3.8L V6 (essentially a
302 with 2 cylinders chopped off), the 255 and 302. There may have been
an inline 6 in there somewhere. The Mustang SVO shared front suspension
parts with the Turbo T-bird.
The T-bird was a Fox platform car between '83 and '88. I don't remember
what engines came in this one beyond the turbo 2.3L and the 302. Much
of the driveline was shared with the Mustang, with the exception that
the rear axle was wider.
I'm pretty sure if the LTD II was a Fox car. This was essentially an
upmarket Fairmont 4-door. There may have been a Mercury clone version
as well. There was an LTD LX version with a 302 HO, automatic, and
sport suspension, which I remember as the student-hauler at the
Bondurant school circa 1984. Chances are good that the "police/taxi"
parts for the Mustang came from this version.
The Lincoln Mark VII was also based on the Fox; I don't remember the
model years. It also shared suspension bits with the T-bird. As far as
I know, it only came with the 302 and AOD trans. The LSC version
offered a 5.0L HO motor which is subtly different from Mustangs of the
same vintage.
The current Mustang (aka SN95) is actually a revised Fox with some minor
(but effective) suspension geometry changes and a stiffer chassis. The
Ford publicity mill is beating this one to death, so I'll stop here.
Were there others? I'm sure I missed some of the drivetrain options,
and the years may be wrong, but that's my take on Fox history.
07 Jan 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
It all depends what you like to do with the car. If low-speed
acceleration is your goal, change gear ratios, buy some sticky tires,
and work on the rear suspension. If you're autocrossing, make that the
front suspension. For road racing and/or open tracking, upgrade brakes,
shocks and struts, and maybe springs. Long haul trips, better seats and
stereo gear. Profiling, you'd want styling tweaks and paint. Daily
driving, well, maybe get another car to commute in. :-)
IMHO, though, the first place to spend money is stiffening the car. You
will be amazed at the difference, especially in daily driver use. Once
the suspension is doing the flexing instead of the body, then your
suspension upgrades can actually be felt. And the car will last longer
as a result. Weld-on subframe connectors are a must. Whether to add a
strut tower brace or a crossmember (aka "G-load") brace seems to be a
matter of personal taste; I like the Maier strut tower brace.
For most uses, the stock suspension is inadequate. For all uses, the
stock shocks are gone by 91K miles. But don't bother replacing them
until the bracing is in place, or the added stiffness in the suspension
might cause the body to flex even more. If you decide to go with
different springs, be sure to match the shocks to the springs. Note
that there are special-purpose drag racing shocks and struts for the
straight-line folks.
Brakes are another area where the stock car is extremely weak. Start by
upgrading the brake hoses to stainless steel and Teflon hoses; the
stockers are probably cracked by now anyway, and the new hoses will
dramatically improve pedal feel and response. Performance brake pads
are an easy swap. After that, I think the biggest gains are to be had
from a rear disc brake kit, so that's where I'm spending my next free
$600. I'll let you know how it goes. IMHO the aftermarket upgrade kits
from Saleen and Baer are way expensive and overkill for any but the
hardcore road racer, and even then the detail engineering is
questionable (specifically drilled rotors on a heavy car!).
All of the above is aimed at getting the rest of the car up to the motor
that's already in it. Again IMHO, I think motor hop-ups are overrated
for anyone but the drag-strip enthusiast. Certainly here and in many
other urban areas, you'll never be able to use the extra power on the
street. Worse, extra power does not come cheaply; the best
bang-for-buck I know of is nitrous oxide at ~$1000 for the complete
setup, and nitrous is best suited for the strip. And with any power
tweak, the initial purchase price is only the beginning; if all goes
well with the installation, and the motor doesn't get hurt, you'll have
to upgrade other parts of the car to handle the added power. Remember
that the T5 transmission is already marginal with a *stock* 5.0 motor.
Exhaust upgrades, on the other hand, are more a matter of taste. I have
not yet seen conclusive evidence that they substantially improve power
on an otherwise stock engine. But some people just like the rumble of
Flowmasters. Just be aware that the law will be able to hear your
throttle foot twitch...
Although you presumably intend spending money on the car, I'll recommend
that you set aside $1k or so for a professional driving school (e.g.
Bondurant, Skip Barber, Jim Russell, et al). Driving schools can teach
in a few days what it might take years to learn on your own, and the
opportunity to bend someone else's car shouldn't be missed. (Though
it's a frightening possibility, it doesn't actually happen very often.)
And unlike hop-up parts, the knowledge and experience will stay with you
as long as you drive.
Whew, this got more long-winded than I intended. Spend that money
wisely!
rec.autos.tech
Jim Crider, GEnie Automotive RoundTable Resident Engineer
Finally, the Fox platform.....
Debuted in '77 as the '78 Fairmont and Mercury Zephyr, which lived until '82
'79-'93 Mustang.
'80-'82 Thunderbird and Cougar (the unloved 'square box' versions)
'81-'82 Granada and Cougar (the 4-door and wagon versions - wagon rear
sheetmetal common to Fairmont)
'83-'88 Thunderbird and Cougar (the first 'aero' cars at Ford)
'83-'86 LTD and Marquis (small versions, 4-door and wagon - wagon rear
sheetmetal common to Fairmont -- Ford got a lot of mileage out of that
'84-'87 Continental
'85-'92 Lincoln Mark VII (first application of aero headlamps in US, first
modern air suspension, also used by '85-up Continental)
For '94, the Fox platform was significantly revised for use by the '94 Mustang
(suspension mounting points changed, structure significantly stiffened, engine
comparment widened). It's now called the Fox 4 platform....
Engines used in Fox-bodied cars:
2.3L OHC(carbureted, carb-turbo, EFI, EFI turbo, EFI turbo-intercooled, EFI
twin-plug) - just about everything
2.8L 60-degree V6 (from Europe) - some Fairmont/Zephyrs and some '79
Mustangs
3.3L I-6 (last gasp of the old 200 Sprint Six) - Fairmonts, Zephyrs, '79-
'83
Mustangs, Granadas, Cougars
3.8L V6 - '83-'86 Mustang, '83-'88 T-Bird, Cougar, also used in LTD/Marquis
255 cid V8 (but we'll just ignore this one....) ('80-'81 all models)
302 cid V8(5.0L), carb, carb HO, EFI, EFI HO, EFI HO Cobra - '78-'79, then
'82-on in Mustang, Mark VII (HO variants, Cobra version available in '93
Mustang), LTD/Marquis, Mark VII, Continental, T-Bird/Cougar (regular versions).
11 Jan 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Here's some output from my old Wingz spreadsheet for figuring ratios
and speeds. These are set up for the working diameter of my old
Yokohama A008RSs in 225/50-16. The diameter of your tires may differ,
so your speeds may differ by a few percent.
This will be fairly wide. For those of you with narrow mail windows,
I'll apologize in advance. I cut this down somewhat from the original,
which included the World Class T-5 ratios and 4.30 and 4.56 rear ends
as well. If anybody really wants this stuff, I can also mail you the
original spreadsheet in SYLK format, just send me private email.
--------------
Late Model Mustang gear ratios versus speeds
Tire dia. (in) 24.60
Overall normalized ratios. Multiply this value by engine speed in RPM
to get vehicle speed in MPH.
rear axle ratios --->
std. T-5 ratios 2.73 3.08 3.27 3.55 3.73 4.10
1st 3.35 8.00E-03 7.09E-03 6.68E-03 6.15E-03 5.86E-03 5.33E-03
2nd 1.93 1.39E-02 1.23E-02 1.16E-02 1.07E-02 1.02E-02 9.25E-03
3rd 1.29 2.08E-02 1.84E-02 1.73E-02 1.60E-02 1.52E-02 1.38E-02
4th 1.00 2.68E-02 2.38E-02 2.24E-02 2.06E-02 1.96E-02 1.78E-02
5th 0.68 3.94E-02 3.49E-02 3.29E-02 3.03E-02 2.89E-02 2.62E-02
Vehicle speed in MPH, at 5000 RPM
1st 3.35 40.01 35.46 33.40 30.77 29.28 26.64
2nd 1.93 69.45 61.56 57.98 53.41 50.83 46.24
3rd 1.29 103.91 92.10 86.75 79.90 76.05 69.19
4th 1.00 134.04 118.81 111.90 103.08 98.10 89.25
5th 0.68 197.11 174.72 164.56 151.58 144.27 131.25
rpm@55mph, 5th 1395.13 1573.99 1671.09 1814.18 1906.16 2095.24
rpm@65mph, 5th 1648.79 1860.17 1974.92 2144.03 2252.74 2476.20
11 Jan 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jan 11, Marc Fusco wrote:
> I am a little confused. I have an 89LX AOD and several days
> ago got yet another CE light signal. Tonight I performed the
> KOEO test and got Code 41.
> The Probst book indicates:
> Code 41, Condition R (Engine Running)
> --HEGO (HO2S) circuit indicates system lean (right HO2S)
> Code 41, Condition C (Continuous Memory)
> --No HEGO (HO2S) switch detected-always lean (right HO2S)
>
> My confusion (besides what the above means :-) is that there is nothing
> in the book indicated for the O-test (KOEO) - so I assume I shouldn't
> have even detected the code (?).
It set the code 41 while it was running, and turned on the CE light. You ran
KOEO, and got 11s for the "engine off" portion of the test, since it can't see
this symptom when it isn't running. You then got this 41 during the
"continuous codes" portion of the KOEO test, as it played out everything it
remembered that had happened while running since the last time the keep-alive
memory was cleared (or actually, the last 40 startup cycles, whichever came
first). Those are the second group of codes that it plays out during the KOEO
test.
Now you should run the KOER test, and see if the code 41 is still there. This
indicates a problem with the right bank oxygen sensor, which may be as simple
as an intermittent connection, or fried insulation on the harness.
What this code means is that during closed-loop operation, no matter what the
EEC-IV did to the injector pulse widths, it couldn't detect a switch from a
"lean" reading to a "rich" reading on the right bank oxygen sensor. So it will
light the light and set the code (which is its way of screaming "HELP!"), and
default to some error management strategy. I'd bet that for this case it is
simply to use the same injector period that the _left_ bank injectors use.
After all, the oxyen sensor for the other bank is working fine. So the car
will probably run perfectly well, since that's still sort of semi-closed-loop.
> The car seems to be running fine....is there really a problem?
> (please don't say the cats!)
> Should I perform the test with the engine running?
Absolutely. That's the next step. If you don't get a 41 during KOER, you'll
know that you have some type of an intermittent, probably in the harness or
connectors. I don't think that there's any way an oxygen sensor element can
die and then come back to life... If you get it, the problem might still be
the harness, or the sensor itself is gstrupfed. In any case, you're on your
way towards tracking it down.
27 Jan 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jan 27, Paul Rimmer wrote:
> I'm thinking of purchasing some of the manuals listed in the '93 mustang
> owners manual. Does anyone have any opinions on these documents. I was
> thinking of ordering the Wiring Diagram, Service Manual and DIY manual.
> Are the last two similar? Would I get the same info. by just ordering the
> service manual? Should I consider any of the others? They would be used
> just for information and interest until the warranty expires and then would
> be used when/if something goes wrong.
The Wiring Diagram and the Service Manual have that vast majority of the
information that you'll need. Unless you're just starting out working on the
car, the DIY manual will prove to be of little use to you. It is really pretty
minimal and superficial.
You'll find that the depth of understanding of the car and its systems that
you can acquire using those manuals will more than pay for them over the life
of the car. You've made a very good decision, one that I wish that I could
talk more of the other list members into making.
The only other one that I would recommend is the Emissions and Powertrain
Control manual. This lists the specific, detailed procedures to be used to
diagnose all the various error codes that might be returned by the EEC-IV.
It's a lot of money, but it's a lot of information- the '93 copy I have runs
about 1200 pages, if I recall, although included in there are disgnostic
routines for all the Ford 2wd vehicles. This one can follow on later, in a
year or two, since you probably will not be too interested in dipping into the
powertrain while the warranty's in force. But you definitely do want the shop
manula, if for no other reason than to see how the whole thing goes together.
I suspect that you'll make less use of the warranty than you think, and begin
doing more of your own work from very early in the ownership of the car.
01 Feb 1994
[email protected]
From Eric R. Nelson:
>I am in the market for a set of camber caster plates, and I would like to
>consult the list wisdom on which company's plates to purchase. Here's what
>I know so far:
>GLOBAL WEST: These plates are supposedly very beefy, and adjust for both
>camber and caster. They do not have bump stops or replacable bearings.
>CCM: Not adjustable for caster, but do have bump stops and replacable
>bearings.
>MAXIMUM MOTORSPORTS: I know nothing about these.
I can tell you about Maximum Motorsports CC plates from their sales brochere:
They carry a retail list price of $179.00 per pair. The plates feature the
following: street/race camber slots (not just drilled holes), slots for
caster, the greatest increase in suspension travel possible for lowered cars,
trick Energy Suspension Polyurethane bump stops, replaceable aerospace Teflon
lined spherical bearings (for a noise free application), TIG welded
construction, and independently adjustable caster and camber. These plates
are supposed to allow you greater control over caster and camber settings.
02 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 2, Bob Wise wrote:
> Global West:
> plusses:
> + very beefy
> + allow lots of adjustability (I run -2.5 deg camber, for instance)
> minuses
> - may need to be modified for strut tower brace clearance
> (I had to cut a corner off one of mine)
> - not very pretty
> - plates are very large
>
> Saleen
> plusses:
> + excellent workmanship
> + very nice looking
> + lots of clearance for strut tower braces
> + the plates are very compact
> minuses:
> - I would be concerned about this unit for heavy duty race application
> - Maximum negative camber I could get on Detlef's car was -1.25 deg
Central Coast Mustang
plusses:
+ used with spacers provided, allows maximum suspension travel
+ extremely useful bump rubbers
+ rebuildable spherical bearings
+ strongest of the lot
+ very compact, compatible with all strut tower braces
+ allows up to -2.5deg camber on '91-up cars
minuses:
- caster is fixed, results in about 3 degrees in the absence
other mods. Stock is 1.9-2.6.
I still like the CCM plates, because of the strength, simplicity, and
suspension travel. I have already killed one set of bump rubbers, although it
took 3 years. Without them, that would have been my strut towers taking those
shock loads, and I'd have a lot more cracks to chase. I get my caster in other
ways, by moving the K frame itself or the arms. 3 degrees of caster has been
enough to date, although I'm going for more this spring...
02 Feb 1994
Ed Welbon
On Wed, 2 Feb 1994 [email protected] wrote:
> I still like the CCM plates, because of the strength, simplicity, and
> suspension travel. I have already killed one set of bump rubbers,
> although it took 3 years. Without them, that would have been my strut
> towers taking those shock loads, and I'd have a lot more cracks to
> chase. I get my caster in other ways, by moving the K frame itself or
> the arms. 3 degrees of caster has bee enough to date, although I'm
> going for more this spring...
So when you moved your K frame, did you pull the engine? At the time the rod in
my SVO broke and the engine was out, I moved the member forward. It was bad
enough even with the engine out, I don't see how it could be done without
pulling the engine (especially slotting the hole near the upper spring cups..
03 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Christopher Bethel)
mustangs%[email protected]
Does anyone have experience with the Profile Ignition Pickup sensor? It's the
hall effect pickup located in the bottom of the distributor on EEC-IV engines.
I've been plaged with erratic ignition timing and misfires on my '84 SVO. The
computer has no error codes and no vacuum leaks can be found. I think I've
tracked the problem down to the PIP. I still have what is described as the
"early, and troublesome, PIP sensor with the black connector." Has anyone had
similar problems caused by this evil little sensor?
03 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
Bob Pitas writes:
>Does anyone know why nobody has found a way to put the T-bird SC IRS in a
>Mustang?
Heck, it was done some years ago by Kenny Brown. I believe others have
done it as well. It certainly is not inexpensive and it certainly
is not a shoe in.
Very few people are willing to put that kind of money into the rear of
their Mustang. Also, just because it is an "IRS" doesn't mean the
geometry is worth spending any time on. It doesn't mean the roll
center is stable, it doesn't mean the RC height will be optimum, it
doesn't mean the bushings aren't softer than Wonder bread, it doesn't
mean it won't seriously flex under racing loads, etc. It is just a
production piece and therefore most likely fraught with passenger car
compromises in every nook and cranny. I wouldn't touch it with a 10
foot pole. If I just *had* to have an IRS, I'd be much more inclined
to build one and do it right.
There are *excellent* solutions for the rear suspension available *right now*.
Toss the upper control arms and install either a 3 link or a torque arm
and a panhard.
03 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
mustangs%[email protected]
On Feb 3, 16:34, Steve Harrell wrote:
> I'm new the list and just purchased an '87GT-5speed-86kmiles. I'm curious what
> cheap/quick modifications can be made to improve overall performance.
> The car appears to be all stock right now. Any suggestions?
Welcome to the list, Steve. The usual suspects for Mustang mods are:
Remove the air intake silencer (big plastic doohickey that bears a passing
resemblance to a Jarvik artificial heart). Located inside the passenger side
front fender ahead of the wheel (opposite the air cleaner box).
Bump the timing up (stock is 10 degress BTDC) as far as you can without
getting detonation under heavy accelleration.
That's about all that's free. On the side of cheap:
Consider using a re-usable air filter element (like K&N). While not less
restrictive than a clean paper element, cleaning it often is cheaper than
replacing a paper element often.
One cheap thing NOT to do:
DON'T put in a thermostat lower than 180 degrees. The engine computer (Ford's
EEC-IV) runs in a "warm-up" mode as long as coolant temperature is below 180
degrees F. You are more likely to lose performance than gain with a lower
value thermostat.
Most anything else starts to cost real money. Decide what you want to do with
the car (street driven only, drag race, road race, autocross, etc.), and the
folks on this list will be more than happy to give you all sorts of
suggestions on what to do. Lot's of experience has been gained in making the
car handle better, brake better, and get more oomph out of the engine.
Everything's a tradeoff, however, so there's no magic combination that's right
for all.
The biggest money saver, of course, is to be willing to do the work
yourself...
04 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
> First, What year did the Capri get the bubble back hatch? (1983?)
That sounds about right. The 1984 cars certainly had the bubble,
and I don't think that was the first year.
> In terms of exterior panels, would anyone know what the differences
> are between a base Capri and a Capri RS? I know there is an front
> air dam (will this bolt to a base Capri?),
You might have to drill a few holes, but other than that I wouldn't
anticipate a problem. Don't forget to either get the fog-light bracket
or find some other way of reinforching the air damn. As far as I can
tell, the hood, fenders, etc. were the same on RS and non-RS cars. To
be "correct", a pre-84 or so RS probably should have one of those really
ugly platic boxes that's trying to look like a mutated hood scoop. I'd
skip this step and say historical accuracy be damned. It's butt-ugly.
> and I am not concerned
> about the side body moldings (with RS inserts). Is there any
> type of rear spoiler offered on the RS versus the base model?
I've seen a _few_ cars with a very minor spoiler that seemed to
be an extension of the trim at the lower end of the "bubble". Cars
before the bubble hatch had the same hatch/spoiler as Mustangs of
the same years.
I
> heard that there is a unique grill for the RS. I am thinking of
> converting a base to an RS.
I know the RS grill was typically black or grey while other Capris
had chromed plattic added. I think the grills were slightly
differently shaped as well.
I can sell you all of the necessary pieces off my RS. 'Course, you'd
have to buy the rest of the car as well ;-)
04 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 3, Derek Punch wrote:
> Eric Nelson wrote:
> >I have an 88 GT. When I started having difficulty with my fog light switch,
> >I figured I'd just take the foglights out of the front to save weight
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Been there, done that. That support bar serves another purpose: to
> keep the from spoiler (cow catcher) from being torn up by projectiles and
> just shear wind forces. I removed mine and something very small hit the cow
> catcher assembly one day and rip...the wind did the rest. $500 estimate to
> r&r. Don't do it unless you replace it with something to hold that piece
> rigid.
There are a lot of folks who've made that mistake. The lower edge sheds
vortices at speed, and develops a dynamic instability or flutter. That flutter
will tear the chin "splitter" right off within a day on the track, if it's not
reinforced.
The reinforcement that you add need not be massive at all. You have to make
the assembly more rigid, so that its natural frequency is above the
aerodynamic flutter frequency. On my '86, I used 4 small tabs of 1/8" x 1"
steel strip stock, and have had no problem. But the '86s had a much more well-
supported chin opening, unlike the long cantilevered splitter on the '87-up
cars. The best reinforcement I've seen for the later cars was a 1" square
aluminum tube supported at each end on brackets and fastened to the splitter
with a number of sheetmetal screws. It might have weighed one pound.
Of course, if you use the car as a street car and tend to hit curbs and such,
the splitter will be dead very soon with anything less than the stock steel
stamping.
That 10 pounds can make a difference- it's 10 of the cheapest and easiest
pounds you're gonna get out of the car, and it's a good place to start your
diet. But you do have to think it through to make the urethane nose cap live.
04 Feb 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
> Am I missing something? I've NEVER seen 17" 4 lugs.
The '93 Cobra has factory 17"-4 Lug wheels with Eagle 245ZR45's on them front
and back. I've ran mine fairly hard in turns with no rubbing anywhere
(verified no burnt smell and checked the inside/outside for rub marks).
Things "look" tight thought, that's why I checked. The offset could be
measured from one of these rims if needed. I can't remember the wheel width
but I have it somewhere. Mail me if needed.
Only rubbing I've done is with the lower front radiator air deflector. It once
had a smooth edge but now is serrated.
04 Feb 1994
Russ Hampsten
[email protected]
I know of several company's making 17" wheels for 4 lug mustangs (ROH, Saleen,
CSA, etc.). The problem with rubbing I think depends on the year of mustang.
Ford changed the front fender design in '91 when they came out with their
factory 16" 5-spokes. What they actually changed, I don't know and I can't
see a lot difference just by looking at them (anyone actually know what
changed??). 17" wheels place the widest part of the tire(section width) out
further from the center of the wheel which is closer to the fenders, etc.
Another consideration is if the car already has been lowered. That will
probably exaggerate the problem.
04 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Paul Bleimeyer)
[email protected]
Been there, Done that. A while back I was down south (Phoenix AZ) and
I chatted with Hal Baer of Baer racing, and he mentioned that the correct
offset should be 26mm. This will keep things correct for the ackerman and
other things. A really nice guy by the way. Give them a call. They are the
ones who make the 13inch 4wheel disk brake kits. The kits use ZR-1
crossdrilled rotors off of corvettes as the base for the kit. Pretty mean
looking when you use an open faced wheel. It always gets the tech people in
our scca group really excited. Anyways, RONAL makes a mid range priced rim in
17inch for 4 lug configuration. One rim that does rather well for this,
(although not 17 inch) is the rims off a 300zx. 5 lug, but pretty nice
looking, and the junk yards seem to be pretty relaxed about them when you
don't want them for a nissan 300zx. Strange how parts are cheaper sometimes
when they are not going back on the same car? Anyone else had that experience?
04 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 4, Troy Wecker wrote:
> The '93 Cobra has factory 17"-4 Lug wheels with Eagle 245ZR45's on
> them front and back... The offset could be measured from one of these
> rims if needed. I can't remember the wheel width but I have it
> somewhere. Mail me if needed.
Well, watch out on this. The '86-92 5.0 Mustangs all had 7" wide wheels,
whether 15" or 16" in diameter, with a .88" (22mm) offset. But the '93 Cobra
has unique wheels and front brake rotors, as well as a wider rear axle (due to
its use of the T-bird spec rear axle and brakes). Those wheels are 17" x
7.5", but more importantly the offset is 1.64" (41.6mm). The Cobra's front
rotors have 3/4" more offset built into them, and the rear axle shafts are
also 3/4" wider. The nice thing about running these unique front rotors is
that that let Ford run the same wheels front and rear, as opposed to having
staggered offsets like the SVO Mustang did, with its Lincoln Continental-
derived axle.
The '93 non-Cobra mustangs have the regular 5.0 wheel size and offset, just
like the earlier cars. But the parts for the Cobra are a bit unique. The '94
Mustangs have the larger offset as well, I'm told (I don't have the specs
yet). So the '93 Cobra can be thought of as a true transitional car, and you
guys who own them will have many years of fun in the parts stores trying to
make sure you get the right bits.
> Let's see, that'd reduce Ackermann, wouldn't it?
No, it actually increases it. Or perhaps I should more accurately say it
reduces the negative Ackerman that we're currently stuck with. It makes the
tie rods more nearly perpendicular to the steering arm at 0 steer, as opposed
to the highly obtuse angle that comes sotck. Even better would be to fabricate
some lower control arms with the ball joints 1/2" further forward, because
you'd get so much extra caster for free, and wouldn't have to crank the rack
so far aft. You could really just go the easy 1/4" you can go by milling that
much off the mounting ears, as opposed to having to commit urban renewal on
the K-frame with a torch.
04 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Bob Cisneros-Banzai Institute)
[email protected]
>On Feb 4, 12:07, "Richard A. Rybka" wrote:
> First, What year did the Capri get the bubble back hatch? (1983?)
Yes, 83 was the first year for the bubble hatch. Also, the tail lights
changed, as did the angle of the rear panel where the lamps mounted. Cars
prior to 83 had lenses that extended from each corner of the rear of the car
to the edge of the license plate. The later cars had a re-cessed area for the
plate, and the rear panel no covered by the lenses was painted flat black or
argent. Essentially, all of this was part of a one piece bumper cover.
> In terms of exterior panels, would anyone know what the differences
> are between a base Capri and a Capri RS? I know there is an front
> air dam (will this bolt to a base Capri?),
I believe that the air dam is part of a one piece front bumper cover, and was
limited to the 85-86 models. It's not clear whether or not you can graft the
air dam onto an earlier car without replacing the entire front cover.
Andre writes:
>a pre-84 or so RS probably should have one of those really
>ugly platic boxes that's trying to look like a mutated hood scoop. I'd
>skip this step and say historical accuracy be damned. It's butt-ugly.
One man's treasure is another man's "butt ugly". I'll leave it at that. 80-
82 cars had this scoop. 83 and 84 cars had a scoop very simular to the
Mustang unit except that it faced forward, with a little modification, one
could open the front grill to make it functional. The hood had an unusually
shaped opening under the scoop to permit air to pass into the engine
compartment. 85-86 RS cars had a flat hood with the standard grills that was
common to all Capris 79-86.
> heard that there is a unique grill for the RS. I am thinking of
> converting a base to an RS.
RS grills are shaped the same as the standard models, but don't have the
chrome accents. They, as well as the head light scoops/mouldings are painted
flat black.
08 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 3, Joseph Weinstein wrote:
> I really need my cars rear to stick coming out of slow corners. I'm trying
> stuff now, but how cheaply could I rig up a three-link (panhard would be
> necessary too)?
>
> Anyone who has seen Brians pictures knows what a well done three-link looks
> like, but is there a way to cobble one up without losing your rear seat?
>
> Could one of the current upper arms have its body pickup point moved outboard?
Baer Racing has been working on an externally installable 3-link/Panhard kit
for some time now. It was scheduled for introduction at the first of the year,
and I was very interested in it, but grew tired of waiting and went with the
torque arm instead. In their kit, the third link goes aft from a mount on the
right side axle tube to approximately the location of the fuel filter (which
has to be relocated). I haven't seen what they are planning to do for
reinforcement in there, since there's really not much that is actually
structural in the neighborhood. It'll have to be very tough, though, because
the forces are very high.
Some acquaintances of mine built a 3-link to put into a very excessively built
car (351W stroked to 414, Tremec, 9" axle), and were amazed by the deflections
they saw. With the front pickup for the third link located roughly where
Brian's was, and insufficient triangulation, they were deflecting the front
pickup point almost an inch fore and aft by just opening the throttle in
first. The front pickup was mounted midspan on a piece of .120 wall 1.25" DOM
tubing, and triangulated back to a potion of the rollcage by another piece of
the same stuff... Next time, there'll be a bit more beef in there.
In any case, the answer to your question is that Baer has the only commercial
solution I'm aware of, and that is assuming that it is in release yet. It
won't be cheap, as nothing they do ever is. But it should not preclude keeping
your rear seat. Otherwise, you're really faced with rolling your own.
14 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected], [email protected]
On Feb 14, Dale Maurice wrote:
> Due to my increasing paranoia, and desire to stiffen the chassis
> of my Mustang, I'm looking for a decent rollbar (minimum 4 point).
> I heard people say they do/don't like autopower bars, why? I haven't
> heard any real good reasons.
The rear reason that a lot of us don't care for the Autopower cages and bars
has to do with the way that the SCCA rules are written. The Autopower cages
for the Mustang were designed back when the car was intended for Showroom
Stock competition, and the rules for that class require bolt-in, bolt-together
cages specifically to *prevent* them from being used to stiffen the chassis.
Otherwise, the SCCA felt that people would build up full-tube-frame "safety
cages" in the classes that they wanted to keep the costs as low as possible
for. So they wrote the rules requiring lobotomized cages, and that's what the
manufacturers built.
So what you have is a very loose, sloppy fit, and one that is damned near
useless for materially stiffening the tub. There's nothing more depressing
than putting in a cage, and discovering that the bolt-together joints leave so
much slop that there is little stiffness benefit. Even if you weld it in, and
weld all the bolted joints, your left with a bar that clears most of the
inside surfaces by several inches, interferes with your seat back, and is
generally pretty compromised. Definitely get a chance to sit in a car equipped
with one before you lay out any cash. It's also depressing to put one in and
discover a 4" air gap between the top of the main hoop and the roof.
The 6-point bar that I designed and installed in mine is a full welded in,
custom fabricated unit. It cost me about $500 and a case of beer to get
installed, and it is very securely tied into the structure of the car. I'm
glad I did, and having it has certainly prolonged the life of the tub. And the
hoop fits flush against the headliner.
If you have unusual needs like your height (my main hoop is 8" aft of the B-
pillar specifically because of my height), _and_ if you want your bar to
really fit against the interior, you might seriously consider befriending the
guys at your local race shop and custom-building it. The costs can be about
the same as the prefab jobbies, but the results can be immeasurably better.
One other thing. There's little reason to put in belt mounting bosses or tabs
on the horizontal, since it turns out that just about the strongest possible
mounting for a belt is the wraparound style mount. A much more useful thing to
spend money on is a good, strong seatback support. The ones I designed for
mine use a telescoping mount that pip-pins in place on the horizontal (so the
seats can be quickly adjusted for Cindy and I), and wraps around the seat back
up at the headrest support reinforcement, which is just exactly my shoulder
level. Thus, the belts come off my shoulders and go down to the horizontal at
only about a 20deg angle to horizontal, which is a Good Thing.
The stock seats, and even most race seats, offer little real protection in the
case of a racetrack-style rear impact. So you need to do some serious
reinforcement there. Spend your money on that, if your'e contemplating taking
real risks in the car. In a rearward impact, without support, the seat back
can collapse and release you from your belts. Not good.
15 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
> What are opinions of Global Wests traction control device. It appears
> to be an effort to acomplish similiar things that the Griggs torque
> arm does, but less effectively (but not requiring a panhard bar or
> the removal of the upper arms).
>
> I haven't even seen one and haven't found many pluses about the device,
> and I am just wondering if I am overlooking something.
>-- End of excerpt from Calvin Sanders
I certainly haven't seen one, but I think this is the one skod mentioned after
his visit to an industry show. From his description, this thing sounds like a
prescription for massive bind in the rear suspension.
This "solution" adds an additional pivot point to the rear suspension without
removing any of the stock ones. In order for the axle to move, you now have
three sets of pivot points that must all move freely to prevent bind (lower
control arm mounts, upper control arm mounts, "traction control device"
mount). Since these aren't all parallel, equal-length links they won't all
agree as to which way the axle should be allowed to move. The (theoretical)
result would be binding, unless very compliant bushings were used (which
allows the pivot points to move around to prevent bind). Since most of us
want stiffer bushings to help control "slop" in the axle movement, I don't see
this as much of a plus.
I would guess that this device is an attempt to improve the rear suspension
without going to the expense of a torque arm (which is much larger, and
requires a panhard for lateral location) or a three-link (intrudes into the
passenger compartment and also needs a panhard). If someone gets one of these
things, I'd be curious to hear how well it works compared to just going to
stiffer bushings in the four-link.
Keep in mind that I'm no expert, and all my information has come from crawling
under a few cars and reading "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn. If I
ever decide to spend some real money on the rear suspension, the torque-
arm/panhard route still sounds like the best band-aid for the Mustang
suspension if you don't want to cut a hole in the tub. It _is_ expensive
however, and if someone else can prove that the "traction control device" is a
win, I'd be as happy as anyone. Based on skod's description, however, I don't
want to be the guinea pig.
17 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 17, Chuck Fry wrote:
> The good news for you is that you may be able to do the job without a
> spring compressor. If you take care, you can let the stock springs pop
> out...
> Yes, it is somewhat dangerous. I certainly wouldn't stand in the
> spring's potential path. And it's a good idea to chain the spring to
> the chassis so it can't fly very far.
I have done this myself, and know of one shop where this is the normal
technique. The spring comes out with a fair amount of force, and its path is
pretty unpredictable. The guys at the shop just let the control arm go into
full droop, and then use a prybar to gently guid the bottom of the spring off
the perch, and allow it to bounce free-which sends it about 8 feet. When I did
this last time, I wrapped a heavy chunk of carpet and a packing blanket around
it, and it didn't even leave the arm.It just went "whump" and set down against
the ball joint stud.
I'd still most strongly advocate using a compressor. If you rent one, amke
sure that it's not the "super heavy duty" type. These are too bulky to get
_out_ of the spring once it's back in the car, and may be too bulky to even
get in there in the first place. The hook arms and theyr center section have
to fit easily through the clearance hole in the control arm, and the super-
duty ones won't fit.
> How come nobody mentions loading the front of the
> car, to compress the springs, tying them up with mechanic's wire (LOTS)
> and then just jacking up the front of the car. Shouldn't that keep them
> safely compressed so that nobody gets their head sproinged off?
>
> My experiment with safety-wiring springs was unsuccessful. Charlie's
> Mustangs uses steel strapping, the kind you see on shipping crates.
> Even then I would use extreme caution.
*Very* extreme. When the arm's in full droop, the load on the spring is only
100-150lb. When the car's fully loaded at the nose, the load is more like
1200lb. That's certainly a _large_ difference in the stored energy. If you're
going to do the wiring thing, you want to store the absolute minimum energy,
as we'll talk about below. This means compressing the spring as little as
possible consistent with getting it to come off the spring seat on the arm at
max droop.
> Yeah, right... use a spring compressor instead. Or just leave 'em bound
> up. It won't hurt anything.
Unless you happen to knock one over and the wire breaks, or maybe the wire
slips out of symmetry- which will allow one side of the spring to expand, and
the spring to bow massively. In short, it's a hand grenade, in most shops. I'd
only use the wrapping techniques as an absolute last resort, and only for as
long as it takes to pull them out of a car and put them back in- so that the
wrapping can be cut with the spring restrained by the suspension. For outright
removal, the compressor is the best technique, followed by very careful
unloading as much as possible and then some sort of restrained release by
prying.
So that Snap-On compressor didn't work? I'm very surprised, since it is the
one Ford recommends...
17 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
I just spoke to my friend Rob in Brake Engineering here at Ford. He has
recently obtained a pair of the Baer Racing adjustable tie rod ends. These
are really neat pieces. They are very nicely machined aluminum with very high
quality teflon lined rod ends. They allow you to adjust the height of the tie
rod end in relation to the spindle steering arm. This will allow you to fine
tune the bump steer and to a much lesser extent, ackerman.
I shall compare the range of adjustment to the '90 to '93 production tie rod
ends (the "good" ones): These Baer pieces allow you to go .400" shorter and
.225" taller. They're $145/pair and will handle rotor and brake heat much
better than the production pieces. Rob says they also look really cool..
Bud Jasman has been running a non adjustable spacer of his own design between
the factory tie rod end and the spindle for many years. It would involve some
rather nasty machining and thread cutting to duplicate.
17 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Bob Cisneros-Banzai Institute)
[email protected]
Owen writes:
>Well this weekend is my first chance to get around to put the headers I got
>from Ken on my mustang. The question I have is how dificult is it to
>install headers? Anyone have any hints to make the job go easier?? I hear
>that I will have to jack up the passenger side of the motor to get the
>headers to slip down into place?!?!?! Any helpful hints will be greatly
>appreciated.
I don't know what brand you bought, but here are a few issues I found with Mac
unequal length headers on my 86 GT.
Passenger side didn't need jacking up, but was told by the salesguy that equal
length headers wouldn't fit due to interference with the engine mount
(convertible) on this side.
Not all of the individual flanges lined up with the bolt holes on the heads
(both sides), so it took a great deal of leveraging to get all of the bolts
insterted. leave all of them loose until each and every one is started. On
the driver's side, I needed to enlarge the last bolt hole (nearest the
firewall) to get the bolt to go in. Also make sure that the collector is
seated properly in the inlets to the H-pipe, but don't tighten the bolts until
the headers are bolted to the heads.
The Mac gaskets became hard and brittle after a week or so of running. I had a
few exhaust leaks (that last driver's side bolt), and had
23 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 23, Detlef Vischer wrote:
> Can some explain what an offset steering rack bushing is and what is
> is used for. Saleen's annual sidewalk sale advertises these as a must
> for lowered cars. They want $29.95 for them, is that a fair price or
> the usual Saleen premium.
These bushings replace the stock soft rubber rack mount bushings, and the
mounting hole is offset from the centerline of the bushing by about 3/4". This
allows you to null out some of the bump steer that is inherent in the
Mustang's factory geometry, and is useful for cars at any ride height. But the
effects of bumpsteer are certainly magnified by lowering the car, so the
Saleen folks are right about that (for once).
However, there's a big caveat emptor here. If they're that cheap, they are
probably urethane. Urethane offset bushings are not a good idea, for a reason
that may not be immediately obvious. Since the bushing is offset, it forms an
eccentric. As steering loads are applied to the rack, this eccentric can allow
the rack to shift laterally, which will cause a wandering steering center.
This probably won't prove to be much of a problem for normal street driving,
but for hard driving and especially track use with sticky tires, the center
will wander all over the place. Some folks might not mind it, but that sort of
behavior would drive me _nuts_. It is simply not possible to lock down the
soft urethane bushings tightly enough to prevent the rack from shifting under
track conditions.
On the other hand, Central Coast Mustangs has some very nicely manufactured
aluminum bushings that can be locked down and will not shift. In fact, I
drilled and tapped my rack mounting ears for some 3/8-24 dogtooth setscrews,
and used some Loctite, and *positively* locked the sucker down. And the price
is about the same as for the Saleen bushings.
If they're aluminum, this is a deal. If they're urethane, this is only a deal
if you drive fairly gently, or if you don't perceive steering centering. And
you _should_.
A very quick, grossly oversimplified word on bumpsteer, and why you don't want
it. Bumpsteer is cause by the control arm and the tie rod following differing
arcs as the suspension goes through its travel. In the case of the stock
Mustang setup, you can see that the tie rod lies at more of an angle to the
ground than the control arm.
Imagine the control arm moving up in response to a bump. The arm moves through
its arc, and the tie rod moves through its slightly more advanced arc. But the
angular difference between the two causes the tie rod end to actually cause
the wheel to toe in as the suspension goes through bump, and toe out as it
goes through droop, which changes the steering angle of the wheel and makes
the car respond exactly as if the steering wheel had been turned by a minute
amount.
If the suspension movement is caused by body roll, as in high speed cornering,
the inside wheel will actually change towards toe-out, and the inside wheel
goes into toe-in. If it's caused by dive, as in hard braking, both wheels go
towards toe in. This causes your steering inputs to be modulated by bumps, and
leads to a certain degree of nervousness on the part of the steering. In any
case, it is entirely undesirable, since as a driver you really want the car to
react the same way to steering inputs regardless of suspension position.
The offset bushings allow you to move the rack up about 3/4", which goes a
long way towards nulling out the angular difference with the control arm. If
you have a pre-'91 car, the outer tie rod ends can also be changed to the
post-'91 spec parts (F0ZZ-3D746-A), which lowers the outer end of the tie rod
by 1/8" and gets you a further reduction in the angular difference. These
changes produce a very noticeable difference in cornering feel, especially in
high-speed track situations.
But this kind of hackery is not a track-only thing at all. It is very
applicable to a street driven car where responsive and predictable handling is
the goal.
23 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Ed Welbon)
[email protected]
Oops, this bounced, elm doesn't understand pine aliases.
> Brian wrote:
> > Yup.. If you haven't already, I suggest (as I have a dozen times before)
> > that you go spend $13 and pick up a copy of Puhn's _How to Make your
> > Car Handle_. It is an excellent book and I can't see re-writing that
> > text on the list. It is worth it just for the discussion of weight
> > transfer.
>
I wrote:
> I have Puhn's book and have read it (a couple of times) and agree
> that it is worthwhile. However, IMHO, Puhn's writing style makes
> for difficult reading. Some things he defines crisply, some
> things he doesn't define at all. I found Puhn's discussions
> relating to kingpin to be about as clear as mud. On the other
> hand, his explaination for finding roll center is understandable
> (if marginal, YMMV). Generally, it seems that Puhn explains things
> by example, not by appealing to basic principles.
>
> I like Steve Smith's book "Race Car Suspensions" (is that the
> title?) a whole lot better. This book is kinda old also, it
> doesn't account for the fact that a lot of car hacks can program
> in c as well as well as they turn wrenches or tig weld.
>
> Assuming that a better book doesn't exist, it would be nice if
> some one posessing decent exposition AND engineering skills (like
> Skod, fer instance) were to write a book clearly explaining the
> concepts.
>
> Regards
P.S. Of course, I would love a book that goes into all of the minutia of
suspension computations, but that would not be necessary. A book that
contains crisp definitions, examples of current standard practices
(contrasting 300zx's with RX7's with Corvettes etc. would be neat) as well as
a few studies of no compromise suspension systems (like last years F1 or Indy
cars) would be most excellent. I am not aware of any book that is any where
near that. Puhn's book seems to me to be getting kindar long in the tooth.
P.P.S. How about if we create a real list of good books on suspensions and
sticck it in the FAQ?
24 Feb 1994
[email protected]
On Feb 24, Ed Welbon wrote:
> [re: Magnifluxing] You do this? Duh...
All kidding aside: yes, I do. I try and do the spindles once a season, and I
throw them away every 2 or 3 years. I used to just throw away the axle shafts
once a season, but the last couple of years I fluxed them and kept them
instead. I'll still be doing this even though I now have the tank-like 9"
axles shafts.
It should be noted that I've never yet found an incipient crack this way. But
the car does see a fairly staggering amount of track use, and over the last
few years I've been going a great deal faster. This increases the stresses by
a large amount, and also increases the penalty in the case of failure.
I'm moderately slipshod in some of the stuff that I do, and I let a lot of
things slide- like my paint. But I'm an *absolute* fanatic when it comes to
anything that holds the wheels on the car, or is critical to my control of it.
The powertrain could blow up tomorrow, and I'd be sad. No harm, no foul, tow
the car home, that motor had a good life. But if I write the car off because I
had a spindle break and that failure put me in the wall, it would be _my
fault_, and mine alone. I'm the only one who turns the wrenches that keep me
safe, as I go out and overstress the car by an order of magnitude or so.
These cars are amazingly strong. But a little bit of fanatacism is very much
in order, if your goal (like mine) is to throw the car at the tirewalls at
full throttle, and always miss...
24 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> Isn't the goal of changing the rack mounting position and tie rod end
-> ofset to have the tie rods parallel to the plane containing the lower
-> A arm ball joints and bushings (A-Frame Plane)? By my understanding,
-> the vehicle will have no bump steer if the tie rod remains parallel
-> to the A-Frame plane throughout the required suspension travel.
You will always have a small amount of bump steer if your tierod isn't in the
same plane as the lower ball joint. Most cars put the tierod slightly higher
than the joint. If your tierod and lower control arm lengths are exactly the
same, the wheel will tend to toe out on bump. If you draw it out you can see
you'd have zero bump steer if you had parallel A-arms, but with the top fixed
by the strut pivot the arc of the outer tierod end would need a slightly
greater radius if the wheel were to always point straight ahead.
What's really awful is when you beat your head against the wall to work out
the bump steer, then turn the wheels ten degrees or so and run the suspension
back through its travel. Uh-oh. More of those setup compromises again. Not
many people worry about bump steer while cornering, but if the car is twitchy
or darty on undulating turns you now have another possible reason why. And,
of course, you have the problem of figuring Ackermann in with bump steer when
you're turning. There isn't a whole lot in print about Ackermann yet, but
fortunately the steering arms of my Capri bolt on, so I'll be fabricating some
new ones on the mill and doing some experimentation this upcoming season.
The tires can soak up a lot of bump steer, but race rubber is much less
forgiving than street rubber. That's why you can set your car up where it
feels just great, but you put the race tires on it and the thing feels like a
Yugo on mud grips.
24 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>On Feb 24, Ed Welbon wrote:
>All kidding aside: yes, I do. I try and do the spindles once a season,
>and I throw them away every 2 or 3 years. I used to just throw away
>the axle shafts once a season, but the last couple of years I fluxed
>them and kept them instead. I'll still be doing this even though I now
>have the tank-like 9" axles shafts.
>It should be noted that I've never yet found an incipient crack this way.
I will agree that skod is not a fanatic by doing this. I had the axles and
spindles done about every 4-5 races on my old race car. I have posted my
experiences about Ford spindles on the classic Mustang list. Ford made
improvements in the machined shape of the spindles on the 1970 model Mustangs.
The earler ones would fail magnaflux often (sometimes brand new ones would).
While autocrossing my GT350 with the old style spindles I had one fail (no
damage the brake caliper held it on) and have since been very aware of
spindles and keeping them in good shape.
To anyone doing anything high performance with a Ford product built before 70
you should change it to the later style spindle, it is easy and bolts on using
your same rotors etc and is visually the same as the earlier spindles if you
show an old Mustang. Ask me if you want more details about upgrading an
earlier Ford spindle.
My point is that the current Mustang spindle design is a develoment of the 70
spindle. They are good and will probably not fail, BUT I would still check one
before sending my car out in the track at Charlotte. Had the Shelby's spindle
failed at Charlotte I would not have my precious GT350 today and I may not be
here. I now have the later design spindles on that car and run track events
with it (it will be at the Mustang 30th anniversary event there this year).
BTW Aircraft Spruce sells a kit for doing magnafluxing yourself or your
friendly local machine shop will gladly do it very inexpensively.
23 Apr 1994
John Allan Dempsey
[email protected]
> Why would using a larger bump stop cause you to lose available caster?
> If clearance to the strut tower hole was the problem, you could always
> cut a larger hole.
Some rules don't allow cutting a larger hole in the strut tower. (Solo II
Steet Prepared).
> In addition, Maximum Motorsports runs a Prepared Endurance car with
> the same setup (CC plates with poly bump stop) and have had
> no problems with the strut or bump stop coming up thru the top
> of the strut tower
Maximum Motorsports runs a E/SP (look above) 89 Coupe. I believe the rest
applies though.
> > No, they just understeer a lot because they're having to run too much
> > front spring rate, to keep the front end from crashing down on those
> > urethane hockey pucks. Hot-rod parts vendors will say *anything* to
> > make a sale!
One of the reasons they use the bump stops they do (according to MM), is to
maintain as much unmolested suspension travel as possible (unmolested as far
as other influences go- like the Koni bump stops, which are about 2 inches
long and increase the wheel rate as they are compressed). Using the urethane
bump stops gives them about 1.25 inches more suspension tra-vel than would
otherwise be possible with the Koni bump stops. So the urethane bump stops
are there to do just that- protect against metal to metal contact in EXTREME
circumstances. They set up the car for the ma-jority of combinations of bumps
and weight tranfer. And let the urethane protect them in the extreme
situations.
As far as the springs go, they use ST springs rated at 725 lb/in. in the front
I believe. Nothing too insane.
17 Feb 1994
Charles Copeland
> OK... I should have clarified myself... The headers are MAC equal length.
> I also have the MAC H-pipe that I will be installing with this also. Thanks
> for everyone's help...
I installed MAC equal length shorties on my notchback. There were no clearnce
problems, and I didn't have to jack the engine up. The passenger side looked
intimidating, but after removing the smog and intake tubing, it was easy.
The worst thing is getting the 2 bolt flange bolted back together. I did it by
myself and my MACS had loose bolts, not studs. Took a lot of ingenuity. With a
paper slip and fishing line I was able to hold the flange in place with one
hand. With the other hand I used my thumb to hold the bolt head still, and two
fingers to get the nut started on the bolt. Whew!!!
All the bolt holes aligned perfectly with the block, with only one tube being
slightly "not flush" with the head.
After installing, go back a week later and retighten the tubes to the block,
they loosen after the gasket seats.
18 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
> I have a few questions, and I suppose they have been beaten to death, but
hey I > guess I'm a new kid on the block:
Yes, these have all come up before. However, the FAQ (which is being
worked on) isn't ready to go yet, so here's a quick take on your questions:
> 1) Why did the HP go from 225 to 205 from '92 to '93 model years? I heard
> that there was a cam change, but what was the reason? I noticed that the '94
> model is at 215 hp with the 10 extra hp coming from the thunderbird intake.
> So,the basic engine must not have changed, right?
The change in advertised figures from 225 to 205 was the result of a change in
the ratings system Ford uses, not from a change in the engine. The old figure
was apparently obtained from a "best case" engine, while the later figure is
supposed to represent more of the "real world" average. From what dyno
experience a few of us have had, it appears that about 203-205 hp at the rear
wheels is the average for '87 and up Mustangs, so the later numbers from Ford
appear to be more accurate.
BTW, I think the cam change came in '90 or '91. The '92 and '93 have the same
cam. The cam change was made to quiet valve train noise, and there's been
some debate on whether or not it made any difference in engine output.
> 2) What was the resulting change in factory performance between the '92 and
> '93 models. (ie. 0-60, quarter)
Should be pretty much identical, in theory at least. The motors should be
identical, for all intents and purposes.
> 3) I plan on changing to Flowmaster mufflers (quiet ones, I understand there
> are two versions), and using a K&N filter. Is the Flowmaster a good choice?
Flowmasters have been pretty popular with members of this list, but are by no
means the only decent aftermarket muffler. The Flowmasters are available in 2
chamber or 3 chamber designs, the 2 chamber being louder. Some find the 2
chambers a little too loud.
> 4) Are there any major (or minor) changes which were made to the '93 model
> compared to the '91 or'92 models? Are parts generally compatible?
Aside from the "Cobra" models, the '92 and '93's are pretty much identical.
Didn't make much sense for Ford to spend money on the last year of the "old"
car. There was some mention here a while ago that the brake rotors may have
changed in '93, but I'm not sure (skod?).
18 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 17, Katherine L. Gendreau wrote:
> > After seeing postings on rec.autos.tech about Ford oil pressure gauges
> > I believe I found the reason that the oil pressure gauges in late
> > model Mustangs with 5.0's don't have numbers on the face. I
> > researched this and the 2.3L engine has an oil pressure switch not a
> > variable sender like in the 5.0L. The switch closes between 4.0 and
> > 7.5 psi, there is no variable resistance. The 2.3L circuit includes a
> > 20 ohm resistor so that the gauge needle goes to center and stays
> > there as long as the pressure is above 4 psi. From what I've seen the
> > gauge heads are the same so putting psi numbers on them would be
> > "false" in a 2.3L application.
>
> I'd expect that this would have a similar effect in reverse, that is, if you
> put a 5.0L sender on a 2.3L... After that, the gage was all
> over the map, often outside the normal range. I took it back in to the dealer
> and they checked it out and found the oil pressure to be normal (they actually
> tested it this time.) Of course, they weren't about to replace the sender
> again, and since they couldn't find anything else wrong, they gave me one of
> those "it's all in your mind" kind of speaches and sent me packing.
>
> I've always had a sneaking suspicion that it was the sender, I've just never
> bothered to replace it again. Any chance they may have put in the wrong unit?
My schematics for the '86s don't show any difference in senders between the
2.3 and the 5.0 cars. But just because it's not reflected in the schemati
doesn't mean that it wasn't actually done. I've been dealing with Ford end-
user documentation for long enough that I am no longer surprised when I
encounter minor errors or omissions.
The '93 shop manual does show the switch rather than the variable resistance
sender for the 2.3s, and the additional 20 Ohms in series. I assume that this
change was made during the '87 model year, at the time of the cutover for
magnetic gages.
Anyway, if we assume that the '86-era cars also did this, then we can also
figure that they used a different gage movement, and maybe even a different
circuit entirely (why power the gage from the IVR, if you _know_ it's never
gonna move?). So simply swapping in the sender from a 5.0 may not get good
results, and that might explain what you're seeing.
I though I'd seen everything wierd that Ford did with the '86 era gages, but
I've been wrong before! In any case, I have no ready solution for your gage
nightwierdies, other than to do some surgery and fix the IVR (and make sure
that the oil pressure gage gets its positive supply from there, and not from
the unregulated +12v. I'd really like some confirmation that the '86 2.3s used
a switch, though. I'll have to go home and go digging again to make sure.
18 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>Could someone tell me what the details are on using Turbo Coupe front
>arms on my 87 GT? I have a torque arm and thought the extra front track
>would help with some of the push, plus the added camber would be nice.
>Also, has anyone heard anything about some sort of bushing that relocates
>the arms forward? They were in one of the rags a month or two back, but
>they sounded kinda fishy.
The T-bird arms are about 3/4" longer. I forget which year arms to use This
adds to the track width and helps the suspension geometry in a positive way.
Even if you have the problem with the extra width of track it is worth it to
relocate the arm mounts and use the T-bird arms.
The bushings are Global West. They just slide the arms foreward (and inward
slightly) so it helps even then to have the T-bird arms.
>Oh, is anyone going to SAAC-19?
I am tentatively planning on going. I have a busy schedule planned with going
to the 30th anniversary at Charlotte and a track event before then. The SAAC
may get nudged out of the schedule, but I hope to go.
18 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 18, Detlef Vischer wrote:
> ... I looked around to find that the
> large nut holding the tube going into the A/C unit was totally loose, thus
> letting the freon escape. The reason I am miffed, is that
> it was just replenished during the engine replacement this past august.
I'd most certainly blame the dealer for not tightening the lines properly.
Those connectors should be very nearly vibration proof when properly torqued
down. When I removed my A/C this past summer, after many years of pretty
serious vibration testing, they required quite a bit of persuasion. I'd be
utterly unsurprised if the dealer wrenches just didn't remember to go back and
check those after hand-tightening them to hold the line in place. The backup
O-rings would have let the thing hold a charge, for a little while. If I were
you, I'd go check all the other fasteners in the engine accessory dress, just
in case something *else* slipped through the cracks.
> Maybe I should just disconnect the A/C unit altogether. Can I just remove
the > belt that drives it, or will that adversely affect the operation of the
beast?
Unfortunately, no. You have to replace the pump with an idler pulley, or
alternatively you need to swap the power steering pump brackets for those from
a non-A/C car. If you simply remove tere are 3 wiring harnesses either
attached to the evaporator case or hovering in space near it that we
disconnected.
[email protected]
24) Disconnected the blower wiring harness that was behind the passenger
side kick plate.
25) Pulled the dash forward about another 8 inches.
26) Disconnected the vacuum supply line to the shiny canister mounted on the
right side of the evap case. This controls the airflow to the floor, dash
panel, or defrost vents.
27) Disconnected the temp door cable (the manual says you need a special
tool, but it ain't so). Now is a good time to hit that cable with a shot of
WD-40 if it's stiffer than you would like. Worked wonders for mine.
28) Now working under the hood, disconnected the heater hoses. It is NOT
necessary to drain the system.
29) Using a piece of unused heater hose about 2ft long placed it over the
outlet nozzle on the heater core and blew into it. After about ten deep
breaths I discharged 95% of the coolant trapped inside out through the inlet
pipe. Stopped at ten because I was hyperventilating. Plugged both heater
core nozzles with a generous amount of paper towels. We spilled ZERO
coolant inside the by car doing this.
30) Still under the hood removed the 2 nuts that hold the Reciever/Drier
bracket in place.
31) Loosened the brackets grip around the R/D by removing the clamping screw
and dislodged the bracket from the firewall (pardon me, bulkhead). Slid the
...
32) Back inside the car removed the 2 brackets immediately above the evap
case. One bracket holds the evap case and the other used to hold the dash
by the bottom of the glove box opening.
33) Remove 2 of 4 screws that hold the top cover of the evap case down and
pulled the evap case forward. It probably didn't even come an inch.
34) Now it got unpleasant. The evap case can be opened with finger pressure
enough to see the heater core (now you know what you are up against). We
used 2 big screw drivers and pried like hell. Good thing there was 2 of us.
Pushing on the nozzles from under the hood got it started then out it came.
NOTE It was here that Andre pointed out that with a very simple redesign of
this plastic part this job could be downright painless. There are no parts
of the A/C system between the heater core and yourself at this point. The
only reason the A/C needs to be discharged is because the plastic evap case
cover has 2 screws that can't be reached from under the dash so Ford wants
you to move it back 6 inches or so to get at them, but they don't give you
the extra slack in the A/C lines. The case isn't gas tight so an alternate
fastening mechanism (like tab in slot) could also have been used to secure
the leading edge of the cover. A front door/cover like the non-A/C is
another option.
35) Compared old heater core with the new one and Oh-so-gently bent the new
core nozzles to align with the old.
36) This next step required a decision. We made about 2.5in verticle cut in
the evap case cover along it's right hand edge corner. This made it easier
to bend the front face of the cover out of the way when inserting the new
core. You might be able to get the new core in without this cut, but it
will make getting the core seated properly considerably more difficult.
37) Held the cover open and inserted the new core (simple right!) When the
cover was almost seated we stuck a 6 or 10 inch socket wrench extension
(3/8in drive type) from under the hood through the firew....bulkhead into
each core nozzle to help guide the whole thing into place.
38) Used an RTV/Roffing Tar like substance from an unmarked tube to seal up
the cut we made in the evap case.
NOTE. My old core had no flow restrictor and made no noises, but the new
core came with one so I installed it. Still no noise and the heater works
great. The restrictor can be removed from under the hood in a matter of
minutes if a problem arises.
39) Now roughly reversed steps 33 through 1 (heh heh heh). Topped off the
coolant overflow tank and let the system refill the heater core
automatically and we were done.
Finished up around 4:20pm. Feel free to e-mail me if you have questions.
22 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
mustangs%[email protected]
Following up on Dan's posting:
Following our little adventure on Saturday, I would say that replacing the
heater core yourself on A/C equipped cars _is_ worthwhile. Doing so saved
from $300(lowest priced reputable local shop) to $500(Ford dealer prices), and
wasn't really all that painful. It was pretty time-consuming (around 6
hours), but most of that was due to our unfamiliarity with taking the dash
apart.
This was on an '85 however, and it sounds like the dash on the '87+ cars isn't
quite so easy to get out of the way. One nice thing about not having A/C on
my current pony - when the heater core gives up the ghost (and you _know_ it
will, eventually), replacement will be relatively easy. I'll keep chanting
that mantra this summer when I'm boiling from lack of A/C ;-)
About the only disadvantages I can think of with the replacement method that
Dan described are:
Cutting the case - Didn't want to do it, but couldn't see any other way to get
the new core in place and not remove most if not all ov the skin from out
fingers. All we did was cut the lid, however, and it's pretty easy to seal.
Ford uses a cord with some type of semi-sticky insulation to seal around the
core, making sure all air goes through the core, rather than managing to
squeeze around the edges. It's not possible to put a new cord in place (we
didn't have one, anyway) using the method we did. However, some creative
thinking could probably come up with something else to do the job.
As Dan mentioned, if Ford had designed the evaporator case just a little
differently, this job would be _much_ easier. We spent over an hour getting
the old core out of the case and the new core in. Putting the lid on the side
of the case facing the passenger compartment, rather than on top, would allow
the job to be done without expecting you to move the evaporator case, which
means no need to even think about messing with the A/C. Hope they changed
this on the '94s (but I wouldn't count on it...)
Happy core changes!
23 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 23, Detlef Vischer wrote:
> Can some explain what an offset steering rack bushing is and what is
> is used for. Saleen's annual sidewalk sale advertises these as a must
> for lowered cars. They want $29.95 for them, is that a fair price or
> the usual Saleen premium.
These bushings replace the stock soft rubber rack mount bushings, and the
mounting hole is offset from the centerline of the bushing by about 3/4". This
allows you to null out some of the bump steer that is inherent in the
Mustang's factory geometry, and is useful for cars at any ride height. But the
effects of bumpsteer are certainly magnified by lowering the car, so the
Saleen folks are right about that (for once).
However, there's a big caveat emptor here. If they're that cheap, they are
probably urethane. Urethane offset bushings are not a good idea, for a reason
that may not be immediately obvious. Since the bushing is offset, it forms an
eccentric. As steering loads are applied to the rack, this eccentric can allow
the rack to shift laterally, which will cause a wandering steering center.
This probably won't prove to be much of a problem for normal street driving,
but for hard driving and especially track use with sticky tires, the center
will wander all over the place. Some folks might not mind it, but that sort of
behavior would drive me _nuts_. It is simply not possible to lock down the
soft urethane bushings tightly enough to prevent the rack from shifting under
track conditions.
On the other hand, Central Coast Mustangs has some very nicely manufactured
aluminum bushings that can be locked down and will not shift. In fact, I
drilled and tapped my rack mounting ears for some 3/8-24 dogtooth setscrews,
and used some Loctite, and *positively* locked the sucker down. And the price
is about the same as for the Saleen bushings.
If they're aluminum, this is a deal. If they're urethane, this is only a deal
if you drive fairly gently, or if you don't perceive steering centering. And
you _should_.
A very quick, grossly oversimplified word on bumpsteer, and why you don't want
it. Bumpsteer is cause by the control arm and the tie rod following differing
arcs as the suspension goes through its travel. In the case of the stock
Mustang setup, you can see that the tie rod lies at more of an angle to the
ground than the control arm.
Imagine the control arm moving up in response to a bump. The arm moves through
its arc, and the tie rod moves through its slightly more advanced arc. But the
angular difference between the two causes the tie rod end to actually cause
the wheel to toe in as the suspension goes through bump, and toe out as it
goes through droop, which changes the steering angle of the wheel and makes
the car respond exactly as if the steering wheel had been turned by a minute
amount.
If the suspension movement is caused by body roll, as in high speed cornering,
the inside wheel will actually change towards toe-out, and the inside wheel
goes into toe-in. If it's caused by dive, as in hard braking, both wheels go
towards toe in. This causes your steering inputs to be modulated by bumps, and
leads to a certain degree of nervousness on the part of the steering. In any
case, it is entirely undesirable, since as a driver you really want the car to
react the same way to steering inputs regardless of suspension position.
The offset bushings allow you to move the rack up about 3/4", which goes a
long way towards nulling out the angular difference with the control arm. If
you have a pre-'91 car, the outer tie rod ends can also be changed to the
post-'91 spec parts (F0ZZ-3D746-A), which lowers the outer end of the tie rod
by 1/8" and gets you a further reduction in the angular difference. These
changes produce a very noticeable difference in cornering feel, especially in
high-speed track situations.
But this kind of hackery is not a track-only thing at all. It is very
applicable to a street driven car where responsive and predictable handling is
the goal.
23 Feb 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 23, Brian Kelley wrote:
> I haven't priced the new tie rod ends, but I suspect they aren't
> cheap. I would instead opt for the Baer adjustable ends I
> described last week.
>
> I also did some digging and found that you can probably piece them
> together yourself from parts from Coleman or Stock Car Products (but
> it will be more hassle and it won't be much cheaper). The price
> I quickly figured was still around $100/pair. For me, the $45
> savings over the Baer price isn't worth the time it would take.
I got mine for $70 the pair, brand new. From your local yard, these parts
should be $30 the pair. And for a street car I'd have to recommend staying
with the Ford parts. They have rubber road scum boots, and are much more
amenable to the low/no-maintenance approach most street drivers take with
their suspensions than a naked rod end would be.
Now, having said that, and being the power track weenie that I am, I'll be
changing to the adjustable parts as well. This will be so that I can
painstakingly dial out that last few percent of bumpsteer. The adjustable ones
are also much, much more compact, and that conveys certain benefits that I'll
be needing presently.
Several folks have written me in private email asking if these parts are a
direct bolt-in. The answer is yes. There is absolutely no drama in using them.
You just swap them in and reset the steering centering and toe.
One other poster asked me if I was sure that this change happened in '91,
since the part number is a '90 part number. Good question! I just talked to my
truly-Gawdlike parts counter guy, and he informs me solemnly that this
happened at the very beginning of the '90 model year. He also informs me that
I screwed up royally on the part number that I posted. It is actually F0ZZ-
3A130-A, and _not_ the F0ZZ-3D746-A number that I had in my notes. Oops. Sorry
about that. So if you have any '90-up car, you already have these.
If you're digging around in a yard for these, and come across some that are
not attached to a car of known vintage, the casting number on the end itself
(not a Ford part number) is 7134HF12F.
I'm also trying to find out about paint spash codes for these. Hoepfully,
there will be some distinguishing paint mark that was applied to them on the
assembly line that we can identify, like on the Police/Taxi control arms. I
don't have it yet, though. Stay tuned.
24 Feb 1994
Ed Welbon
[email protected]
On Wed, 23 Feb 1994, Montgomery David wrote:
> This discussion of the '90-'91 and up or Baer tie rod ends and
> offset rack bushings leads me to ask if anyone can recommend what
> would be best for the SVO.
While I can think of a skazillion other ways to $150, the idea of yet another
adjustment to get out of whack is making my palms sweaty.
I lowered my SVO about 1.5" or so (CCM supplied the 850# [by my memory] eibach
springs, Dennis of CCM had said that the lowering would not be so severe).
Based on my reading of Masters Puhn and Smith, I attempted to correct for
bumpsteer with the CCM offset rack bushings and tie rod ends [Dennis was
pretty tight lipped about where the rod ends came from, they are likely to be
those that Skod described].
Based on my measurements (using Steve Smith's method outlined in "Advanced
Race Car Suspension Development" or somesuch) of both before and after [it
must be a mark of insanity to assemble and disassemble a suspension so many
times to measure such a tiny parameter], there was an improvement [less steer
change from forward for a given suspension deflection]. It feesl better on
the highway, less darty/more stable on Austin (AKA Pot Hole Capitol of USA)
roads.
OK, a question:
Isn't the goal of changing the rack mounting position and tie rod end ofset to
have the tie rods parallel to the plane containing the lower A arm ball joints
and bushings (A-Frame Plane)? By my understanding, the vehicle will have no
bump steer if the tie rod remains parallel to the A-Frame plane throughout the
required suspension travel.
As I recall, the tie rod joint at the rack is not in line with the center-
lines of the A-Frame bushings. Also, distance between the rack joint and the
tie rod end is also not the same as the distance between the control arm
bushings and the ball joint. (gosh, a picture would be most excellent at this
point, but arcs in ascii are such a pain.) This means that the tie rod is NOT
going to remain truly parallel to A-Frame plane through most of the expected
suspension deflection.
So the real question: is it true that the best one can do is to set the tie-
rod parallel to A-Frame plane at the typical ride position (more or less) and
then simply accept the remaining bump steer as unavoidable?
> The question remains will the new GT tie rod ends work on the SVO
> (and offer the same advantage if they are indeed different). And
> should I run offset rack bushings in addition to any tie rod end
> change.
If my understanding is correct, it depends on how much you have lowered the
vehicle. You may have to enter the ranks of the insufferably deranged
[assemble the suspension without springs] and actually measure the steer
change with respect to suspension deflection. [My kingdom for a Hunter D-111
in the garage (I can see the other spousal unit's face now)]
An article in Super Ford (maybe in this case, Super Fraud) claimed that you
could easily over-correct bump steer, but it I think it depends very much on
how deep into the weeds you lower it. Heck, I think you would have to *raise*
the car two inches (hot dang, gumbo mudder time 8) to get the tie rods
parallel without the ofset rack bushings and tie-rod ends.
24 Feb 1994
[email protected]
> > This discussion of the '90-'91 and up or Baer tie rod ends and
> > offset rack bushings leads me to ask if anyone can recommend what
> > would be best for the SVO.
As Ed points out, the SVO has a potload of bumpsteer also. But, due to the
fact that it sues and entirely different set of control arms, spindles, K-
frame, rack, and so on, the correct solution for it will be _different_ than
for the run-of-the-mill late model.
So what else is new? The correct solution also depends on ride height,
tolerance stackup, and a lot of other things. There is no out-of-the-box bolt-
on optimum. That's half the fun!
In any case, from what I've seen of the SVO suspension, the CCM bushings and
dropped ends are a good thing. It's good to hear from Ed, who's made the
measurements and done the work, that it was a win. I was hoping that someone
had!
> Based on my measurements (using Steve Smith's method outlined in "Advanced
> Race Car Suspension Development" or somesuch) of both before and after [it
> must be a mark of insanity to assemble and disassemble a suspension so
> many times to measure such a tiny parameter], there was an improvement
> [less steer change from forward for a given suspension deflection].
The easiest way to do this (as you know real well by now!) is just to pull the
springs, and reassemble the thing without the spring so that you can exercise
it throughout its range. A great time to do this is just after you get the
spindles back from their pre-season trip to be Magnifluxed.
On second thought, you're right. It _is_ a mark of insanity... (;-)
> Isn't the goal of changing the rack mounting position and tie rod end
> ofset to have the tie rods parallel to the plane containing the lower A
> arm ball joints and bushings (A-Frame Plane)? By my understanding, the
> vehicle will have no bump steer if the tie rod remains parallel to the
> A-Frame plane throughout the required suspension travel.
This is where my gross oversimplification comes back to bite me. The parallel
setup is only "correct" if the control arm length and the tie rod length are
identical, and the balljoint/tie rodend axis and the inner bushing/rack end
axis are identical and parallel. If one of these is shorter than the other,
you'll have a trapezoid instaed of a parallelogram, and any you'll create some
offset as the trapezoid flexes due to suspension motion.
Fact is, that this ideal situation _never_ happens. Especially on a strut car.
Even if it did, you'd screw it up the minute you turned the steering wheel! So
getting the arm and tie rod parallel is the *starting point*. Then you want to
diverge from parallel by a tiny amount so that the errors from differing arc
length is minimized. This can be done computationally, but it's one heckuva
lot easier to do it empirically...
> So the real question: is it true that the best one can do is to set the
> tie-rod parallel to A-Frame plane at the typical ride position (more or
> less) and then simply accept the remaining bump steer as unavoidable?
You can never null it out entirely, but the adjustable ends allow you to but
the static setup right into the local minimum of the bumpsteer curve. Some
amount of it is inevitable, due to the compromises built into the suspension,
but you can certainly adjust it to ne negligible over some portion of the
suspension's range- like the first inch of each bump and droop.
> If my understanding is correct, it depends on how much you have lowered
> the vehicle. You may have to enter the ranks of the insufferably deranged
> [assemble the suspension without springs] and actually measure the steer
> change with respect to suspension deflection. [My kingdom for a Hunter
> D-111 in the garage (I can see the other spousal unit's face now)]
When in doubt, measure it. But there's about 10deg divergence between arm and
tie rod in _all_ the Foxes, and it gets much worse with lowering, so it would
be difficult to be far off the mark...
24 Feb 1994
Dan Malek
> I am planning on finally fixing some suspension woes.........
> The question remains will the new GT tie rod ends work on the SVO
> (and offer the same advantage if they are indeed different). And
> should I run offset rack bushings in addition to any tie rod end
> change.
>
> Any thoughts on this subject will be appreciated.
The SVO tie rods ends are a unique animal. I don't know how they compare to
the LSC. From the factory, the SVO is about 1" lower than other Mustangs of
the same era, and the spindles are further apart. Because of this, the SVO tie
rod ends are longer and offset compared to other Mustang parts. I know you
can't use "regular" Mustang tie rod ends on the SVO, they are too short. I
have not tried, but I would suspect that the SVO ends won't fit non-SVO
Mustangs because you could not thread them on to the tie rod far enough.
To further complicate things, who knows the answer to this: are the tie rods
on the Turbo Coupe (or any T-bird), the same length as the Mustang? If so,
there might be some magic in using T-Bird tie rod ends, since they would have
to be different than the Mustang.
24 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Alan Kennedy)
[email protected] (mustangs)
Hey all,
As some of you know, this weekend I did alot of add ons to my car, GT40 heads,
Cobra Intake, and Mac 1 5/8 inch long tube headers. These are Macs "true fit"
full lengths headers. The guys at Mac said that it only took them 6 minute on
each header to put them in once everything is out of the way. It took me about
4 hours. I ended up jacking up one side of the motor. They told me the problem
here was that I had the big starter on my car. Some newer mustang came with a
smaller starter. My car is a '91.
Anyway for the problem I am having. I found a clearence problem with the
headers and Steering shaft knuckles (I think thats what they call them) its
were the shaft connects to the steering mechanism.
I talked to the guys at Mac (very nice guys by the way) they told me that I
had a bad motor mount and that this is why the steering shaft and header are
touching.
Could the motor mount already be bad? The car only has 38,000 miles on it.
24 Feb 1994
[email protected]
On Feb 24, Dan Malek wrote:
> The SVO tie rods ends are a unique animal. I don't know how they
> compare to the LSC. From the factory, the SVO is about 1" lower than
> other Mustangs of the same era, and the spindles are further apart.
> Because of this, the SVO tie rod ends are longer and offset compared
> to other Mustang parts. I know you can't use "regular" Mustang tie
> rod ends on the SVO, they are too short. I have not tried, but I would
> suspect that the SVO ends won't fit non-SVO Mustangs because you could
> not thread them on to the tie rod far enough.
Right. I forgot about the tie rod length issue, and should have thought it
through further. Attempting to use the Mustang-spec tie rod end on an SVO
would leave you a bit short in the engaged-thread-length department. But I'm
told that it _may_ work, depending on production tolerances. Whether it's a
win or a lose on stud length is a different matter, and I don't have the
answer to that. In any case, theo ffset bushings are still a win.
But here's an interesting bit of trivia. The '84-86 SVO tie rod end, and the
'87-88 T-bird Turbo Coupe tie rod end are identical. The part number is E2SZ-
3A130-A. To make the SVO, they basically stole all the '82 Lincoln Continental
bits (rack, arms, tie rods, ends, spindles), grafted them onto a unique K-
frame, and used 'em as-is. But to make the first T-bird Turbo Coupes, they
used the Mustang rack and spindles as-is, designed longer arms to get the
track they wanted, and resurrected the long Lincoln tie rod ends to make
everything meet up. So the T-bird racks are interchangeable with Mustang
racks, at least up to '89 (which is when I stopped paying attention- now you
know when the last time was that I blew up a rack!).
> To further complicate things, who knows the answer to this: are the
> tie rods on the Turbo Coupe (or any T-bird), the same length as the
> Mustang? If so, there might be some magic in using T-Bird tie rod
> ends, since they would have to be different than the Mustang.
After the '88 model year, they changed to yet *another* tie rod end for the T-
birds. The number is E9SZ-3A130-B. I haven't ever looked at one in person, but
I believe that they will be longer, just like the SVO/Lincoln rod ends were. I
suspect that the late T-bird racks are _not_ unique, but that's just a
conjecture. The interesting thing would be to find a good-natured parts
counter guy, pull one of each of the tie-rod ends, and make some measurements.
Especially with an eye towards stud length, which is what we're really
interested in...
The LSC is a different story. I suspect that it used the '82 Lincoln parts
right up through the downsizing in '91. It certainly did for the spindles,
anyway.
Ford has done some funky, funky things with their tie rod ends over the years.
Must be cheap to tool them up! For example, the '85, 86, 87-88, and 89
Mustangs used 4 different ends. Wonder why?
Wonder why my _head hurts_, come to think of it. Fox trivia, what an amusing
hobby. Beats the hell out of stamp collecting...
24 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Bradford Peterson)
[email protected]
I got a measurement on the length of the svo arms. The arms were off of the
car and were measured by a reliable source. he came up with 14" from ball
joint center to pivot center. I have some t-bird arms I'll measure and let
everyone know what I come up with.
25 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Chris Herzog writes:
>Yeah, I'm laughing my ass off right now... I just had my stock heads redone
>with $$ that could have gone towards GT-40 heads.
>I'm really torqued because I waited for the '94 GCR before I started what I
>thought would be a maxed out motor and now I'm hundreds of $$ behind
>the curve again!
I guess you should have went for the Neon ;-) Seriously, it is pretty
unbelievable.
>Makes you wonder, this went from rumor to fact very quickly. I thought
>all of this was going to settle down now that the 2 year period was over?
I don't think things have settled yet. See below..
>In regards to Cobra advance words, we can only hope that the change to
>mandatory carbs pissed on their parade as well as making the Cobra's
>change down to 16" wheels (will the Cobra-R brakes fit under the 16"?
>There's been some reference they may not!)
I just spoke with a friend who developed the Cobra R brakes here at Ford.
They wanted to be sure they could run a 16" wheel so they could run in AS, so
they had BBS develop one. The 16x8 from BBS will only cost you $500/each.
The BBS contact for these wheels is John Slagle. These are basically a 300ZX
wheel with an 11mm spacer. I am told that it should be much less expensive to
just make up your own spacer and get the ZX wheels.
>The kicker is that FI is no longer allowed (as well as no allowance
>for World Challenge cars)!
Having seen how you can cut a stock intake in half, port it, weld it, grind it
and paint it, I like this move. It will make the field more level and avoid
the MAF/TB wars. Did you know you can bore the walls right out of a MAF and
slide a Coors beer can in place of the walls and paint the whole thing to look
just like stock?
25 Feb 1994
Russ Hampsten
[email protected]
In the articles I have seen it shows the x brace that is identical to the
braces used on the convertables (I think you can buy this from SVO). As far
as the other braces the body is built with a convertable floor plan structure
(I assume for higher strength) and has the other usual bolt on braces. I
don't remember if it has subframe connectors or not.
Russ
I have not seen a Cobra R yet. If anyone has, or knows about the chassis
braces added to one I'd be interested in hearing deatils about them. There is
an X brace of some sort that goes from somewhere under the floor to the center
of the K member then out to the spoiler I think. There is also a brace under
the fender from the firewall up to the strut area. I'm interested in any info
in these.
26 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
The Cobra R also features a reinforcement that is riveted along the entire
length of the rocker panel seam, more or less. I haven't looked at one in
quite some time, so it may not be production (I saw it on a prototype).
28 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
Howdy,
I plan on upgrading the front calipers on my '92 Mustang to the LSC calipers.
I just want to be sure that I get the correct calipers. I assume that the
calipers listed for mid- or late-eighties LSC's are the correct ones, yes? I
want to be sure that I grab the correct ones at APC this week (assuming
they're in stock).
I already have the LSC/SVO master cylinder in the car (along with the SSB rear
discs). This past weekend I found that I am unable to lock up the brakes with
this combination. The pedal is very firm, making it tough to modulate. I
tried several stops from 30-40mph, pressing as hard as I could on the pedal,
but could not get a tire to lock. Kind of an odd-way to get anti-lock
brakes...
I'm assuming this will change once I get the calipers that are matched to my
master cylinder.
28 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
>From what I have heard, the Cobra R specific calipers, spindles (which
are stock '94) and hubs aren't available yet. You should write the
SCCA and ask them to allow the 'vette caliper as a less expensive
substitute (The Cobra R version features ribbing that makes it 15%
stiffer, but at the expense of caliper/wheel clearance, not to mention
availability. They are the same otherwise).
SVO is expected to come out with a kit at a *Much* better price than people
are currently paying for the 'vette setup. The brake guy I know is bugging
his SVO contact, but he doesn't seem to be in a big hurry to make the parts
available. I'll remind him of the AS issue and see if they'll raise the
priority.
28 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Calvin writes:
>I talked to the people at Diversified, They have the brake rotors and the
>hubs abd a few other small parts. They don't have the spindles, struts,
>or any of the major parts we'd be interested in. The only way to get
>any of them now is to buy a Cobra R (they have one for sale).
You won't need the struts.
>They said that it will be at least until the Indy Pace Cars are produced
>before there are any more of these things. It will also be very expensive
>to change over to the brakes.
The Motorsport kit will be fairly cheap. Walsh says nobody will
be _able_ to come close to the prices SVO will set.
>They have said that the Bear Racing setup
>would be a much more sensible option, but that would make too much sense
>for SCCA.
Well, they're good folks, but they don't race, so I don't think they know what
they're talking about. The '93 and earlier spindles are quite flexible. This
flex is generally not a problem unless you run big sticky tires (255-50) _and_
the 'vette brake setup. Actually, it can be a problem with the stock brakes
because the flex causes caliper piston knockback.
Unless things have changed, the Baer setup uses a machined and welded '93
circa spindle. The 'vette caliper is held by a forged cradle that is quite
expensive ($300/pair or so, as I recall). As the spindle flexes, the rotor
comes into contact with the cradle and tends to wear through it. The solution?
Replace the bracket when it gets worn. Too costly and kludgey for me!
>They also assured me that the R brakes would not fit 16" wheels except
>for the BBS special wheel (which may not be available anymore). He said
>that you will see the ads for Cobra R parts when they become available.
That is one more reason why the SCCA should allow the more available 'vette
caliper. You can run more reasonably priced wheels, possibly the 16x8's you
currently have.
I wonder if the Duralights will clear? I'll ask my friend who developed the
brakes what the required radial clearance is. Also, as I previously
mentioned, the 300ZX wheel with a 11mm spacer is supposed to fit for a whole
lot less money. For that matter, you might be able to get Simmons or
Jongbloed wheels for less than the BBS'. Hmm, a Mustang sitting on $2000
worth of wheels. Hopefully the car theives won't know what the wheels are
worth. Still, would you park your open trailer at a hotel without chaining
the wheels? I guess locking the car *down* will prevent the wheels from being
removed.
28 Feb 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>Now that it seems us Mustang guys can update to the Cobra-R stuff, is there
>any availibility of FoMoCo part #'s for things like the bracing or spindles??
I talked to the people at Diversified, They have the brake rotors and the hubs
abd a few other small parts. They don't have the spindles, struts, or any of
the major parts we'd be interested in. The only way to get any of them now is
to buy a Cobra R (they have one for sale).
They said that it will be at least until the Indy Pace Cars are produced
before there are any more of these things. It will also be very expensive to
change over to the brakes. They have said that the Bear Racing setup would be
a much more sensible option, but that would make too much sense for SCCA.
They also assured me that the R brakes would not fit 16" wheels except for the
BBS special wheel (which may not be available anymore). He said that you will
see the ads for Cobra R parts when they become available.
01 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 28, Andre Molyneux wrote:
[questions about the T-bird Turbo rear disk setup]
> Have you been able to get someone to turn the rotors?
>
> If you answered "yes" above, did the rotors seem to be ok
> after they'd been turned?
I have never turned a set of rear rotors. The only reason I have ever had for
turning rotors is to correct warpage and runout problems. The guy at the shop
wasn't far from wrong when he told you that the T-bird rotors would be very
difficult to cut on a standard brake lathe. The easiest way to do it would be
to do them with one of the on-the-car rotor grinding setups, but I don't even
know of anyone around here who has one.
All that turning a rear rotor (or, for that matter, _any_ rotor that isn't
warped) does is make money for the shop, and reduce the life of the rotor. I
got several years and many, many track days out of mine without turning them.
If you have a squeak, the aftermarket pad silencer goops do a decent job of
quieting them, as Doug Quara already pointed out. I have used the CRC stuff
with decent success, although it stinks like mad when you set it on fire
during a track event.
If the rotors are far gone, Doug at Cal Brake has good non-directional
replacements for about $60 each.
While I'm thinking of it: I have one set of Andy Porterfield's handmade
prototype carbon kevlar pads for the T-bird Turbo setup left over in my spares
inventory. Since I'm now running the Continental/SVO rear discs, I don't need
them any more. I paid $130 for the axle set last season, and they are brand-
new in box. These are good pads for track play. Best offer over $100 takes
them.
01 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 28, Andre Molyneux wrote:
> I plan on upgrading the front calipers on my '92 Mustang to the
> LSC calipers. I just want to be sure that I get the correct
> calipers. I assume that the calipers listed for mid- or late-
> eighties LSC's are the correct ones, yes? I want to be sure that
> I grab the correct ones at APC this week (assuming they're in stock).
Sure- or '82-87 Continental, or 84-86 SVO Mustang. They're all the same. The
Wagner numbers you'll want are 4157 and 4158 (same for Raybestos, BTW).
For those who are interested in utter brake trivia, these calipers are shared
with the 81-91 Colony Park/Country Squire wagons, Crown Vic police cars, Mark
VII/LSCs, Grand Marquis/Broughams, '82-90 Towncar, and '81-82 LTDs. This is
why they always have 'em- there are a bazillion of those tanks out there that
_need_ them...
> I already have the LSC/SVO master cylinder in the car (along with
> the SSB rear discs). This past weekend I found that I am unable
> to lock up the brakes with this combination. The pedal is very
> firm, making it tough to modulate. I tried several stops from
> 30-40mph, pressing as hard as I could on the pedal, but could not
> get a tire to lock. Kind of an odd-way to get anti-lock brakes...
>
> I'm assuming this will change once I get the calipers that are
> matched to my master cylinder.
Absolutely. You'll have to be very careful for the first day or two. You'll
find the pedal effort to be very similar to the stock feel, so you'll probably
lock 'em up out of muscle memory a time or three...
01 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
On Mar 1, 11:02, Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware wrote:
> Subject: Re: Turning rear discs
> If you have a squeak, the aftermarket pad silencer goops do a decent
> job of quieting them, as Doug Quara already pointed out. I have used
> the CRC stuff with decent success, although it stinks like mad when
> you set it on fire during a track event.
I had been a little wary of using anti-squeak compound as I envisioned nasty
little episodes like you mention above.
While I'm thinking about it, when I pulled the calipers off I noticed
something a little odd. On the drive's side, the caliper slid off/on the
rotor with no problem. On the passenger side, the pads were gripping the
rotor and took a little work to get off/on. Could the mechanism that prevents
the pads from backing off (to assist the parking brake) have gone a notch too
far? I don't yet have the necessary tool to allow the piston to back off, so
I couldn't follow it up. I wonder if this might be part of the problem.
> If the rotors are far gone, Doug at Cal Brake has good non-directional
> replacements for about $60 each.
I still can't believe that Ford only made left-hand rotors. But they did.
> While I'm thinking of it: I have one set of Andy Porterfield's
> handmade prototype carbon kevlar pads for the T-bird Turbo setup left
> over in my spares inventory. Since I'm now running the Continental/SVO
> rear discs, I don't need them any more. I paid $130 for the axle set
> last season, and they are brand-new in box. These are good pads for
> track play. Best offer over $100 takes them.
>-- End of excerpt from Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware
Wait a sec - I thought *I* got your last set of the handmade pads. How many
last sets you got? 8-)
02 Mar 1994
"Michael Q. Frnka"
[email protected]
Here's a more complete narative version of my suspension upgrades.
I spent two seperate weekends accomplishing my modifications. I had received
everything I needed except the set of Eibach springs by weekend number one.
Weekend One:
I couldn't just sit around while my garage was full of new performance parts
so I decided to install the 6 konis (which I purchased from Ken Corpus), the
strut tower and g-load braces (from Dugan Racing), and the CCM camber plates
(from HiPo Engineering). I had previously installed the sway and end-link
bushings (more on this later).
First I put on the g-load brace. A fairly easy job once you figure out the
proper orientation. This brace only required four bolts through holes that
already exist in the frame.
Next came the rear shocks and quads. No problems here either. Good thing I
recently bought a new set of metric sockets :-). I jacked up the rear and
removed the tires and wheels. The quads are a simple "take off the old, put
on the new." It does take a little strength to compress the shocks while you
try to thread the bolt back in the lower hole, but no biggie. The top of the
rear shocks are accessed through the holes in the trim panels in the hatch. I
had to use a crescent wrench to hold onto the flats of the small shaft as I
turned the nut, because the vise-grips kept slipping. It was sort of a tight
fit to get the 15mm wrench and the crescent down into the trim panel, but with
a little patience I broke the nuts loose without scratching up my interior.
The bottom mounting bolt was simple to remove. After transfering in the 4 new
Koni parts, tightening all associated bolts, and putting the wheels back on,
my arms were tired and shaking enough to take a lunch break. All of this must
have taken about 1 to 1 1/2 hours.
Next, front suspension. With the car jacked up, I removed the tires and
wheels. Removed the brake calipers, and placed a jack under the lower a-arm
for support. I removed the two bolts holding that hold the strut to the
spindle. I did this with a 13/16 (I think that's the right size, its the
large spark plug socket) socket and a large crescent wrench to hold the nut.
You need a good size cheater bar (I think these bolts are torqued to 200 ft.
lbs.) At this point, the jack is keeping the coil spring compressed. Removed
the three 18mm nuts holding that maintain alignment settings and removed the
strut from the wheelwell. The CCM plates took me a little while to figure
out. None of the original strut parts are needed on the new plates. They
have on integral bearing which takes the place of the stock strut bushings (I
get to return my unopened urethane strut bushings) and other hardware. The
Dugan strut tower brace is very similar to the Mier(sp?) Racing unit that Skod
recommended and fits under the CCM plates. I attached a koni strut to the
strut using the required cheater bar and fit the top of the strut throught the
CCM plate. The plates are very adjustable, but as Skod pointed out to me, the
idea is to get the top of the strut as far inward as possible. I buttoned up
the first driver's side and repeated this process on the passenger's side. It
probably took about 3 hours to do both sides.
My springs arrived the day after I put everything pack together.
Weekend Two:
On to the spring installation. The rear was more of a pain than I thought. I
had to undo all of the shock mountings from the rear axle. Still not enough
slack to lower the axle and remove the spring. After undoing the lower a-arm
bolt, I could pop out the old spring. The new spring was a little harder to
install. I had to have someone push down on the a-arm with all of his
strength while I slipped the new spring into place. I probably could have
done it myself except for the rubber isolaters that kept falling off when i
maneuvered the spring into position. I could have taped them onto the spring,
but a friend was close by and the extra muscle helped. Reattached the shocks,
a-arms, and wheels. Be sure to watch the flex brake line at the top of the
diff, very carefully. It can pulled really tight if you don't disconnect it.
The lower springs were about the same. Once again I had to remove the caliper
and strut. After running a chain through the a-arm and around the lower coils
of the spring (and padding with a moving pad, just in case), I slowly lowered
the jack supporting the a-arm and spring. For as much discussion as we had on
this subject, I was surprised at how uneventful it turned out to be. The arm
lowered all the way to the floor without any antics. I took a small crowbar
and pried on the spring from the side. I popped right out with a solid
sounding WHOMP. The rear edge of the spring was left resting on the front
edge of the mounting hole under zero tension. I couldn't have asked for a
simpler extraction method. The new springs were significantly shorter than
stock, but still required some convincing (my friend and I with two pry bars)
to seat in the lower arm. Once the arm was seated, a few pumps on the jack
handle got things started in the right direction. I jacked the arm up and
reinstalled the strut to hold everything in place. Reattach caliper and
wheel, repeat for other side.
Last I installed the steering rack bushings. A simple job except for cutting
down the original bushing shaft. I had to move the rack out of the way and
wiggle the shaft out of its mounting hole with a pair of angled-jawed pliers.
Then I could hack on it with a hacksaw. I drilled multiple holes in the old
rubber bushings until I could pry them out easily. Tapped the shafts and new
bushings into place and buttoned it all back up.
For those of you who are still reading, I've got a few questions. Who
designed the crazy sway bar mount bolts? That little plastic bar that holds
the top nuts shattered into 5 pieces and the bolts have an odd thread that is
impossible to redo. I had to go and buy four new bolts to use with the
original nuts. Does anyone see a problem with this? Have others experienced
the same thing?
What is the purpose of the fiberous material that hangs down on each side
around the sway bar and under the front bumper? Is this just for cosmetics or
some sort of air-flow control?
Again I'd like to thank everyone for their input and help.
02 Mar 1994
"Wilson, Jon, INET ----"
[email protected]
Since we all enjoy spending other peoples money :-), I thought I'd see if
anyone wanted to help. I am going to rebuild an 89 5.0 with 80K on it for a
friend. It's purpose is for an 81 Mustang track car. Most of Scott Griffith's
suspension suggestions have/will be implemented.
(Maybe if someone comes up with some good engine ideas we'll get Scott to
continue down the dirty path of engine modifications :-)
An 89 LX 5.0 is "donating" an engine, rear end with 3.55 and SVO disk brake
kit, wiring harness and anything else we need. It was totalled due to
passenger side damage.
The goal: More power :-), reasonable life expectancy, and drivable to/from
tracks. (150+ miles) No emissions testing here in Alabama.
The problem: $2000 engine budget.
The bright side: the heads are already ported/polished/assembled and not
included in the budget.
While being no stranger to building 302s (this is my 5th), this is my first
attempt into the fuel injection world. As anybody attempted to transplant fuel
injection to an non-injected Mustang?
The basic plan is a basic rebuild on the bottom end and sink the rest of the
cash in
E303 cam (Is anyone using an X303?)
new roller lifters
new pushrods
new roller rockers (really necessary? 1.60/1.72?...suggestions?)
75 mm Mass air / EGR
"Somebodies" upper (and maybe lower) intake ... suggestions?
24 lb injectors
155 lph fuel pump
MAC full length 1 5/8" headers (do they make an H-pipe?)
2 chamber Flowmasters
Ka-Ching! $2000 gone plus machine shop costs, I'm a contractor I can't
do anything under budget :-)
Questions:
Does anyone _really_ try to stick with FI for track cars? Seems the money
could be better spent elsewhere. (I guess I'm just an old-fashioned straight
line kind of guy :-)
This combination of parts shouldn't exceed the limits of the EEC-IV
adaptability, should it?
I understand that part throttle drivability suffers if you remove the EGR from
a FI system. Is there any way around this?
Do MAC full length headers have an O2 sensor fitting?
I would guess that some type of underdrive pulley setup would allow the
accessories to last longer at the track. Suggestions?
Is anyone exceptionally happy with their current clutch setup? I'm thinking
about a Centerforce.
Any suggestions of any type will be appreciated. Especially as to where to
find some of these items at decent prices. (Ken?)
I would LOVE to have anyone who spent dyno time after a rebuild send me some
suggestions!
02 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
Alan Kennedy reported some problems with his new engine mods. Here's some
feedback on his problem from a very reliable source.
If you have an EFI 'stang and are contemplating any mods, save this post for
future reference (since I'm a Holley kinda guy).
Brian
The driveability problem arises from the change in intake system, primarily.
I had similar problems with my setup (stock heads, mac 1 5/8 long tubes, B303
cam and GT40 intake). The best advice I gan give is to play with the hard
stop on the throttle plate and the tp sensor. Set the tp sensor to .7-.9
volts and set the hard stop on the throttle plate such that the car will
barley idle when the idle speed solenoid is disconnected. Remember that the
computer has to learn the settings, so be patient. This could take a Saturday
depending upon how many iterations you fiddle with. Let the computer learn
for about 5 minutes of idle and about 10-15 minutes of traffic before making
an evaluation on your new settings. (helpful hint - write down all of your
changes and base settings and you comments about improvements ... you are
playing with two variables, say good bye to linear thinking).
02 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> GT40 Heads, Cobra intake and Mac 1 5/8 inch full length headers. The
...
-> I have also added a 77mm Pro-M Mass air and a 65mm throttle body.
I seriously doubt the heads, intake, or headers are your problem. I'd swap
the old airflow sensor and throttle body back on and see what happens.
02 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
Jon Wilson writes:
>The problem: $2000 engine budget.
>
>The bright side: the heads are already ported/polished/assembled and
>not included in the budget.
You haven't mentioned what heads you are using, so I assume these started out
as factory 5.0 heads. You didn't mention increasing the valve size so I'll
assume you aren't going to be doing much above 6,000-6,300.
Without head flow data for these heads, it is going to be somewhat difficult
to do anything but "ballpark" the cam selection.
You mentioned a track motor. How much street driving is this car going to
see? Highway vs. in town? How many miles a day?
> E303 cam (Is anyone using an X303?)
The E303? It was designed for EFI and emissions compliance, which you state
is not a concern for you. It probably won't be the best choice.
> new roller lifters
Your heads probably won't flow enough to support much breathing above 6,000.
Therefore, I question how much advantage you would gain by running a hydraulic
roller. Consider a flat hydraulics or flat solid.
Consider getting your Hipo stuff from the pages from Circle Track and not the
places that advertise in the Mustang rags. You'll save money, get better
stuff and most likely less hype and BS.
> new pushrods
> new roller rockers (really necessary? 1.60/1.72?...suggestions?)
Since you will be installing a fairly high lift cam, you should definitely not
exceed a 1.60 rocker arm ratio. The 1.72 can be a good choice if you don't
intend to change the cam, however. Most performance cams are Not designed to
use 1.72 ratio arms and you'll tend to beat up the valve train more.
The cam and RPMs my engine run require some rather brutish valve springs.
Those valve springs require good roller rockers. I went with Crane's for
nearly $300. A set of the lower priced rollers would be a good idea since
you'll be spinning to 6,000. You should not have to spend more than $200.
> 75 mm Mass air / EGR
> "Somebodies" upper (and maybe lower) intake ... suggestions?
> 24 lb injectors
> 155 lph fuel pump
A 155 lph fuel pump is most likely overkill. The 110 lph models are fine for
300 HP and most likely more. This is somewhat of a moot point since I don't
recommend you run FI. I run a electric Mallory 140 gph pump in my car and it
works very well. It is not quiet, however.
You left out a throttle body in the above list, should you opt for FI.
> MAC full length 1 5/8" headers (do they make an H-pipe?)
Yup. Relocate and enlarge the crossover for some "free" gains.
>Does anyone _really_ try to stick with FI for track cars? Seems the
>money could be better spent elsewhere. (I guess I'm just an
>old-fashioned straight line kind of guy :-)
I feel very strongly that the money should be spent elsewhere. It isn't just
a money issue, it is a performance issue. If I bolt a set of nice heads on my
5.0 and a set of good headers, it won't do a whole lot because of the factory
intake. A good EFI intake setup will set you back a whole lot of money. A
Holley 600 or 650 double pumper will cost you $215 to $250 new and an intake
will cost you $115 to $200 new. You can correctly setup the Holley, but you
can't do much of anything with the EFI. Should you ever spring for some
really good heads and want to spin to 7,000, the EFI will really leave you out
in the cold.
Your choice of non-EFI intakes depends a lot on how much hood clearance you
have and how large the ports on your heads are. If the ports are too small
you would not really want to run any of the intakes with larger ports.
>This combination of parts shouldn't exceed the limits of the EEC-IV
>adaptability, should it?
The computer is not going to be very happy and there isn't a whole lot you can
do about it (while still keeping the factory EFI). This is one fairly good
reason not to do FI. You can't even turn off the emissions code in the EEC-IV
as an end user. That can only be done by changing the internal programming.
>I understand that part throttle drivability suffers if you remove
>the EGR from a FI system. Is there any way around this?
>
>Is anyone exceptionally happy with their current clutch setup? I'm
>thinking about a Centerforce.
I would not consider the Centerforce. Too much to go wrong. The SVO HD clutch
kit is a great bargain. You get the plate, clutch and bearing for around $140
or so. That should last you a good long while at the track. If you have
problems with that (and there's no reason you should), go to a RAM metallic.
02 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 1, I wrote an article about cross-reference part numbers for the 73mm
bore Lincoln front calipers, and suggested a pair of part numbers to look for
through most of the remanufacturer channels.
> Sure- or '82-87 Continental, or 84-86 SVO Mustang. They're all the
> same. The Wagner numbers you'll want are 4157 and 4158 (same for
> Raybestos, BTW).
Since that time, several folks have written back and pointed out that Auto
Parts Club and several of the other outlets out here also list another pair of
numbers for these calipers: 5241 and 5242.
The question was, what is the difference here, and which ones should you seek
out?
The answer is: any of them. This is another crossreference that I'd missed for
the exact same calipers. They use the same castings, and after the
remanufacturers are done with them, they come out with the same steel pistons.
They are for all intents and purposes identical.
The reason for the two pairs of part numbers stems back to the design change
when Ford switched over from using steel pistons to using phenolic pistons.
The 4157 and 4158 calipers are replacements for the newer phenolic-piston
applications, and the 5241 snd 5242 calipers are replacements for the older
steel-piston applications. But all the reman calipers use steel pistons (or
_should_, but check to be sure).
Those numbers work for Raybestos, Wagner, and Western. Hopefully, that'll help
clear up any confusion I caused.
02 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> The problem: $2000 engine budget.
You already have a complete motor and a set of ported heads, $2000 looks like
plenty of money.
-> new roller lifters
-> new pushrods
What's wrong with the old ones? As long as the lifters aren't bleeding down
from internal wear they'll last practically forever. Pushrods *will* last
forever, or near enough to make no difference.
-> new roller rockers (really necessary? 1.60/1.72?...suggestions?)
You already have roller rockers? Or you want to add some? If you go to
adjustable valvetrain you might as well go roller.
-> Ka-Ching! $2000 gone plus machine shop costs, I'm a contractor I
-> can't do anything under budget :-)
You're expecting to drop $1300 or more on piecing together an EFI, even
cannibalizing all the parts off the LX? And you don't have to meet any smog
tests?
Sometimes it's easy to come across wrong in ASCII, so I mean no offense - have
you really sat down and thought about what you're intending to build and what
you expect to get out of it? I don't know whether this is a road race or drag
machine (you said "track car") but you can get a whole lot more bang for the
buck for your $2000 by allocating your money differently, subject to any class
rules, of course.
02 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
For those of you who are still reading, I've got a few questions. Who
designed the crazy sway bar mount bolts? That little plastic bar that
holds the top nuts shattered into 5 pieces and the bolts have an odd
thread that is impossible to redo. I had to go and buy four new bolts to
use with the original nuts. Does anyone see a problem with this? Have
others experienced the same thing?
Yeah, mine broke when I replaced the original pivot bushings. Apparently the
plastic they use gets very brittle with exposure to heat.
I went down to the local hardware store and got the largest diameter Grade 8
bolts that fit the holes, got locknuts to match, and knocked the original nuts
out of the holes for good. It's a pain to take them down now, but since I put
zerk fittings in the bushings, I don't have to undo them any more.
What is the purpose of the fiberous material that hangs down on each side
around the sway bar and under the front bumper? Is this just for cosmetics or
some sort of air-flow control?
I'm assuming it's airflow control, to keep the slight vacuum behind the
radiator from bleeding off.
03 Mar 1994
"Chambellan, Claude"
Kenny Brown calculated 60% antisquat for stock configuration. I have not
confirmed it through any calcualtions though.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Dave Williams on Thu, Mar 3, 1994 3:08 AM
Subject: roll centers
mustangs%[email protected]
What are the front and rear roll center heights for the Fox Mustangs?
Is the rear at axle height, or does the four link put it somewhere else?
Typical CG height?
Antidive/antisquat percentages?
04 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Joseph Edward Huesmann)
mustangs%[email protected]
Hi all... gotta quick question for all of you who've done either the LSC
caliper upgrade or the SVO or SSB rear disc upgrade.
I had originally planned to do the LSC upgrade this Saturday, then the SSB
disc upgrade on Sunday, but I had some time Thursday afternoon and I did the
LSC upgrade then. I installed the master cylinder from the SSB kit and the
assorted plumbing. The outboard MC lock nut was pretty tough to get at-- I
had to go out and get a 9/16" box wrench cuz I didn't have one. Also, the
plumbing sure needed a lot of bending to get it to fit. Didn't expect that.
But it all came together. The calipers were really easy, just unbolt the
banjo fitting, pop the old caliper off and bolt the new one on, and refasten
the banjo (using a torque wrench). Then I bled the system. I kind of noticed
after I put the car back on the ground that the master cylinder seemed to be
kind of tilted back a bit, possibly something to do with my springs? Who
knows... The car seems pretty level. Anyway, I went for a spin and I found
out that the brakes sure took a lot of travel to apply, almost to the floor.
So I came home, unbolted the master cylinder (pain!) and backed off the
booster pushrod about 1-1/2 turns. Took it for another spin, was a little
better. I backed the pushrod to about 2 turns total and it's better, but
still not quite right. There's about 3/4" pedal travel before the brakes
start to bite.
My question is, I guess, did everyone else have to lengthen the pushrod when
you installed the SVO master cylinder? Am I going to be okay if I lengthen
the pushrod more than 2 turns? The brakes don't seem to be dragging-- I
jacked the wheels up and spun then, and they seemed to spin okay. Is this the
right way to check for dragging brakes?
I guess I have another question for those of you who have done the SSB upgrade
(not the Motorsport). The instructions mention than '87+ cars may need a kit
to defeat some kind of self-adjust mechanism at the parking brake handle. How
are you going to know this until you get the thing installed, and then get
stuck w/out a car until they send you the kit? Mine's an '89, so I'm a bit
worried about this. Am I just being paranoid?
Thanks in advance!
04 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
[email protected] (Scott Hung)
I just got my sub-frame connectors installed into my '87 this past Tuesday.
...
Anyways, the problem that's cropped up is that on the passenger's side are some
rubber tubing that need to get re-routed. Currently I've gotten 'em tie wrapped
to the subframe connector. Yeeks. Anyways, I'm guessing that the tubes are at
least brake cables and fuel lines. Its well-nigh past time to replace those
pliable rubber brake cables with SS types, so...
What are you talking about?! The handbrake cables are the only rubber-encased
stuff on that side of the car. The brake and fuel lines (two fuel lines --
one pressure feed, one return from the pressure regulator to the tank) are
hard steel lines.
Leave 'em tie-wrapped to the subframe connectors, and don't sweat it. The
handbrake on a Mustang doesn't do squat anyway (try slowing down from 60 MPH
using just the handbrake and you'll see what I mean).
07 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
My question is, I guess, did everyone else have to lengthen the pushrod when you
installed the SVO master cylinder? Am I going to be okay if I lengthen the
pushrod more than 2 turns? The brakes don't seem to be dragging-- I jacked
the wheels up and spun then, and they seemed to spin okay. Is this the right
way to check for dragging brakes?
I installed mine this past weekend. The instructions warn that you must have
at least 1" free play in the brake pedal, or the master cylinder will not
refill. I haven't yet adjusted the pushrod, but I have enough pedal travel
that I will probably do this tonight (along with bleeding the brakes again).
As for the parking brake return springs, I don't yet have an answer for that.
I'm just avoiding the use of the parking brake for now. You can tell if the
brakes are dragging either by jacking up the rear end and spinning the wheels
by hand, or by checking the brakes when you get out of the car for heat and
fried-brake-lining smell. The rear brakes should be substantially cooler than
the fronts. If neither of these symptoms appears, don't worry about it.
08 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>On Mar 7, 14:56, Chuck Fry wrote:
>> As for subframe connectors, Mustangs old-timers know I have been quite
>> happy with my Maier Racing connectors. Other folks like the Global West
>> pieces. Whichever brand you choose, consider SFCs a must if you're
>> doing a suspension upgrade.
>Yes, I agree, weld them on, UNLESS you plan to race your mustang in
>SCCA American Sedan, someday. I had to cut mine off of my car: what a
>pain in the butt.
In my conversations with Griggs and Steeda their AS cars are using SFC's
anyway. They are using models that are above the floor. They run the cars
with the carpet in and they say you can't see it under the carpet. They
say they are about as thick as the carpet insulation and with some
trimming the carpet is still almost flat.
I am not proposing cheating, but rest assured it is being done by them
and probably others.
>If think you might race it, then don't put them on. Maybe SCCA will
>relent on the connectors soon.
>IMSA doesn't allow them on showroom stock cars, either, I don't know
>about World Challenge rules.
WC rules don't allow then either (at least in the normal Mustangs class B?, I
think they use them on the Supercharged cars in the other class). Consider
building them into your roll cage. Mine are done that way. My chassis is
stiffer than SFC's woud make it, but it technically does not have SFC's.
08 Mar 1994
"evan (e.m.) hawrysh"
[email protected]
A few questions about SFCs:
I'm considering getting the "Slot Car" subframe connectors fabricated and
welded into my pony, since I figure the cost may be equal or even less than
buying ready-made and then getting them installed.
What sort of prep-work needs to be done before the actual welding occurs? (ex.
Do I need to remove the interior carpetting so it doesn't burn?) i.e. short of
the fabbing and welding, I should be able to do the rest of the work.
Has anyone fabbed the Slot Car SFCs?
Since the front and rear subframes are not directly in-line with each other
(as I recall, the distance between left and right front subframes is greater
than the distance between L and R rear subframes), are the SFCs mounted at an
angle?
This is what I mean here, although greatly exaggerated: (X - SFC)
front SF rear SF
--------X
X
X
X ------------
X ------------
X
X
--------X
Any other tips/pointers I can pass on to the welder?
08 Mar 1994
[email protected] (DIRK BROER)
[email protected]
Some background:
In december I install Global West's SFC and side bars with plenty of advice
from the list (thanks again).
First, I needed them in a hurry so:
SFC ~ $100
side bars ~ $50
Air Mail ~ $50
Basically the SFC's connected from the bar that connects the front sub
frame to the rocker panel to the large member that 1) connects the rear
subframe to the rocker panel and acts as support for the lower link of the
rear suspension. So basically it went the entire length of the floor board
. It followed next to (not below) the front sub frame to the rear subrame.
It followed on the outside. It was basically welded in 3 places - first
at both ends (and gusseted at the rear) and lastly near the trailing endge
of the front subframe. The side rails were welded approximately every 8
inches to the lower edge of the rocker panel and then attached to the SFC's
by three steel rods - evenly space between the forward and rear subframe to
rocker panel members. Confussed yet? Looking under the car it would look
something like this:
FRONT
Frame frame
| |
======|| ||======
|| |||| |||| || - Weld
|| |||| |||| ||
|| |||| |||| ||
|| |||| |||| || - Weld
|| || || ||
|| || || ||
|| ||<- SFC-> || ||
|| || || ||
|| || || || - slight upward bend in SFC for better weld
|| |||| |||| || - Weld & gusset
======|| ||======
The Global West SFC's went in with out any modifications.
If your asking about prep work...
The interior can stay in - all welding is done on frame members and the amount
of heat (at least with a mig welder) the transfers to the interior is minimal.
1st trial fit the SFC's mark which surfaces are to be welded. The SFC's can
be mocked up before the side bars are mocked up. In fact the side bars can be
added much later - but while your paying the welder.... 2) All paint,
undercoating should be remove for areas at least 1" away from the welds - on
both the car and the SFC. Light grinding in the areas can also be helpful -
welding on galvanized steel is not easy. You'll also notice that on the
passanger side you will be welding very close to the brake line and the fuel
line. I suppose you can drain these and then weld but I removed the rivets
and moved them out of the way. Later I attached them to the SFC weakening
the SFC by .00001%.
To do the welding we found a very flat floor and placed the car on jack
stands. The front jackstands were on the tab that holds the SFC to the front
frame. This was like having a real good clamp on the front. On the back the
jack stands were on the rear subframe. The jack stands were positioned in
such a way that the distance from the rear lower most corner of the door
openings were exactly the same height off the ground. This ment the car was
as level as the floor (at least in the back). Identical measurements were
made and verified at the front part of the door opening. The reasoning behind
all this was on a modern uni-body car the strongest points of the frame (ie.
the least likely to move around due to collisions / bumps in the road etc)
were at the point the rocker panels meet the subframes. This position puts
the engine weight in front of the front jack stands. We (my welder / bodyman
and I ) thought this was best since it put some pre load on the chassis. The
end result was that each door closed approximately 1cm to high (maybe less -
can't remember for sure). So basically we had a nice even bow through the car
chassis. After welding we verified that the doors close absolutly perfect.
Rust proofing was done using Sikkens metal primer - this stuff actually
soaks into the metal! A light coat of paint. Followed by under coating.
The difference is night and day! Unfortunately now I can really feel the
back "mush" around in corners...
One last thing to consider... the FOX chassis is basically folded sheet metal.
Thicker in some places, thinner in others. The SFC will be the strongest
member in the car! Personally I suspect that the preloading on the chassis
was a waste of time because the sheet metal would distort the moment any real
load was put on it. Global west recommends driving the car up on ramps front
and rear. Some people on the list suggest that the stock springs would be
uneven and therefor perhaps put I twist in the car. I suspect the moment I
put the car off the jackstands I put a new twist in the car...
Bottom line - I'm absolutly estatic about my improved 'stang. I'm down to
one slight rattle/squeak in the interior - and only on real cold days.
Any draw backs? Well the body many suggest that If I got into an accident
they would not be able to straighten the frame if the SFC where also bent. But
I suspect if I wack it that hard...
PS - I posted this to the list so that others could review and comment
I paid $170 for the installation but the amount of labor could easily have
added up to $300 ( I'm a picky SOB). I remember $200 being the common charge.
09 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
I have finally sat down and done a little plotting and thinking about the
Global West Traction Separator. I think I understand what is does and I wanted
to get others opinions if any.
The device does a decent job of adding traction on straight line acceleration
and deceleration. It seems to do so without adding any significant binding
(there are pluses and minuses that I see and they are approximately equal). At
that point I consider this a gain.
I am most concerned with cornering. They claim that the device allows free
movement on body roll. It does except for side-side deflection of the rear
axle. When the axle deflects to also steers the rear end (I get roll
over/understeer confused so I will not bother saying which it gets). As he
axle deflects and steers this device will be trying to steer the axle the
other way. There are going to be some major loads on this device. It may be
removing some of the bind from the bushings, but my guess is that the added
binding in the device will be more than is saved in the control arm bushings.
If you add a bump in the middle of a turn it gets really bothersome.
My overall opinion is that for a car that is driven on the road and sometimes
autocrossed or run on track events, this device is an improvement over stock
setup. It shod be cost compared to a torque arm and panhard bar. It costs less
and is less complicated than many other options. I might would consider this
setup for my street car. It is the only option if the uper rear arms must stay
in place and workin as designed.
I am working on the best setup for my race car rear suspension and I have
decided that this is not a setup worth considering for my application. I think
there is something better. I have yet to see anythig available with exactly
what I want in a rear suspension design, so I may make what I need myself. If
it works I'll let you know.
09 Mar 1994
Russ Hampsten
[email protected]
In my mail to Alan Kennedy I talked about the Cobra MAF upgrade. Here are my
thoughts more detailed...
For owners of Speed Density cars that are considering upgrading their
performance it is almost manditory to change to Mass air flow metering of the
air instead of speed density.
There is a kit being sold that includes the Cobra computer, 24lb injectors and
a 70mm MAF. This kit goes for about $450. For another $50 or so you can get
a MAF wiring harness (which I think is just 4 wires, 2 for the MAF and the
other for regulated power and gnd, you could make your own for much less).
The only other piece you need is the stock MAF air hose (junkyard item). So
for about $500 you can upgrade you speed density system to a high performance
MAF system which is about the cost of the SVO MAF upgrade which contains 60mm
MAF, airhose, harness, standard 5.0L computer and NO injectors. SO for a
little piecing together it gives you a lot more (bigger MAF, higher
performance computer calabration and 24lb injectors).
Problems I could think of would be not to install it on a totally stock motor,
because it probably would be too much for it (though it might work). I bet it
would work great with aftermarket heads, intake, etc. The other unkown that I
have not researched yet is the fuel pump on the Cobra. You probably would
want to upgrade to a higher flow unit, i.e. 110 or 155l/h. The stock 88l/h
might work with no problems though.
11 Mar 1994
[email protected]
On Mar 11, Andre Molyneux wrote:
> The tool that Marty U. got from skod was the K-D piece; it had
> the part number stamped on it. There's one route to go.
Shoot. Was it a K-D, after all my flaming that it was a Lisle? Like I said- I
slept since then.
And my personal opinion is that that particular tool is the Antichrist
hisownself, so I actively avoided looking at it all these years unless I had
to. Unless, of course, I had to use it, in which case I did so as quickly as I
could, while I still had any flesh left on my knuckles. When I sold it to
Marty, I _swear_ I could hear it hissing at me as he carried it away
("get...OUT...!").
My knuckles are aching, just thinking of it.
Anyway, whoever made the damned thing, that last mail showed what it looks
like. If you buy it, you _will_ be able to retract the pistons.
Whether or not you'll be able to hire out to a circus as the Human Band-Aid
afterwards is entirely up to the skill of the operator.
11 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 11, Michael Quinn wrote:
> K-D Tools or Snap-On. If your really creative make one. Aren't they the
> same as those Versille or Monarch rear discs. (How they work) Don't they
> just screw? (reverse thread)
The pistons must be screwed in as they retract, just like the SVO/Mark
VII/Versailles parts. Unfortunately, the slots on the piston faces for the T-
bird Turbo Coupe/'93 Mustang Cobra calipers are radically different than those
found on the older parts. The T-bird pistons are 1.79", as opposed to the 2.1"
pistons on the older parts.
The Lisle screw-drive-hockeypuck-with-pins retractor set does _not_ have a
disc that will work with this caliper, unfortunately. At least as of 1990,
which was the last time I tried to find it. If I'm wrong on this, please let
me know!
The Snap-On YA8525 kit looks very similar to the Lisle kit above, and I don't
know if it will do the trick or not. But for the prices they want for it, it'd
damned well better.
K-D does have a tool that I'm told will work, although I've never used it. It
is a cube with differently spaced pins on each surface, and a 3/8" square
drive hole in the center of each side. They are about $10, and can be obtained
through any Matco truck or anywhere K-D tools are sold.
The exact Lisle part that I _know_ works looks like this, and is sold on a
hang card:
front side
______ ______
| | | | | | | |
| | | | <-5/8" hex head-> | | | |
| | | | | | | |
/ \ | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
/ \ | |
/ \ | |
/ \ | |
| | | |
|______________| |______|
|__| |__| |__|
It is a flattened upside-down "Y" shape. Unfortunately, I don't have the part
number, as I bought mine in 1988 and I've slept since then... On the hang card
it is specified as a "Ford Thunderbird Disk Brake Tool".
It also helps if you use a Dremel or a die grinder to undercut the drive pins
slightly, to keep the adapter from twisting out of the piston slots so easily.
I assure you that you will come to understand this the first time you use it.
A right knuckle-buster it is, too!
12 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
On Mar 11, 15:55, Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware wrote:
> Subject: Re: Brake Tools
> On Mar 11, Michael Quinn wrote:
> The pistons must be screwed in as they retract, just like the
> SVO/Mark VII/Versailles parts. Unfortunately, the slots on the piston
> faces for the T-bird Turbo Coupe/'93 Mustang Cobra calipers are
> radically different than those found on the older parts. The T-bird
> pistons are 1.79", as opposed to the 2.1" pistons on the older parts.
>
> The Lisle screw-drive-hockeypuck-with-pins retractor set does _not_
> have a disc that will work with this caliper, unfortunately. At least
> as of 1990, which was the last time I tried to find it. If I'm wrong
> on this, please let me know!
Based on the sizes listed above, I'm pretty sure that Lisle _doesn't_ have the
right size. When I looked at it the other weekend, the size listed for "most
Ford applications" was over 2". Oh well, guess I won't go running back up to
Dennis' again...
> K-D does have a tool that I'm told will work, although I've never used
> it. It is a cube with differently spaced pins on each surface, and a
> 3/8" square drive hole in the center of each side. They are about $10,
> and can be obtained through any Matco truck or anywhere K-D tools are
> sold.
>-- End of excerpt from Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware
Any suggestions on a place to find K-D stuff locally? The only time I see
Matco trucks is driving down the freeway.
14 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
[Copied to Mustangs; this is FAQ material]
[email protected] (Marc Fusco)
14 Mar 1994 15:47 EST
Any guidelines on slotting the struts and do I lose anything
(I suppose I can always get less negative camber by pushing them the other
way - right?)
In theory you lose a little strength. In practice I don't think it's
very critical as long as you don't go bonkers with the die grinder.
With the proper tools and typical shade-tree mechanic skills, the
following procedure should take 3 hours or less for both sides.
Raise the front end and support it on jackstands. Remove the front
wheel, brake caliper and rotor. Support the control arm securely from
below, so that the spring is not released. A floor jack works nicely.
Separate the strut from the spindle. This requires a 21 mm deep socket
for the nut, and an 18mm wrench to hold the bolt. An impact wrench
helps, but a long breaker bar should be adequate.
I prefer to remove the strut completely from the car, but it's not
essential. This can be done by removing the three nuts at the top of
the strut mount. If I remember correctly, you don't have to remove the
strut mount from the strut.
Slot the lower of the two strut-to-spindle mounting holes 1/16" outboard
with a die grinder. Don't go overboard -- 1/16" will give you at least
an extra degree of negative camber. If you really need more, slot the
upper hole inboard by the same amount; this doubles the camber gain.
Reassemble, making sure that you force the spindle inboard at the top as
far as it will go while tightening the bolts. Tighten the
strut-to-spindle bolts to 140-200 ft-lbs. Aim for the higher figure if
you have enough leverage. New bolts help if you can get them.
You will need to realign the car when you are finished, both because
small differences in the slot lengths make a large difference in angle,
and because the change in camber causes a small but significant change
in toe-in.
That's all there is to it. Any questions?
15 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Tom Stangler)
[email protected]
* Just in time to wet your appetite for spring racing!
* The 1993 Mustang.Net In-Car On-Track Video!
*
* Four (4) exciting tracks! Three Mustang.Net drivers! All
* flogging their steeds around some of the best racetracks
* in the country!
*
* ***SEE***SEE***SEE***SEE***
* WITH YOUR OWN EYES.....
*
* Scott Griffith attack LAGUNA SECA!!
* Tom Stangler do CHARLOTTE MOTOR SPEEDWAY!!
* Brian StDenis wind his way around TEXAS WORLD SPEEDWAY!!
* Tom Stangler slip at SUMMIT POINT RACEWAY!!
*
* Yes, in LIVING COLOR ride with these three MUSTANG.NET drivers as they
* pound the pavement in their late model 5.0 Mustangs. SEE never
* before seen shots of just what it is like to take the corkscrew
* at LAGUNA SECA as viewed from the driver's seat. SLAM into the
* high banking of one of NASCAR's premier tracks, CHARLOTTE MOTOR
* SPEEDWAY, at over 120 mph! in a MUSTANG! HEAR the tire screaming
* howls as the horse gallops around TEXAS WORLD SPEEDWAY!!
*
* This VHS video cassette can be yours,,,not for $29.95,,not even
* $19.95! This can be yours for the cost of postage and a video
* cassette!! That's all!! The bargan of the century in IN-CAR
* ACTION VIDEOS!!!
* -----------------------------------------------------------------
* So you are hooked, eh? Well, here is how you get your copy....
*
* ----------------------------------------------------------------
* Send the following......
*
* a standard VHS cassette, blank, formatted,
* labels for the cassette, blank, on the backing paper.
* return postage for the cassette (stamps only, no $$)
* self addressed mailing label
* mailing container (padded envelope)
* your e-mail address
*
* Send the above to the following address, and you will get back
* a copy of the above 1993 FANTASTIC IN-CAR ON-TRACK MUSTANG VIDEOS!
* -------------------------------------------
* send to.....
*
* MUSTANG.NET VIDEOS
* c/o Tom Stangler
* 911 Chimney Hill Parkway
* Va Beach, VA 23462
*
* ---------------------
* ffi,,email [email protected] or [email protected]
*
--
****************************************************************************
Tom Stangler QC Mngr, TRACOR Applied Sciences, Chesapeake Ops
Va Beach, VA Tidewater Sports Car Club, LTD
[email protected] [email protected]
86 Mustang GT Winter 4 Autocross Series
15 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 14, Dirk Broer wrote:
> I don't have it with me but they listed the mustang rear brake kit for ust
> under $500 with parking brake. For 12"+ rotors this seems to be very
> competative with some of the other rear disk conversion kits. I suspect
> you'd need/want the front kit also - unfortunately this one is closer to
> $650. It is unclear on what is needed to install these kits from the
> catalog. 16" wheels are a must and they list both 4 and 5 bolt patterns (
> at least for the rear kit). I suspect the additional price for the fron is
> for new spindals.
These kits are very attractive, but they do have their problems. When you
convert from sliding calipers to fixed calipers, you have to rethink the
system somewhat. Sliding calipers tolerate play, runout, and flex much better,
because they self-align to the rotor. Fixed calipers such as the Wilwood,
Brembo and so on, by definition cannot self-align. This is much more of a
problem than you might think.
Consider the rear brakes. The C-clips allow the axles to plunge into and out
of the axle housing by .030 or so. This .030 axial play is accommodated by a
slider (like the stock fronts, or T-bird or SVO rear disks), since it just
slides axially along. But the fixed caliper can only accommodate this by the
pistons getting knocked back into the caliper body. Presto, you get a long
pedal. That .030 knockback per side translates into about an inch of extra
pedal travel, which is a real pisser if you just paid lots of money to get a
better pedal.
You have two options. One is to run with C-clip eliminators, which eliminates
the axial play entirely. Then, as you get going faster, you'll discover that
flex in the axle shaft will *still* knock back the pads, but a somewhat lesser
amount. So you fall back on the other option, which is to use a residual
pressure valve to maintain some hydraulic pressure out in the caliper, so that
when the pistons on one side get knocked back, the pistons on the _other_ side
get shoved out to compensate, instead of the fluid just getting shoved back
into the MC reservoir. This actually does fix the pedal pretty well, but at
the cost of the brakes dragging at all times. They don't drag _much_, but the
temps do go up, and the pad life does go down a bit. It's a band-aid.
It's the same situation in the front. The stock '87-93 front spindle
is very flexible (at least in a racetrack application!). I set up my
rotors-on-hats to clear the caliper mounting boss by .095", and I find
that hard cornering deflects the spindle snout just enough to let the
rotor just kiss that boss. 95 thou is a *lot* of deflection, and once
again, you're down to running a residual pressure valve to compensate
for the knockback.
Any questions about why I magniflux the spindles yearly?
The _right_ solution for running fixed calipers is to put them in an
application where axial play and flex is minimized. That's why I did the
conversion to allow me to run the 9" big-bearing axles in my 8.8" housing, for
example. The flex is reduced by an order of magnitude, which will lead to much
longer axle life, better brake performance, and a whole bunch less paranoia on
my part when entering Turn 8 at Willow.
The '94 Mustang front spindles will be a beautiful platform for fixed
calipers, since its spindle snout is easily an order of magnitude more rigid
as well. And it has sensible caliper mount bosses instead of that massive ugly
cradle like the older spindles. But the flex issue in real-world production
based parts is one reason that I'm still primarily playing with sliding
calipers for my car, after a brief but passionate love affair with a set of
Alcons...
I also have a well-documented bad feeling about the Wilwood front brake
mounting bracket, which is mounted by drilling and tapping the splash-shield
mounting holes for bigger hardware and bolting a flat plate on in single
shear. They've recently begun making this bracket in steel, thank Gawd. Now
you can _weld_ it on, which makes my trackie paranoia much happier, so I won't
belabor that point.
So in summary, the multipot calipers can give you more brakes, for sure. But
they are also a magnifying glass, and they'll very quickly point out the
_other_ deficiencies in your car that prevent them from working to their
fullest. And you'll have to either correct or work around those problems. List
member Don Rositch runs that setup with great success, and leaves me *far* in
the dust under braking towards the end of a session. But he had quite a bit of
development work to do before he really go the brakes to work to his
satisfaction. 'Taint just a bolt-on.
Oh, one other thing- the additional cost of the front setup lies in the new
front hub you'll need to support the rotor and hat. There's also a bit of a
catch there. Aluminum has a higher coefficient of expansion than cast iron, so
you'll need to rethink your bearing preloads a bit. It's very easy to run the
bearings a bit too tight in an aluminum hub, since they'll tighten up a great
deal more under track temperatures.
> Also, I remember reading an article on a new braided steel brake line in
> HotRod or Car Craft (maybe January '94 issue). It seems some company is
> going to make or is making DOT approved brake lines ( braided steel of
> course ).
That company is Earl's Performance Plumbing. I talked to Carroll Smith about
those lines in the Earl's booth at the PRI show in January. They weren't DOT-
approved at that time, but they will be Real Soon Now. They are just a
standard stainless-Teflon flex line with a sloppy spherical bearing mounted in
an addtitional bracket in midspan. This extra support prevents the braid from
fatiguing at the "fixed" hose end. It basically exploits the asymmetry of the
DOT test rig to work. ... they had in their booth, and it's really very
clever. Smith said that they'd been working on it for about 6 years. It's the
thought that counts...
When these are approved, it'll be a bit of a problem to fit them to the
Mustang, since the brake lines currently have only 2 points of support. But I
can imagine an extra bracket that would clamp to the strut body to support the
midspan bearing. Look for the approval sometime in early '94 (but knowing the
DOT, that may mean December...)
Earl's Performance Products, 189 West Victoria, Long Beach CA 90805, 310-609-
1602.
15 Mar 1994
[email protected]
On Mar 15, Scott Persson wrote:
> I thought that TSB are just Fords way of letting you know that
> something is a common occurence on their cars and they won't fix them. On
> the other hand the recalls are what Ford will fix for you. Because TSB are
> all over. I used to have access to TSB's from a data base I could get.
> It's called Mitchell On Demand. Anybody ever use it?
Well, sometimes in the TSBs there are buried directives to "fix this anyway",
and the wording of the announcement on the paint seemed to imply that the
repair was "warrantable". Car manufacturers often want to stop short of an
outright recall to fix an acknowledged problem, and the TSBs are a good
vehicle for doing that. Perhaps this paint issue is an example. And perhaps
not, since I haven't seen the text of the TSB, only the magazine's report of
it.
In any case, the TSBs provide a useful history of acknowledged problems,
wheter a recall was associated with them or not, and also provide the
suggested fix. Having them online would provide an answer to the questions of
the form "My car does X, is it the only one?" that crop up here all the time.
It'd be nice to have that database of acknowledged problems, whether
warrantable or not, available to all.
If you can get them, and if there are no copyright issues, perhaps you could
make them available. Or maybe we can get some of our Ford cohorts to drag them
online (hint, hint).
15 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
I think that I'm going to take the plunge and buy the shop
manual(s) pretty soon (After much proding by list menbers). I looked
up the order form in the back of my owners manual. I'm not sure which
book(s) is/are the most usefull. Here's a list of books and prices
(from the 93 owners manual), could I get some comments on the
usefulness and contents of these books? (especially the service
manual vs. the do-it-yourself manual)
Here are the ones I'd seriously consider, with comments.
93 Mustang Service Manual $52.00
The Bible of the Mustang, an absolute must. Mine is covered with greasy
thumb prints. That should tell you how useful I find it.
93 Powertrain Control/Emissions Diagnosis $85.00
While the information in this book is crucial, I find the price a bit steep,
and have not yet bought it for myself. The high price is because it contains
information about the whole Ford car line, not just the Mustang. A potential
substitute (which itself is required reading, but will not replace the
Powertrain Control book) is the Probst book on the EEC-IV, at $30 a much
better deal.
93 Mustang Electrical & Vacuum Troubleshooting Manual $21.00
Not a bad idea. However I've not found this necessary to date. Ask me
again after my upcoming head swap...
93 Mustang Wiring Diagram Only $11.00
Probably a good thing to have.
In addition to the above, I've bought the Haynes manual and Probst's
EEC-IV book, and I would recommend them to any hands-on Mustang owner.
The Haynes manual includes a wiring diagram from a "representative" model year
('91 in my copy), for about $20. Despite its flaws (covering too many model
years in one relatively slim volume, lacking significant info like trans
overhaul procedures and emissions diagnosis), the Haynes manual is one I'd
consider carrying in the car at all times.
I've raved about Probst's EEC-IV book repeatedly, and I will continue to do
so. It is required reading for anyone who really wants to know what that
computer is doing. It includes theories of operation, sensor and actuator
descriptions, general info about control algorithms, and diagnostic
procedures. See the FTP site (ftp.rahul.net:/pub/chucko) for more info.
15 Mar 1994
[email protected] (DIRK BROER)
[email protected]
First: Thanks skod - whenever a brake question...
Second:
skod wrote:
> Sliding calipers tolerate play, runout,
>and flex much better, because they self-align to the rotor. Fixed
>calipers such as the Wilwood, Brembo and so on, by definition cannot
>self-align. This is much more of a problem than you might think.
Is this a fact with all fixed calipers? I thought the 4 piston set-up was
supposed to compensate for this. I always assumed that the calipers were set-
up in such a way so that any blow back on one pad would force most of the
pressure on the other pad thus keeping eveything about even. Now that I think
about it I would suspect you would want to size your brake lines on the small
end of things. Is the above observation from experience? I mean have long
pedals been traced back to blow-back on upgraded brakes?
Third:
>> Also, I remember reading an article on a new braided steel brake line in
>> HotRod or Car Craft (maybe January '94 issue). It seems some company is
>> going to make or is making DOT approved brake lines ( braided steel of
>> course ).
>
>That company is Earl's Performance Plumbing. I talked to Carroll Smith
>about those lines in the Earl's booth at the PRI show in January. They
>weren't DOT-approved at that time, but they will be Real Soon Now.
>They are just a standard stainless-Teflon flex line with a sloppy
>spherical bearing mounted in an addtitional bracket in midspan. This
>extra support prevents the braid from fatiguing at the "fixed" hose
>end. It basically exploits the asymmetry of the DOT test rig to work.
>I got to play with a little hand-cranked version of the DOT test rig
>they had in their booth, and it's really very clever. Smith said that
>they'd been working on it for about 6 years. It's the thought that
>counts...
>When these are approved, it'll be a bit of a problem to fit them to
>the Mustang, since the brake lines currently have only 2 points of
>support. But I can imagine an extra bracket that would clamp to the
>strut body to support the midspan bearing. Look for the approval
>sometime in early '94 (but knowing the DOT, that may mean December...)
Given what is said what is the recommendation for street use? I love the idea
of a firm pedal but to be quite honest I can't remember the last time I really
inspected the flexible brake lines ( I look at them when I change the pads
but...).
15 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 15, Dirk Broer wrote:
> Is this a fact with all fixed calipers? I thought the 4 piston set-up was
> supposed to compensate for this. I always assumed that the calipers were
> set-up in such a way so that any blow back on one pad would force most of
> the pressure on the other pad thus keeping eveything about even. Now that
> I think about it I would suspect you would want to size your brake lines on
> the small end of things. Is the above observation from experience? I mean
> have long pedals been traced back to blow-back on upgraded brakes?
Yes, it is a fact of life. It takes from 1-5psi in the hydraulic system to
move the piston. You have to overcome the piston-bore friction and then
deflect the seal, which is what provides the piston's "return spring" action.
If the deflection is really bad (as it would be on the rear brakes on an 8.8"
without C-clip eliminators), the pistons are actually going to have to slide
in the seals, which will take even more pressure. If the hydraulic system is
open to atmospheric, which it will be if the MC is fully released (the refill
port is open), then the fluid will just be pumped back into the reservoir,
without developing enough pressure to move the opposing pistons.
The residual pressure valve keeps enough pressure out there to force the
opposing pistons to move to compensate instead, and therefore the pedal stays
up higher. Picking the right knee pressure for the valve is an art, since you
want no more residual pressure than absolutely necessary to prevent knockback.
Any more than that, and you'll have excessive drag with all its problems. So
the right valve setting for the job is strongly dependent on caliper design,
the magnitude of the deflection, the health of the seals, and a handful of
other factors. It's a pity that they're only commonly available in a very few
ratings, with 3 and 10psi being the most common.
Hydraulic line sizes have very little to do with this effect. You'd like a
small diameter line, strictly because they will swell proportionately less
with pressure, but you don't want the line to be so small as to provide a
noticeable resistance to fluid flow. Doing so would slow down the transient
response of the system. In other words, what you want is a DC offset, not
another RC time constant...
A long pedal in the absence of fluid-related problems is pretty much always a
function of knockback, and race engineers since the dawn of the disk brake
have been trying to deal with it. This is based on my experience, and the
experience of a lot of folks who've spent years trying to make fixed calipers
work as well as they *theoretically* should, despite the structure of the car
flopping like damp spaghetti around them.
It's very easy, and common, to assume that that nice solid-looking structure
is rigid under cornering loads. Well, add sticky tires to the equation, and
you'll rapidly see that it's nowhere close to rigid... There are a lot of
articles on this topic in the racing rags, almost all of which come from
higher-performance applications than our modest cars will ever see.
> Given what is said what is the recommendation for street use? I love the
> idea of a firm pedal but to be quite honest I can't remember the last time
> I really inspected the flexible brake lines ( I look at them when I change
> the pads but...).
I thumb my nose at the DOT and run the braided lines anyway, just like I
ignore their prohibition of my 4-point race harnesses for street use. The DOT
doesn't understand _my_ needs, but they do seek to provide protection for Joe
and Mary Sixpack. I inspect and maintain the braid lines a lot more closely
than most people would, and I beat the bejeezus out of them. And I've never
had one come close to failure through fatigue.
I personally have no problem recommending the braided lines for street use. If
the truth be told, the Earl's "DOT-approvable" line is no stronger than what
the racing community has used all along. It's the same line! It simply
includes a tacked-on feature designed to *make it pass the whip test*. If you
buy one of these lines when they become available, you'll need to figure out
which end of the line experiences the worst of the "whip" in use, and put the
extra support near it. Many other cars already have a 3-point support
arrangement on their flex lines.
I guess that what I'm saying is that the braided lines have always been heads
and shoulders above the old rubber stuff. They still will be after this clever
hack is added. You can pretty much put the added support anywhere you like,
without materially affecting the life of the line on the car. A DOT inspector
(if there is such a person) would want to see the little support bearing
thingus on the line, since that's what they approved. I'd guesstimate that it
would need to be attached to the tub, actually, rather than the strut.
Whatever. I'll worry about it once they're shipping them...
The one condition that braided lines don't handle as well as the OEM rubber-
fabric flex lines is user abuse during installation or later service. As I
wrote in BTPP:
> If you do the Aeroquip route, use a great deal of caution while
> installing the lines, and insure that they can never get kinked or
> pinched between chassis parts- at ALL combinations of suspension
> travel and steering input. They may be tough, but they won't take
> getting crunched between the A-arm and the unibody. Check them at
> least yearly, and if they look anything other than _perfect_ (sheath
> abraded, kinked, braid strands fatigued off or pulled out of the
> fittings at the ends), throw them away and replace them. Look at it
> this way- unlike the rubber stuff, you can actually _see_ and inspect
>
> Also, if you have allowed yourself to develop the habit of allowing
> your calipers to dangle from the flex lines while changing pads or
> whatnot, cure yourself of it immediately. The rubber/fabric flexes
> will take this kind of abuse once or perhaps twice, but the Aeroquip
> _won't_. If you kink the stainless/PTFE flex, the inner PTFE liner
> will cold-flow (creating a thin spot on each side of the kink) and the
> outer braid may pull out of the fitting, it the kink was close by-
> both result in destruction of the line.
Now for the fun part. These exact same cautions apply to the OEM lines,
probably even more so. But probably only 5-10 people on this list have ever
even _looked_ at their lines. Thank the DOT for keeping you safe by requiring
some pretty amazing overdesign margins.
Make sense?
17 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
I have done some minor mods to my 89 LX and notice that there is a mix of
metric and standard size nuts and bolts. I guess there are some torx (sp)
also, but the other day I looked at how the driveshaft bolts to the rear end
and didn't recognize the bolt type.
It's a 12-point, 12 mm. BTW, these are a bitch to get off. The factory
really wails on them. It took 3 of us -- me holding the driveshaft in place
with a large screwdriver through the yoke, and two friends wailing on an 18"
breaker bar -- to get them loose!!
I have a pretty complete set of standard and metric sockets and wrenches but
it appears I need to buy more.....
Does someone perhaps have the exhaustive list of sizes/types that I will need
to perform various mods, etc?
Basically the metric sizes are all multiples of 3 mm, which is screwy because
most of the European and Japanese manufacturers standardized on either odd or
even millimeter sizes. E.g. most of the suspension nuts and bolts are 18 mm
(throughout the rear and some front bolts), 21 mm (strut and front control arm
bolts), and 24 mm (strut and front control arm bolts); the seat is held down
by 15mm nuts and bolts; the driveshaft is 12 mm, etc. There are very few
exceptions to these sizes.
17 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Mustang plans.
Flush the cooling system, install a 180 thermostat, and refill with 90/10
water/antifreeze mix and Red Line Water Wetter. When that is done I want
to find a good place for a high performance tuneup (set timing to 14
degrees, increase fuel pressure, adjust throttle position sensor, etc.).
I don't think a 180 degree thermostat is a great idea for several reasons, but
it's a better idea than a 160 degree T-stat.
What I don't understand is why you want to increase fuel pressure on an
essentially stock motor. Could you explain what it buys you? Even if it were
mildly modified, the only real reason I can think of to increase fuel pressure
is to compensate for undersized injectors (and I might do
19 Mar 1994
Charles Copeland
> I am considering "upgrading" from my current '89 LX to a '91 or
> '92 LX, and was wondering if someone could point out the differences
> between the two, pro and con, for street use. I'm aware that air bags
> were introduced in '90, but not up to date on engine, tranny changes.
Along with the air bags you lose tilt steering. In 91 they added a syncro for
reverse. You no longer have to shift to first before shifting to reverse. The
91 fender wells are supposed to be a little wider for the 16 inch wheels. In
91 they added a 90 degree turn box for the speedo cable. The 90's had this
cable run to close to the cat's and they melt.
> Wasn't there a discussion of a cam change after '89?
It was rumored there was a cam change late in 90, but its never been
verifyed with Ford.
> When did Ford change the air flow sensors, and is it a big hindrance?
They went to MAS air in 90. In stock form the old MAP sensors perform slightly
better than MAS, but the new MAS is mandatory if you plan to do serious engine
mods; radical cam with hot heads, even perhaps supercharger. MAS will retain a
good idle whereas the old MAP will idle badly.
Other tidbits:
In 90 shoulder belts are in both front and rear, along with the airbag.
In 90 they took away the armrest. Also has overhead map light.
In 90 the speedo drive gear in the tranny went from 6 to 7 teeth.
This is a pain if you put in 3.55 gears, requires aftermarket 23 tooth
driven gear that have durability problems.
In 91 the valve cover gaskets went from cork to steel/rubber. The old
cork ones breakup and leak over time.
In 91 you lose the map light, but gain the armrest back (90 only year without)
In 91 they went to 16 wheels. They improve traction and handling.
In 92 (or 93?) the stock GT seats don't look as supportive, and look cheaper.
19 Mar 1994
[email protected] (WHITE BRAD)
# In 91 you lose the map light, but gain the armrest back (90 only year without)
One correction, you dont lose the map light, it is still there. :)
19 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Joseph Edward Huesmann)
> > When did Ford change the air flow sensors, and is it a big hindrance?
>
> They went to MAS air in 90. In stock form the old MAP sensors perform
> slightly better than MAS, but the new MAS is mandatory if you plan to do
> serious engine mods; radical cam with hot heads, even perhaps supercharger.
> MAS will retain a good idle whereas the old MAP will idle badly.
I don't know if this is what you are talking about, but 1987 and 1988 49-state
cars had Speed Density Air Flow meters. 1988 California and all 1989-1993
cars have Mass Air Flow meters. The speed density system used a series of
"tables and charts" in the computer's memory to compute airflow and fuel
metering. The mass air system measures the airflow directly from what's
coming through the intake and meters fuel accordingly. So, yes, if you have
speed density and you modify the engine even slightly it will probably not
idle very well.
19 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Bob_Wise)
mustangs%[email protected]
On Mar 19, 10:18, Charles Copeland wrote:
> They went to MAS air in 90. In stock form the old MAP sensors perform
> slightly better than MAS, but the new MAS is mandatory if you plan to do
> serious engine mods; radical cam with hot heads, even perhaps supercharger.
> MAS will retain a good idle whereas the old MAP will idle badly.
They went to mass air on the 88 CA models, and to all models in 89.
19 Mar 1994 15:23:16 -0800 (PST)
David Schwarze
Charles Copeland writes:
> They went to MAS air in 90.
It has always been my understanding that they went to MAS in '89, except in
California where they changed over in '88.
> In stock form the old MAP sensors perform
> slightly better than MAS, but the new MAS is mandatory if you plan to do
> serious engine mods; radical cam with hot heads, even perhaps supercharger.
> MAS will retain a good idle whereas the old MAP will idle badly.
To put it a different way, any mod you make to a MAP (speed density) car which
increases the "breathing" of the motor will be wasted because no more fuel
will be fed to the intake, resulting in a lean mixture (hence the idle problem).
This was all very interesting to me: I had no idea there were so many changes
made in those years... Thanks Charles!
20 Mar 1994
JIM CLOSS
[email protected]
Can anyone help me fill in the info below on spring rates for various
manufacturers springs? I have a hard time comparing spring sets...I can't
seem to find actual compression figures, only relative "25% stiffer than
stock" claims. If this info is available I'll save it for future inclusion in
the FAQ file.
Thanks,
Jim Closs
86 GT
Front: Rear: Drop:
Stock GT: ~400 ~150 n/a
Motorsport
M-5300-C: 650 200-300 7/8"
Eibach
Specific: ? ? 1.5"
Eibach
Progressive: ? ? 1.5"
Eibach
Progressive
Race: ? ? 1.5"
Saleen
Specific: ? ? 1.5"
Saleen
Progressive: ? ? 1.5"
BBK
Specific ? ? 1.5"
Kenny
Brown: ? ? 7/8"
21 Mar 1994
John Allan Dempsey
[email protected]
On Fri, 18 Mar 1994, Christopher Bethel wrote:
> you tried checking the vacuum? This is an oddity on EFI cars, one
> lean cylinder, from a leak or dead injector, can cause the others to
> be enrichened too much. Some things to try are to check the vacuum
> and to get a stethoscope and listen to each fuel injector to see if
> it is opening.
Well, it is not much of an oddity if you start to think in the same terms
the car does. I know that I've been on this round robin before with others
(not that you are one of these people Chris). Too often, people think in
terms of HC's when they are considering this closed loop system. Basically,
any type of missfire will cause a lean signal to be sent to the ECU, thus
richening ALL of the cylinders (a lean signal from the O2 sensor will cause
the ECU to richen the mixture). This is because of the fact that what goes
into the cylinder, comes out (when there is a misfire). What goes in?
Some N2, various HC's, some other trace elements, and OXYGEN. So when the
mixture is not ignited, all of that O2 goes past the O2 sensor. And the
sensor sends a low voltage signal to the ECU. This interpreted as a lean
signal (as it should be).
It of course will also think the mixture is lean if there is an exhaust leak
upstream of the O2 sensor. So make sure that the manifold is nice and tight.
If the ECU could monitor more gases (like HC for example), it could act in
a more intelligent way. And maybe realize that the car has a misfire, not
a lean mixture condition.
21 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>> you tried checking the vacuum? This is an oddity on EFI cars, one
>> lean cylinder, from a leak or dead injector, can cause the others to
>> be enrichened too much. Some things to try are to check the vacuum
>> and to get a stethoscope and listen to each fuel injector to see if
>> it is opening.
>Well, it is not much of an oddity if you start to think in the same terms
>the car does. I know that I've been on this round robin before with others
>(not that you are one of these people Chris). Too often, people think in
>terms of HC's when they are considering this closed loop system. Basically,
>any type of missfire will cause a lean signal to be sent to the ECU, thus
>richening ALL of the cylinders (a lean signal from the O2 sensor will cause
>the ECU to richen the mixture). This is because of the fact that what goes
>into the cylinder, comes out (when there is a misfire). What goes in?
>Some N2, various HC's, some other trace elements, and OXYGEN. So when the
>mixture is not ignited, all of that O2 goes past the O2 sensor. And the
>sensor sends a low voltage signal to the ECU. This interpreted as a lean
>signal (as it should be).
This made perfect sense to me, but without a vac guage I tried another
method I knew of checking for a vac leak. Spraying carb cleaner at the
gasket seams and hose joints. Typically when you find a big leak the
idle speed will increase when you spary it with the carb cleaner. I know
"don't try this at home" but I have done it before with success on other
cars. It seemed like my best shot at locating a vac leak with my tools.
I found nothing (which dosen't 100% mean there are none, but I checked
vigirously).
Also I have one of the Sun Pro sode scanners. The book claims that you can
do a cylinder balance test with it. It said that after all the codes
were sent out to partially press and releas the throttle. It would
then hold the idle speed constant and turn off each injector and
check for RPM changes. I could not get this to work. Does anyone
else know of any trick to making this test work with this tool. Is
my scanner bad or something? I have not had it that long.
Since I could not get this test to work I got out my plug wire
pliars and pulled plug wires one at a time. As I pulled each cylinder
the engine would loose a couple hundered RPM then it would climb back
up to the original idle speed. This told me that I did not have a
dead cylinder and that the Idle speed was being properly adjusted
by the ECU and the actuators. I am still open to suggestions
I will get a vac guage anc check things out.
21 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
What follows may be of interest to those interested in doing brake mods to
their cars. Probably not of much interest to others.
At the start of the weekend, the following were the variations from the stock
braking system on my car (a '92 LX 5.0 coupe):
SSB rear disk kit.
Adjustable proportioning valve.
LSC/SVO master cylinder.
Braided stainless steel front flex lines.
(The car had Ford semi-metallic pads at all four corners).
With this setup, I had a _very_ firm and high brake pedal. Too firm, in fact.
Modulating the brakes was very difficult because the pedal really didn't
deflect much at all. Also, the last time I played with the brakes I found
that the right-rear pads were keeping some pressure on the rotor at all times,
but didn't have the necessary tool to back them off.
My goals for the day's wrenching were:
Replace stock front calipers with LSC/SVO calipers (which have
a larger piston than the Mustang version).
Replace the nylon-caged front bearings with steel-caged versions.
Remove the front rotor splash-shields for better cooling.
Replace the Ford semi-metallic pads at all four corners with
carbon-metallic pads.
Stop the right-rear brakes from dragging.
Last week I finally managed to obtain the elusive rear-disc adjusting tool
(thanks Peter) and some synthetic wheel-bearing grease (thanks Chucko), and
figured I had everything necessary to do the job. As usual, I was wrong...
Put the car up on stands, and gave it a good shove from each direction to make
sure it wasn't going to turn me into a pancake later in the day. Took off the
wheels and went to work on the rear brakes. First off is to disconnect the
parking brake cable from the levers on the calipers. The first time I did
this, it took me about five minutes to figure out. This time it took about 15
seconds per side. Experience is a wonderful thing. I also opened the master
clyinder and used a squeeze bottle to suck a little fluid from the rear-brake
reservoir since new pads were going in.
With the cables out of the way, the bolts holding the caliper assembly on can
be removed. Pulling the caliper off of the rotor requires care because
there's no flex-line back here. The hard line will tolerate some movement,
but it's limited - I need to put in some real flex lines back here for
certain. Anyway, I pulled the caliper off, pried the pads out, pulled the
rotor off, and bolted the caliper back up finger-tight. Then I got out my
handy-dandy K-D tools disc brake piston tool. This is a cube with a different
set of "pins" and a square hole for a 3/8" drive on each side. The pins are
supposed to engage detents on the piston, allowing you to rotate the piston
and drive it back into its bore.
Well, I selected the correct side (the one with the pins furthest apart),
stuck it on the end of a 3/8" extension, and rotated the piston. Well,
actually I tried to, but the pins wouldn't seat in the detents. The pins
needed to either be spaced a little further out, or be a little narrower, as
they wouldn't quite fit in the narrowing ends of the detents. So, I went
searching through my toolboxes for my trusty file to make the necessary
modifications - damn, it must have grown legs and walked off. Item number one
for the parts run.
I then moved on the the fronts. Pulled the wheels, pulled the caliper (and
supported it to avoid putting any stress on the flex line), popped off the
dust cap, pulled the cotter pin, pulled the keyed nut lock, and removed the
nut holding the whole assembly to the spindle. Well, actually I tried to, but
I didn't have a socket big enough. So, stymied on both the fronts and the
rears, I broke for lunch and a parts run.
Fifty dollars later I came back with a new set of 1/2" drive sockets and a
holder. (Hey, the single socket I wanted would have been nearly ten bucks,
and I needed an 18mm socket as well, so buying a set of 13 for $50 wasn't so
bad...) Great, none of the metric sockets in the set is an exact fit, but one
of them is only a little too large and does the job. Removed the nut and
pulled the outer bearing. Sure enough, as documented here in the past, it's
got a nylon cage. Put it aside and pulled the rotor off, being careful not to
damage the threads on the snout of the spindle. Then I pried the grease cap
off the inside edge and extracted the inner bearing and put it aside as well.
Before continuing with the bearings, I went ahead and pulled the rotor splash
shield. Just remove three bolts and pull it off. Don't forget the "gasket"
that sat behind it.
Back to the bearings. Cleaned all the old grease out of the hub and examined
the races. They appeared to be in good shape, with only the very faintest of
marks visible under close inspection. I had bought new races, but these
looked good enough that I wasn't sure I wanted to replace them. I decided to
go ahead and remove one of them just to see how much work it would be. I had
struck out trying to find a brass punch, and so only had a steel one
available. These rotors are the originals and have got to be replaced real-
soon-now anyway, so I decided to go ahead and take a chance. I carefully
tapped out the inner race, going very slowly to try to avoid damaging the bore
with my hard punch. When it came out, I examined the bore. Even though I took
a lot of time with it, I still had put some minor scores in there. I
definitely need a softer punch. I went ahead and put the original race back
in, since I didn't want to replace them all under these circumstances. Glad
this is a set of rotors that's going to become tire chocks soon...
I think skod mentioned some fancy-dancy race-removing tool a while back. Gotta
get one of those puppies...
Decided to go back to the rears for a change of pace. Filed down the pins on
the tool to get a better fit with the caliper. One of the problems with this
tool is that the edges of the pins are rounded, making them that much more
likely to slip out. I took some material ... rid of that rounded edge.
Finally got it to work halfway decently, but only just. Scott Griffith has
likened these tools (he had a different version, but also from K-D) to the
antichrist, and I'm inclined to agree with him. Even with the caliper bolted
firmly in place, keeping the pins in the detents while turning was a major
pain. I need to do some further modification, but I really doubt that I'll
ever be happy with the way it works.
Unbolted the rear calipers again, loaded them with new pads, re-mounted the
rotors, bolted the calipers back and torqued them down (I could only get the
torque wrench on one of the two bolts - had to guesstimate the other), and re-
connected the parking brake cables. At least the rears were finally taken
care of.
Time to pack the new front bearings. Didn't have a tool for this either
(another one for the "to-get" list), so I loaded up one palm with Chucko's red
Amsoil synth grease and went to work. I hadn't packed a bearing in about 8
years, but some things never change. Make sure the cage is fully packed,
leave a light coating on the outside of the cage, and remove any excess globs
hanging around. After I was done wiping my hands off after-wards, it looked
like I was cleaning up a mass-murder scene. That grease sure can turn paper
towels red.
Loaded in inner bearing into it's race in the rotor, and re-installed the
grease seals after cleaning them up (they were still in really good shape).
Put the rotor on the spindle (took a little work to get it to seat
compeltely), put in the outer bearing and the keyed washer. Spun the nut on
finger tight, then used a torque wrench to set the pre-load to factory specs.
Backed the nut off a half turn, then had to guesstimate the light final torque
(I do have a torque wrench that measures in inch pounds, but it's 3'8" drive
and I was using a 1/2" drive socket). Put the keyed lock back on and inserted
a new cotter pin (thanks again, Chucko).
Now for the calipers. I loosened the hollow bolt that connects the flex line
to the calipers and removed the old caliper, and threw away the old crush
washers. Chucko had also given me some new crush washers, but the LSC
calipers I'd gotten at Auto Parts Club included these, as well as new locating
pins. Gee, how thoughtful.
My only problem here was getting the new caliper and pads on around the rotor.
The spring-clip on the back of Mustang pads won't hold the pad in place on the
big 73mm piston. As a result, the driven pad wouldn't stay in place and was
getting in the way. Finally I just broke the clips off the back of the pad
and set it in place on the spindle. Then the caliper (with the other pad
mounted) slipped in place with no problem. The pad is held in place quite
nicely by the caliper and spindle.
Almost done (and almost dark at this point). Time to bleed the brakes. (I
decided to do all four corners even though I hadn't opened the rears. The
fluid in the master cylinder had taken on that weird dark color that seems to
be do to the mixing of DOT3 and DOT5 [I'd flushed the DOT5 from my system lat
month - apparently there's still some in there].) With the brake bleeder
bottles, this went really quick. Flushed all four corners in about 10 minutes
or so.
Cleaned up, but had to wait for the next morning to test drive it. The
biggest conclusion I could draw from the day is that I've got to speed up my
wrenching. Going slow to be careful is all well and good, but I spent _way_
too much time doing this.
The test drive:
First thing I noticed was that the brake pedal travel with the new calipers
was much longer, much more like a stock car than what I'd had before. Braking
effort is also down, maybe a little too much. The pedal doesn't feel firm
enough for my taste.
Second thing I noticed was that the squeaking from the rear brakes was gone.
Finally! Either the new pads or backing off the dragging side was
responsible. Now I won't have to put up with amused looks from my wife as I
drive down the road with my car going "cheap, cheap, cheap" all the time. She
thought the car was commenting on its driver ;-)
Third thing I noticed was that I can now lock up the brakes. This wasn't
possible with the previous setup. At least now I know I can get maximum
braking effort out of the car.
Last thing I noticed was noxious white smoke coming from all four corners once
I'd worked the brakes up to being _really_ hot. I'd gone to a industrial park
near my home that's pretty well deserted on Sunday mornings, and done a number
of stops from relatively slow speeds (25-30 mph), then gradually worked up the
speed. The last stops I made were maximum-braking stops from about 60-70 mph.
It was as I was coming to a stop after the last of these that I noticed a
cloud of foul-smelling white smoke wafting up from the car. A glance around
showed that it was coming from all four corners.
I pulled off into a parking lot and looked between the wheel spokes.
Everything looked ok and the smoke had stopped (although the smell hadn't
left). I didn't seem to be losing any fluid, and the paper backing on the
front pads hadn't caught fire. I drove home without incident.
The brakes have been behaving themselves since (though I haven't heated them
up like that again) so I'd guess that I encountered the infamous "green fade"
although it was white in my case. Assuming this is the case, I'm going to
have to go out again and get the pads hot until the smoke stops coming out. I
won't be able to tell the real performance of these cheapie carbon-metallic
pads until then.
Thanks to Peter Boggini for helping me obtain the brake tool, Chuck Fry for
his grease and cotter pins, and Scott Griffith for his detailed write-up on
bearing replacement a while back.
21 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Michael Quinn)
[email protected]
As I always do, I stopped by the magazine rack to thumb through the latest
mags when I came across the lastest Motor Trend. They had a pretty good
article about the lastest version of the Mustang Cobra. They ran the typical
tests and s tuff with all the lastest results. Out of all the tests that were
run the one th at stood out was the braking. The Cobra with 13" front rotors
went from 60-0 in 113' that as good as some 45k+ cars are doing. To me the
braking is probably the most important factor in a high performance car.
Hopefully they feel as good as they stop!
21 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
I then moved on the the fronts. Pulled the wheels, pulled the caliper
(and supported it to avoid putting any stress on the flex line), popped off
the dust cap, pulled the cotter pin, pulled the keyed nut lock, and removed
the nut holding the whole assembly to the spindle. Well, actually I tried
to, but I didn't have a socket big enough.
This nut shouldn't be much more than finger tight. Overtightening it
could result in fried bearings. It's a 1 1/8" hex, BTW.
I think skod mentioned some fancy-dancy race-removing tool a while back.
Gotta get one of those puppies...
I actually saw this at Dennis's Discount Depot. It wasn't cheap. It's
specialized enough and rarely enough needed that I won't bother.
This is an excellent time to remind folks that the Bendix rotors have an ID on
the through-hole that's bigger than the ID of the outboard (smaller) race.
This allows the use of an impact socket to tap out this race.
Now for the calipers. I loosened the hollow bolt that connects the
flex line to the calipers and removed the old caliper, and threw away
the old crush washers. Chucko had also given me some new crush washers,
but the LSC calipers I'd gotten at Auto Parts Club included these, as
well as new locating pins. Gee, how thoughtful.
Does that mean I can have my crush washers back? :-) Keep 'em, I'm sure
you'll find a use... and they're not very expensive.
Cleaned up, but had to wait for the next morning to test drive it. The
biggest conclusion I could draw from the day is that I've got to speed
up my wrenching. Going slow to be careful is all well and good, but I
spent _way_ too much time doing this.
Welcome to the club. This is something I'd like to improve on too, but
I just don't know how to go faster without rushing. Practice helps.
I've been very lucky to enlist knowledgeable and/or tireless helpers for
some of my bigger jobs -- the list is too long to repeat here.
22 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
> I am currently trying to give some fresh air to my front
> rotors, but I got a little problem. After seeing Roger Kraus' racing
> Porche with some cooling ducts feeding air into the dust shields I
> thought it was a great idea. My plan was to remove the fog lights out,
> get some pipe reducers to 2 or 3 inches, and cut a hole in the center
> most section of the dustshields to feed air into the rear of the rotors
> (and the center too).
If you come up with a good way to modify the splash shields and route the
ducts, let me know. I'm interested in doing something similar myself.
> Now here is the problem :
>
> The fog light brackets cover all the passageway behind the fog lights.
> When I wanted to remove them, I saw they were supports for this big and
> heavy stabalizing front facia bar for the lower lip of the bumper. I can't
By "the lower lip of the bumper" I assume you're talking about the lower edge
of the air dam?
When I was still considering running my '85 Capri in events, I faced a similar
problem. I wanted to get rid of the big, heavy fog-light bracket, but it was
the only thing supporting the air dam (the Capri had the same big, square
looking dam as the ~'83 Mustang).
What I decided to do (but never carried out) was to use some flat aluminum
stock to build a support. I planned to to put one piece across the bottom
edge of the air dam, then use additional pieces to tie it back to an area with
some structural integrity (I don't remember exactly where, it's been a while
since I investigated it). I figured I could give about as much support as the
fog light bracket had without anywhere near the weight.
One thing to keep in mind was that I just wanted to make sure that the air dam
didn't start flexing enough to tear itself apart. It might still flex enough
to crack the paint, despite the flex agents. That wasn't a concern for me, but
somehow I suspect it is for you ;-)
Scott Griffith did something like this on his car, but the "air dam" on the
'86 Mustang was quite small in comparison. He didn't have to put in all that
much support.
22 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 22, Andre Molyneux wrote:
> On Mar 21, 8:00, Chris Behier wrote:
> > The fog light brackets cover all the passageway behind the fog lights.
> > When I wanted to remove them, I saw they were supports for this big and
> > heavy stabalizing front facia bar for the lower lip of the bumper.
> > I tried cutting a nice chunk off the fog light brackets - too darn tough.
That is a pretty impressively-heat-treated slab of beef there, sir. If you
really want to keep it, I'd recommend trimming it with a cutting torch. It'd
take 2 or 3 cutoff wheels in a die grinder to get rid of the lamp mounts. It's
easier to pick up a spare from a salvage yard for $10 and have a buddy with a
torch hack on it...
> What I decided to do (but never carried out) was to use some flat
> aluminum stock to build a support. I planned to to put one piece
> across the bottom edge of the air dam, then use additional pieces
> to tie it back to an area with some structural integrity (I don't
> remember exactly where, it's been a while since I investigated it).
> I figured I could give about as much support as the fog light bracket
> had without anywhere near the weight.
This is a good way to go. You just need to provide rigid support for the lower
edge of the "splitter" from the radiator support. There are many mounting
holes and bosses already present in that crossmember to tie to. There are also
5 bosses that are exactly the right size to take 1/8" x 1" strip stock running
fore-aft to provide the support, and also to support a real chin spoiler to
increase radiator airflow. It's really pretty tidy.
> One thing to keep in mind was that I just wanted to make sure that
> the air dam didn't start flexing enough to tear itself apart. It
> might still flex enough to crack the paint, despite the flex agents.
> That wasn't a concern for me, but somehow I suspect it is for you ;-)
This is a real concern for the post-'87 GTs with the very wide, unsupported
splitter. My '86 has the 3 vertical ties in the open area of the radiator air
inlet that reinforce the splitter very nicely. I actually only neded to make 5
tabs, about 2" lone, to fasten the bottom of the fascia back to the radiator
support, and it's held up well for 3 years now.
You guys with the later cars will have to put much more design time into this.
That splitter is very prone to aerodynamically-induced oscillations, and if
those aren't damped properly, the paint cracking will be the least of your
concerns. The entire splitter will tear away eventually. Make sure that
whatever arrangement you come up with is very rigid indeed.
I think that a very reasonable approach would be to get a couple of sticks of
that 1" square aluminum box tubing from the hardware store and use that. It's
cheap, readily available, easy to work, and quite rigid. A length of that
stuff run across the splitter and secured to it at 6 inch intervals, supported
by 4 or 5 stringers run aft to the radiator mount, oughta do it. Flat strip
stock is too flexible, and will fatigue and fail, with predictable results.
The aerodynamic loads out there at track speeds are nontrivial.
22 Mar 1994
Chris Behier
> That is a pretty impressively-heat-treated slab of beef there, sir. If
> you really want to keep it, I'd recommend trimming it with a cutting
> torch. It'd take 2 or 3 cutoff wheels in a die grinder to get rid of
> the lamp mounts. It's easier to pick up a spare from a salvage yard for
> $10 and have a buddy with a torch hack on it...
You can say that again ! That slab of beef can kill a few tools, so
I gave up on it as the whole thing is so darn heavy.
[Andrem suggested aluminum supports - great idea]
>
> This is a good way to go. You just need to provide rigid support
> for the lower edge of the "splitter" from the radiator support. There
> are many mounting holes and bosses already present in that crossmember
> to tie to. There are also 5 bosses that are exactly the right size to
> take 1/8" x 1" strip stock running fore-aft to provide the support,
> and also to support a real chin spoiler to increase radiator airflow.
> It's really pretty tidy.
Yep, that is what I started to do yesterday. I got some 1/2" aluminum pipe
and recreated a "R cobra" like brace to the radiator. I mounted it on the
bumper last nite with a perfect fit. I still need to drill the apropriate
wholes on the radiator mount. This will restrict back and forth motion, but
some angled trusses will secure the other degrees of freedom for the
"splitter". With weight savings too :) - I will post what worked for me when
its done.
> > [Andrem wrote more...]
> > One thing to keep in mind was that I just wanted to make sure that
> > the air dam didn't start flexing enough to tear itself apart. It
> > might still flex enough to crack the paint, despite the flex agents.
> > That wasn't a concern for me, but somehow I suspect it is for you ;-)
>
Yep that is one concern, but the bugs and stones that aready hit the bumper, I
don't loose much sleep over the bumper. But as you know - I like a beatiful
paint :)
[Skod writes more...]
> This is a real concern for the post-'87 GTs with the very wide,
> unsupported splitter. My '86 has the 3 vertical ties in the open area
> of the radiator air inlet that reinforce the splitter very nicely. I
> actually only neded to make 5 tabs, about 2" lone, to fasten the bottom
> of the fascia back to the radiator support, and it's held up well for
> 3 years now.
>
Well that is pretty good, I hope I can say the same thing in 3 years :) What I
need to work on is also the pressure the 6" air collectors/reducers will
impose on the bumper. I also need to provide adequate support for that too.
6" of scouping will not be negligeable, but the air benefits will hopefully be
felt by the brakes.
> You guys with the later cars will have to put much more design time
> into this. That splitter is very prone to aerodynamically-induced
> oscillations, and if those aren't damped properly, the paint cracking
> will be the least of your concerns. The entire splitter will tear away
> eventually. Make sure that whatever arrangement you come up with is
> very rigid indeed.
>
> I think that a very reasonable approach would be to get a couple of
> sticks of that 1" square aluminum box tubing from the hardware store
> and use that. It's cheap, readily available, easy to work, and quite
> rigid. A length of that stuff run across the splitter and secured to
> it at 6 inch intervals, supported by 4 or 5 stringers run aft to the
> radiator mount, oughta do it. Flat strip stock is too flexible, and
> will fatigue and fail, with predictable results. The aerodynamic loads
> out there at track speeds are nontrivial.
>
I am going tubular, so that I can bend it any which way it works out. Also it
uses less material than square tubing and radial loads are more evenly
distributed. Hopefully with the help of a truss like array of supports I will
be able to substitute the front beefy fog light/splitter support brackets.
Thanks scott, Ande and Tom for your input, and I will let you know what comes
out of it :)
23 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Tom Stangler)
[email protected]
Wow! wow! wow!
I just had the Global West SFC's installed on my non-race car, the one my
significant other stuffed into a snow bank a few weeks ago, while I had the
frame straightened. Talk about a difference in stiffness! The car is a factory
t-top 87, and she managed to place the nose of the car on one bank, and the
tail on another. Kinda twisted it a bit, if you know what i mean. Well after
they pulled it back into alignment, they popped on the SFC's. I drove it home
tonight, and I can't believe the difference. A bunch of squeaks and rattles
have disappeared and you can feel the difference in the handling. I can't
believe I waited so long to have it done. So they have my 86 track car for the
install now. Its gotta make it a better platform to work on.
Cost was only 6 hours of labor for the SFC installation. Locally, 150$. we
don't want to talk about the cost of the frame straightening. Snow is harder
than it looks. :-)
24 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>Having just read the snow story about Tom's 87 T-top (?) GT, I have been
>inspired to install subframes on my 1990 LX Coupe. Will there be as
>noticeable a difference in my car as well??? After all, it is a t-top :)
>I think I've been swayed towards the Global-West units as well. After long
>long long hours of debate, mostly with myself .
Just for anyone interested in SFC's. There seem to be little to no comments
about the Griggs SFC's. To anyone considering SFC's I'd strongly recommend
looking at their product (at least the pictures). They go both inside and
beneath the car and IMHO are the best ones out there. Bruce Griggs seems to be
rather low key about marketing them, but I think they have something that is a
notch better than everyone else's stuff. At least look at their product, they
are probably more costly and a little more complicated to put in (you have to
pull the carpet and seats), but are of a better design IMHO.
I have no connections to Griggs and I race cars where SFC's are not legal so I
don't have them but they are the the ones I'd use.
25 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Way back on February 4th, I responded in the old thread "17" RIMS" to an
article that Troy Wecker had posted. I said, while discussing the '93 Cobra's
front rotors:
> The nice thing about running these unique front rotors is that that
> let Ford run the same wheels front and rear, as opposed to having
> staggered offsets like the SVO Mustang did, with its Lincoln
> Continental-derived axle.
I was wrong about the SVO. The SVO's wheels do in fact have the identical
offset front and rear. The longer front arms make up for the wider rear track
from the Continental axle. Thanks to Dave Brower for putting me straight, and
making me call my parts-counter buddy. Incidentally, if anyone ever need it,
the part number for the SVO wheel is E4ZZ-1007-A, it's a 16x7 with 1.75"
(44.5mm) offset, and Ford dealers will happily sell you a brand new one for
the miserly sum of $321.83.
And it'll work on either front of rear, period. Another Mustang urban myth put
to rest...
28 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Marty Udisches)
[email protected]
Hello all!! Well, I've been trying to find some replacement rear rotors for
my SSB rear kit, and thought I'd share my experiences with the list--maybe I
can help some folks out, and maybe someone else has been thru this before and
can help me out.
Anyway, I've determined that I need, for part number purposes, '87 T-bird
Turbo Coupe rear rotors. I have part numbers of 141527 (Bendix) and AR-8123
(Auto Specialties). The Bendix rotors have a price of $93/ea. from Cal Brake,
a local source, and the Auto Specialties have a price of $74/ea.
There has been an issue regarding the directional venting of these rotors as-
shipped by SSB--the ones they have are vented for left-side rotation only.
Since I'm going to be open-tracking the car, I don't want to kill right-rear
rotors due to overheating.
It's unknown if either of the above alternates are non-directional or not; I
had a Bendix part number of 141399 which are indeed non-directional, but
unfortunately are for the '88+ Turbo Coupe, and are 5-lug :-(...
Anyway, does anyone have a preferably cheap source for rear rotors that are
non-directionally vented?? Anyone else been thru this?
Any help greatly appreciated--I'll let the list know what I end up finding
out.
28 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 28, Marty Udisches wrote:
> Anyway, I've determined that I need, for part number purposes,
> '87 T-bird Turbo Coupe rear rotors. I have part numbers of
> 141527 (Bendix) and AR-8123 (Auto Specialties).
>
> There has been an issue regarding the directional venting of
> these rotors as-shipped by SSB--the ones they have are vented
> for left-side rotation only. Since I'm going to be open-
> tracking the car, I don't want to kill right-rear rotors due
> to overheating.
Not to worry. The Autospecialty rotors are indeed non-directionally vented-
the fins are straight radial passages. I have held one in my hands, back when
I was screwing around with those rear brakes.
The application is 87-88 T-bird Turbo Coupe, only. '89 and up have 5-lug
rotors, as you discovered. FWIW, the equivalent Raybestos part number is 6892.
For those of you not familiar with this story, the 4-lug T-bird Turbo rear
brakes that form the basis of most of the inexpensive 4-wheel disk conversion
kits for the late model Mustang were set up with directionally vented rotors.
However, somewhere along the way, Ford lost the recipe, and cast only _left
side rotors_. Which means that for track use, the right side rotor would run
200-300degF hotter than the left, since its angled fins were trying to buck
the airflow.
Since Stainless Steel Brakes bought their rotors from Ford, their kits, as
well as the Ford kits, contained two leftside rotors. C'est la vie.
Now, there are several aftermarket companies that market their own castings,
and they are non-directionally vented. Which means that the left side won't
cool quite as well, but the right side will do a _lot_ better. Autospecialty
is one of them.
I don't know if SSB has started using aftermarket rotors in their
kits, or if they're still shipping two leftside rotors. But unless I'm
mistaken, the Ford kits still have the problem. If anyone can confirm that for
recent Ford or SSB kits, please let me know in private Email.
28 Mar 1994
JIM CLOSS
[email protected]
Thanks to all who responded to my inquiry on spring rates. Something new
seemed to pop up though...that early 5.0 cars had specific rate springs, and
were changed to progressive around 90-91. Can anyone verify/disprove this?
Anyway, here's a summary:
Front: Rear: Drop:
- Stock pre-91 ~400 ~150 n/a
- Stock 91-93
(progressive): 425-530 200-300 n/a
- Motorsport:
M-5300-C: 650 200-300 7/8"
- Eibach
Specific: ? ? 1.5"
- Eibach street
Progressive: 460-570 200-250 1-1.25"
- Convertible: " 170-315 1-1.25"
- Eibach race
Progressive 750-850 200-260 1.5"
- Saleen
Specific: ? ? 1.5"
- Saleen(Racecraft)
Progressive: 450-650 150-240 1.5"
- BBK
Specific 750 250 1.25-1.5"
- Kenny
Brown: 650 200-300 7/8"
29 Mar 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>At 1:54 PM 3/28/94 -0800, Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware wrote:
>>The application is 87-88 T-bird Turbo Coupe, only. '89 and up have
>>5-lug rotors, as you discovered. FWIW, the equivalent Raybestos part
>>number is 6892.
>Ok.. What is this bolt pattern? I need to replace my rear axle shafts as
>one is bent. I'm considering 'upgrading' to 5 lug. I'd have a much
>greater selection of rims to choose from. Will the '89 up 5 lug rotors
>work for me?
The 5 bolt pattern is 5x4.5" for those who might be curious. It is the same as
early Mustang 5 bolt cars and most earlier 5 bolt Ford cars (I don't think the
Taurus and the like are the same).
The 5 bolt rotors I have seen used are the MkVII replacements. Basically all
of the Motorsports 5 bolt conversion kit is MkVII stuff except for the caliper
brackets.
>While I'm at it.. anyone recommend a supplier for axles shafts?
I happen to think more highly of using factory axles and replacing them
occasionally. Just a question who on the net has had a factory axle fail on an
8.8 except for a bent one from hitting something. The problem I see is most
aftermarket axles are designed for drag racers where the loads road racing
type events (autocross, track schools, etc) are different. I happen to think
for the most part factory axles have more detail in the design for these
purposes. Unles you are going to go to the larger splines in the diff then
stay with factory axles. The 5 bolts Motorsport axles are just Ranger axles.
This is just my opinion YMMV. Drag racers have their own opinions that are
very different from mine, but for reasons of different need.
29 Mar 1994
[email protected]
On Mar 29, Calvin Sanders wrote:
> >Ok.. What is this bolt pattern? I need to replace my rear axle shafts as
> >one is bent. I'm considering 'upgrading' to 5 lug. I'd have a much
> >greater selection of rims to choose from. Will the '89 up 5 lug rotors
> >work for me?
>
> The 5 bolt pattern is 5x4.5" for those who might be curious. It is the
> same as early Mustang 5 bolt cars and most earlier 5 bolt Ford cars (I don't
> think the Taurus and the like are the same).
Eek! Well, the bolt pattern you _want_ is 5x4.5". However, the '89-up T-bird
rotors are that bastardized 5x4.25" that they went to for the pseudo-fatrides,
and the offset is different. So the later T-bird rotors _won't_ do what you
want for a 5-lug conversion. The Tauruses are also 5x4.25", so they are no
help- despite the fact that they use the same rear caliper.
The bad news is that there is no drop-on rotor for the 5-lug 8.8" (Ranger)
axles and the T-bird-derived rear disk kits. The good news is that you can do
what everybody _else_ has done, and take your 4-lug rotors to a competent
machine shop and have them drilled for the 5x4.5" pattern. This will give you
one slot, two thinwall holes, and two good holes, but is just about all there
is.
> The 5 bolt rotors I have seen used are the MkVII replacements. Basically
> all of the Motorsports 5 bolt conversion kit is MkVII stuff except for
> the caliper brackets.
Well, not really. There are two radically different families of rear disks
from the Ford parts bin. The old Motorsport M-2300-E brake kit was based on
the Mark VII rear calipers. It had 11.32" x .90" rotors, and 2.1" pistons.
This is the exact brake setup used on the SVO Mustang, and is drilled for
5x4.5" right out of the box.
The Motorsport M-2300-C kit, as well as the SSB kit, are based on '87-88 T-
bird pieces that are much smaller. They use 10.17"x .90" rotors, and 1.75"
pistons, and are drilled 4x4.25". These are also the exact brakes used on the
'93 Mustang Cobra.
The two families use completely different mountings and rotor offsets,
unfortunately. It'd sure be nice if they _didn't_... I have heard of one
person using the old Mark VII rear rotors turned down to the right OD to run
under the T-bird calipers, but he then had to shim the calipers on their
brackets and do a few other ugly things to get it to come together. I'd have
to recommend just redrilling the T-bird rotor's bolt pattern. It'd be _much_
less work.
> I happen to think more highly of using factory axles and replacing them
> occasionally. Just a question who on the net has had a factory axle
> fail on an 8.8 except for a bent one from hitting something. The problem
> I see is most aftermarket axles are designed for drag racers where
> the loads road racing type events (autocross, track schools, etc)
> are different. I happen to think for the most part factory axles
> have more detail in the design for these purposes. Unles you are
> going to go to the larger splines in the diff then stay with factory
> axles. The 5 bolts Motorsport axles are just Ranger axles.
The factory axles are pretty strong, given the limitations of the axle design
itself. I would have a hard time arguing against just using stock axles and
keeping an eye on their health for any but the most vigorous track use.
One cautionary note. I have seen a stock axle fail on a track car as a result
of a fatigue crack propagating through and leading to a _spectacular_ failure
(with the car ending up on its head). The crack started from a debris scratch
right in the center of the outer bearing race area, as if a bit of metallic
debris had gotten caught between the rollers in the bearing and had machined a
bit of a groove to create a stress raiser.
This was not a material failure, it was a maintenance failure on the part of
the car's current and previous owners. That car had been bought used, and was
a retired SCCA National-level Showroom Stock GT car that had easily 300 track
hours on it. In short, it was pretty darned used up. This just underscores the
old lesson, "There ain't no such thing as a ready-to-run used race car". But
we can all learn from it. Boy, I sure did!
I happen to like doing business with Greg Moser at Moser Engineering, (219)
726-6689. He routinely custom-builds axle shafts from his own forgings, and
splines and drills them to your specs. He will heat treat them according to
your application (if you're a road racer, tell him so!), and the price is very
reasonable (around $300 for a pair of axles). And he'll ship them within 24
hours of your order, whether they're custom or not.
These axles are *overkill* for a street car, no doubt about it. But they start
to make a lot of sense for a car that will see a great deal of track use.
Still, the best thing of all for a trackie is to keep close tabs on the health
of any part that holds the wheels on the car. It's a hard thing to miss the
tirewall if you're on a tricycle...
29 Mar 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 28, Jim Closs wrote:
> Something new seemed to pop up though...that early 5.0 cars
> had specific rate springs, and were changed to progressive
> around 90-91. Can anyone verify/disprove this?
The '86-up cars definitely had progressive springs, although I don't have my
source at hand for the actual rates. The 425-535/200-300 sounds correct for
all years up to '93 (non-Cobra) though.
I'd be very surprised to hear that the '83-85 cars had straight-rates. I
believe that the one '84 that I once played with had progressives, at least in
the front. The '79-82 cars are a whole different story, and might well have
straight rates.
If anybody wants my well-used set of stock progressive '86 springs, you can
have 'em for the price of the shipping just to get them out from underfoot.
First bidder wins, and I'll drop 'em in UPS freight collect...
30 Mar 1994
Bob Pitas
Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware:
>> Something new seemed to pop up though...that early 5.0 cars
>> had specific rate springs, and were changed to progressive
>> around 90-91. Can anyone verify/disprove this?
>
>The '86-up cars definitely had progressive springs, although I don't
>have my source at hand for the actual rates. The 425-535/200-300
>sounds correct for all years up to '93 (non-Cobra) though.
It's either '84+ or '85+. My '85 has em, my '83 (with TRX suspension) didn't.
31 Mar 1994
[email protected]
On Mar 31, Jason Haines wrote:
> Recently, whenever I drive my 1990 Mustang LX 5.0, I get a smell
> of melting wax. I can't figure out what it is. The fluids
> in the engine are all fine. I can't seem to find anything
> in the engine compartment (like some candles 8-) ). I also
> can't seem to find the exhaust touching anything either.
The exhuast doesn't have to touch to heat things up enough to smell them, to
be sure. The cats run hote enough to set your undercoating on fire just from
the radiated infrared!
A wax smell, Huh? That's a new one. Any chance that you spashed some goop up
onto your cats during the last rain?
> BTW - does anyone know the sizes of the pistons inside the tandem
> master cylinders in the Mustang (85 and 87) and the SVO/Lincoln?
The '85 and '87 Mustang MC is a fast-fill design. The working pistons are
21mm, and the fast-fill piston is 32mm. The Lincoln/SVO MC is a straight
tandem MC with 1.125" pistons (28.56mm).
31 Mar 1994
[email protected]
> The Maverick uses the early type calipers, which slide much like the
> Mazda ones. The spindle has a 3" wide groove with the caliper sliding
> within it, held by a removeable shoe or wedge, if you know what I'm
> talking about. Alas, only about half of the caliper matches up with the
> spindle, at that's all inboard. The pads were visibly worn cockeyed.
Those calipers are a crock of the highest order!
> The Maverick calipers also had another peculiarity. Only 2/3 or so of
> the piston's diameter matched up with the rotor; you could see a full
> 1/3 up above, in free air. The pad hangs down almost to the hub, over
> 1/2 piston diameter without much pressure on it. I figured they might
> have done it to move the center of pressure out to reduce braking
> effort, but as far as I know all disc brake Fords had power assist
> anyway.
They did it by committee... And I know guys who are running 427 Cobra
replicas with those brakes. How's _that_ for a scary thought?
> I'm thinking I could eliminate the power steering pump, hoses, and
> cooler, and maybe I wouldn't have that fraction of a turn of "dead"
> steering before the torsion bar lets the spool valve open on a regular
> power rig.
It's gonna be slew-limited, dude, unless you go with a seriously high ratio,
kinda like your basic Spridget. I'd be interested in hearing how it works out,
though.
For that matter, Raybestos has a unified hydroboost power brake
booster/MC/power source that they're selling for the Chebby fatrides. Feed it
12V@10A, and kiss your variable boost goodbye. It has a cute little pump and
accumulator, and looks for all the world just like the rig on the T-bird Turbo
ABS MC, only without the ABS rope salad. I was gonna try and use that rig,
back when the earth was cooling, but I took one good look at the plumbing and
said "fuggit".
I have to find out what the MC bores are for the Raybestos thinguses.
Could be amusing to try and scam one somewhere...
I have achieved one minor victory, though. I re-attached my vise to a new,
non-brake-fluid-soaked area of my bench, and after about an hour of frontal
assault with my feeble little Harbor Freight Memorial Electric Impact Wrench,
managed to liberate the hubs from the fargin' spindles.
Thought I was gonna go _deaf_, first.
Those SN95 hubs are _sweet_. Thinwall forgings, and they house a pair of 35mm
double-row ball bearings (DB40s) with a handfit spacer between 'em. No more
bearing play setting, ever again. And the spindle snout diameter is 1.355 all
the way out, as opposed to the Fox taper down to .855 for that damned tiny
outer bearing. These things are bricks, man-the bearing load ratings alone are
up by a factor of 2, and that spindle is one stiff mother...
25 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 23, John Allan Dempsey wrote:
> One of the reasons they use the bump stops they do (according to MM), is
> to maintain as much unmolested suspension travel as possible (unmolested
> as far as other influences go- like the Koni bump stops, which are about
> 2 inches long and increase the wheel rate as they are compressed). Using
> the urethane bump stops gives them about 1.25 inches more suspension tra-
> vel than would otherwise be possible with the Koni bump stops. So the
> urethane bump stops are there to do just that- protect against metal to
> metal contact in EXTREME circumstances. They set up the car for the ma-
> jority of combinations of bumps and weight tranfer. And let the urethane
> protect them in the extreme situations.
Well, once again you have to look at the sort of action the bump stops
provide, and the sort of driving that you intend to do.
Out here, we have what is very close to the worst-case scenario for suspension
travel (the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca). The longer Koni bumpstops are a Godsend
for that turn, since they help progressively build up the wheel rate (the
effective spring rate experienced by the wheel proper) over the last 1.25" of
shock travel. The suspension travel is still there to use, it's not an abrupt
slam to a stop. The Konis add about 200lb load in the first half inch, about
500lb in the next half-inch, and probably about 700lb in the last quarter
inch. This is very useful when you throw the car out into the air over the lip
at the Corkscrew, and all the weight comes crashing down on the left front
corner as you land. It is a very progressive snubbing action and is a lot
smoother than it sounds. You don't lose any suspension travel- trust me, you
can still use it all! I usually have to unroll the nose of the Koni stop where
it gets folded back onto itself after a session at Laguna.
The urethane crash stops are really just about that- they prevent metal-to-
metal contact (in particular, they prevent the piston from bottoming out in
the bottom of the strut bore, which is a guaranteed instant strut killer). But
the load they add is about 1200lb in the first quarter inch, which is _very_
abrupt and not at all progressive.
However: there are undoubtedly tracks that are flat enough that you don't
_need_ a long, progressive snubbing action, and the fact that these crash
stops don't interfere with suspension travel might be a plus.
In short, there's no single right answer. I prefer rate progression, with a
rising wheel rate over extremes of suspension travel. The longer Koni
bumpstops provide essentially another "stage" in the progression of rates, and
I can tune it, work with it and make use of it to keep my car alive when I go
screaming out into space at that turn. Otherwise, my 750-850 progressive
springs would not be enough, and I'd have to go for 1000s or 1200s, which
would result in a definite increase in the thickness of my posterior
calluses...
Other tuners, whose chassis expertise is beyond question, just go with a
higher overall non-progressive spring rate from the get-go and use crash
stops. The only downside to a single rate spring is a choppier ride at low
suspension deflections, but that's a reasonable tradeoff for some folks.
The fact is, both approaches work, and work well. One approach will have an
advantage at Laguna, and the other would have an advantage at Heartland Park
or whereever. It's basically a religious matter. Your mileage will certainly
vary.
25 Apr 1994
John Allan Dempsey
On Mon, 25 Apr 1994 [email protected] wrote:
> left front corner as you land. It is a very progressive snubbing
> action and is a lot smoother than it sounds. You don't lose any
> suspension travel- trust me, you can still use it all! I usually have
> to unroll the nose of the Koni stop where it gets folded back onto
> itself after a session at Laguna.
Thanks for the input. I was just reporting what I was told from MM. You can
take it for what you want. But I do enjoy and appreciate the
opinions/experiences of others. The case above does sound like one where the
Koni comes in handy. An abrupt bottoming out would indeed cause an immediate
change in weight transfer- all to the wheel that has bottomed out. Which
sounds like the best that you could hope for is a lot of run off area as you
understeer off course.
It also sounds like if you tried to deal with this situation, only with
springs, you'd be oversprung else where on the track. Which I'm guess-ing is
why you are using the Konis.
> The urethane crash stops are really just about that- they prevent
> metal-to-metal contact (in particular, they prevent the piston from
> bottoming out in the bottom of the strut bore, which is a guaranteed
> instant strut killer). But the load they add is about 1200lb in the
> first quarter inch, which is _very_ abrupt and not at all progressive.
Agreed.
> However: there are undoubtedly tracks that are flat enough that you
> don't _need_ a long, progressive snubbing action, and the fact that
> these crash stops don't interfere with suspension travel might be a
> plus.
True. I got the impression that they ran at airports. Fairly smooth, and
great traction. Which means that this works for them. It is also nice to see
you don't think in absolutes. Rather what is appropriate for the situation.
Designing the suspension, depends a lot on where you do your testing. I found
it interesting what others were running at the Solo II Nation-als (not that
I've ever been there, this is from correspondances), seem-ed a little insane
to me. But I understand that the track is VERY smooth, and sticky. Unlike my
experience with Pleasanton Fairgrounds. What they do there, I'm sure, would
not work here.
> Other tuners, whose chassis expertise is beyond question, just go with
> a higher overall non-progressive spring rate from the get-go and use
> crash stops. The only downside to a single rate spring is a choppier
> ride at low suspension deflections, but that's a reasonable tradeoff
> for some folks.
Well, I'm a big believer in compliance. Which means I'd lean twords the use
of the Konis. I know that I'll have to ask the tires to deal with some
extreme loading. But if I can feed it to them slowly, they will probably be
happier.
Actually, all this thinking about bump stops brings up an interesting point.
WRT Solo II SP rules, is it legal to change the bump stops? I don't have
access to a new rule book right now, but I recall that the rules stated it was
legal to modify, or remove. Nothing about replac-ing them. Anyone have any
insight on this? This would imply that both types of bump stops would be
illegal, WRT SP rules.
01 Apr 1994
[email protected] (DIRK BROER)
[email protected]
>Who should I go with?
I personally don't know anything wrong with the 5th gear, I was able to
accelerate past the speed in 4th and actually up to 145 or so. In this case,
the rear end was not too low for 5th gear use. I am not sure if the car would
have accelerated past 145.
I do not know the theoretical maximum speed for a 225 hp motor in a Mustang
body. I have the notchback, as I said, which may be better for top speed than
a GT body.
Also, I have not had any other rear ends in my car so I cannot say for sure
how your car will do with 3.73. But, if you can accelerate in 5th gear at
4200 or more rpm, then a lower gear may be better for your top speed. In
racing, whether drag or road-course, you usually don't want the rear end which
will result in the highest possible top speed because you are never going top
speed. Typically, you are accelerating to some speed much below the maximum
possible speed so you would want a much higher rear end ratio.
Finally, someone posted last week about the theoretical maximum speed for a
Mustang GT (unlimited hp) at about 160 mph. This is due the the lift created
by the body. If your car can go near 160, then that is about all you can do
without major body work.
PS:
In two weekends, I'll be at Ford Day at TWS. This event will include one
session of unlimited passing on the 2 mile high bank oval. I have heard that
it can be taken at WOT all the way around with sticky tires. I'll report what
happens.
04 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Walt Boeninger)
[email protected]
[from "Brian St. Denis"]
>A point of minor interest is that the top nut on the EGR is 1/2". The
>bottom one, which is harder to get at is 9/16". Why do they do things
>like that? It isn't like the bottom of the EGR has more force on it than
>the top. ;-)
Ah, comeon Brian. That's an easy question. It's so when you're in a hurry
and have only a single tool set, you can take off both nuts at the same
time.............
04 Apr 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
> Does anyone know if the strip of tinting at the top of the
> windshield has any metal content???
The Mustang sun strip tint is not "Metalized" (at least none I've ever seen).
The metalized windshields reflect the microwaves, optical tinting has no
effect. Many grocery store door opener/sensors are X-Band (10Ghz) radar, they
make great Detector testers. Look for a small (3"X4"X6") black box above the
door pointing down at a 30 deg angle (most have a label showing the Mfg and
frequency). Pull up to one and you should peg your X-Band alarm. Did you
know that you get a dose of microwave radiation in your head every time you go
under one of these? As far as I know no door openers are licensed for K-Band
(24Ghz).
07 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
>The two things that I think (other opinions accepted) would
>help it "feel" better in corners are, less body roll, and quicker
>steering response.
It is always good to remember that a stiffer car isn't necessarily faster on a
road course (I know that you're driving on the street). Certainly a car that
doesn't mush around quite so much inspires more confidence and improves
response..
>1. Replace sway bar end links with polyurethane ones. (from a
>reader's letter to superford magazene; said it reduced body roll)
This will help a little, but not much. An awful lot of trackies who have at
times run spherical rod ends for end links sometimes go back to softer end
link setups to cure understeer (once they've made other changes to their
cars).
>2. Get lowered progressive springs thus lowering the center of
>gravity and reducing body roll.
This also lowers the roll center, which is bad. Lowering the car a little
isn't horrendous, but it definitely changes many aspects of the handling. It
does look better. Newer GT's definitely have more trouble getting into
driveways, etc when lowered.
Lowering the roll center will actually make the wheel rate lower. The roll
center on my Capri is rather high because of the relocated control arms (which
is good). Last season I ran front springs that were 1000 lbs/inch. Because
of the higher roll center, they resist body roll roughly like a 1,600 lbs/inch
spring would in a lowered car with a non-relocated control arms (though it has
been over a year since I did those calculations). Keep in mind that the track
width on my car is much greater than stock. That greatly reduces the actual
stiffness of the suspension (though it also decreases the weight transfer..).
>3. SubFrame connectors.
Definitely a good idea..
>4. Polyurethane bushings in suspension in several places.
Poly bushings can really do wonders to improve the car when installed in the
front and rear control arms.
Based on what you have written, it sounds like the best way to acheive the
handling that you seek is to install good struts and shocks. Unfortunately,
they aren't cheap. For your application, Konis are probably the best way to
go. Bilsteins are excellent, but non-adjustable. Monroe shocks don't seem to
last long.
The front struts are much more expensive than the rear shocks. Interestingly,
replacing just the rear shocks can really improve things and it doesn't cost
that much. This might be an option for anyone if they don't currently have
the $300 or so for the pair of front struts (or the ability to put them on -
installing the rears is quite easy compared to fronts). If I had the money
for the rears, I'd get them and enjoy them while I saved for the fronts. Both
list member Ken Corpus and RD Enterprises (800-683-2890) have excellent Koni
prices.
You can install stiffer springs without new struts and shocks and there
will be some improvement, but not nearly as much.
07 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 7, Dow Myers wrote:
> I've seen 2 different Sunco(?) code scanners/testers at
> the local parts house. One is a Ford only and the other says that it does
> Ford/GM/Chrysler all. What I was wondering was if anyone has any
> experience with any of these. What I really want to know is if the one
> that does it all will really do the KOER test on the Ford. I would like
> to have one that I can use on the wife's Olds. also.
Sunpro, I'd bet. I have one of the Sunpro scanner tools that I use on my '86,
which is also too early to have a "check engine" light. The light on the tool
is useful, but the beeper that beeps out the codes allows me to run the tests
without losing sight of the flashes as I get in and out of the underhood area
while doing the throttle blips or other tasks.
The clever thing about the Sunpro Ford deelybopper is that it has a neat
molded-in connector that makes connecting to the EEC-IV test harness very
quick and easy. If you get the "does it all" version, it'll need an adapter
cable of some sort, but undoubtedly it will work much the same, allowing you
to do the KOEO and KOER tests.
Your car doesn't have a check engine light. Those only came in with the advent
of the MAF-based system. Strictly speaking, if you have a mass-air car, you
really don't need any "scan tool"- just a 6" chunk of wire with a male 1/4"
quick disconnect on each end. But for those of us who still have to struggle
with the speed-density system, the Sunpro deelybopper is quick and convenient.
So much so, in fact, that I automatically connect it up and do the KOEO checks
whenever I go under the hood for any reason. It's a lot easier than having to
wrestle with my old dges".
[re: fitting the MC]
> At this time I should have turned
> counter-clockwise the pushrod before placing the MC back on by 1.5
> turns but I did that at the end, after the bleeding was done.
This is a tolerance stackup issue, and will be different for every car and MC.
The MCs are supposed to be very consistent, but I haven't found this to be so.
Assume that you will not need an adjustment, assemble the whole rig, and then
test for free play and full stroke (the refill ports for each system must be
uncovered at the top of the stroke, as signified by the little squirt of fluid
back up in the reservoir).
> I used the supplied hard lines from SSB to give me the
> interface between the earl's lines and the hard stock axle line
> fittings by coiling the SSB lines like a little radiator coil. I
> avoided this way cutting the stock line and needing the Steel tube
> Flaring tool too. Also it gave me more control of what orientation the
> braided lines will go, where as the stock line does not give you much
> room to play with. I attached the coil with some hose clamps to the
> axle housing right behind the caliper for a stirdy brake line (less
> vibrations and noise).
The best way to do this is with a 3AN bulkhead union and a little tab
....
line isn't loaded in bending as the axle vibrates. The union between flex and
hard line, whatever you use, must be rigidly supported. An 18" long piece of
hard line with a union at one end that is allowed to dangle will crack very
shortly after it is put in service.
> But wait, the parking brakes were not hooked up. This was another
> small troublesome installation. The brake lines provided were too
> short (in my opinion), so I had to redesign a new brake cable going
> from the handle to the two other lines.
It's one heck of a lot easier now than it used to be! The SSB kit supplies SVO
Mustang parking brake cables that use the stock abutments and pulleys
nowadays, rather than the old pieces they used to include that required
sticking new cable abutments up in the tranny tunnel. When I saw how slickly
this worked (helping Marty Udisches install his) I immediately called them up
and ordered a set to replace mine. It's a very tidy installation, on an older
(non-auto-adjusting) car.
For you guys with the auto adjusters, you have some screwing-with to do. You
have to release the tension on the auto-adjuster to reconnect the cable from
the lever. Some levers apparently don't return far enough to release the cam
on the adjuster, which makes it impossible to get more slack on the cable.
Marty's had no such problem, which gave us lots of cable to work with. The
problem on his was that he had the lighter (pre-auto-adjuster) return springs
out on the calipers, and the auto adjuster applied enough tension to make the
brakes drag. This he solved by getting later (heavier) return springs.
To be quite honest with you, I'd have to recommend just going to a scrapyard
and picking up the lever mechanism from an '88 or earlier car. It has a nice
1/2" nut on a long turnbuckle, and allows you to set the slack to whatever you
like, without having to argue with the autotensioner. When I see how much
hassle you guys with later cars are having, and how simple the earlier cars
were, I have to wonder about how much "progress" that autotensioner really
represents. Especially since I have only had to adjust mine twice in 100K+
miles, and both of those were when I did a major revamping of the brake
system.
There is *no* appreciable cable stretch with a disk setup in normal use, and
precious little more on the drum setup. It probably saves 30 seconds on the
assembly line, since the assemblers don't have to tweek it. That's it. There's
no reason for it in practice that I can see.
11 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
>> Something worth looking into is the stock air filter
>> housing for a 84-85 carbed car. They were fairly low profile and have
>> two snorkles that go through the holes in the inner fender just in front
>> of the spring towers. That could get you fresh cold air from outside of the
>> engine compartment. The filter is fairly small, but a good K&N filter or
>> something should be able to make the thing work.
I don't know whether or not the unit from the '84/'85 will fit. I have an '85
and under hard running that metal air cleaner assembly gets very hot, at least
200 degrees. It might work in a pinch, but it isn't one of the better ways to
complement the rest of the work you've put into your engine.
On '84 and '85 cars the snorkle tubes extend to plastic nozzles located in
each front fender. These nozzles are actually fairly nice pieces and it
wouldn't be easy to improve upon them (however it may actually be better to
eliminate them and just feed from the hole since they may still result in a
pressure drop).
The '93 rule book reads:
c. Air cleaner assemblies may be modified, removed or replaced. Velocity
stacks, ram air or cowl induction are not permitted unless fitted as original
equipment.
Based on the rule, I don't think it would be legal to replace the fender
nozzles with alternate units that extend more directly into the air stream.
I would start with a good drop base plastic air cleaner. As I recall, Hartman
units are advertised by Summit at a decent price. Both the base and the cover
of these units very efficently feed the air into the bores of your 4 bbl. I
haven't flowed one of these vs. a normal Holley & Morosso or '85 Ford unit,
but it has to help (even though these aren't 7,500+ RPM engines) and the
material will be Much less thermally conductive. These air cleaners work much
better if you can mill off the choke horn (which you can't).
Then you have to build an enclosure. The material choice is up to you. I
would avoid any type of metal and personally like fiberglass (or carbon fiber,
if you aren't financially challenged). You can mock up the structure with
foam and shape it with a sure-form plane or electric planer and then glass
over it. Even a fiberglass unit could benefit from some sort of thermal
shielding (Swain perhaps). Use RTV or rubber/foam to seal any leaks.
Don't forget about clearance for your strut tower brace and distributor. The
distributor is *very* often an issue, especially with drop base air cleaners.
The Offenhauser 360 manifold locates the carburetor back a bit from the stock
location. This results in a little more room for a large element drop base
air cleaner. I do not know where the Performer RPM locates the carb, but I
suspect it could be a problem. MSD makes a low profile version of their fine
distributor. The '84/'85 air cleaner housing has a bump in it to clear the
distributor and the element is actually less than 14", as I recall (but I
could be wrong on that point).
If you are really daring, you could make the entire unit from scratch and not
use the Hartman base at all. In fact, it may be necessary depending on how
things package out with the strut brace and distributor. In either case,
consider hooking a shop vac up to your Holley and using a clear air cleaner
cover and "tufts" attached to the inside to view the quality of the flow. The
flow in the immediate vicinity of the carb should be the main concern (but the
presence of the choke horn sure prevents some interesting potential here).
11 Apr 1994
Robert King
fordnatics
You may recall me asking about swapping a speedometer from a 1991 Mustang into
my 1988 GT and the legal issues concerning the mileage on the odometer.
Checking with the local police tole me that when I sell the car, I will fill
out a afadavit (sp?) stating that the milage on the odometer is either correct
(it is.) or that it is incorrect and the mailage stated on the afadavit is
correct.
And now for the fun part... I wouldn't recomend this swap after doing it
myself. There's quite a bit of difference between the dashes of 88 and 91.
First off, I was concerned about the cutout required on the lower left corner
of the speedometer face to accomodate the larger steering column in the aribag-
equipped '91. I needent have concerned myself with that though. The
instrument panel bezel covers that nicely.
The problem lies in the center-mounted idiot lights and the turn signal
indicators. In the 91, the lights are in the backplate and the covers for
them are part of the bezel. On the 88, the covers are a separate piece that
mount in the same way the speedometer, tach, and other guages do. In other
words they are sandwiched between the panel back and the bezel. To make
matters worse, the 88 panel center piece extends to surround the lights for
the turn signal indicators. In 91 the speedometer panel (and presumably the
tach too,) surrounds these instead, so a fair amount of plastic has to be cut/
filed from this center piece to get the speedo to fit properly - a minor pain
in the butt.
Once everything that's in the way is cut or filed away, the installation looks
stock, except the 91 speedo is a darker black than the guages used in 89, but
you wouldn't notice it unless it was pointed out to you. Also, the pickup
points for dial illumination are slightly different, so at night the speedo is
not evenly illuminated. :( (Actually, the odometer and trip odometer is
better illuminated (a major complaint I had with the 88 speedo! :) ) Also,
the 91 needed no calibration. It is as accurate as my old speedo (which is to
say it registers 5% too fast.)
One last tidbit - I discovered two other idiot lights underneath the
tachometer that didn't appear to be used (no bulbs were installed there.)
These were a "check oil" light and a "check engine" light. After putting in
bulbs, these seem to work! (The "check engine" light doesn't flash out the
EEC-IV codes though. :( ) The mechanics at the local For dealer seem to think
the instrument panel may be used on another application that doesn't have the
cluster of idiot lights at the bottom of the dash. Either that or Ford made
an engineering change and never bothered to delete it from the dashboard
drawings. Or maybe, the parts were already made. Who knows...
P.S. To whoever was interested in the old speedo out of the 88, make me an
offer...
11 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Christopher Bethel)
[email protected]
To check for bad turbo seals, look for blue smoke at start up. The SVO's
always had intercoolers, the XR4Ti's never had intercoolers, and the T-birds
had intercoolers in '87 and '88 only. Of course intercoolers are availible for
all through aftermarket companies such as Rapido and Sperco. I don't think an
'89 Probe is a good representation of the feel of the 2.3 Turbos, as my
girlfriend's mom owns a '91 Probe GT which seems to have much more lag and
peakiness then my SVO or my parents '89 XR4Ti. That was the last year the XR's
were imported, '85 was the first. As far as buying turbos, you only need to
replace the center section of the turbo which should only be about $300 or so.
Never buy a turbo from Ford as they only sell the turbo as a complete unit
which lists for over $1000 and consists of the center, the wastegate, and the
compressor housing.
12 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
I have been pondering the legalities of the rear disc brake conversions for
SCCA ESP autocrossing. I also have a friend that has put '93 Cobra wheels
on his car that would like to upgrade to a rear disc kit that would match
the offset of the Cobra wheels. He currently has to use spacers to make
the wheels fit with his drums.
For SCCA update/backdate you could use parts from either the SVO or the '93
Cobra braking systems. (All my discussion will be limited to the '93 Cobra
brakes not the really cool '94 Cobra brakes which are not allowed on the
earlier model cars.)
Here's what I think I know (subject to correction):
The Motorsport M-2300-C kit (and the SSB kit) is based on the T-Bird brakes
and is not legal. This kit uses 10" 4-bolt rotors and works with the stock
wheels.
The Motorsport M-2300-F kit is based on the SVO brakes (and a few others)
and might be legal. It uses 10.5" 5-lug rotors and spaces the wheel out
approx. 3/4".
The Cobra uses 4-lug rotors and has the 3/4" offset difference from the
cars with drums.
So:
What causes the 3/4" offset difference?
What are the Cobra's brakes based on? What size discs?
Does anyone think the M-2300-F kit would be SVO part# legal or does it use
parts that were made so it could be sold as a universal kit?
Do all of the rear disc options use the same calipers and brake pads?
Is it possible to buy one of the rear disc kits and substitute a couple
Cobra specific parts to get the offset needed to work with the Cobra
wheels?
What parts would this include? Rotors, caliper brackets, axles?
From what I can tell there is no way to have technically legal rear discs
using 4-bolt wheels with stock offsets. Correct?
Any answers anyone could provide to these questions would be appreciated,
especially on parts necessary to make the Cobra wheels fit. The SCCA
legality issues are just a curiosity of mine to add to my storehouse of
trivial knowledge. The Cobra wheel problem is a valid question a friend of
mine needs to know the answer to.
12 Apr 1994
[email protected]
On Apr 12, Chris Behier wrote:
> I do try to maintain my car like a little race car, and that is why I got
> around the whole thing. Let me explain for the people who don't know
> the small problem at the rear calipers.
Good explanation, and thanks for making it. For the record, I'm not at all
concerned with how you personally had done what you were doing, as the picture
you painted with your words was pretty clear in my mind. But I pretty much
*live* with this stuff, so I've found that what is clear to me might not be to
some of the other folks on the list who might be interested in making these
mods. So I thought a little clarification, and a few gentle nudges down the
Path of Righteous Braking Systems, were in order for all the other folks out
there who might be wavering on the edge on this topic. There's gotta be at
least one, after all.
It's a very difficult task, trying to document this stuff in a way that reads
well to someone who hasn't done it yet. After your knuckles are already
bloody, it's even more difficult to convey all the nuances of "I did it this
way, but maybe _this_ is the right way". I always try and read tech articles
here as if I was just starting out wrenching, and then try to figure ways to
help the original author clarify and guide folks along by filling in some of
the gaps. Believe me, enough folks have read BTPP and tried to just go off and
do some of what I said, and sent me back messages stating, basically,
"WHADDAYA CRAZY?". In the original incarnations of that tome, there were gaps
big enough to park the car in... Still are, in fact. It'll never be "done".
It took a little introspection for me to realize that not everyone lives
inside my head, and therefore some background on why one flare, or fluid, or
duct might be better than another was in order. After all, the readers here
all get to make their own decisions as to how to proceed on their own
projects. The better the background, the better the outcome- for all
concerned.
Anyway, I can't wait to see how your car runs. See you at Thunderhill!
12 Apr 1994
"Eric R. Nelson "
[email protected]
I just finished installation of CCM camber plates and Koni red struts on the
front of my 88. The Job was really quite straightforward. It took 2.5 hours,
1:45 for one side, and :45 for the other (experience helps). The toughest part
of the whole job was loosening the strut to spindle bolts. These boogers are
TIGHT, and I found myself once again REALLY wishing I had an impact wrench
(and air compressor, and a huge selection of sockets, etc.) Luckily, since I
was replacing the strut and the mounting plate, I did not have to undo the
strut to mounting plate bolt. I highly doubt I would have been able to do
that without an impact wrench. As it was, I just unbolted the plate on top,
unbolted the strut on the bottom, and threw the whole thing away.
The CCM plates are really quite nice pieces. I am impressed with the quality.
I was not, however impressed with the quality of the service that I got from
CCM. It took them over three weeks to get the plates to me. It took them
twelve days to ship them, and they were in stock. Compare this to the five
days it took to receive the shocks (good job Ken) and redline oil, and the ten
days it took to receive my Global West parts. I guess the moral of the story
is that if ou order anything from CCM, don't be in too much of a hurry. I do
not think they will be getting any more of my business. The plates are VERY
high quality though, and installed with no difficulties.
With the plates, my current alignment is -1.5 camber on both sides, 3.0 caster
on each side, and .06" total toe in. I am quite happy driving with this
alignment. This is a street car, and I will have to report back how it
affects tie wear. I suspect they will wear evenly with my drivng habits.
I have only one question in this whole thing. In putting on the plates and
struts, I now no longer have a dust shield for the top part of the strut. Is
this a concern, and if it is, how have people solved the problem?
12 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 12, Richard Pedersen wrote:
> Here's what I think I know (subject to correction):
>
> The Motorsport M-2300-C kit (and the SSB kit) is based on the T-Bird brakes
> and is not legal. This kit uses 10" 4-bolt rotors and works with the stock
> wheels.
Yup. And the stock axle shafts, too, and there's the rub.
> The Motorsport M-2300-F kit is based on the SVO brakes (and a few others)
> and might be legal. It uses 10.5" 5-lug rotors and spaces the wheel out
> approx. 3/4".
Unfortunately, it's not based on the SVO brakes. And it's a shame. This was
true of the now probably-discontinued M-2300-E kit. The new M-2300-F kit is
based on the parts that have been used on the T-bird Super Coupe and Lincoln
LSCs since '89, which runs the T-bird Turbo calipers on 5-lug rotors drilled
on that bizarre 5 on 4.25" pattern. This kit includes the Ranger axles, and
some rotors from somewhere or another that are drilled for 5 on 4.5". Your
guess is as good as mine what application those came from.
> The Cobra uses 4-lug rotors and has the 3/4" offset difference from the
> cars with drums.
And it uses the T-Bird Turbo axle shafts, which are 3/4" longer. If fact, it
uses the 4-lug T-bird Turbo Coupe axle assembly exactly.
> So:
>
> What causes the 3/4" offset difference?
There are two reasons, for the two axles. One current one for the T-bird
derived parts, and an archival one for the SVO.
On the T-bird Turbo Coupe, the axles grew out .75" on each side (with respect
to the non-ABS Foxes) to acommodate the ABS sensors located inside the rotors.
The bodywork on the fatride-wannabe T-bird just got wider to acommodate the
wider track, until the advent of the unique '93 Cobra wheels let that wide
axle sneak back under Mustang sheetmetal. The Turbo Coupe caliper mount plate
is essentially a flat machined casting, and is still serviced by Ford, since
it's on the '93 Cobra Mustangs.
The T-bird based Mustang disk brake conversions include a pair of very funky
cast offset caliper mount bracket that relocates the calipers 3/4" inboard, to
acommodate the stock Mustang axle shafts, which are 3/4" shorter than the
application the caliper was designed for. These brackets were never used in
production on any car in the line, and it's this bracket that make them
illegal in the eyes of the SCCA.
The SVO's setup was 1.5" wider overall since it was inherited essentially
intact from the Continental, brakes and all. Thus, it got the fatride's wider
track, and the front control arms and K-member are essentially Continental
pieces as well. The SVO's larger wheel offset pulled the wheels back inside
the '86-era bodywork.
Those axle shafts live on in the Ranger pickup, still with the wider-than-Fox
track width. The SVO's brake calipers also mount on essentially flat stamped
mounting plates that bolt directly to the end of the 7.5" or 8.8" housing, and
make the calipers meet up with the long axles. This caliper mount bracket is
still serviced by Ford- I bought a set of them last year, although I don't
have a note of the part number.
> What are the Cobra's brakes based on? What size discs?
T-bird Turbo Coupe. 10.16"x.94". With very few differences, it is the exact
assembly, dusted off and brought back into production. That's one of the ways
that the SVT kept the costs low. They reused as many subassemblies from other
cars as possible, very much in keeping with the spirit of the SVO Mustang of
old.
Hmm. Sounds odd to say "of old", doesn't it?
> Does anyone think the M-2300-F kit would be SVO part# legal or does it use
> parts that were made so it could be sold as a universal kit?
It is moderately close to being part number legal for the '93 Cobra setup. To
make it work, you'd need the '93 Cobra/T-bird Turbo Coupe 4-lug axle shafts
and rotors, and probably the 1" bore '93 Cobra MC. It doesn't even *resemble*
the old SVO-based 5-lug conversion kit, the M-2300-E. However, I haven't seen
the M-2300-E kit in the catalogs since '92, so it may well have been
discontinued. I doubt that Ford wants to buy calipers from SSB, since there's
some history there.
> Do all of the rear disc options use the same calipers and brake pads?
The two current coversion kits, M-2300-C and M-2300-F, do. But these families
differ widely from the older SVO-based kit. The T-bird based calipers have
1.75" pistons, use an FMSI D-347 pad, and are pretty well serviced as far as
exotic pads and such, since they are in current production in the Mustang
Cobra, and have been used in large numbers in the T-birds, Tauruses, Sables,
and the conversion kits.
The Continental/MarkVII/SVO rear calipers have 2.1" pistons, and use an FMSI
D-343 pad. This pad is easily 100% bigger, and it is clear that this brake
assembly was intended for a fatride application. Unfortunately, this setup is
not as well supported for either pads or replacement parts. I have to get race
pads custom made for mine. These calipers have been out of production through
Ford sources since the mid '80s, since their last inclusion on a product was
the SVO Mustang.
They were used by the millions on fatrides through the early '80s, so there
are lots of them out there in the rebuilder channel, but they were basically
obsoleted in '83, except for the SVO. Stainless Steel Brakes still
manufactures them (they actually make their own castings!), but that is the
only source. They are arguably a better setup than the T-bird based
conversion, but tehy are, in every sense of the word, orphans.
The old Continental/MarkVII/SVO parts were 11.33" OD, which is kind of brain-
dead since the pads only run on an outer radius of 10.9". So you carry around
.4" of rotor OD that the pads never touch. Thanks, Ford...
> Is it possible to buy one of the rear disc kits and substitute a couple
> Cobra specific parts to get the offset needed to work with the Cobra
...
> What parts would this include? Rotors, caliper brackets, axles?
'93 Cobra/T-bird Turbo axle shafts and caliper brackets, and a '93 Cobra
master cylinder and prop valve, in addition to the M-2300-C kit, would give
you the proper offset. That would give you exactly the '93 Cobra setup, at
least closely enough to fool most scrutineers.
'93 Cobra/T-bird Turbo axle shafts and rotors, and a '93 Cobra master cylinder
and prop valve, in addition to the M-2000-F kit, would give you the proper
offset. That would give you exactly the '93 Cobra setup, with a ditto on the
scrutineers.
>From what I can tell there is no way to have technically legal rear discs
> using 4-bolt wheels with stock offsets. Correct?
If you mean the older (pre-'93 Cobra) offests, you are correct. The offset
caliper brackets used in the M-2000-C kit have never been used on a production
Mustang, and are therefore illegal.
> Any answers anyone could provide to these questions would be appreciated,
> especially on parts necessary to make the Cobra wheels fit. The SCCA
> legality issues are just a curiosity of mine to add to my storehouse of
> trivial knowledge. The Cobra wheel problem is a valid question a friend of
> mine needs to know the answer to.
If you wanted to go either 5-bolt or get the bigger SVO rear brakes, you hve a
couple of choices. You could find an M-2000-E kit, if it's still available. Or
alternatively you could use the '93 Cobra/T-bird Turbo axles, the SVO caliper
brackets, the M-2000-E kit, redrill the rotors for 4 on 4.25", and have the
correct offsets for your 4 lug Cobra wheels, and much _bigger_ rear brakes.
Which would also get you protested right out of your shorts. Aren't you glad
you asked?
I hate rules...
12 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
I recently received a set of maximum Motorsports camber plates. They are
actually very good and I am quite happy with them. They seemed to be the only
ones that had everything I wanted. One of their sales "features" was they came
with a set of "Koni bump stops". I am used to the traditonal Koni bump stops
that are about 3-4" tall and tapered and mount around the shock shaft. What i
got was this polyuerthene flat donut for lack of a better description. They
are big enough that they don't fit well against anything at the top of the
strut. I don't like this thing and don't think it is worth anything. Is anyone
else using these and there is something about them I should know, do they work
in some way I don't understand? I want to use the standard tapered style Koni
bump stops that I am used to on my race car. Bump stops are important to
running the proper spring rates and getting proper ride heights. Using the
proper bump stops is an important part of it.
Ken, do you have/can get the tapered Koni bump stops?
12 Apr 1994
Ed Welbon
[email protected]
On Tue, 12 Apr 1994 [email protected] wrote:
> The Continental/MarkVII/SVO rear calipers have 2.1" pistons, and use
> an FMSI D-343 pad. This pad is easily 100% bigger,
...
> I have to get race pads custom made for mine.
Who does this for you?
> The old Continental/MarkVII/SVO parts were 11.33" OD, which is kind of
> brain-dead since the pads only run on an outer radius of 10.9". So you
> carry around .4" of rotor OD that the pads never touch. Thanks,
> Ford...
I can recall the setup only vaugely. Would it be possible/useful to move the
calipers out say by 0.375" (by modifying/refabbing the original brackets).
12 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
>I recently received a set of maximum Motorsports camber plates. They are
>actually very good and I am quite happy with them. They seemed to be the
>only ones that had everything I wanted. One of their sales "features" was
>they came with a set of "Koni bump stops". I am used to the traditonal
>Koni bump stops that are about 3-4" tall and tapered and mount around
>the shock shaft. What i got was this polyuerthene flat donut for lack of
>a better description. They are big enough that they don't fit well against
>anything at the top of the strut. I don't like this thing and don't think
>it is worth anything. Is anyone else using these and there is something
>about them I should know, do they work in some way I don't understand
First of all, I want to clarify something here. Maximum Motorsports does NOT
advertise that their CC plates come with "Koni" bump stops. They do, however,
advertise that they come with (and I quote) "Energy Suspension polyurethane
bump stops." (I have the flyer in front of me and it says that verbatim.)
>I want to use the standard tapered style Koni bump stops that I am used to
>on my race car. Bump stops are important to running the proper spring
>ratesand getting proper ride heights. Using the proper bump stops is an
>important part of it.
I believe that the Koni style tapered bump stops you reference are made of
rubber. Rubber will compress only 30% before it acts like or becomes a
solid. On the other hand, Polyurethane will compress to at least 70% before
it acts like or becomes a solid. Therefore, that is why MM has preferred the
polyurethane bump stop.
Also, you will most likely lose about 1 to 1.5 degrees of caster if you use
the taller and larger Koni bump stops, because they are literally up inside
the strut tower farther than the poly donut you now have.
In addition, Maximum Motorsports runs a Prepared Endurance car with the same
setup (CC plates with poly bump stop) and have had no problems with the strut
or bump stop coming up thru the top of the strut tower.
>Ken, do you have/can get the tapered Koni bump stops?
Yes I do have access to them, but make sure its what you want before you have
me order them for you.
12 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
>I want to use the standard tapered style Koni bump stops that I am used to
>on my race car. Bump stops are important to running the proper spring
>ratesand getting proper ride heights. Using the proper bump stops is an
>important part of it.
I believe that the Koni style tapered bump stops you reference are made of
rubber. Rubber will compress only 30% before it acts like or becomes a
solid. On the other hand, Polyurethane will compress to at least 70% before
it acts like or becomes a solid. Therefore, that is why MM has preferred the
polyurethane bump stop.
First off, you're setting up straw men (or should I say rubber men?). The Koni
bump stop, so beloved of Carroll Smith, is actually made of a closed-cell
elastomeric foam. It can compress quite a bit before it starts to behave as a
"solid". While polyurethane's characteristics can be tailored quite a bit, I
doubt that the MM piece Calvin describes behaves anything like a proper bump
stop.
If you held one of the Koni bump stops in your hand, you would find it was
quite soft when initially compressed. This is why they're so large: to
gradually take up the load as the shock/strut nears the end of its travel, and
to provide a positive stop *before* the shock bottoms. The load vs. travel
curve of a Koni bump stop gradually increases, rather than sharply as would a
polyurethane biscuit.
The point of the Koni pieces is to provide not just a positive stop, but a
rising-rate helper spring whose resistance goes to infinity just as the
suspension reaches the end of its travel. As Carroll Smith notes in Tune To
Win and Engineer To Win, letting the bump stops handle the extremes of
suspension travel allows you to run softer overall spring rates.
Also, you will most likely lose about 1 to 1.5 degrees of caster if you use
the taller and larger Koni bump stops, because they are literally up inside
the strut tower farther than the poly donut you now have.
Why would using a larger bump stop cause you to lose available caster? If
clearance to the strut tower hole was the problem, you could always cut a
larger hole.
In addition, Maximum Motorsports runs a Prepared Endurance car with the same
setup (CC plates with poly bump stop) and have had no problems with the strut
or bump stop coming up thru the top of the strut tower.
No, they just understeer a lot because they're having to run too much front
spring rate, to keep the front end from crashing down on those urethane hockey
pucks. Hot-rod parts vendors will say *anything* to make a sale!
>Ken, do you have/can get the tapered Koni bump stops?
Yes I do have access to them, but make sure its what you want before you have
me order them for you.
It's what Calvin really wants. I have the CCM camber/caster plates with the
Koni bump stops, and believe me, they get used. And they didn't cost me any
adjustment range either. They are the right thing, especially for a street-
driven car that needs all the suspension travel it can get.
12 Apr 1994
[email protected] (DIRK BROER)
[email protected]
>While I'm posting, does anyone know of a source for a lighter-than-stock
>flywheel, and does anyone have any experience with them that they could
>share??
I have one experience with a Hayes (ie Mr. Gasket) 30 lbs steel flywheel.
Make sure the flywheel is the same as stock in the following places:
1)Distance from crank flange to flywheel surface.
If not you'll have to make up the difference with either adjusting the
linkage or adjusting the pivot point (fork type clutch). Either of these
have some limits but hydraulic clutches have less adjustment capability.
I was told my Midland industries, and Mcleod that some manufactures (not
these two - but noteably Hayes) make their steel flywheels lighter by
milling on the friction side - thus giving you in effect a worn down
flywheel. - the correct way is to back cut on the engine side of the
flywheel. Incidently I returned the Hayes for a Mcleod (about $80 bucks
more) and have been 100% happy with their flywheel - the quality of the
Mcleod product is head and shoulders above the Hayes - and if you intend on
keeping the car I would recommend the Mcleod.
2) Check the depth of the bolt flang to the friction surface - tough to
explain (I don't know the technical terms). Basically this dimension will
tell you if the bolts that you use to bolt the flywheel to the crank will
hit the "shock" absorbing springs on the clutch disk. This may not be a
concern on race clutches but... its a real let down when your putting
everything together and you notice the pressure plate will not smoothly
spin on the flywheel (put the pressure plate on the clutch alignment device
and see if it turns smoothly against the flywheel). Mine didn't.
Rather than trying to machine, thereby weaken and void any warrenty on the
flywheel, I returned it and spent real money... and got the right part.
One other note - the good flywheels are not always in stock. Even for
Chebies a good steel flywheel may take a week to get.
BTW - I have a center force dual friction clutch $285 from Jegs - 12" It
seems to hold up pretty good but definitly grabs - I stalled out 3-4 times
the first time I tried it. Good quality stuff but I'm not convinced its
worth the money - my application was a truck with too big of tires and not
enough gears. As always YMMV
13 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
>First off, you're setting up straw men (or should I say rubber men?).
>The Koni bump stop, so beloved of Carroll Smith, is actually made of a
>closed-cell elastomeric foam. It can compress quite a bit before it
>starts to behave as a "solid". While polyurethane's characteristics can
>be tailored quite a bit, I doubt that the MM piece Calvin describes
>behaves anything like a proper bump stop.
I think first of all, we need to back up a minute. If its strictly a bump
stop that you want, then the polyurethane donut will act like a bump
stop, which is to say that it will prevent the top strut from hitting the
bottom of the strut tower or caster/camber plate.
>The point of the Koni pieces is to provide not just a positive stop, but
>a rising-rate helper spring whose resistance goes to infinity just as
>the suspension reaches the end of its travel. As Carroll Smith notes in
>Tune To Win and Engineer To Win, letting the bump stops handle the
>extremes of suspension travel allows you to run softer overall spring
>rates.
Aha, so what you want (in reality) is not a bump stop, but a cheater to
increase spring rate, which the Koni bump rubbers will do. In fact, they
were designed to produce about 200lbs of increased spring rate for the
first inch of travel.
>It's what Calvin really wants. I have the CCM camber/caster plates with
>the Koni bump stops, and believe me, they get used. And they didn't
>cost me any adjustment range either. They are the right thing,
>especially for a street-driven car that needs all the suspension travel
>it can get.
Okay, then the part number is 70.34.67.000.0 and they are available.
That part is just a standard bump rubber designed to fit a 22mm
strut rod that is 55 mm long. It is not specific to a Mustang.
As a side note, talking with the racing expert at Koni, he said he doesn't
know of anyone actually using these things on a Mustang street car.
They use them quite regularly on the GTO/GTU cars or other racing
series where they are trying to get around the rules, because most of
the tech inspectors don't understand their actual useage.
Also, in our conversation, I mentioned the polyurethane hockey puck,
and he agreed with me that it might be worthwhile to use the hockey
puck to sit against the the top of the strut tower and conform to that
surface,and then put the Koni tapered rubber bump rubber on underneath.
That way, you would have a total of about a 5 inch bump rubber that would
sit on top of the strut to maximize the heck out of your spring rates.
Interesting stuff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Foxbody 1993
Return to Foxbody Tech Index
Go to Foxbody 1994 /part 2